Forums
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
Legal Forum
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
Discuss employment-law issues such as family leave, overtime, disabilities law, harassment, immigration and termination.
This is as much a question about ethics as it is about employment law.
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
Is it dangerous, legally, f
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54Discussion:DiscussionId35985
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
Forums
»
Topic Forums
»
Legal Forum
»
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/18/2009 2:44 AM EDT
|
Posts: 49
First: 7/18/2009 Last: 8/17/2011 |
This is as much a question about ethics as it is about employment law.
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters? Is it dangerous, legally, for a group of supervisors and managers with young children to give preferential consideration for things like a compressed work week to others with young children; putting single people, childless couples, and empty nesters at the bottom of the list? What about the ethics of the above situation? If I am a supervisor in a group of folks such as the above, do I need to, or should I, "tow the line"? I question whether the practice is ethically permissible even if it's not legally prohibited. As far as I know, single people and childless couples weren't a protected category of people. But should parents be discriminating against non-parents and haven't-had-young-children-for-decades? How can or should this be addressed? |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/18/2009 4:13 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 410
First: 1/26/2006 Last: 11/15/2010 |
Hi:
Having certain policies that may be family-friendly are not illegal per se. However, excluding or placing single folks at the bottom of the food chain to take advantage of such policies would generally be illegal--most states protect employees on the basis of marital status. I trust this is helpful. Dave Arnold, Ph.D., J.D. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/18/2009 5:19 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2146
First: 2/15/2006 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Agree with Dave....and think this could be spun either way. That is single/no children employees are often seen as having more dedication to their careers -- whether true or not. Men are also usually seen as more able to dedicate more attention to work than to family.
So often they get better compensation/perqs/bonuses and benefits because of it. But there are also companies that still believe that married people are 'more stable'. You could honestly also make the argument that most employer provided benefits also are higher for married/family employees if the employer pays any part of the premium for insurance, etc. So I think it is going to depend more on the environment/perspective of the mgmt of any specific company than overall. But I worked for a major HR consulting firm when flexible work schedules first came about and when I had my first babies (twins). I remember the "old guard" not being overly joyed about it because THEY didn't get flex schedules when THEY had babies. Times change, employer needs and perspectives change and what employees can ask for and get change. I think that as the economy shifts, employers are going to be less able to be as flexible and giving as then have been in a better economy. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/19/2009 12:13 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 464
First: 6/30/2004 Last: 11/22/2010 |
This can be a very touchy area. Rrupert has already discussed some of the glass ceiling concepts and the resentment that others feel when someone is given a flex schedule to accomdate their life and the choices they have made.
I am an empty nester now, but can tell you that I never had an accomodation because I was a family man. I was probably considered more stable for that and was extremely motivated to advance in my career. My wife and I agree that she would be a stay at home mom and were able to make that happen until our youngest was in middle school. I know single folks who thought they always had to take on extra work when a mothers went home with sick kids and the work still had to be done on time. Now accomodations are mandated for school time for parents - nonparents don't get that. One can go on at length about the issues around this question. I don't think ethics have much to do with it tho. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/20/2009 11:57 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2442
First: 2/12/2000 Last: 9/14/2011 |
Not sure that I agree without more specifics. For example how does a compressed work week not equally benefit a single person? Or are you saying it is only offered to married folks. In that case I would say it is very inappropriate. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/22/2009 11:52 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 49
First: 7/18/2009 Last: 8/17/2011 |
> how does a compressed work week not equally
/> benefit a single person? Or are you saying /> it is only offered to married folks. In that /> case I would say it is very inappropriate. I am saying the latter--about what to do if managers and supervisors have a culture of giving first consideration of a CWW to employees with young children; managers and supervisors who have young children themselves. In other words, suppose 5 slots are "available" for CWW--e.g. assuming all else is equal, the office can sustain the "scheduled absence" of 5 employees on a Friday via a 4/10 CWW. 10 employees request the CWW. 5 are parents with young kids. 5 are a mix of singles, empty nesters, and married adults who've never had children. 4/5 of the CWW slots are awarded to parents with young children. In that case, is there a pattern? Is there a pattern if there's a perfect 5/5? I hope that gives you more detail. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 7/23/2009 4:21 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1783
First: 11/11/2003 Last: 5/13/2010 |
Mike, there are a couple of things that jump out at me in your follow-up post.
One thing is: the primary point of having four 10-hr days v. five 8-hour days is having to make one less trip into the office each week. The primary point is not to provide three-day weekends. So: stagger the day off instead of having all participants out on Friday. If the department is also staggering workday start/end times, it could become MORE accessible to internal/external customers even though there may be fewer staff on any particular day. Having folks available before and/or after standard business hours is a plus if needs arise outside the 9-to-5 timeframe. The second thing is: yes, on the surface the fact that all the "slots" have been awarded to employees with young children could be problematic. It isn't necessarily illegal (depending on the jurisdiction) but certainly it could create resentment, as other posters have noted. Whether someone may work a non-standard schedule depends primarily on two factors: does it suit the needs of the business, and does the person's work history indicate that he could work effectively with reduced supervision. Really, those are the bottom-line criteria. What I think you need to do is teach your managers that caring for young children is not the only family need that employees may have. They may have ill family members or elderly relatives that need their time and attention. |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 8/18/2009 7:34 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 9
First: 9/7/2004 Last: 5/4/2010 |
As long as a single or empty-nester can demonstrate a valid need to use a "family-friendly" policy, then they should be allowed to use it. The term "family-friendly" should be the worker's first clue: Do you have a FAMILY MEMBER who requires your personal attention due to age, illness, or diability? |
|
|
Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
posted at 8/18/2009 8:50 AM EDT
|
|
Posts: 1
First: 8/18/2009 Last: 8/18/2009 |
Our team created a detailed proposal, presented it, gained approval and implimented a telework and compressed work week initiative about 14 months ago. Our entire initiative was built around the environment and quality of life. We presented data about fuel emissions and details including our round-trip miles to work. We never viewed this as an option for working adults with families or a perk for childcare discounts.
We were able to "sell" the program, with certain terms of course. We agreed (a team of 8 staff members who are all exempt) to stagger our days. We never have more than 2 staff members teleworking on the same day. We created an online calendar where we post our days in advance and it's accessible to everyone in our department. There are several days a month that are off limits. Such as our bi-weekly staff meeting days, our monthly department meeting day and we have agreed to use only Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdays for this benefit. By staying organized and always remembering this is a benefit, not a "right", we have all reaped the rewards of the program. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Do family-friendly policies discriminate against singles, childless couples, and empty nesters?
