Employment law - rights when you don't have a child / secret childcare payments

Evilm

OP How did you find out that they do this 'secretly'?

I do wonder if it is the childcare voucher scheme and you aren't in full possession of the facts as some of the people above mentioned.

If you are sure of your facts and don't like it speak to your boss and demand he pay this to you too.

There is no reason why two people doing the same job have to be paid the same anyway, just that it can't be discrimination. I don't think having/not having children is a protected class in discrimination law.

MoneySavingMamma

bizzisguy wrote: »

Thanks,

You're obviously a parent then, which, and I am presuming from the facetious nature of your post, is why you feel that people with children deserve far more than people who choose not to have children and clearly you don't see anything wrong with the fact that people on pretty crap paid jobs are being penalised over those of their colleagues who would drop a sprog just to get a bit of extra cash.

But they're not getting extra cash are they? They're still paying 75% of childcare, so still have less cash to spend.

In the same 'niggles at work' I have had so many jobs where smokers could go for fag breaks up to 8 times a day!
Thats 5-10mins outside, possibly in the sunshine, not working, having a rest while being paid!! It's not fair and I think people take up smoking just to get out of working (OK, not really, but I'm having a rant here!)
This discriminates against those that value their lungs!!!

honeypop

Employer-supported childcare is quite common in some workplaces, and from the HMRC themselves:

Your employer may offer childcare support on top of the pay you
already get. If this is the case then you will not have to pay any

more Income Tax or NICs as long as certain conditions are met.

This is different from the childcare voucher scheme, in that the payment is in addition to salary instead of sacrificed. It is perfectly legal and not discriminatory (just like how the Government are not discriminating by giving Child Benefit to only those with children!).

suicidebob

bizzisguy wrote: »

Hi

My current employer 'secretly' pays those with children in childcare, 25% of the childcare costs each month, how legal is this?, they don't appear to get taxed on it (as a benefit in kind).

Can I take this to a tribunal as 'discrimination' against those who don't have children.

If childcare costs are £400 per month, these people are earning an extra £1200 per year (taxfree) just because they chose to have a child and others are being penalised for choosing to not have children / having grown children.

BG

I'm assuming this is a medium-to-large company.

I could imagine the Directors 'secretly' paying money into an off-shore account to avoid taxes and such.

But to pay for childcare? What planet are you living on?

Googlewhacker

scheming_gypsy wrote: »

Sounds more like your employer is protecting himself and you against parents taking more time off work because granny can't look after little Timmy.
If they didn't pay the extra and your colleague has to take time off to look after the kids then you'd have to deal with their workload as well as your own. So you should thank your boss for being thoughtful.

Not really, it would be cheaper NOT to pay this extra amount if indeed that is what is happening than having to cover another day or two cover

Hammyman

bizzisguy wrote: »

Hi

My current employer 'secretly' pays those with children in childcare, 25% of the childcare costs each month, how legal is this?, they don't appear to get taxed on it (as a benefit in kind).

Can I take this to a tribunal as 'discrimination' against those who don't have children.

If childcare costs are £400 per month, these people are earning an extra £1200 per year (taxfree) just because they chose to have a child and others are being penalised for choosing to not have children / having grown children.

BG

Its called SALARY SACRIFICE and is perfectly legal.

By all means take it to a tribuneral but make sure you have another job to go to because you won't have one to return to.

pjcox2005

If you are concerned drop a note to HMRC, they may have either looked into it historically or if not may consider it worthwhile opening an enquiry.

Company in the correct position, then slight annoyance over time to respond.

Company/individuals not being taxed correctly then you were correct to point it out and an adjustment will be made.

Won't have any direct impact on you though, as mentioned it's not discriminatory and they won't increase your wage.

tizerbelle

bizzisguy wrote: »

hahaha, what a bunch of muppets you all really are, you have your blinkered little lives and if anyone dares to disagree with you, then they a) don't have a life, b)need to get over themselves.

What a seriously unfriendly little bunch of people you all are, no doubt politically correct and if this was a black / white thing would all be up in arms..

I came on here to ask for advice, not for your own littll moronic opinions, !!!! you all for being so unfriendly

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Speaking as a singleton with no kids and one who by choice will never ever ever have kids, I have one thing to say - "!!!!!! grow up will you!"

Life is not fair. Even if it's not discriminatory that doesn't mean it's fair. If you are single, with no kids then you generally get no help from the government (tax credits); you only get a 25% discount on council tax whereas a working couple only have to pay 50% each compared to your 75%; often you'll be expected to fit your annual leave from work around those with kids who need to take time off when it's the school holidays or they'll expect you'll work between xmas and new year because after all you haven't got a family of your own to spend time with.

That's just the way it is - get used to it and get over yourself or get a kid.

Look at it from the big society view as well - if you don't have kids (ignoring potential over-population arguments for now) you are not contributing to the ongoing survival of the economy - workers need to breed or who will do the work in future years - so why shouldn't those with kids be rewarded?

scheming_gypsy

Googlewhacker wrote: »

Not really, it would be cheaper NOT to pay this extra amount if indeed that is what is happening than having to cover another day or two cover

i think the tone of my post went flying past you and forgot to wave