should colleagues with kids get preference for holidays?

sooty&sweep

Hi

I'm a working mum with two school age children and yes I do take alot of my leave during the school holidays although I try not to be inconsiderate of other colleagues and also we're lucky that we can be quite flexible.
Yes, I do this partly because of childcare requirements but also because I want to spend time with my children. Yes I can & do take holiday if I need to do something without them but they have no choice when they get their holidays so if I want to spend time with my children I need to take leave then.
Jen

Bluemeanie_2

sooty&sweep wrote: »

Hi

I'm a working mum with two school age children and yes I do take alot of my leave during the school holidays although I try not to be inconsiderate of other colleagues and also we're lucky that we can be quite flexible.
Yes, I do this partly because of childcare requirements but also because I want to spend time with my children. Yes I can & do take holiday if I need to do something without them but they have no choice when they get their holidays so if I want to spend time with my children I need to take leave then.
Jen

I don't have any problem with anyone taking the school holidays off at all - take the whole lot of if your leave allows.
What I object to is (and luckily it doesn't happen in my current job, no one covers you it isn't that sort of workload so you can hols when you like) is holidays not being first come first served. If you request a week first earlier than someone else, regardless of their situation, that should be it.

laurel7172

Plenty of people retire without needing to rely on the state pension, whether they inherit or save or sell the family home to release the equity.

True, but they'd sit in their unsellable home and starve without other people's children to produce food/power/staff the NHS.

FATBALLZ

persa wrote: »

I don't understand how having a family holiday abroad every year at the same time of year is essential "to raise the next generation in a half decent manner".

That's because you have read things in my post that were not there, I never said anything about foreign holidays. It is a strange paradox that working parents are denigrated for 'not raising their own children', but then equally denigrated for wanting time off at the same time as their children (and not necessarily in a foreign setting).

Janepig

verysillyguy06 wrote: »

I have found non-parent much more militant then the other way around

I have to agree with this, in my experience. Where I work it does seem to be the non-parents who are far less flexible and will go off sick if they don't get their way, etc.... although there are always exceptions.

Luckily I've joined a new team where the one non-parent takes the view that I did before I had children, and is willing to work the few days we're open over Christmas so those of us with children can take the time off. The previous team I worked in, the only person who consistently had every single Christmas off for years was childless, and also turned on the tears when one year they couldn't have the Tuesday after Easter off so our manager came in off his leave to cover. And there were no "caring" responsibilities or teacher partners or anything to take into consideration. Just selfishness.

As it turns out, this Christmas I'm fine about taking leave or not as DH has got almost two weeks off so if it turns out I've got to go in because someone has more pressing needs than me (parent or non) then fine, I'll step in. I see no reason why we can't all be pragmatic about it and accommodate each other. There should be no automatic right for parents to have school holidays off, but they shouldn't be vilified for wanting that time off either - it's only for a relatively short number of years in a working life anyway.

Jx

FATBALLZ

Fire_Fox wrote: »

That old chestnut! :rotfl: Plenty of people retire without needing to rely on the state pension, whether they inherit or save or sell the family home to release the equity.

Before you start trying to post rolling smileys to attempt to ridicule the arguments of others, may I suggest you fully think through what they say and your subsequent response as you look foolish when it turns out you have got it all wrong.

The ability to retire is 100% depedent on others having children - imagine a world where you were the last person to be born and nobody else ever gave birth after that. When you hit 65, and you've inherited your house, saved up £100 mil or attempted to claim your final salary pension - where is the economic activity to generate your pension income going to come from? There will be no workers. Where will you spend your £100 mil savings? There will nobody working to run the shops or supply chain. Who will accept your money in exchange for goods? Without economic activity your money is worthless.

We all depend on others having children to make retirement a viable concept, whether you like it or not. There is no opt-out for supporting the next generation (ok, suicide maybe).

BobQ

I do not have a problem taking leave in term time or out of it and I no longer have to arrange leave with children in mind.

My view is that those with children should be given preference during the school holidays and at Xmas as a general principle for the reasons others have stated because they have a restrictied opportunity to take leave. But I do think that those without children should be given some priority if they occasionally have a special family event.

Equally I think those without children should be given priority in the weeks either side of the school holidays.

Tropez

should colleagues with kids get preference for holidays?

No.

KiKi

sassyblue wrote: »

ACAS can act as an intermediary between employers and employees and it's free. There's no way l would have put up with that decision so the posters hubby should have complained.

But the company are not doing anything unlawful. ACAS will act as an intermediary on very serious issues, but - AFAIK - they won't get involved in an 'I don't like my employer's policy on x'. They'd never get anything else done!!

Bluemeanie_2

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Before you start trying to post rolling smileys to attempt to ridicule the arguments of others, may I suggest you fully think through what they say and your subsequent response as you look foolish when it turns out you have got it all wrong.

The ability to retire is 100% depedent on others having children - imagine a world where you were the last person to be born and nobody else ever gave birth after that. When you hit 65, and you've inherited your house, saved up £100 mil or attempted to claim your final salary pension - where is the economic activity to generate your pension income going to come from? There will be no workers. Where will you spend your £100 mil savings? There will nobody working to run the shops or supply chain. Who will accept your money in exchange for goods? Without economic activity your money is worthless.

We all depend on others having children to make retirement a viable concept, whether you like it or not. There is no opt-out for supporting the next generation (ok, suicide maybe).

I don't disagree with you, but I feel the debate has become convoluted. I still say first come first served!