should colleagues with kids get preference for holidays?

Spendless

Nicki wrote: »

The 13 weeks of school holidays include all the bank holidays though. And I think the statutory minimum for full time employees is 20 days plus 11? bank holidays on top. So, it is only just do-able I think.

Your proposed scenarios don't really change the question I asked though. Yes, if both employees needed the time for intractable childcare reasons, (ie not just wanting to take the kids away on holiday) you would run the risk of losing one and could do nothing about that. But in the specific case I mentioned, you only run a real risk of losing one member of staff permanently (with all the on costs of recruiting and training someone new, plus termination costs) if you decide in favour of the non parent rather than the parent. So, would it in your opinion still be "completely bizarre" in all circumstances not to take that into account? Bear in mind, you would still end up being two staff down over the contested period, if one resigned and the other was on holiday, as well as costing the business a potentially sizeable sum.

Yes it would. The childcare issues of the parent employee aren't the problems of te the non-parent. Whoever gets the holiday should be down to whatever rules of the company are, first come, first served, names out of a hat, senior in position, senior in service but not just because one has kids.

In examples you've given on this thread (but I'm not wading thru all the thread to quote). An employee returning to work after maternity (as you've mentioned someon having the job before the baby came along) would have to have childcare for the interim period of maternity ending and child going to f-time school. Unless this hypothetical woman can have upto 5 years career break which is also available for every child she has then can return to a job which allows for her doing the school run am and pm, enough flexibility to attend xmas plays, sports days, assemblies and so on and her and her partner are given enough annual leave each that they can cover all school hols, training days, teachers strikes, snow days, boiler breakdowns and anything else as well as managing at least a week together annually for a family holiday. Then she has to have childcare available in some form and if she does have a job that covers the above, then in the event a non-parent beat her to the holiday board, in her position I'd be pulling out all the stops and calling in every favour I've ever done to find a holiday club, childminder, babysitter, friend, relative or neighbour to help me out rather than have to pack in such a job.

Brighton_belle

Del_Astra wrote: »

I have read with interest however some posters who appear to be having a bit of a dig where two parents work full time. I find that a bit backward to be honest, and well quite frankly I would rather children see two hard working parents as the norm, than two parents sitting at home and claiming benefits as the norm.

You are reading that remark out of context. It was made in the context of another poster saying a child's need to spend time with their parents must be put first and always subjugated to the needs of a non parent. In that context, I raised the idea that what if both parents worked through choice to fund a lifestyle way above that of said non parent for a huge house, new cars every other year and 3 holidays abroad every year. In that context, should the parents consider foregoing some of their luxeries first by only one of them working, to ensure time spent with children if that was so prescious and such a priority, rather than the non parent making sacrifices.

For the record I am pro parents making the right (and often necssary) choices for them re both of them working and have for years helped my colleagues who are parents take leave at the best time for them.

pozza_73

No, totally not. I don't have kids so not bothered about taking time off in the 6 weeks holidays but what around Christmas etc! Why should they have the pick of the crop. They made the choice to have kids.....

sharnad

lil.smartie wrote: »

Yep, those without prob don't want to go away when the kids are off anyway!!

Kate

No some
People do, people don't want to stay at home
Just because children are off school

sharnad

hieveryone wrote: »

Would probably never pass as compulsory, but I would hope that people could be a little understanding and 'share the love'!

I would hate to think that if I worked in a workplace where we chose holidays, that I stomped my way in and took the dates some poor !!!!!! works his/her whole year to take their young family away and prevented them doing so.

Maybe the people without children also work the whole year and want to go away

sharnad

thorsoak wrote: »

Why would anyone who does not have children want to take their holidays during school holiday times when prices reach their zenith? Most parents would prefer not to - but childens' education needs must come first!

Birthdays anniversarys special deals

sharnad

pinkshoes wrote: »

Those WITHOUT children should get first pick, but can only choose dates outside the school holidays!

That would be a rubbish system

sharnad

BobQ wrote: »

There are many posts along these lines. Its not about the parents! Its about the children. Children deserve the opportunity to spend as much time as possible with their parents and those of us who have more flexibility should be reasonable and allow them to do so.

Im not saying that those without children do not deserve any preferential consideration. If your parents are celebrating their Golden Wedding, then you should be given preferential consideration too.

But as a general principle those without children should not be so selfish as to insist on first come first serve or equal opportunities.

It's not selfish. Parents get plenty of time to spend with their children. Sure no parents will be denied all dozen if the weeks that the kids are off even if they can't get a week or two they prefer

sharnad

Nicki wrote: »

I didn't say the parent "deserved" the leave more though!

Spendless said she would find it "completely bizarre" ever to take into account parental status to determine who should get contested annual leave. My question was whether this was always the case.

In the example I gave if dad had used his entire annual leave already and could not take unpaid leave, and there were no other viable childcare options, one parent would have no option but to leave their job before the date of the contested holiday, as primary school children cannot be left alone at home all day. So not IMHO "completely unrealistic" at all to suggest that by refusing mum in this case may well lead to her leaving.

Parent accepted responsibility for child and should arrange choldcare somehow , very strange for a person to live in a place with no child monders

sharnad

Nicki wrote: »

Knowing that you have a certain statutory amount of holiday entitlement, and assuming you will be able to use this in the future to look after your children when they are off school doesn't count as thinking about childcare then? I imagine a significant number of parents do not remain employed by the same person for the full 12 years minimum it takes between thinking of starting a family, completing the pregnancy, and growing the child to secondary school age

Behave a child you should think about a back up plan