Working It Out
Back when unions were emerging in the US, the motto for workers’ rights was, “Eight hours for sleep, eight hours for work, eight hours for what we will!” But hey – we’re eight years into the twenty-first century, well after those words were spoken and eight hours is not always enough to get the work done. As such, there’s also little avoiding the need to occasionally take time off. Still, just because there’s a need for time off doesn’t mean that it’ll necessarily be granted.
“Well, Jane here needs the time off because she has small children to look after, plus there’s this thing she’s working on that you can help out with. I’m sure you understand.” Raise your hand if you’ve heard this reason, a coworker with a child or a project said coworker has, as a reason to be denied time off. Raise your hand again if you’ve had this happen more than once. Points if the childed coworker’s project went to you because of that. Extra points if there is additional pressure to work holidays under the guise of being a team player or helping someone in need. Yes, that is what putting in overtime means: extra work finished, a difficult case completed, a complicated project put together. All of that contributes to good teamwork, but if the people working the longer hours and the holidays are the non-parents in this office, when does ‘taking one for the team’ become ‘you don’t have kids, you can work extra and not mind’?
However, how sure are you that the reason that you’re denied the time off is because of your lack of children? Also, how sure can you be that you will keep your job if you bring that concern forward as a discriminatory bias complaint? Is such a complaint even going to be accepted as a valid one or will it be tossed out?
It is true that most states in America have at-will employment; that is to say, an employer can fire someone without a cause. Sounds alarming? In some cases, especially that of an unscrupulous employer, it is. Have the childfree been terminated because they spoke up about a situation at work in an at-will environment? Oh yes. Are there recourses? Definitely.
Consider that in most company handbooks, an employer is not allowed the discriminate based on race, age, sex or parental status. The last can be implied to differentiate between single parent or married, but therein lies the caveat that “parental status” can be used to shield one against discrimination based on lack thereof. In US, at-will employment has a public policy exception; that is to say, an employer may not fire the employee if it violates either a statute on any level, whether state or federal, or public policy.
Since discrimination is protected under several statutes, and so is harassment based on it, let’s go back for a moment to one of the greater frustrations that most childfree people face and that is getting their equal share of benefits in the workplace.
Let’s bring forth the other two exceptions to the at-will rule and that is the implied contract. The implied contract translates to precisely that: when an employer sets certain policies and guidelines in place without there being an express written contract. Such a thing is set into place with instruction on how to follow procedure, as well as any verbal guideline for taking care of any issues at work. The final exception, which is the “covenant of good faith and fair dealing”, is actually a slight stray from the at-will concept, as it dictates that the termination of an employee should have an actual cause.
In light of the above consideration, it’s safe to conclude that the childfree are, in fact, protected in an at-will work environment. So if you ever find yourself in a workplace wherein you are the default workhorse because of your lack of parental status, you are able to give your boss a gentle reminder that while taking one for the team occasionally is not an issue, doing so constantly is not necessarily so.
Copyright Katharine Wyse. Published 1 November 2008 in Editorials.
Reader comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Employers and their lawyers can always find a reason to fire someone that is legally acceptable even if the real reason is totally illegal. I have no doubt that this happens all the time.
I would add “being single” to the list of reasons people assume you have no life outside of work and would just love to work overtime. I am married, and I know I have benefited from this unofficial policy. Is it really just a coincidence that of the 5 people on my team at work, it’s consistently the one uncoupled guy who gets asked to cover other people’s shifts? Luckily we get paid for our overtime, so at least he’s getting compensated, but it’s still not fair.
permalink — 3 November 2008, 15:18
My BF is a radio journalist, for some time he worked the news shifts and whenever someone (childed, as nearly all his coworkers are) couldn’t cover an evening/night/weekend/holiday shift, he was the one they called. Or it’s the way his monthly schedule was systematically organized anyway. It didn’t matter what strain this put on our relationship, it didn’t matter how working very irregular shifts affected his health… he doesn’t have kids, so who cares!
permalink — 5 November 2008, 00:44
I’m still a newbie when it comes to the work force and as of yet have not encountered such discrimination, but it still worries me. Unfortunately as long as children are put on a pedestal, parents will receive unfair advantages in the work place. Part it may also have to do with the fact that making money is supremely important to most employers, employee happiness and sanity be damned. But it’s a little comforting to know that there is some recourse for the childfree.
permalink — 5 November 2008, 08:04