Parents Need Not Apply

You know, I’ve been thinking awhile about the discrimination childfree people face in the workplace: everything from having to take up the slack for the new mothers who have to go on maternity leave for (and getting no additional pay for it, I might add) to people who are lured into a job thinking it’s a permanent position only to be let go when the new mother goes back to work. I’ve also heard of cases where childfree people are denied jobs altogether because employers see being married with children as a sign of “integrity” or “good moral character” or whatever. Whatever the case, most of the time childfree people get shafted in the workplace, and it’s disgusting.

And that got me to thinking some, and I’ve come to the conclusion I would much rather hire only childfree people. Childfree people are more dependable. They won’t be taking maternity/paternity leave for any reason, they take fewer sick days, and they have no reason other than “I don’t want to” to complain about having to put in some additional hours.

I wonder how parents would react to a job ad that says “parents need not apply.” Quite frankly, there would be no law against it. Parenthood is not a “protected class” in any country that I know of. As long as you can prove that such a hiring policy affects men and women equally, it is acceptable in the eyes of the law to have such a stipulation. In my case, if I were an employer looking to hire people, it would affect men and women in the same way, so I could get away with it and I would do so and not think twice about it.

The goal of a business owner is to turn a profit. Hiring employees who will increase profit is thus the proper strategy, and childfree employees are the ones who are more profitable to a company. Thus I think childfree people should get preferential treatment. Hey, many businesses already give preferential treatment to parents, it’s time we evened the score a little bit. đŸ˜‰


About coolchildfreeguy

Childfree guy living in Mexico City. Professional pilot by day, all-around fun guy by night.

Posted on January 9, 2013, in Careers, Childfree, Law, Politics. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.

  1. Actually, I think in the States if they could prove that you were passing them over because they were pregnant or had kids, these days you might have trouble. Because, there was a whole thing in, what, the 60s or 70s about businesses not wanting to hire pregnant women. Something about image and also because at some point pregnant women will have to stop working for a while. I could be wrong about the decade, but I seem to remember something about it.

    However, I don’t know that there’s anything you can do if an employer passes you over because you DON’T have kids. I don’t think there’s been a case like that in our court system, yet. Usually because by now, employers who want to discriminate against any specific person or type of person have learned to work around the law. If they can’t prove it, they have no case. Once in a while there’s a weird case (like the headlines recently about a woman being let go because she’s too “irresistible” or something), but overall most employers are smart enough these days to keep their reasons for not hiring you a secret and coming up with excuses for firing you that won’t test the legal boundaries. So, as long as you did that I don’t think there’d be a huge challenge in the States.

    No idea how it is in Mexico, though. If it’s easier or harder to get away with discriminating against specific people or types or classes of people. Or if you have to work around it a lot of the time the same way you do in the States. :p

    Anyway, if you tried it here, the first thing there’d be would be a huge outrage among the parents, the people who want to become parents, and the people who are expecting to become parents soon (and perhaps their families, regardless of child status, as well) staging loud protests and giving you bad publicity in the media. Which might influence court cases, if there were any. In fact, it might also influence whether court cases even happen. Sometimes, if the protests are loud and angry enough, that happens. And parents can be good at that when they want to be. <<;

    But, none of that has helped them so far when it comes to restaurants and other establishments who use specific sections for people with kids, or specific hours for them, or who refuse to allow kids at all, or who will throw you out if your kid causes a scene. They tried to rail against that and while it did make the news and some headlines, it generally didn't make a difference AND most of those businesses ended up the better for it financially, despite the parents being SO SURE that it would be a death knell for those companies. Which I found hilarious. :p

  2. Unfortunately in the States, there IS a law against it. You can’t discriminate based on family status. It sucks because CF employees ARE more dependable and DO get shafted thanks to their parent coworkers….ugh.

  3. I had a job interview at a car wash once because I was hoping to get a few extra bucks with a part-time job in the hours that I’m off work from my other job. The guy looked at my status as SINGLE on the application and said he preferred to hire someone who “has a family to support” since THEY could use the money more than a bachelor obviously needs. I should have sued the damn place for discrimination back then, but then again, I live in Utah, where bachelors are discriminated against by the other people everywhere just because we like to live life and party instead of “getting with the program and having a family.”

    • That employer is delusional. With a family man doing that job, the paycheck wouldn’t provide much for all his family needs so the family man would only do the job temporarily till he leaves it for another job that pays better so his family can finally live comfortably.

  4. That’s also what I said, but in Utah, many employers assume that in this economy, a family man will do ANYTHING to help provide for his family, even for 7.50 an hour, I guess. So they throw the jobs at those who need to support those families. Never mind the fact that I would never call off work to take my kid to a doctor’s appointment or a soccer game, etc. because as a bachelor, you have a pretty wide-open schedule and you then prove to be more dependable for an employer. What do employers want? Employees who take an extra day off because their kid is sick or because of some family event or a single, childless guy who will show up for work every day and on time because his schedule permits him to do so? That car wash business missed out on a good worker. I’ve been with my current job for 5 years now and never called in sick or anything.

  5. In the U.S. It is illegal, in all states as it is a federal law, to ask someone if they are married or have kids during an interview. If an interviewer asks, you are supposed to tell them that they can’t ask that and you don’t have to answer it.

  6. I wonder if anyone has ever invented fictional children in order to get out of doing some kinds of work. I know some parents who invent special occasions why they need to leave early to spend time with their kids, just as an excuse to leave early. It’s not like your boss requires documentation for the existence of your kids. I know of a company that sets aside a little extra money for parents every paycheck, money that is put into an account for their children to pay for college tuition someday. I’d consider inventing a kid in order to cash in on some college classes.

  7. Well employers also like slaves that have incentive to be good slaves & not foray-children. Duuhh.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: