STOP PRESS!  Kidding Aside Interactive Forum Launched

As the title of the Green Paper suggests, the most significant part of this proposed legislation is choice – the choice to work, the choice to spend time with one’s children and the choice to have or not to have children. Kidding Aside represent the Childfree of Great Britain, people who have chosen to not have children, a proportion of the population which demographers predict will reach 22% in 2010¹. We view parenthood as a choice, a choice taken by parents who bring a child into this world; a choice made with freewill which all would-be parents know will entail a change to their current lifestyle. There are numerous other lifestyle alternatives to being a parent and in our view being childfree is an alternative that we consider as equal and legitimate as the choice to have children.

Kidding Aside applauds the government for addressing the critical issue of the balance between the demands of a career and the demands of home life. However, we believe that this Green Paper is not about helping people working in Britain to balance home and work but rather, singles out parents and give them special treatment in order to maintain the balance between work and the parental responsibilities. Parental responsibilities which people have freely chosen to take on. Kidding Aside believes that all people in work would benefit from such help and that there are sufficient economic and social arguments to suggest that any attempt to address the work-home balance should be applied to all and not just to parents. Limiting aid to parents does not only fail to make economic sense but is also tantamount to discriminating against one set of lifestyles through an increased tax burden and workload which subsidises the lifestyle of parents.

In this response Kidding Aside will address:

• The economic context as discussed in the Green Paper
• Proposed extensions to parental benefits outside of the workplace
• Proposed extensions to parental benefits within the workplace
• The limited right to flexible working practices
• A proposed set of childfree and parent-friendly policies

Chapter 2 of the Green Paper includes the following remarks:

"2.2 To achieve such success, business needs people who bring high levels of skills and knowledge and can rapidly respond to change. The same is true in the public sector where customers’ expectations are also rising and the taxpayer expects greater efficiency."²

And

"2.14 the gains to competitiveness from promoting participation in the labour market and skills must not be obtained at the expense of flexibility. Flexible working patterns have been identified as one of the key ingredients of the labour market."³

Both these statements are strong arguments for promoting or legislating for flexible working patterns. Kidding Aside welcomes any initiative, which will strengthen the British economy. Increasing flexibility for people at work is one such initiative that will maximise the productivity and efficiency of all people at work.

The report also states:

"2.11 The UK has weaknesses in the skills of the workforce."⁴

And

"2.19 […] Knowledge is lost when somebody leaves and networks are broken. In a small business, this can be critical: major customers can go elsewhere when an employee who understands their needs and whom they trust moves on to a competitor. Flexible policies help women and men to remain in or return to the business"⁵,

These facts underline the benefits that are to be gained from flexible working practices in both the public and private sector. Kidding Aside agrees that there are large numbers of people with responsibilities outside work that are kept out of the workforce or are not able to fully participate at work allowing their potentials and skills to go to waste because of inflexibility in the workplace.

It is, therefore, somewhat surprising to see the following as the conclusion to the section:

"2.26 The economy needs a flexible working market. We can improve our participation and skills deficit if more parents choose to work. More flexible working opportunities, and the opportunity for parents to spend time with children, are important to reducing stress and absenteeism. There are benefits to individual employers and the economy as a whole if the needs of employers and parents can be brought closer."⁶

Much of the evidence cited in the report does not necessarily lead to this conclusion. It does not follow from the UK’s lack of skilled workers and the need for flexible working practices that one must help parents to spend more time with their children. What does follow is that all people who would benefit from flexible working practices should have those practices made available to them. Parents are merely a subsection of this population.

There are a number of other groups who would benefit equally from more flexibility at work, some of whom, unlike parents, have not chosen to be in this position, some examples would be:

• People who suffer from chronic but non-debilitating illness or disabilities.
• People who have dependants such as ailing family members who are not children.
• People who have temporary crisis to cope with such as a bereavement or housing problem.
• People who wish to further their education whilst working.

Kidding Aside believes that by concerning itself solely with the plight of parents, the government is missing an opportunity to bring back into the workforce all people who would benefit from more flexible working practices.

Section 2: Proposed extensions to parental benefits outside of the workplace.

Chapter 3 of the Green Paper explores a number of options for improving or augmenting maternal, paternal and parental forms of leave. Including:

• "Extending unpaid maternity leave so that a woman can stay at home for a year"⁷ with a projected cost of Ј9 million/week for employers.
• "Sharing any extension to unpaid maternity leave equally between the mother and the father"⁸ at a cost of Ј10 million for each 1% of men who take up the offer (up to a maximum cost of Ј1 billion) as well as Ј3000/employee for the employer in addition to the costs of a woman’s maternity leave.
• "Increasing the flat rate of maternity pay for the existing period"⁹ costing Ј35 million for a Ј10 increase in Statutory Maternity PAY (SMP) for 12 weeks as well as Ј5 million for each additional Ј10 of Maternity Allowance (MA) for the total 18 weeks as well as an Ј8 million one-off implementation cost to employers and a cost of Ј5.4 million for employers per week of extra cover for mothers on leave.
• "Increasing the period of time over which maternity pay is available to 26 weeks"¹⁰ costing Ј145 million and Ј115 million to employers to arrange cover.
• "Seeing if the eligibility criteria for maternity pay could be widened"¹¹.
• "Introducing a right to leave paid at the equivalent flat rate and for the same length of time as SMP, for one adoptive parent"¹² costing Ј2 million to the state and Ј800,000 to employers.
• Giving fathers an identical right to pay and leave as mothers costing over Ј1 billion.
• "Giving working fathers the right to paternity leave, for example two weeks, paid at the same flat rate as maternity pay"¹³ costing Ј25 million based on a 60% uptake rate and Ј18 million to employers.

These are in addition to the currently existing plethora of benefits, tax cuts and tax credits extended to parents and children.

The Childfree and Childless of this country already bearing a larger proportion of the tax burden than parents earning similar amounts, irrespective of equally legitimate expenditure commitments. The proposed Increase in benefits to parents’ amounts to a further widening of the gap between the amount of money that in real terms is earned by a childfree employee compared to a parent.

Given that parenthood is a lifestyle choice, Kidding Aside fails to see any social or philosophical justification for a further increase in subsidies paid to parents. We also believe that there is no philosophical justification for the government to give special financial advantage to encourage people to have children (through benefits and tax credits and statutory rights to paid leave). On the contrary, we believe that the government should be encouraging responsible parenting, ensuring that all children have parents who have thought through the full commitment needed to carry out the difficult role of parenting. We also believe that part of responsible parenting is about not having children unless one is unable to support them financially in an adequate manner.

We applaud the efforts the government have made to eradicate poverty in the UK and we are well aware that the financial circumstances of parents change and that for some people financial assistance will be essential. However, we also believe that by increasing the financial benefits given only to parents the government is diverting money away from more socially necessary expenditure areas such as the National Health Service, Public Transport, Education and Social Services.

Kidding Aside believe that there is no longer a justification for financial advantage to be given to parents simply because they are parents. The problem of overpopulation is a problem faced by all the countries of the world. While Britain speaks proudly of its below replacement fertility rate it is still sufficiently high for our population to continue to increase as a result of an ageing population and is much higher than many of our European neighbours. Considering the government’s views on the environment, it is difficult to understand the philosophical basis for this proposal. Pouring billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money into subsidising those who choose to have children will do nothing to reduce our population. Kidding Aside believe that it will have the opposite effect, leading to a continued increase in population with more people needing treatment from the NHS; wanting to use our public transport systems; increasing the demand for housing; etc.

Kidding Aside also believe that while children are our future this future should not be assured on the basis of unacceptable costs in the present. Demographers predict that

25% of women born in 1972 in the UK will be childfree¹⁴, this results in fewer people with dependent children within a population that continues to increase because of the increasing number of elderly people. Benefits given exclusively to parents constitute a real terms increase in the burden of taxation upon the childfree and childless and a decrease for parents. In the context of the increase in childfreedom, this means that more people are paying a greater amount so that fewer people can pay less.

Statistics suggest that many of the children born today will be childfree in the future, the children may well be our future but what future would this proposed legislation guarantee for those children who will become childfree only to face oppressive and discriminatory taxation and work practices?

Chapter 4 of the Green Paper proposes a number of potential initiatives designed to support working parents in addition to existing tax credits and New Deal legislation. In this regard, Kidding Aside has a number of concerns.

Firstly, regarding "Including routine hospital appointments within the right to time off for dependants"¹⁵ is not easily acceptable. This right would be in addition to other rights, which are only extended to parents such as the right to time off if babysitting cannot be arranged and the child is ill.

Childfree employees however only have similar rights for the care of elderly relatives or dependants (and these rights are less extensive than those offered to parents). Furthermore, "The right was originally to be for time off for ‘domestic incidents’ […] such as damage to property like flooding, fire or burglary. But […] the government amended the Bill to restrict the right to time off for dependants"¹⁶.

In practical terms this means that should a child get in a fight or be due for a routine medical check up then the parent has a statutory right to time off. Should a childfree person’s house burn down they have no statutory right to time off.

The Employment Relations Bill 1998/99, is clearly unequal in its granting of the right to statutory time off as it stands. To add the right to time off for routine check ups further increases the inequality between the rights of parents and the rights of those without children.

Secondly, initiatives to allow parents to take more time off, especially short periods often create problems for employers. Usually the work of the absent parent is passed on to a co-worker. In an environment where parents are taking days off to deal with child-related problems the childfree and childless are left to pick up the additional work. This constitutes the same pay for unequal amounts of work and can hardly be said to be indicative of a culture of equal opportunities at work.

Kidding Aside believes that any statutory right to time off for personal problems must be universal or non-existent. To extend these rights to parents alone is to place a larger work burden on the childfree or childless. In not giving the childfree and childless similar entitlements the government is discriminating against the childfree and is risking creating resentment against parents in the workplace and the government itself.

Thirdly, the prospect of introducing paid parental leave is a bleak one for the childfree and childless of Great Britain. The government figures suggest that on a 60% uptake among women and 40% uptake among men, a Ј100 per parent per week benefit would translate into a cost of Ј148 million pounds per week to the taxpayer¹⁷. A greater uptake of parental leave will increase the work and tax burden on non-parents as well as potentially doing damage to productivity and morale and creating a sizeable backlash among non-parent employees.

The government must be conscious not only of the demands of parents and employers but also the rights of non-parents. When parents are allowed time off work it is normally the case that someone else must pick up that additional work, the only people guaranteed to work more without the compensating right to additional statutory time off are the childless and childfree. As a result, Kidding Aside is completely opposed to any form of discriminatory practice that leads to a disproportionate amount of time off being given to parents.

We were interested to see that the government is concerned about backlash.

"6.7 A sizeable minority of businesses recognise that policies which support only working parents can create unfairness."¹⁸

And

"6.9 This widespread desire for flexible working indicated that there is more likely to be a backlash if businesses do not offer opportunities for flexible working to everyone."¹⁹

Kidding Aside’s contact with childfree and childless workers confirms this. By granting rights to parents but not to non-parents, the government is perceived as discriminating and favouring one lifestyle over another and thereby trivialising the contribution of non-parents to the British economy. Indeed, one of the driving forces behind the politicisation of the childfree movement is the inequality of current legislation in this area.

The government denies that there is a backlash as "The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) reports that it has seen no evidence of backlash in calls to its help line"²⁰. After some consultation, Kidding Aside has found that this is because neither employees nor employers seem aware that complaints regarding unfairly pro-parent activities COULD be addressed to the EOC let alone that this was where one should address complaints.

The EOC states that:

"Our vision is for a society and an economy that enables women and men to fulfil their potential and have their contributions to work and home life equally valued and respected, free from assumptions based on their sex. We want a society that guarantees equality for women and for men.

Our mission is to challenge discrimination, champion equality and act as a catalyst for change."²¹

As this is not an issue of equality between men and women, it is somewhat puzzling why a matter, which is concerned with equality between parents and the childfree/ childless, would be addressed to the EOC.

Kidding Aside believes that if the government have identified the EOC as the appropriate authority to handle such complaints then this fact should be publicised so that non-parents and employers can voice their opinion.

The current perception amongst non-parents is that they have nowhere to turn, a perception that is reinforced by political parties claiming superior "family friendliness". The perception is that the non-parents of Britain are being placed in a position where despite their own lifestyle choice they are expected to subsidise parents through their taxes and by picking up work which is left undone by parents exercising their statutory rights to maternity and parental leave.

Kidding Aside sympathises with the government on its lack of backlash statistics, there are not a great deal available for the UK. However, a recent Personnel Journal poll of its US readers found that 80% of employees believed that employees without children were left out by the work/family programmes being introduced in the US. Kidding Aside reminds the government of where the UK "ranks" in comparison to the US in family-friendly legislation. An increase in such legislation would create more unhappiness. Similarly, 81% of readers believed that singles carried a larger work burden than married workers and 69% predicted that corporate America would see a backlash from non-parents and singles.²²

The Conference Board in the USA surveyed 78 companies with extensive parental benefits and found that not only did 57% admit that non-parents harboured resentment towards colleagues with children but 42% acknowledged that childless employees were subsidising the health care of workers with children.²³

If the UK, is currently more child-friendly than the US it would be most surprising to see happier and less resentful non-parents in this country. Indeed, it would appear reasonable to expect similar if not greater levels of resentment.

Therefore, the government’s lack of evidence is not evidence of lack of resentment as foreign surveys show a growing resentment on the part of non-parent workers and the EOC who are cited as the barometer of public opinion have not publicised their role in advising or acting on complaints about discrimination against the childfree.

Kidding Aside believe that that, considering the US evidence; the increasing amount of interest in our organisation with its overtly campaigning remit; and the increase in disagreement in the media, there is a serious risk of a backlash against parents by non-parents if further family-friendly legislation is implemented. Flexible working hours are a potential source of benefits to the economy but there is no justification for extending the right to flexible working hours only to parents. The costs to morale and the lost benefits of not applying such rights to non-parents could prove equally as costly for the UK.

Section 5: A proposed set of childfree and parent-friendly policies,

Kidding Aside and most childfree people believe that parenthood is a lifestyle. As such, the key to legislating for parents is to bear in mind that parents walk a fine line between the demands of their domestic lives and the demands of their job. This is a line walked by all workers in Britain today irrespective of what is causing the demand in their domestic lives.

It is therefore important to legislate in a way that makes the home and work balance easier to achieve. Parenting is just one area to be balanced with employment, non-parents, or those with adult children have their own demands outside work, some of which, such as caring for elderly parents, or suffering from a bereavement, they may not have chosen.

Kidding Aside believes that if the work/life balance is to be addressed correctly it must be addressed across the board and not just in the case of parents with dependent children, for while parents have talents and skills the British economy can use so do other people.

We at Kidding Aside would like to see more lifestyle-neutral legislation; legislation that is granted to people because they as workers and the economy as a whole will benefit from such legislation rather than because they belong to one disproportionately favoured section of society.

For instance, we would welcome:

1. A total of one year away from work paid for by the state with a guaranteed job to return to, this could be taken as twelve consecutive months or broken into smaller chunks.
   
   The government is tempted to implement something similar to this for parents alone and for each child. We believe that this benefit should be extended to all workers and be limited to once per lifetime. In this way the government could treat all lifestyles equally, prevent a backlash and be environmentally and child friendly by promoting a mature and responsible attitude to procreation.
   
2. The incorporation of paternity leave into the above point, allowing men to use their year at the time of their child’s birth if they chose to do so.
   
3. An equalisation of time-off legislation to eliminate the inequalities between the statutory rights of parents to time off versus the rights of non-parents to time off and which addresses the current imbalance that places more pressure at work on childfree and childless people.
   
4. The right to flexible work practices being extended to all British workers. The governments’ own statistics suggest that this would be of great benefit to the economy and society as a whole.

We no longer live in a society that needs to encourage people to reproduce; quite the contrary, yet these proposals give additional financial benefits and other privileges to people with dependent children. Kidding Aside are in favour of flexible working practices, and maternity leave is a critically important right, but in an overpopulated world why do we give a special priority to those who have children? We are simply perpetuating the myth that everyone ought to have children and that everyone is suitable to take on the difficult job of being a parent.

If we in the UK can't free ourselves from the expectation of reproduction and change our attitudes in order to ensure that we can live an environmentally and financially sustainable future how can we hope to influence developing nations to tread this path?

The discriminatory proposals set out in this Green Paper do nothing to address these fundamental issues.