Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Anyones job discriminate against singles?

F

foidulus

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Jan 15, 2007
904
1
At work(as a software engineer), about 50% of the time we have to be on shift and one person has to work days and another nights every day. However, the people that get assigned day shift are all married and the people that get assigned night shift are all, with one exception, single. Isn't this just plain discriminatory? It especially sucks because nights are open ended, I have been at work till about 2 am before then had to be back in by 1 pm the next day to relieve the day shift person or I will never hear the end of it. Why should I be punished just because I'm not married?:mad:

I was just curious if anyone else's place of employment is discriminatory towards the unmarriied.
 
If you're in the U.S., depending on where you live, many states have passed laws against discrimination based on marital status, though it's not included in the U.S. Title VII labor law.

Sounds pretty unfair to me, have you talked to your boss about it?
 
My last job was kind of the opposite. Their policies and hiring practices tended to be geared more towards single, just-out-of-college undergrads. The benefits, hours, and pay were not particularly conducive to families. It's hard to prove that was really their policy. I ended up leaving in the end.\

I feel like my current job provides a much better balance for both parties.
 
It happens to me too. I'm single so I end up working more weekends and evenings and putting in overtime.

I've complained about it and asked for more weekends off but in the end my married coworkers beg me to work a weekend for them so they can do "family stuff." I usually give in so it doesn't make any difference for me in the end. I understand that if you have a family you have more obligations so I don't make too many waves about it, but I do agree it's not really fair.
 
Maybe I'm generalizing here, but usually the less desirable shifts are junior/starter positions, which is when you are most likely to be single. People who have earned the more desirable slots are usually those who have seniority (paid their dues) therefore older therefore more likely to be married with kids.

But there are many companies that prefer employees who don't have the competing priorities that having a family can bring. A family man/woman is at a trmendous career disadvantage, depending on their boss or company policy.

I agree it seems unfair on the outside, until you're in the other situation that is. When you have kids and treasure the time you can spend with them, yet need to make money to shelter/feed/clothe them, a workplace sensitive to that is a very good thing to have.
 
Intentionally or not, it makes sense that they would.

Married folks, as a whole, tend to be more responsible than single folks, as a whole. Having someone who, at least in part, relies on your income provides a drive that is difficult to replicate otherwise. Beyond the income, marriage provides a "life stabilizing" influence. People tend to be more cautious and less rash. They are really what just about any company prefers to have. If giving them day shifts is going to help you keep your married folks, you do it. This applies most heavily among men, who I expect dominate the software engineering field.

Without putting any more politics than I need to for my point to have context in the extreme, one of the major threats that the intel community sees over the next generation is the surplus of unmarried men that will exist in China as the effects of the one child policy collides with the traditional preference for having male children.

Additionally, if you look at the shift in marriage and its desirability among various generations, I think binky's point about starter positions makes even more sense. The married folks are far more likely to be older and well established workers.
 
nbs2 said:
Married folks, as a whole, tend to be more responsible than single folks, as a whole.
Click to expand...


There's not a single shred of evidence for that where I work at all. In fact, as well as some very heavy drinkers and some womanisers, I would go so far to say that the married people are the most resistant to change within the organisation and yet, treat their positions blithely as 'just a job'.

By and large, within our organisation, I think it's the single people with the most passion and commitment to putting in the extra mile, and the ones with the most vested interests in seeing the work of the organisation progress and develop.
 
Blue Velvet said:
There's not a single shred of evidence for that where I work at all. In fact, as well as some very heavy drinkers and some womanisers, I would go so far to say that the married people are the most resistant to change within the organisation and yet, treat their positions blithely as 'just a job'.

By and large, within our organisation, I think it's the single people with the most passion and commitment to putting in the extra mile, and the ones with the most vested interests in seeing the work of the organisation progress and develop.
Click to expand...

Thus the "on the whole". I can think of several examples of single folks who are driven by their work to the point of sacrificing other parts of their lives. Those are folks that employers would kill to have. While every workplace is different, I'd imagine that most employers find it safer to paint with the broadest brush. Kind of like the whole "visible tattoo" thing. But, we won't talk about that (I will not be the one responsible for getting this thread moved ;)).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back