Anyones job discriminate against singles?

Discussion in 'Community Discussion' started by foidulus, Jun 3, 2007.

  1. foidulus macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #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.
     
  2. OutThere macrumors 603

    OutThere

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2002
    Location:
    NYC
    #2
    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?
     
  3. floriflee macrumors 68030

    floriflee

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2004
    #3
    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.
     
  4. erickkoch macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2003
    Location:
    Kalifornia
    #4
    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.
     
  5. MarkCollette macrumors 68000

    MarkCollette

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2003
    Location:
    Calgary, Canada
    #7
    Marry one of your coworkers, so you'll both be off the night shift.
     
  6. foidulus thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2007
    #8
    If you saw any of the other night shifters, you certainly wouldn't want to marry them :p
     
  7. itcheroni macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2005
    Location:
    CA
    #9
    Maybe that's the real reason for the discrimination. :p
     
  8. brad.c macrumors 68020

    brad.c

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2004
    Location:
    50.813669°, -2.474796°
    #10
    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.
     
  9. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #11
    Lying is bad, mmkay?







    Hire a family! :D
     
  10. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #12
    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.
     
  11. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13

    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.
     
  12. nbs2 macrumors 68030

    nbs2

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Location:
    A geographical oddity
    #14
    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 ;)).
     

Share This Page