my company only lets parents work from home

by Alison Green on April 15, 2025

A reader writes:

I work at a company that is entirely in-office — they really push “office culture.” I knew that when I started a year and a half ago, but working from home isn’t a priority for me so it hasn’t been a big deal. It’s a fairly small organization, around 50 employees in my office, and they frequently tout being a “family company.”

I noticed that my boss was working from home several days a month for various reasons – she had a migraine, her kids were out of school, etc. She’s on the executive level so I didn’t pay much attention to it, as I know executives get special privileges. Then I noticed non-executive employees were being given work-from-home privileges when their kids were sick or when school or daycare was cancelled, and I thought maybe I had misunderstood the policy and that work-from-home was an option in extenuating circumstances but not a regular thing.

Last summer, I was having emergency repair work done on my home and, as I live alone, I asked if I could work from home since I had no one else to be at my house. My boss told me that my company doesn’t allow working from home, but then she worked from home the following two weeks because her kids were on summer break and she had no child care lined up.

Earlier this year, we had a snowstorm that cancelled school for a few days and many employees worked from home because their kids didn’t have school or daycare, but employees without kids were not given the work-from-home option.

And this week, three of the four employees in my area have worked from home at least one day due to sick children, appointments for their kids, or daycare issues. I am dealing with an issue that affects my ability to drive but not my ability to work, and I was told I have to either come into the office or use my sick leave because working from home isn’t an option.

I am one of maybe five employees in my office who doesn’t have kids and I don’t know how to go about addressing this. Being a “family company” is great for people with families but seems almost discriminatory against people who don’t. How can you permit people with children to work from home but not people without children? Is this even allowed? HR is fully on board with this so I don’t know what I can do, if anything.

You can read my answer to this letter at New York Magazine today. Head over there to read it.

You may also like:
{ 222 comments }

{ 222 comments… read them below }

  1. HailRobonia*

    This is why I am only partly joking when I say I should have invented fictitious children when I got hired.

    1. Nix*

      As a parent of non-fictitious children, that’s a great plan! Kids are a great excuse for getting out of parties you don’t want to go to, but real ones are a lot of work

        1. MigraineMonth*

          Alternately, many friends and family will allow you to borrow their tiny people for photo shoots if you also watch them long enough for the parents to take a nap.

    3. One Duck In A Row*

      You still can! Aren’t you that co-worker who has temporary custody of their sibling’s kids, or was it your second cousins? Or are you the one who just got engaged to that lovely person who has two school aged kids, and are basically a step-parent now?

      As a parent who has benefitted from the flexibility to work from home in ways related to and not related to being a parent, I’m a thousand percent behind anyone who needs to confront their employer about uneven flexibility given to parents and non-parents. Or who needs to suddenly tell HR that now they are parents, surprise!

    4. Rara Avis*

      My employer has been required (by our insurer, I think?) to conduct a dependent audit, and I have to prove that my child exists.

      1. Laura*

        But that’s presumably because you have them covered by your insurance, correct? I have the kids on my insurance and have to provide their SSNs and I think birth certificates but my spouse has never been asked for it (we work at the same company).

      2. doreen*

        That typically applies only to children on your insurance – if you had children who weren’t on your insurance (maybe they’re on their other parent’s insurance), you shouldn’t need to prove anything. ( The reason for the audit to begin with is to make sure ineligible people aren’t covered – for example, I had to provide a copy of my tax return showing that I filed as married and the person on my insurance wasn’t actually an ex-spouse)

        1. Hannah Lee*

          “I had to provide a copy of my tax return showing that I filed as married and the person on my insurance wasn’t actually an ex-spouse.”

          And interestingly, sometimes covering an ex-spouse is allowed or even legally required. (I was benefits admin at a company where a guy got divorced and immediately removed his newly-ex spouse from his group insurance policy. Within a month he was back to reenroll her *as was required in the divorce settlement*. He knew that, it didn’t cost him more at the time to have her on the policy with him and the kids … he just didn’t think he should HAVE to keep her on it)

          1. Houndmom*

            Generally speaking ex-wives are not permitted on insurance plans. A court order does not over rule the plans’ eligibility rules. The ex-husband employee should have purchased COBRA for his spouse or bought her coverage on the exchange. Covering non-eligible dependents could cause the plan to lose all tax preferential treatment. The carrier could also claw back any claims.

        2. Festively Dressed Earl*

          When I got married and added my husband to my insurance, my employer wouldn’t accept the new marriage certificate as proof. They wanted proof that we had joint checking/credit card accounts.

          1. dulcinea47*

            what the heck were you supposed to do if you didn’t mingle your money, as some couples don’t? Thats ridiculous.

            1. Festively Dressed Earl*

              We didn’t for the first few years, and even now have our own separate accounts as well as a shared account. We ended up doing the same thing Bloomingdale did and showing our lease agreement.

              The place was a train wreck. Suffice to say that when Mr. Earl got a new job, I didn’t cave to that employer’s pressure to transfer to their location in our new city instead of quitting.

          3. AnotherOne*

            I guess they were really worried about people getting married just to get access to their awesome health insurance?

          4. Not Crazy Cat Lady*

            My husband’s employer recently asked for more than “just” a marriage license to prove we are still married. We gave them a tax return but briefly debated giving them the number of the hotel desk clerk from last weekend. Butt out, HR!

          5. Iconic Bloomingdale*

            Same thing happened to me. A marriage certificate was not enough to prove my marital status (my spouse is covered under my health insurance). In an audit conducted by my employer, I also had to provide a document showing that we have an interdependent relationship (such as a joint bank account, joint filing of tax return, both names on mortgage or lease).

            1. I Have RBF*

              Why?? Why isn’t a f’ing marriage certificate enough? I live in a community property state. It is not required to mingle finances.

              1. Ariaflame*

                I suppose they would argue that a marriage certificate shows that a wedding took place but doesn’t guarantee that the marriage is currently valid.

                2. Good Lord Ratty*

                  The thing is, though, it’s pretty hard to prove a negative – if not impossible. How can I prove I’m not divorced? Like, people get that this is crazy, right?

        3. Grizabella the Glamour Cat*

          And my husband once had to provide a copy of our marriage license in order to have me covered on his insurance. Basically, anyone an employee wanted to add to their insurance had to be documented as to 1) their existence and 2) their relationship to the employee. The type of documentation required varied according to the latter.

        1. Putting the Dys in Dysfunction*

          If I were the boss I would assume that you and your gf Brenda had been on a bender last night.

      2. LJ*

        Non Parent, but I do have dependents …. I just don’t clarify that they have 4 legs, sharp teeth and a tail! So yep, vet visit due, then I have a medical appointment for my dependents ….

      3. JustaTech*

        I have a friend who never bothered to correct his coworkers when they assumed that “Alison” was his wife and not his cat.
        (He did also have a wife!)

        1. Squirrel!*

          We had a bunch of cats when I was growing up, and every once in a while my dad would threaten to list them as dependents on the tax return but decided the IRS might have something to say about Mungojerrie, Growltiger, Yoda, Scooter, Little Bit, etc.

      4. MigraineMonth*

        I’m not a huge fan of saying I’m my cat’s mother, but I’d do it if it meant WFH privileges.

        1. Marion Ravenwood*

          Same. My cat sadly passed away in February, but she had a name that would be considered either quite ‘grandma’ or ‘small child’, so I reckon I could have quite easily spun her into either of those options if I’d needed to.

      5. Old Lady at Large*

        I’ve got three cats named Missy, Buddy, and Junior, which are close enough to human names that I might be able to get away with it. My late brother told me he would only name his pets things that he would name a human child, then promptly named his almost all-white Shetland sheepdog Snowball. I asked him, “So you’d name your child Snowball?” He told me to go away. I miss him.

      6. OMG, Bees!*

        As much as I love cats with silly names, like Mouse or Cheese, human names are great for this situation.

    6. My cat is the employee of the month*

      I seriously thought about doing this once. My manager was very pro family, and thought that since I didn’t have children I should spend all my time working. I decided to just stop sharing anything about my hobbies, and I didn’t have to make up a young cousin that I was helping out.

      1. Georgia*

        Same here. I didn’t have kids and thus zero excuse not to pick up extra weekend shifts, work late, ferry around someone else’s assistant with kids who needed to be home early and so on. All the employees with kids basically did whatever they wanted without consequences while I got yelled at for not wanting to work my weekend off or canceling plans all the time.

      2. LabSnep*

        I had coworkers at one job get indignant when I asked for holidays off.

        They had kids, but were local.

        I had no family or friends nearby and had to travel.

        Like.

        1. Old Lady at Large*

          I had the same thing happen when I was single. I once put in for Thanksgiving off four months in advance, and if I heard “But I have children!” once I heard it a dozen times from people who decided the week before that they had to have Thanksgiving off “to spend it with their family.” Apparently the fact that out-of-town relatives would be visiting didn’t count.

        2. Excel Geek*

          Same… I spend most Thanksgivings and Christmases by myself… It would have been nice to see my Grandma at Christmas while she still remembered me.

      3. TheOtherKaye*

        How would it work if you turned it around on the boss? Oh boss, you make such a huge thing about being pro-family, but you also have no problem with my parents/grandparents/siblings/niblings/uncles/aunts/cousins/cousins’ children etc never, ever being able to share Christmas or Thanksgiving with me (their child/grandchild/sibling/niece/nephew/aunt/uncle/cousin) because I am required to work thanks to never having bred.
        I don’t have kids either but my workplace is at least better than many in the stories and there’s not too much overt favouritism. I do, however, have one colleague that (I think!) still has a full pack of 52 “mum cards” i.e. reasons and excuses, that can be pulled out whenever she thinks she needs time off or extra days around weekends or public holidays.. :/

    7. Dashwood*

      I’ve set it before on here, and I will say it again.

      As far as my company is concerned, I have two rambunctious tykes at home. Definitely comes in handy sometimes!

      In reality I am single with a dog.

    9. Aggretsuko*

      Years ago someone on LiveJournal whose HR was housed in a different building from her job wrote up journal entries on how she had fictitious kids (in reality, her pets) and how she got SO many perks from the company because of her kids.

    10. tw1968*

      I almost think it would be worth sponsoring a child like on those commercials. Supposedly you’d get letters and photos from the child. You could say you…adopted…a child and then get all those sweet, sweet WFH benefits.

  2. CitrusGirl*

    Timely question. I work in an office with ~40 people, but only 10-12 come in on a regular basis, because everyone has a WFH agreement. As an office manager, I’ve requested to work from home but am told that my position isn’t WFH compatible, which is a bunch of baloney. There are five of us on our admin team; the boss can WFH but the rest of us can’t. After nearly ten years with my company, it’s frustrating as heck. My boss even said she was going to take away my laptop and give me a desktop computer so that I couldn’t ask anymore. It’s so demeaning.

    1. Samwise*

      That’s ridiculous. Our office manager (very busy student services and academic affairs type office at large university) works from home one day/week. Unless you’re in the office and walk down the hall to her office with a question, you would never know she’s away from the office because everything runs smoothly wherever she’s working. She supervises a full slate of student workers, manages several on-demand services for our students, manages a large number of tasks for our office of 25…

      And I’m sure you can do the same.

      Your boss is doing the office version of “a mop is not good enough, get down on your knees and scrub the floor” demand people make of housecleaners. It’s a power play. You are right that it is demeaning.

    2. MBK*

      That last bit is remarkably petty. What if you need your laptop for an offsite meeting, or even an in-office conference room collaboration?

      1. Anti-WFH*

        Alternatively, maybe OP accepts her boss’ decision that her role is an in-office role and stops asking to change that?

        1. Incomplete Marshmallow*

          That doesnt make the threat re the desktop computer less petty, it just makes you even pettier than CitrusGirl’s boss.

          “Have a desktop instead of a laptop to make your functional job harder because how dare you ask for a perk that is operationally sound and that others in your workplace (including me as your manager) have. How dare you malign the morals and standards of Society In This Way”

        2. Annie*

          I agree with Marshmallow that the threat of taking away the laptop is petty, but yeah, I also agree with Anti-WFH (well, in this case, I’m definitely NOT anti-WFH, though I lean more towards a combo in-office/WFH compromise) that if your boss says it’s incompatible and doesn’t allow it, then that’s the job.
          In regards to the LW, this is a totally different story since the parents are allowed to WFH and the LW isn’t. That’s just not a fair way to run a business and retain good employees who are not parents.

    3. Sillysaurus*

      My workplace decreased the number of WFH days for supervisors from 1 to 0 at the same time as they expanded WFH days for managers from 1 to 2. Guess which one I am :(

    4. Laser99*

      If you have been there ten years, you should have enough capital to keep pushing back. They probably need you more than you need them.

    5. Jill Swinburne*

      Completely ridiculous. I have an admin role and while our org technically prefers everyone to be in office, in practice you put up a ‘WFH today’ message on teams and receive a bunch of thumbs-up. People do this for sick kids, tradespeople, not-spreading-germs, reasons unspecified. Some admin things are hard to do from home, sure, but there’s plenty you can. I dislike your boss.

    6. FunkyMunky*

      pre-pandemic I had to fight tooth and nail to get WFH access. I was literally the last person without access after our receptionist. Keep pushing back, it’s not Animal Farm, ffs

    7. allathian*

      Yeah, it is demeaning.

      I’ve been at my current job for nearly 18 years and I’m on my 6th manager in that period. The first manager I had was the worst of the lot (so far…), a very anti-WFH and task-driven person. The lease on my desktop computer was running out about three months before a big organizational reform in 2014 where my position was moved into a completely different department (comms adjacent rather than random general admin services that didn’t fit anywhere else). With about 70 other first line managers, she was demoted to a senior IC.

      As one of her last management decisions concerning me (certainly the last one I remember), she denied my request for a laptop rather than a replacement desktop. When I asked why, she straight-out said, with a completely deadpan expression on her face, that “I can’t trust you to do your job if you’re at home.” I was so stunned I just mumbled something like “Okay,” but later when the shock of it had worn off, I was pretty angry and told my husband and all my friends that she has no more control of whether or not I’m actually working at the office, given that I had my own office at the time (80 percent at least of us did) and mostly kept my door shut, and the office policy was pretty firm that not even managers were supposed walk in on their reports without knocking when the door was closed.

      The first thing my new manager did on the first day that I reported to her was to ask why I didn’t have a laptop, and when I told her that my old manager thought I didn’t need one (without going into detail), the second thing she did was to order a laptop for me.

      Following the organizational change that moved me to the comms department they started issuing laptops to pretty much everyone, with a few exceptions like our graphics designers. The price difference between high-end laptops and standard business ones was then much greater than the price difference between a high-end graphics desktop and a standard business desktop. Now even the graphics designers have laptops.

      For years I could pretty much ignore my former manager’s existence as an HR rep. Basic professional courtesies like greeting her with a small smile when I saw her in passing at the office sufficed. At least as a very task-oriented person she never expected me to pretend to like her, not showing my active dislike was good enough.

      Then Covid happened. Granted, for the six years that I had a laptop before Covid I didn’t have a dedicated home office setup, so I only bothered to WFH when it was unavoidable for other reasons.

      The cognitive dissonance I experienced when I had to listen to her explaining our new WFH-friendly hybrid policies that were put in place when the near-total ban on in-office work was lifted was something else. She was a pro and did (and still does) as her position required her to, but I’m pretty convinced that she still prefers the old style of working when people were always or almost always at the office, even if she realizes that that ship has sailed as our offices are too small to have everyone there at the same time. Sometimes when she posts on our intranet forum her anti-WFH attitudes show through the cracks just enough to prove that she truly hasn’t changed her mind about it.

      CitrusGirl, I really hope you can keep your laptop.

  3. Bluebonnet*

    As someone with a busy life but no kids I would be livid if I were in this situation!

    Making you drive in a snow storm to work as well as not working with your injuries seems especially unpardonable. I would definitely be looking for another job if this were me. The two tier system seems very unfair!

    2. Tiger Snake*

      It’s especially headscratching when we remember that one of the big concerns we had with WFH – and which still remains a legitimate concern now – was that parents wouldn’t actually be working because they’d be busy managing their children. Alison has several posts on here that talk about making sure that everyone’s clear and understanding that if you WFH, someone else still needs to be minding the sprogs.

      A day where you’re working had half capacity instead of taking the day off while being carer for a sick child, might be something a manager can be discretionary about. But multiple weeks at a time?

      1. Summer*

        This is exactly what I was thinking – how many times have we heard that if you are WFH you can’t also be caring for your kids? If the kids are old enough to take care of themselves unsupervised, then do the parents actually have to WFH? And, if not, then the parent is doing more supervising of the kids than working. Either way this entire system is completely unfair and I’m so mad on behalf of LW and anyone else who works in an office like this.

        Too many CEOs have lost their damn minds with the anti-WFH crusade they are on. It’s insulting and demeaning and just makes me hate the overlord class even more.

        1. FunkyMunky*

          agreed! The anti-WFH crusade is literally making it worse than before, pre-2020, when many people had set WFH days already

        2. Well actually*

          Just to note there is a middle ground – I would work with my 8+ year old home sick, because they are old enough to take care of themselves, but would still want to be available for an emergency until they are at least 11-12.

          1. LongTimeReader*

            As someone with a busy life and kids, this makes me livid too! Though I agree with the middle ground- I’ve got a kid with some chronic health stuff, but they’re 12 and I’ve been able to actually wfh when they’re sick for a while- they can read, manage the tv, and make their own ramen

  4. Deborah*

    Here as a parent (but not until relatively recently) to say that this is BS and ultimately harmful to everyone.

    1. learnedthehardway*

      Agreed. It’s damaging to morale, all around.

      WHY would anyone foster resentment and perceptions of unfairness in the workplace like this?!??! It’s just stupid!

      1. Elizabeth West*

        I know we hear a lot of people going “But that’s not faaaaaaaair” in response to equitable (as opposed to equal) policies. Not everyone needs to have every single thing other people have. But letting non-parents work from home is something that SHOULD be equal.

        1. PandemicBarber*

          The problem isn’t flexibility for parents. The problem is a rigidity about non-parents in addition to non-parents picking up the slack.

    2. NotAnotherManager!*

      Long-time parent, and I agree. My coworkers who do not have children (or who have children who are adults and no longer require constant care) have other obligations that are no less important than mine. Just in the past few months, we’ve had a burst pipe and took someone’s living room ceiling out, a gas leak, a pet who ate a poisonous plant, and two elder care emergencies for those who are caretaking for parents. There is no reason they should not be extended the same flexibility as I am. Life happens to everyone.

      2. allathian*

        Yes, life absolutely happens to everyone. My son at nearly 16 is perfectly capable of taking care of himself at home alone if he’s too sick to go to school but doesn’t need immediate medical treatment, and has been for at least three years (not necessarily true of all kids).

        But being able to WFH 4 days a week without having to state a particular reason for doing so is great. When my employer’s flexible, I’m also more willing to be flexible when the workload requires it for short periods.

        1. Susannah*

          I certainly hope a 16-year-old can do that! That’s old enough to get married (with parental permission) in lots of states.

      3. TheOtherKaye*

        I remember being part of a similar conversation as part of an informal focus group at my workplace, pre-covid.
        The topic of “how family-friendly do you view our workplace to be” was raised for discussion. Pretty well all of the parents present were very happy, so yay, great. I don’t have kids, so my viewpoint was that yes, the policies were great for parents but that perhaps the pendulum had swung further away for the non-parents who also sometimes needed time off to care for elderly relatives, get pets to the vet, be at home to let tradespeople in, or even to attend a medical appointment. I felt as though somehow this type of time off for those who were childless or who were empty-nesters (Aussie term for parents of adult kids who have left the family home) was seen as being of lesser value than time taken off to care for children. It was an interesting discussion that followed as I don’t think even HR had really thought it all through, end to end.

        1. L.T.*

          We use the term empty nest in the US as well. We even had a sitcom with that name in the 80s about a physician with adult children. It was a spin-off of the Golden Girls.

      4. OMG, Bees!*

        But don’t you know, only parents have family, no one else has family or obligations! /s (heavy sarcasm)

        Serious answer, I had to take lot off getting my mom into a care home and still have massive burnout from it

    4. A Significant Tree*

      Cosigned, from another parent who has benefited from schedule flexibility. If I knew this was happening to my coworkers that didn’t have kids, I would be upset on their behalf and willing to talk to management or pushback as a group.

      1. Beth in Bellevue*

        This this this
        LW could share their view with a few trusted colleagues who benefit from parental flexibility, and ask if they’d be willing to support LW’s push for a flexible workplace, not just for a class of people.

        Also, if LW felt like lobbing a nuke into the convo with their manager and HR, “You know, many people have been sadly unable to have children, and unequal policies like this makes a painful family situation more punishing. You never know what’s happening in someone’s personal life.”

  5. Yikes*

    A small complaint, but I’ll also throw it out that approaches like this (in addition to all of the issues Alison pointed out) are particularly demoralizing for non-parents who want to have children! It would feel like salt in the wound if I was constantly being categorized as a non-parent, ESPECIALLY if I needed the WFH flexibility for fertility treatments! It’s a small thing but I would really struggle with the favoritism for parents.

    1. TVkilledtheradiostar*

      As someone who can’t have kids, I would be furious if that meant I couldn’t work from home!

      1. Don’t know what to call myself*

        As someone with a medical condition that makes it unlikely that I’ll ever carry a baby to term, I’d actually kind of love to walk into that HR department and say this policy is causing the company to engage in discrimination based on my medical condition.

      2. Her My Own Knee*

        This right here. And I would absolutely throw that in my manager’s face if I were in this position. “So what you’re saying is that because I am UNABLE to have children I will not be receiving the same courtesy as those who are? I just want to make sure that I’m fully understanding the policy.” Most people probably don’t want to share that kind of information with their boss or coworkers, but I absolutely would if I’m being discriminated against because of it!

        1. Don’t know what to call myself*

          I’d be more blunt. “You’re telling me that because of the untreatable medical condition that makes it impossible for me to have children, I will never be permitted to have the same work flexibility as my coworkers whose uteruses are functional?”

    2. Chirpy*

      It’s also demoralizing for single people who want to maybe get married someday. How are you supposed to meet your future significant other/spouse if you’re always having to work all the nights and weekends??

      Or what if you have other family to take care of, who aren’t your minor biological children? Elderly family members, young cousins/ nieflings/the neighbors you’re especially close with, etc?

      1. Susie*

        Eh, I don’t know — I think single people who don’t want to get married deserve the same rights. Treat everyone the same, not based on whether they want kids and a spouse.

        1. StephChi*

          100%. There shouldn’t be a sliding scale of who deserves to be able to work from home. Single people who don’t want to get married or have kids shouldn’t be treated differently as employees as people who are single but want to get married and have kids, or people who are married and/or have kids. Either everyone gets the benefit at the LW’s company, or no one should have it.

          1. Chirpy*

            Oh definitely. I was just trying to point out the hypocracy of those people who think only coupled people with children “deserve” benefits, but wouldn’t allow the single/ childless person to potentially become “one of them”, either.

            Everyone should get the same benefits, no matter their relationship status or desire.

        2. Chirpy*

          Oh, absolutely. One shouldn’t need to somehow “prove” that they’re deserving of flexibility/ better hours/etc based on them even having to be looking to be coupled.

          It’s just something that’s always frustrated me, that those coworkers who told me I didn’t need/deserve flexibility because I didn’t have kids/a spouse seemed to think that single/ childless people should just be working machines until…a family is just granted to them out of nowhere.

          1. TheOtherKaye*

            Those are the people who also seem to think that childless people apparently hatch out of unwatched eggs like turtles, as the fact that such people also have parents, grandparents, siblings, niblings etc is completely and utterly overlooked and forgotten.

  6. I'm just here for the cats!!*

    Is this the letter where the OP found out there’s a whole bunch of benefits parents get that single people don’t? Like discounted gym membership for partner and more PTO?

    2. Hlao-roo*

      Ha, I thought of that letter too! I hope the disparity in benefits isn’t as wide for this letter-writer as it was in that letter, but it’s still a bad way to run a company >:(

      “my company secretly gives parents thousands of extra dollars in benefits” from August 13, 2024 for anyone who hasn’t read it (and very satisfying update from December 4, 2024)

          1. Hannah Lee*

            And didn’t get the extra 401(k) plan matches/contributions.
            (because a couple who share a home saving together for a shared retirement are apparently more in need of extra funds than a single person who has no one else to rely on)

            1. Slow Gin Lizz*

              Yeah, as a chronically single person, I do very much hate that we get a lot fewer benefits than married people do. For example, housing for one person is definitely more expensive than 50% of housing for a couple, and I only have one salary, thank you very much. Which means I have a lot less income that I can put towards my retirement funds.

              1. Don’t know what to call myself*

                Being single is also more time consuming than being married in a lot of cases. My married coworker can divide and conquer with her spouse so that if they’re hosting an event one of them can clean the house and one of them can run the errands to get the supplies they need. I have no one to divide the labor with.

              2. Chirpy*

                This, my apartment costs exactly the same for me as it would if I had someone to share it with.

                Cooking dinner takes the same amount of time for one person as for two, but there’s no one to split chores or food prep with to offset that and free up time elsewhere.

                Single people have less money and free time than coupled people.

          2. asloan*

            We need that gym membership more, to attract a mate so that we too can become parents! /s

          3. MikeM_inMD*

            I read it as the single people could get a gym membership, but the ones that were married and childless could not also get one for their spouse.

            1. MigraineMonth*

              If you have kids: Free gym membership & lessons for yourself, spouse and kids.

              If you don’t have kids: 50% off gym membership & lessons for yourself. No discount for spouse.

        2. Slow Gin Lizz*

          Wow, ok, I of course remembered that letter but hadn’t remembered the very very satisfying update and I went to read it and noticed that I was the first person to comment on it (probably the only time I’ve ever been first). So yeah, that was a wild ride but I do love that update and wonder how that OP is doing now and how their former company is doing too.

        3. ScruffyInternHerder*

          That was an absolutely amazing update!!! (And thank you, as always, to Hlao-roo for remembering/linking/being amazing too!)

  7. Ms.Vader*

    This will take about 9 months to implement but I believe that you just found out you’re pregnant ;) *nudge *nudge

    1. fpg*

      Even faster if she says she’s been hiding the pregnancy for personal reasons.

      I understand that not everyone is comfortable with this option, but if you are……

        1. Red Humerus*

          A few guys have given birth before, wouldn’t even need to be making medical history!

    3. Disappointed with the Staff*

      In some places the jump from “applying to become an adoptive parent” to “spending a lot of time getting vetted by the adoption agency”can be faster than that. I assume that the latter counts as parenting for the purposes of gaining WFH privileges {cough}.

  8. Heather*

    Another approach, consider asking for more than a standard raise. Explain that one of the non-monetary perks being offered to parents (WFH) is not availabale to you and that a slightly higher compensation would mitigate that issue.

  9. AndersonDarling*

    I’d be more blunt when speaking to HR.
    “Is our policy that parents are allowed to work from home in case of emergencies, but non-parent’s are required to use vacation time in similar situations. If so, can we document this policy?”

    1. Wednesday wishes*

      but not all those occasions were emergencies! Summer break? Not an emergency! Not by any means! Children’s appointments? You can plan them around your work hours! An injury where you can’t drive- that’s an emergency!

      1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

        And a small company of 50 people? So someone has been there for 15 years…are these people working from home for summer break with their teenagers?
        “I’m going to be working from home for the next two weeks, because my child is has a school holiday (and is picking up daytime shifts at her part time job, so she needs the car.)”
        I’m not catastrophically extrapolating, I’m genuinely asking:
        If you have been working from home for two weeks every summer, why would you think, “oh, my kids aged out of my WFH privilege.”
        I wouldn’t.

        1. Dust Bunny*

          Why wouldn’t you think that, especially if the alleged policy was no WFH? Why wouldn’t you be working from home if the whole point was that you couldn’t leave your kids alone? Once they’re old enough to leave home alone, you can go back to the office.

          1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

            I’m flashing back the letter writer whose boss stayed home after the Covid lift because “parents can work from home.” She was still working from home for two years, while her kids were heading to college. The situation came to a head when C level got involved and one of letter writer’s peers brought receipts.
            He came to the meeting to discuss the labor disparity between parents and non parents with a spreadsheet showing two years of nonparent worked produced and overtime billed vs parents work produced and hours active.

            1. Potatoes Ramone*

              I’m looking for this letter, but if you remember it enough to find the link or title, that would also be great!

        2. Lynn Whitehat*

          I mean, it is possible to start working there at age 21, and at age 36 have small children who absolutely cannot be left at home. The whole policy is BS, but you could work at a place 15 years and have small children at the end of it.

          1. Cascadia*

            Yea, I’ve been at my company for 12 years and have a 2 year old – so definitely possible!

      2. LL*

        You can’t always plan appointments around your work hours. I can’t even plan my medical appointments around my work hours because the HMO I use only has regular appointments M-F, 9-5 (or maybe 8:30-5?).

        1. Mad Scientist*

          This is true, but in the LW’s case, it seems she would be required to use sick leave or PTO for appointments during work hours, whereas parents don’t need to.

    2. Wednesday wishes*

      and yeah, asking for documentation is brilliant- maybe that will help them rethink this policy!

  10. Wednesday wishes*

    I bet HR doesn’t actually know the extent of this- people are probably being given permission to work from home by their managers and not by HR. I would go right to HR with this and ask the question Alison proposed, but I’d make it way more apparent that parents are being allowed to WFH not just for emergencies, but for planned things like “summer break.” This means that people are actively working with the assumption that they will be given WFH permission even when they know months, even a year, in advance that they will need child care. These are not emergency circumstances. I would be asking HR why planned summer break is an exception but an injury where you can’t drive, or a dangerous snow day is not.

    1. higheredadmin*

      My issue with summer break is that this employer is not paying people to watch their own kids during the summer – they are paid to work. It’s this kind of nonsense that gets working from home taken away from everyone. (I say this as a parent of two kids.)

      1. Zombeyonce*

        Age makes a big difference for summer break childcare needs. Younger kids would keep someone from working, but there’s a whole period of years where all kids need is someone present in case of emergency, but can occupy themselves all day while a parent works. My kids are at ages where I definitely can’t leave them home alone because, well, it’s illegal, but I can get a whole day of work done when they’re there, including attending meetings.

        I’m not debating whether or not LW’s work policy is ridiculous (it is!), only clarifying that there are some circumstances where working from home with kids doesn’t equal abusing the system.

        1. Fluffy Fish*

          This. The problem isn’t the flexibility provided to parents – that’s wonderful, every employer should do that to the extent possible.

          The problem is that the policy of flexibility doesn’t apply to anyone else.

          Make sure we’re fighting the right enemy here – its the company not other employees.

  11. Elbe*

    For jobs that can allow for some remote work, not budging an inch on the in-office policy just seems strange and out-of-touch in today’s culture. Denying flexibility when it’s not being abused just seems so unnecessarily strict.

    Having that attitude only for non-parents is even more gross. I can’t imaging telling an employee “working from home isn’t allowed” when I know that multiple coworkers have WFH this very week.

    The advice to the LW was great, and I hope the LW can talk some sense into them.

    1. fpg*

      I completely agree with you, and yet, I’ve interviewed with a few companies where the strict mandate has been back to the office, no exceptions. (I was often misled in the application stage or the mandate has changed since I applied.)

    2. cncx*

      This part. I have a job that really needs some kind of in office presence but could probably be 1-2 days home office. I am fine with this, I hate home office, but if I worked in a place where I could not home office to let a repairman in, I would be not happy. There has to be some flexibility, like you said.

    3. LL*

      Unfortunately, the current culture has largely swung back to “people need to be in the office 5 days a week.” It’s so crappy.

      1. Elbe*

        I work for a large, corporate company that that has strict in-office rules. But even THEY would offer a day or two of flexibility if someone had a medical reason that they literally couldn’t drive.

        Even with the push to go back in-office, this level of inflexibility is so odd to me. I suspect that this is not the only issue that this workplace has.

  12. Nameless*

    Also interesting to note that at least one of the reasons the boss cited for working from home was NOT related to her kids (migraine). That could be executive privilege as the LW suggested, but seems like this policy is kind of all over the place. I think asking HR to document in writing what the policy is a good idea, because if they actually have to say it out loud (so to speak) it might underline some of the inconsistencies.

      1. KaciHall*

        Depends on the migraine. I can work if I take my meds soon enough, but driving is out of the question. I’m lucky in the sense that I get an aura about two hours before the pain part of the migraine starts – if I take my meds, and can turn the lights down, I can continue working at about 90%. If I can’t, I need to wait for the blurry vision to go away, drive home as fast as possible, and hide in a dark quiet room and can’t function for at least half a day.

        1. Laser99*

          Same. I’ve been trying to train everyone for years that a migraine is an illness, and should be treated as such. Not “just a headache.”

      2. KayDeeAye*

        It depends on the migraine. My bad ones, I can’t work at ALL. But if it’s kind of a medium one, I might be able to work but not want to drive due to the medication.

      3. birb*

        I can in complete dark and silence with my screen turned way down, which isn’t possible in office.

      4. Potato Potato*

        Depends on the migraine. I get daily migraines and can’t drive, but I can still WFH. It’s painful, but it’s my life. I’m just slower in the afternoon than the morning

    2. I AM a Lawyer*

      This was my question. Is the working from home solely for kid issues? Not that it makes it make any more sense, but if they were denying WFH to parents for non-kid issues, also, it would be slightly better or at least more consistent. I did not pick up on the migraine example so thank you for bringing that. In light of that, it’s even more egregious. Not only do they get to work from home for kid stuff, but for things that have nothing to do with them being parents? That’s bizarre.

  13. Someone Else's Boss*

    As someone who doesn’t have, or want, children, I tend to stand up for my “rights” as a childless person pretty staunchly. So much so that when my last job told me I had to work late one day because the other staff members “have to get home to their kids,” I found a new job. I told everyone as I was leaving the exact reason why: Why would I want to work for an organization that has told me I am not as valuable of a person because I haven’t procreated?

    1. not nice, don't care*

      Same. I’m sure we’ll see a lot more preferential treatment of parents under the current federal regime, as shitty employers realize there are no penalties for discrimination.

      1. Zombeyonce*

        I actually think the opposite will happen, especially to women. We’re likely going to lose a lot of the protections we’ve had, especially around pregnancy and other disabilities. A lot of company policies offering help to parents and caregivers (mat and pat leave, on-site childcare, flexible schedules, etc.) will be revoked. I worry for the future of FMLA, which helps a lot more people than just parents, and ADA accommodations.

        1. Nobby Nobbs*

          The usual practice from that lot is penalizing non-motherhood for women while providing shit-all support for mothers, so… yup, you got it.

        2. Roland*

          Hear hear. I’m as annoyed as the next person about OP’s situation but let’s not pretend that working moms are privileged as a group in the US. Especially when it comes to jobs that aren’t office jobs where we can even argue about wfh in the first place.

  14. Rara Avis*

    My employer has been required (by our insurer, I think?) to conduct a dependent audit, and I have to prove that my child exists.

    1. Emmie*

      I have seen dependent audits for medical insurance benefits. I have not seen it in any other situation.

    2. bananners*

      Oh yes we had to do this last year, I totally forgot about that. It was for insurance – a lot of concern about dependents being covered that weren’t eligible. It was a fun exercise.

    3. MikeM_inMD*

      Last year I had to prove I was married to my wife. I had to send them a copy of a “Signed Marriage Certificate” and one of a list of other documents showing both of us as a household. It was pretty easy to do, but it seemed a silly thing to question after 38.5 years of marriage.

    4. What_the_What*

      Unless you are claiming them as insured dependents, it’s none of your employer’s business if you have children at home or not. If you ARE claiming them, well that’s a whole different thing.

  15. So Tired*

    I feel like productivity while WFH isn’t actually that much of a worry for the company–LW says parents have been allowed to WFH when day cares closed or childcare fell through. That sounds like parents with kids young enough to need constant or near-constant supervision (a toddler or kindergartner, as opposed to a child who is 10 or 11, for example). If that’s the case, then those parents aren’t going to be as productive simply by virtue of needing to keep an eye on their kids. So it just makes it seem more like the company wants to provide incentives to parents and not to non-parents.

    LW, I hope that raising this again using some of Allison’s suggested language makes something finally click for those in charge and non-parents are able to have more flexibility!

    1. Jay (no, the other one)*

      That’s what struck me. Aside from the pandemic lockdown when childcare was not available to most people, every place I’ve worked that allows WFH requires employees to have childcare for kids under a certain age. And even kids over that age can get in the way – my kid was 16 when I took my first WFH job and she apparently figured that if Mom was present, Mom was available, despite being repeatedly told that was not the case. It’s much more of a problem to allow people to WFH when they don’t have child care than when they are dealing with home repairs or temporary inability to drive.

  16. workingdayandnight*

    We had this issue years before working from home became a thing. Parents were constantly coming in late, leaving early, staying home with a sick kid, etc. There was one woman who was single who always had to cover for anyone who was out. She constantly complained about how unfair it was. Then she got married and had a kid and she was worse than anyone before her. She was out of the office way more than she was in and her excuse was always, “I have a child!” Eventually she was let go but I felt sorry for her. I think all that pent up anger from all those years she covered for everyone came out the wrong way.

    2. LL*

      Yeah and IMO, the company owed it to her for all the years she had to cover for everyone else. Although the better thing to do would have been to say no in the moment.

      1. Reluctant Mezzo*

        If she thought she could. Being able to be fired at will and needing health insurance changes a person’s perception of how hard they could push back.

  17. Mileage*

    LW, are the parents aware of this disparity? Because there are so many parents vs non-parents they may not have realised you’re being treated differently (the letter mentioned above about the secret benefits is a good example – you’d think that would be noticed, but apparently not). Maybe you can get a couple of parents on your side for this – though you’ll have to put out the feelers on that and know your colleagues, they might just as well be the type who thinks parents *should* have special privileges like this and that you should procreate if you wish to work from home.

    1. Productivity Pigeon*

      This is a very good point!

      I’d be incredibly angry if I heard of a childless colleague being denied WFH when there was a medical or personal need simply because they didn’t have children!

      1. Zombeyonce*

        I can also see parents hearing about this and being worried to speak up in support of LW in case it meant losing the flexibility they have.

        1. Productivity Pigeon*

          That is definitely a risk, you’re right.

          I HOPE I’d still be on the side of the childless coworker but I can’t be sure.

        2. Mileage*

          Yeah, fear of speaking up because the wfh may be revoked for everyone rather than expanded to everyone is also a distinct possibility that I forgot about.

          Again, LW, you know your situation best, but it’s worth considering.

          1. Someone Online*

            Perhaps I am cynical in my middle age, but I assume that is what’s going to happen.

  18. Heather*

    Maybe Allison can ask for comments about non monetary perks and what people get vs what they don’t at work. I don’t think we have had a post like that in some time. Post Covid has changed a lot of those so maybe we need a good updated post about it.

  19. Jay (no, the other one)*

    I was 39 when my kid was born and I spent the first chunk of my career as the only person at my level who didn’t have kids. Few things annoyed me as much as being told I “didn’t have a family.” I did, in fact, have a family – parents, in-laws, husband, siblings – as well as a life outside of the office. I was willing to be more flexible and cover for people when needed. I was not willing to work more hours than people with kids and I was not willing to have my activities dismissed as unimportant. No, I don’t work late Tuesdays because I have choir practice. Yes, that’s every Tuesday and no, I can’t miss it “just this once.”

    1. Laser99*

      I believe Alison once suggested the rejoinder, “Of course I have a family. I wasn’t hatched from an egg.”

    2. Spacewoman Spiff*

      I still wish I could go back to earlier in my career, when I was identified as a possible last-minute sub to go to a conference on behalf of a colleague who was sick. It was between me and another woman, neither of us wanted to go (we literally had a day’s notice)…but it fell to me, because she had a husband and shouldn’t have to spend the night away from her family. I’m still angry about it and wish I’d had the confidence back then to point out that despite being single I also might have a life. I feel lucky I haven’t run into this type of attitude at any of my jobs since!

      1. MyBitchFaceNeverRests*

        Oh I’m still furious about being let go from a job. I had been there just under a year. Glowing reviews. We were a govt. contractor and one of our consultants was asked to be removed from his project due to “he does NOTHING” so he was brought back to our office, and I was told that we were only funded for one person in my role, and “Lucifer has a family to support and you have *husband* to support you, so I’m going to have to let you go.” I just looked at him, then left to go to the bathroom and cry and cuss loudly. He had the temerity to ask my colleague why I was so upset. He honestly thought it seemed perfectly reasonable to keep the slacker husband, who’d essentially been fired from his assignment, on and let me go.

  20. Rhubarb Crumble*

    I wonder if they would be violating the ADA if they refused a disabled person (thats not a parent).the right to work from home but other non-disabled people were allowed?

    1. Reluctant Mezzo*

      Better check on that fast, the ADA is going to be deported to El Salvador along with a lot of other things if some people have their way.

    2. Mad Scientist*

      I think this would only apply if formal accommodations were involved. You can request formal accommodations for a temporary condition such as an injury, but the process is often so slow that it could be a moot point by the time accomodations are approved.

  21. Ex-Teacher*

    I know in NYS, “Familial status” is a protected class. All supporting information indicates that the primary focus is to protect parents from negative decisions based on parental status. That said, “positive” discrimination based on protected class status is also not allowable.

    Definitely remember to check state laws as well as federal. Several states have additional protections above and beyond federal protections.

    1. a perfectly normal-sized space bird*

      Yes this, it can vary so much by state and other jurisdiction, which is a problem because with the patch work of state laws is each state defines what a family is. I used to work in low income housing and (back then, it may have changed) federally we were only allowed to classify a family if there was at least one minor child living with them. Married couple with no kids? Not a family. Parents with adult kids living at home? Not a family. Parents with triplets would suddenly be classified as not a family when their kids turned 18. You could have three generations of people living together along with their siblings and their families but unless one person was under the age of 18, they weren’t considered a family.

      It really ticked me off, especially when my bosses would tell me things like “It’s not discriminating against familial status if they don’t have kids” as they were denying applications for lower income married couples, most of which were simply looking for affordable housing so they could start a family. As a pregnant person by themself was considered a family, I may have let it slip a few times to prospective applicants about what was considered a family and suddenly we found that the on-paper pregnancy rate went up.

  22. JJ*

    Even as a parent, finding out a co-worker was not afforded the same flexibility that I was for dealing with life situations would make me pretty mad. It’s not a fair policy. The “whether I can WFH or would have to take PTO to wait for an HVAC repair guy” question is actually the question I use to gauge flexibility in interviews.

  24. Statler von Waldorf*

    This would be illegal in Canada, as parental status is covered under human rights legislation in Canada federally and in all the provinces that I am aware of.

    It still happens all the time, but at least there is the possibility of justice if you have the time, money, and a bit of luck to prove it in court.

  25. Productivity Pigeon*

    Things like these make me so mad!

    I’m generally very supportive of parents in the workplace needing accommodations and I’m often prepared to help out parents.

    But I also have a family, I just don’t have children.
    I am single but my household of one is a family too. And I have elderly parents. They’re my family.

  26. Dust Bunny*

    Nobody in my office has children/has children who aren’t grown and gone. My coworker’s elderly dog is actively trying to decide if he wants to live through today or not. Coworker is frantic; she came by to get something early this morning and couldn’t even talk (her neighbor was watching the dog). Fortunately, she can WFH to watch him/rush him to the vet/call the mobile vet.

    People who don’t have kids can have very good reasons to need some flexibility, too.

  27. Tradd*

    This sort of thing makes me hopping mad. Furious. As a single, child free older woman I’ve had this sort of thing my entire career. The parents I’ve worked with who’ve had the ability to come and go because of kid stuff – no just kids out sick or doctor appt – but constantly leaving early for things like kids sports – have been clueless that there was anything wrong with the slack they were cut. I had to stay late or do extra stuff for the parents so many times.

    1. workingdayandnight*

      Yeah. It happened to a lot of us single women. I stayed late every night for over a year to cover for a married-with-children partner through a long term project. When it was a success, the partner got the promotion and raise – I was told it was because he had a family to support. Obviously the boss was also male.

    2. Paint N Drip*

      This is just my personal recent bugbear, but not only can my female colleagues leave early for kid stuff, my male colleagues are ENCOURAGED to do so and lauded as super-dads when they do (one salaried coworker has a regular schedule of 9-3 because there is always some practice or game or whatever, and yes he does make way more than me)

  28. Chocoholic*

    I’ve always wondered where companies come down on situations where the kids are old enough to either stay home alone when sick or don’t live in your house anymore (i.e., the kids are teenagers or adults).

    My kids are 19 and 21, and except for certain medical appointments where they have request my presence (most recently an oral surgery consult for wisdom teeth removal), they pretty much do their own thing.

    Yes, I have kids but they aren’t really kids anymore. For purposes of this policy, would I count as not having kids?

  29. CoffeeCoffeeCoffee*

    I worked for a university that had a policy like that- they occasionally allowed WFH when someone’s kids (or even grandkids) were sick. I asked to WFH for ONE day when my mother was recovering from surgery and needed to be driven to a doctor’s appointment and was told WFH was “not available.” Unsurprisingly, I found a new job and left two months later; if they’re rigid and inflexible about this one issue- I guarantee they’ll be rigid and inflexible about plenty of others too; it’s only the tip of a dysfunctional iceberg.

    1. Productivity Pigeon*

      How ridiculous! It’s such a small thing to grant but such a demotivating thing to be denied!

    1. iglwif*

      I have a child (well, an adult now haha) and I also find it infuriating!

      Several jobs ago I managed a team at an org where the CEO deeply hated WFH. He liked to look around the office and see people doing stuff. (I wasn’t still there when COVID hit, but I’m told he was very cranky about how well WFH went when they were forced to implement it. Then he retired.)

      Nobody else on my team had kids — they were all pretty young — but some had long transit commutes, dogs with health problems, family obligations … all sorts of reasons that a WFH day once a week would have been helpful for all of us.

      In no way did our work require being in the office! It was like 80% head-down file-wrangling, 5% keeping track of stuff, and 15% meetings/chatting for updates and trouble-shooting. And we didn’t even pay well, so WFH would’ve been a really useful benefit to be able to offer people. It was incredibly frustrating to know that a WFH day or two would help me attract and retain good people and be told I couldn’t offer it because … the big boss didn’t like it.

  31. Cynan*

    This line from the letter jumped out at me:

    “I am dealing with an issue that affects my ability to drive but not my ability to work, and I was told I have to either come into the office or use my sick leave because working from home isn’t an option.”

    If the “issue” in question is a medical one (and rises to the level of a disability), that actually might be illegal. Employers covered by the ADA have to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities, and it would be really hard for an employer to argue that WFH isn’t a reasonable accommodation for a disability when they routinely let employees who happen to have kids work remotely.

    Otherwise, yeah, definitely bad management, probably legal, but bad.

      1. Governmint Condition*

        It can be. Here, we would require a note for a doctor stating that the employee requires a reasonable accommodation. If it is temporary, the note should say so.

  32. Blackbeard*

    This is infuriating. If I were the OP I’d be pushing furiously to get WFH, and in the meantime looking for another job which doesn’t forbid WFH for BS-related reasons. Or, as said by other commenters, find yourself in a fictitious relationship with (insert person name here) which happens to have kids.

  33. HB*

    If someone CAN WFH, I think everyone should be granted a set number of days per year that they can work from home if something comes up. It should be the same for everyone. Say 10 days a year.

  34. SB*

    I suspect this started because parents were like, “if I can’t work from home, I need to take PTO” … the employer decided they wanted them working more than they cared about the in-office mandate.

    It’s not fair, of course, when it comes to flexibility. The company inconvenienced the OP when they wouldn’t her WFH, but she didn’t mention that she took PTO. She was still able to work on site even though it was inconvenient.

    Not having child care for a kid would be a deal breaker for a lot people. That age of about 6-10, where your kid is kind of self-sufficient but still can’t be left alone for 10 hours because they might burn down the house and/die, is a problem. But if they can be in the other room while you’re in meetings….well at least the employer gets some work out of the employee and no one gets hurt or arrested for child neglect.

    And to be clear – I’m not on the company’s side here. It’s not their job to decide whose needs are more important. But I bet the parents collectively threatened to walk and/or take PTO if they couldn’t WFH. Because no one is going to let their kid die to hit some stupid metric.

    1. What_the_What*

      So, the non parents should also collectively say, “if we can’t WFH, we will either take PTO or possibly walk,” as well then? I’m a parent in my late 50s. Until the pandemic I’d never had the opportunity to WFH, and it was on *me* (and hubby to a lesser degree) to find, manage and maintain childcare until our children were mostly non-feral. Making it the company’s and the non-parents problem isn’t a solution. Either everyone can WFH as situations demand, or nobody can. The way they’re doing it is completely wrong. And even parents who WFH should have child care in place because trying to do both just means doing 2 things half-assed simultaneously.

  35. shrug*

    I wonder what would happen if you just…did it. If you use a laptop at work, and just took it home with you, would anyone really know? I guess at some point I’d just stop asking and start doing.

    2. MyBitchFaceNeverRests*

      Short of creating a hologram to sit at her desk…. I suspect they would very quickly notice she doesn’t appear to be there.

  36. Anon for this*

    I worked at a company like this years ago, and it was miserable. In theory, we were allowed to work from home in extenuating circumstances. I have chronic health conditions that flare up unexpectedly sometimes, and I’d ask to work from home when that happened. My own direct manager was actually great about it, but then other people (including our department manager) would take it as a personal offense that I was out. (This same department manager once got on my case about my unexpected absence from a team meeting… on a day I called in before work started and used a full sick day because I couldn’t get out of bed.) Meanwhile, my coworkers who had kids would WFH regularly because of sick kids, school closures, etc, and nobody ever blinked an eye at it. It was very frustrating and demoralizing when Sally is messaging our team group chat that she was just outside sledding with her kids for half an hour, but I got “talked to” by the department manager for not being able to come in due to the weather and would get penalized if I was inactive on Teams for too long. :\

  37. Elizabeth West*

    They’re going to lose people over this. It may be legal, but it’s hypocritical and sh*tty. If I took a job I thought was hybrid and found it was like this, I would start looking.

  38. Rajveet*

    Does the USA not have protection for correlative characteristics? I am gay. I am far less likely to have children as my husband cannot impregnate me. Here, discriminating against non-parents would be seen as discrimination against gay people, and also against disabled people, because of the overlap in these characteristics. Alison mentioned in the article that it would be illegal if they explicitly said it was only for men, but what if the bias is implicit?

    1. Paint N Drip*

      USA is generally focused on a ‘right to work’ where workers have little to no protections – implicit bias is rarely accounted for. Our current government (regime?) has us losing our human rights at a rapid pace, any protections workers have had in recent years are likely to be undone soon

  39. Raida*

    Honestly I’d tell my boss “I won’t be in on [day] because I’m waiting for a delivery. Hey, you just let me know if WfH can be a thing so we don’t waste all this time.”
    But I’m in Aus, so we get four weeks of rec leave a year, much less thought needs to go into “will i take a day off”

    And I wouldn’t, to be clear, *ask* for a day off. I’m talking about declaring “This is what will happen. I would do otherwise if possible. Not possible? Then that’s what is happening.”

    Even if it was, like, everyone who isn’t a parent gets five days a year of “fuck it’d be handy if I was WfH”

    1. Disappointed with the Staff*

      But we have a whole culture around chucking a sickie as well as employment protections etc that the poor bastards in the USA can only dream of. Not to mention the famous Australian vernacular that makes telling our boss exactly where they can put their decision and how far to push it in so very colourful.

  40. PandemicBarber*

    I just want to support OP in their situation. I absolutely worked at a place that only allowed parents to work from home. Not just emergencies…every Friday, Monday, sunny day, you name it. I asked if I might be able to WFH in particularly bad weather and was told NO. In -30 weather I had a fall getting to my car and sustained a head injury. When I got to work, I found that all the parents worked from home that day. I raised this with HR who parroted the family friendly line. I guess my life just didn’t count.

  41. Anon for this*

    This makes me so angry. I have no children and probably won’t…I would have welcomed the opportunity but it just didn’t happen. However, I am the caregiver for my dad who has dementia, and I absolutely would lose my mind if my employer would make me eat into sick time instead of work from home for managing his hospital visits and additional care. Employers need to judge on results, not location of work.

  42. TheBunny*

    I feel this one. So much.

    I accepted my current job as in office. And whenever any of us mention the lack of flexibility we’re always told that we accepted an in office job.

    Know what we weren’t told? In office with no WFH only applies to the 5 of us on a certain team. That definitely makes it different. It’s not illegal but it’s certainly awful. And it’s going to end up being one of the reasons I give when I do leave eventually. I’ll mention it first to my boss who is, you guessed it, fully remote.

    We are absolutely able to WFH. And with 5 of us we could even stagger it so there’s always someone in the office. Yes it’s been suggested. The reply? Yup. You were all hired as in office.

    People hired after us? You guessed it. Hybrid. It’s literally just the 5 of us. On Fridays the rest of the people who are on another team are all WFH. I really enjoy walking past those empty offices on the way to mine. You know since we’re all in office. Whatever.

    Unless it works for them. Construction so no one can come to the office? Oh NOW you can work from home.

    It’s a small thing. It is. But it’s also the thing that tips me over the edge.

  43. iglwif*

    Just popping in to say that I am a parent and find this policy absurd, unfair, and stupid.

  44. PleaseNo*

    I thought status as a parent (which includes not being a parent) has some legal protections …

  45. Susannah*

    I want us to accommodate parents. But that means accommodating the personal lives of single and childless people as well.
    When I was working in a bureau for a newspaper, we had weekend duty (meaning you were on call when your rotation came up – didn’t mean you absolutely had to work. And we got paid OT). One man had two daughters, and screamed that he should not have to be on duty when he “had” to drive his girls to their soccer games. That would mean… childless folks like me were supposed to pick up his work obligations, I guess.
    He said, “should I be punished because I have children?” To which I say, “should *I* be punished because he has children?” Because that’s what he wanted (and often got).
    The discrimination against single and childless individuals in this country is appalling. LW’s case is only one example of it.

    1. PandemicBarber*

      That’s really it. Family friendly can’t be on the backs of workers without children. So many places that I worked had only one back up plan for FMLA/bereavement/parental leave….me. Double the work for sometimes 6 months, no extra pay and the boot in the ass was that since I was doing two jobs my leave requests would be denied.

      I’ve seen this is offices, hospitals and industrial sites. The person without kids can’t be the only solution ever.

Comments are closed.