update: my company secretly gives parents thousands of extra dollars in benefits

by Alison Green on December 4, 2024

It’s “where are you now?” month at Ask a Manager, and all December I’m running updates from people who had their letters here answered in the past.

There will be more posts than usual this week, so keep checking back throughout the day.

Remember the letter-writer who found out their company secretly gives parents thousands of extra dollars in benefits? Here’s the update.

Thanks to you and everyone in the comments for, before anything else, validating my opinions that this is bananas! A few notes/answers:

The child-free staff obviously noticed a lot of these things! Most of them, even! We just didn’t assume “our organization’s supervisors are running a secret benefits club” because that would be insane, right?!? Ha. To give some examples, most colleagues with kids made one weekly appearance in the office during the summer, so we attributed the extra remote days to their managers being nice, not a formal policy exemption. We’d see coworkers attend events as guests (and loved when they believed in our events enough to bring their families!) but we didn’t know they still got comp time. Honestly, the only people who took 100% advantage of every perk offered, no questions asked, were independently known to be … asshats. My favorite example: my boss is universally loathed in the office — they’re the kind of person who emails you projects on Saturday night, texts you about it on Sunday morning, then yells at you if it’s not done Monday morning before they hand me all their work to leave the office at 2 pm. The office has lovingly nicknamed them “NWC” for “No White Clothes” because you’ll never see them in the office between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

Someone in the comments questioned how the child-free managers felt about this and it helped me realize that every single person in the C-suite and director level had kids, as did probably two-thirds of the manager level. Most of the managers who didn’t have kids living with them were older empty-nesters who did have kids under their roof at one point, too. I honestly couldn’t think of a single parent who didn’t report to another parent. But I doubt that had anything to do with these policies (*rolls eyes as high as possible*). I should say, that didn’t impact who did or didn’t get promoted into certain roles: parents and non-parents alike were deservedly hired or promoted from within; it did obviously impact which supervisor was assigned to which person.

Yes, apparently if you have your first child while working there, you then get told about the “expanded benefits packages to accommodate your new family.” It seems the colleagues are so pleasantly surprised at all the benefits they aren’t retroactively angry (or maybe they are and feel it’s better to keep the secret).

We do have a small, understaffed HR department. One person who is basically the liaison between us and a PEO for benefits and payroll, and a director who mostly does interviews and handles complaints. Both parents.

To try and fix this (especially because I had been regularly interviewing to leave and didn’t want to do it alone in the event I got a new job and left it behind), I spoke to some trusted colleagues, one a parent and two child-free. The colleague who was a parent, I also learned, had joined as a parent and was not given a big “don’t tell the others” speech, it was just suggested they have discretion around benefits so we don’t “let money get in the way of teamwork.” The two child-free colleagues had no idea about this and were enraged. The four of us met and, the Monday after your answer, put together some language and emailed our HR department and managers to outline that we knew about the benefits differences and were 100% prepared to publicly share with the full organization and an employment lawyer if they did not work to balance out the benefits, or at least publicize the differences so non-parents can choose whether or not they want to work here. I got a response that they’d “be looking into it” and suddenly a number of directors and managers (including my boss), the C-suite, HR, and some board members were meeting for hours at a time that week.

That Friday, an email went out that basically said benefits would be changing to “match the changing needs of our organization.” However, it didn’t acknowledge previous differences. Generally it meant that non-parents got the extra time off, comp days are only given if you complete a volunteer shift, and we would have a universal in-office day of Wednesday during the summers, but be remote the other four days. However, some benefits weren’t changing: you were still only eligible for family gym memberships if you had kids (“there is no couples membership at Organization,” so non-families were just SOL), leaving early without taking PTO was only for school pickups, and no announced change to our retirement benefits.

If not happy with the response (we weren’t!), my colleagues and I were planning to tell everyone, but we didn’t even have to. Sadly I missed this while out of town for a wedding, but apparently a parent in the office got this email just before entering a Zoom. He didn’t realize there were some non-parents already logged on and said out loud to another parent something along the lines of “Did anyone else see this? I don’t get it, it’s just our benefits but now I have to be in on Wednesdays!” Cue the questions, cue the firestorm, cue everyone being told to log off and go home at noon on a Friday.

Since then, multiple people have quit out of pure rage (incluidng some parents who were also told to have discretion and were disgusted with the org), the C-level exec who originally spearheaded these benefits resigned, and all the non-parents have collectively agreed to refuse to go in the office until everything is more equal. Almost every benefit that was given to parents will now be offered org-wide (they are even creating a couples’ gym membership) but, interestingly, they have not touched the one thing that seemed to rile up the comments section the most: retirement matching! Apparently, because families with kids spend more money, and the changing economy means more young adults need financial support from their parents in their 20’s, parents need more money in retirement to make up for it. This is a sticking point the non-parents are really fighting against, and the org seems to be adamant they won’t budge on.

Lucky for me, the reason I’m not joining them in that good fight is that I’m writing this having submitted my two weeks. Found an interesting new job (and used your advice on interviews and in negotiations) and submitted my notice. There was still some drama: My aforementioned asshat boss NWC responded by taking multiple projects away from my fellow non-parents, saying “they can’t do it while on their remote strike” and assigning them to me (~120 hours of group work to be done alone in 10 working days). Extra lucky for me, I have a family member and a college friend who are both employment lawyers; they helped me craft an email saying that because I’ve been assigned an unreasonable amount of work on an impossible timeline after being a whistleblower for the benefits issue, I could and would sue for retaliation. An hour later I got a call from HR letting me know that my work had been reassigned and that once I’d finished editing an exit doc for my successor, I could log off permanently and still be paid for the full notice period and get my vacation payouts. Currently basking in the glow of paid funemployment. (When I’m done writing this, my wife and I are going to get drinks and lunch! At 2 in the afternoon! On a Tuesday!)

Thanks again to the comments for the suggestions and making me feel less like a bewildered baboon, and to you for your sage advice with this question and so many others! I’m aware of my privilege in having understanding colleagues and literally being able to text two employment lawyers and get good, pro bono advice within a day. Not everyone has that, so thank you for providing the resource.

You may also like:
{ 262 comments }

{ 262 comments… read them below or add one }

  1. Slow Gin Lizz*

    WOW! Good for you, OP, for all your successful fighting back against this org and NWC, and congratulations on your paid funemployment! Hope you had an excellent drinks date with your wife and good luck in the new job!

    Reply ↓
    1. Hlao-roo*

      Seconding all of this. Well done pushing back as part of a (small) group instead of as an individual. And I’m glad it worked out that someone not in your group was the one to (unintentionally) spill the beans to the company at large.

      Hope you are enjoying your new job, and thanks for sharing all of this drama with us!

      Reply ↓
    1. Keeley Jone, The Independent Woman*

      Yes! My husband has a lot of medical appointments and can’t drive so I accompany him (and to make sure he’s remembering everything he needs to tell his doctor) and we typically make a point to get lunch just the two of us. It always has that “we’re skipping school/work” vibe. All for Date Days!

      Reply ↓
  4. Silver Robin*

    Oh to be a fly on those walls… incredible update OP, and well done to all of you and your colleagues’ work calling their bs for what it is

    Reply ↓
      1. MsM*

        Productive drama! Apart from the retirement benefits, but I hope the non-parents end up winning that one, too. Maybe OP can pass along his employment lawyer contacts.

        Reply ↓
        1. The Prettiest Curse*

          Productive drama is exactly the right phrase! Sometimes a lot of drama has to go down for stuff to actually change.

          Reply ↓
        2. Guacamole Bob*

          And even if they don’t win or it takes a while, having it out in the open lets current and potential employees make good decisions for themselves. The secrecy of it all was a huge part of the problem (absolutely not the only one, but in general when you’re keeping secrets from a large part of your workforce about benefits that others are receiving, you’re probably not on a good path).

          Reply ↓
          1. MigraineMonth*

            The secrecy was required for the rest of the shenanigans, I think. Look how quickly it all collapsed once the curtain was pulled back!

            Reply ↓
  6. HonorBox*

    Thank you for the update! Congratulations on your new role. Enjoy the couple of weeks off. I’m glad you said something, were able to do so with others, had a parent on board, and there was some positive change. It’ll be interesting to hear more from you if/when you get any tea from your former colleagues. Please keep us updated!

    Reply ↓
  7. Dust Bunny*

    We’re already having a low-key entertaining week at work here and then I pull up AAM and read this? Score!

    Also: Not White Clothes? I’m dying.

    Reply ↓
    1. WheresMyPen*

      I’m not sure I understand the Not White Clothes nickname, maybe because I’m a Brit and we don’t celebrate Memorial Day or Labor Day. Could someone explain please?

      Reply ↓
      1. juliebulie*

        For people who care about such things, it is gauche to wear white before Memorial Day (in May) or after Labor Day (in September).

        Reply ↓
      2. Tobias Funke*

        There is a hoity-toity “rule” (don’t @ me, all this high society stuff is contrived and based in nothing) that it’s only appropriate to wear white between late May (US Memorial Day) and early September (US Labor Day). So if there are No White Clothes, they ain’t been in the office in the summer at all.

        Reply ↓
        1. JSPA*

          This explaining “winter white” (an off-white suitable for the other months). I wonder if it originally had to do with not being invisible against the snow, for safety’s sake???

          Reply ↓
          1. Selina Luna*

            It didn’t. Wearing white used to be a symbol of wealth, since it’s hard to clean and stains easily, and the wealthy used to wear white to stay cool when they went to the countryside during the summer months. During the winter months, when the wealthy would return to the “dirty” cities (I suppose, at the time, the cities were dirty), they would return to clothes that wouldn’t show dirt as much.

            Reply ↓
            1. Kevin Sours*

              A lot of cities in the early industrial age had a permanent fog of coal smoke clinging to them (which lasted until relatively recently if I’m honest). London, in particular, was notorious for this.

              It turns out that modern air pollution regulations have been wildly successful.

              Reply ↓
              1. CV*

                Yes!

                My mother, who is in her late 80s, remembers having to clean the house every single day because of the deposits of coal dust that would drift in from outside, even with the windows closed.

                Reply ↓
              2. Selina Luna*

                Yes, I know. I actually used to teach a unit on Victorian-era London (as part of my Dickens unit). And certainly, the countryside was less smoggy than that. In this day and age, there’s an unfortunate tendency for cities to be called dirty even when they’re not just because they’re diverse. This is, of course, nonsense.

                Reply ↓
                1. Jess*

                  There is a patch of St Paul’s cathedral inside the church on the wall that they didn’t clean – apparently it’s from the coal smoke. It’s very clearly a different colour than the rest of the wall.

      3. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

        There is a sort of old-school “rule” that one should not wear white clothing before Memorial Day (end of May in US) or after Labor Day (beginning of September). So, white clothes are only to be worn during the summer. No one considers this an actual rule any more any more AFAIK.

        Reply ↓
        1. LaurCha*

          My understanding here in the Deep South is that white *shoes* are gauche in the summer. (There’s an entire scene in Serial Mom where Patty Hearst beats up a woman for wearing white shoes after Labor Day.)

          When I was growing up in New Orleans, the opening of white shoe season was Easter instead of Memorial Day, for whatever reason.

          The lawyers down here also only wear seersucker suits and white buck shoes in the summer.

          Reply ↓
          3. Coverage Associate*

            Obviously, it wasn’t all white clothes on all people that were gauche outside the summer. Men’s dress shirts were white year round, and modern working women could wear white blouses year round. But, yeah, white cotton and linen to stay cool in the summer.

            And it’s now funny to me that “white shoe” applies outside the South. I don’t know if any Manhattan lawyer ever wore white shoes to the office. But if he worked at Cravath, he could afford shoes he never wore.

            Reply ↓
          4. Marie Antoin-not*

            Gauche means NOT done. A faux pas.
            So in this example, white shoes are gauche AFTER Labor Day, and are fine or expected or “de rigeur” ?! During the sunmertime

            Reply ↓
      4. Archi-detect*

        Memorial day in late May and Labor day in early September are federal/bank holidays here that mark the unofficial beginning and end of summer so wearing white after labor day is a fashon taboo of some severity leading to this joke

        Reply ↓
      5. Nony mouse*

        It’s old fashioned now, but when there used to be a “rule” that you shouldn’t wear white after Labor Day (in September) and before Memorial Day (in May).

        Reply ↓
        1. Worldwalker*

          I remember as a child when I was first allowed to pick out my own clothes for the day, my mother came down all over me for picking something white after Labor Day. That would have been somewhere in the late 60s.

          Reply ↓
          1. Moose*

            One of my friends once tried to wear a white jean jacket the week after Labor Day and her mom made her go home and change! This was, believe it or not, 2022 at earliest

            Reply ↓
            1. Been There Done That*

              I could be wrong, but I think it is now ok to wear white jean jackets post Labor Day, but I don’t know why that rule changed. Who knows?? I was also taught that linen was a fabric for between Easter and Labor Day, HOWEVER, this year I decided that if it was still 95 degrees after Labor Day, which it always is in Texas, then I would continue to wear linen pants until such time as the temperature dropped below 80. BUT I will admit they were black linen pants – just couldn’t do white linen after Labor Day. Baby steps! LOL.

              Reply ↓
          2. Ms. Eleanous*

            Some people attend large “white parties” (all races — it’s about the clothes) over memorial day weekend, where guests are strongly encouraged to wear their posh white clothes — sort of a welcome, summer idea

            Reply ↓
      6. old curmudgeon*

        Back in the early-mid 20th century, there used to be a fashion dictate that white clothing could only be worn during the summer, defined as approximately June 1 to August 31. So manager “No White Clothes” has never been seen wearing white clothes because they are never in-office within that date range.

        Reply ↓
        1. Happily Retired*

          “So manager “No White Clothes” has never been seen wearing white clothes because they are never in-office within that date range.”

          Ahh, THIS. Now I completely get it.

          Reply ↓
      7. Happily Retired*

        Sure! Memorial Day is at the end of May, and Labor Day at the beginning of September. For ole skool etiquette observers, you mustn’t wear white shoes outside this summery period. It was considered incredibly gauche.

        So I read NWS as “you NEVER” get a summer-like break; you’re on the clock 24/7/365.

        Reply ↓
          1. stacers*

            I have long thought the same — it was only white shoes, not white clothes. Every time it comes up, I wonder if I mixed it up or if the no white shoes morphed into no white clothes? It’s bewildering.

            Reply ↓
            2. Dust Bunny*

              No white shoes is a relaxing of no white clothes.

              I’m not old (or formal) enough to have been part and parcel of this practice myself, but I definitely knew about it through my more status-conscious grandmother.

              Reply ↓
            3. Seashell*

              I think it’s traditionally just white pants or skirts. White shirts or sweaters are OK in the winter/spring/fall.

              Reply ↓
              1. doreen*

                It was traditionally white shoes, pants, skirts, dresses, belts, and bags. White shirts, sweaters, gloves/mittens, winter hats were always fine. And as far I can tell from old photos, it only applied in places where the weather from Sept to May was very different, not to “shorts all year round” climates.

                Reply ↓
      8. M2RB*

        There’s an old fashion standard that dictates no white clothes between Labor Day in the fall and Memorial Day in the spring. I’m seeing lots of speculation that it’s a classist way to easily identify wealthy from non-wealthy as well as the practical matter of lighter colors being cooler in hot weather and darker colors being warmer in cold weather.

        Some people still follow this habit; others don’t care. I grew up in the Southeastern US and remember during childhood that my mom would put away my white shoes during the winter months.

        Link from Farmer’s Almanac to follow in the next comment.

        Reply ↓
        2. Ann O'Nemity*

          I thought the “rule” of only wearing white in the summer originated because wealthy people in the past would wear white clothing during their summer vacations, signifying their ability to leave the city and avoid getting their light-colored clothes dirty on the dirty streets, which were often covered in dirt and horse manure; essentially, wearing white after Labor Day was seen as a sign of not being part of the working class who couldn’t afford to spend summers away from the city.

          Reply ↓
      9. The Prettiest Curse*

        Others have explained the clothing “rule” below, but basically the nickname implied that the manager was never around between the end of May and the start of September.

        Reply ↓
      10. SpaceySteph*

        Not wearing white after labor day was popularized by the wealthy “Hamptons” set, people who left New York City for the summer and spent it seaside in the Hamptons (in Long Island, New York). They wore white because it was cooler (before modern breathable fabrics especially, but even still… white is cooler in the sun than dark colors) but also COULD wear white because they were spending their summers in a life of leisure, not working class. (Before modern washing technology, people wouldn’t wear white to garden or clean or cook because it showed dirt and stains).

        But they also didn’t wear white in the city, which was itself pretty dirty before modern sanitation, and any respectable person would be done hanging out in the Hamptons after Labor Day and return to their normal city life.

        Its funny that its more alive in the US South now, when it started as a New Yorker tradition, but is likely because the Deep South is still obsessed with decorum and somewhat arbitrary rules in ways that the North no longer is. (I live in Alabama, although I am not from the South originally)

        Reply ↓
      11. Born in the USA*

        I didn’t get it either and I’m US American. Never heard of it! So thank you for asking. And to all of you above for explaining!

        Reply ↓
    1. Myfavoriteseasonisupdateseason*

      We’re almost never there because the internet cannot be trusted to respond reasonably to outing organizations/people.

      Reply ↓
      1. MrsVexil*

        It sounds like something that would be “faith-based” in my part of the country (large city, mid-South) I can think of half a dozen just off the top of my head, that would be suspects

        Reply ↓
        1. Chirpy*

          I worked at a fully secular place that did this (on a much smaller scale, as far as I know the only “parents only benefit” was flex time), it doesn’t need to be a faith based or even family-service-related workplace.

          Reply ↓
        2. Grenelda Thurber*

          That was my first thought too, that the logic is parents are somehow fulfilling their duty to produce offspring and so are entitled to better benefits. It feels like this company would fit in better with American culture 70 years ago than today. Like when my grandmother was paid less for doing the same job as her male coworkers, because they had families to support. Sadly, no one seemed to notice that she, widowed at 35, also had a family to support. This whole situation is just outrageous. If it isn’t illegal, it ought to be.

          Reply ↓
    2. SC*

      I think it makes sense for AAM not to do name and shame because to be responsible about it AAM would have to do some journalistic fact checking etc… when giving advice you can take the LW at their word more or less (or just ignore ones that don’t sound like a reliable narrator) but if you’re picking a public fight with a company that’s probably not enough. When the LW is on Facebook or X or whatever they’re speaking for themselves and can make their own choices but on AAM it’s not the same

      Reply ↓
    3. Jack Straw from Wichita*

      Nah. People use pseudonyms on here for their boss, coworkers, company names, job functions, etc. for a reason–and I LOOOOVE that they do. Sometimes, the creative names are one of the bets parts of a letter! lol

      Reply ↓
  9. Delta Delta*

    Also flagging that “Bewildered Baboon” would be a delightful username.

    Glad this all worked out for OP and the new role!

    Reply ↓
    2. D C F*

      Agreed! It gives me the mental image of a baboon finding themselves in the middle of a three-ring circus, surrounded by a troupe of performing monkeys, saying, “What’s happening? How did I get here?!”

      Reply ↓
    4. Pro Bonobo*

      I’m changing mine to Pro Bonobo, because Bewildered Baboon is truly excellent but I want to leave it for someone else.

      Reply ↓
    5. Chauncy Gardener*

      It would also make a great band name. Or Pro Bonobo could be the band name and Bewildered Baboon could be the name of their first album

      Reply ↓
  10. ScruffyInternHerder*

    Well, my eyebrows are above the ceiling tiles and my jaw is on the floor over the company’s overall response, because its a banana-rama-ding-dong!

    Holy crap.

    Reply ↓
  11. KC*

    One of my favorite updates EVER! Power to the people! :) And good on you, OP, for getting out of there and remaining firm in your assertions on the way out. I’m inspired!!

    Reply ↓
    1. Hey Now*

      I know, right? I think this might be my favorite update ever. Not just because of sorting out the benefits garbage itself, but escaping by successfully punching back at the evil boss.

      Reply ↓
  12. Project Manager*

    Love this update, love the amount of people standing up for themselves, can’t believe the doubling-down on the retirement though you’re clearly better off being one of the many people abandoning this flaming sinking ship! Also, I’ll now be referring to people who don’t come into our hybrid office as NWC people. Thank you for that :)

    Reply ↓
    1. A Girl Named Fred*

      Same!! All throughout this letter I just kept thinking, “THIS is the power of numbers, of everyone coming together to fight back harder than any one individual could, and THIS is precisely why companies fight so hard against it!”

      Giving OP and their coworkers a standing ovation at my desk right now. And the “can and will sue for retaliation” resulting in funemployment? Chef’s kiss, 10/10, no notes.

      Reply ↓
    2. MigraineMonth*

      I think the “NWC” nickname should be reserved for people who don’t do any *work* during the entire summer, even though they are scheduled to do so. Using it for people who WFH (or who are non-summer seasonal workers) really dilutes the impact.

      Reply ↓
      1. Project Manager*

        I didn’t say I would use it for people who WFH or who are seasonal workers, I also work from home 2-3 days a week. But we’re in a hybrid office and there are several people who seem magically exempt from the rules whenever it suits them.

        Reply ↓
  14. juliebulie*

    They created a gym membership for couples. What about single people?

    I read most of this letter (and the original) with my mouth hanging open. I’m kind of stunned that they got away with it for so long. I’m also kind of stunned that it wasn’t illegal.

    My employer does offer some perks to families, but they’re the kind of perks that are irrelevant to the childless. And they’re not secret.

    Reply ↓
    1. WellRed*

      Single people don’t count at this company. They must affix a giant scarlet S to their person and make way for the coupled and the family units.

      Reply ↓
        1. MigraineMonth*

          Reminds me of the Better Off Ted episode where HR decided it could reduce healthcare costs for its next generation of employees by encouraging genetically compatible employees to mate with each other.

          Reply ↓
          1. Irianamistifi*

            Better off Ted was really a remarkable insight into the inane things an unscrupulous company would do in pursuit of making money. I think they had a better grasp on it than any other show I’ve seen.

            From company matchmaking to asking Phil to get a vasectomy, from itchy chairs to assigning employees one of 4 interests.

            Reply ↓
            1. Rage*

              Perhaps the genetic matching was done so an employee’s child (AKA “future employee”) could then be used as a living donor (liver, bone marrow, etc.) for one of the C-Suite.

              That previous Worst Boss (TM) really should have planned better if he’d wanted a liver for his brother. *rolls eyes* /sarcasm

              Reply ↓
        4. Hannah Lee*

          My mother used to work as a visiting nurse for an older gentleman whose family was part of a community where people worked, lived, socialized together. He and others she talked to there said there was a practice of the elders deciding who could partner with who.

          The details are fuzzy to me now, but there was something about placement of shoes to communicate who wanted to be with whom and whether their request was approved. Like the elders would swap the shoes outside community members’ rooms, or people would place their shoes outside the room of someone they fancied so the elders would consider the match.

          Unsurprisingly, the membership of that community had dwindled by the time my mother was on the scene.

          LW’s former workplace sounds bonkers. Or at least their management is.

          Reply ↓
    2. Radioactive Cyborg Llama*

      I read this to mean that when the “new” benefits were announced, the gym membership terms were made available to employees but not to employees’ spouses if they did not have kids.

      Reply ↓
      1. Anonymous Pygmy Possum*

        Yup, in the original letter, it says that all employees have access to the facilities, but only people with kids had the option of family memberships.

        Reply ↓
    3. Hlao-roo*

      From the original letter:

      We have access to specific facilities (gym, pool, etc.) and the Family Benefits package gives free gym membership and swim lessons to you, your spouse, and your children; I can only get those at a 50% discount, and my spouse gets no discount at all.

      It’s not explicitly mentioned in the update, but the company might have changed the 50% discount for single people to a 100% discount as part of either the first or second round of “equalizing” the benefits.

      Reply ↓
    4. Greengirl*

      I worked at a nonprofit organization that included a gym. Everyone was offered an additional gym membership and the gym membership manager explicitly told new employees they could offer it to a roommate even! No need to be partnered, you still got it!

      Reply ↓
      1. Lady Danbury*

        My current company has an onsite gym and you can bring someone else with you to use it. Doesn’t matter who the person is, as long as they’ve signed the waiver and come with you (employee swipe access only).

        Reply ↓
    5. ScruffyInternHerder*

      “….irrelevant to the childless or child free…”

      Yeah, I once worked somewhere where 5-10% discounts on places like an indoor waterpark destination or a “cute little dress costs $400” clothing store for small children were listed in benefits. Nobody said we couldn’t use them if we didn’t have kids of our own, but I don’t know too many who would use those if they didn’t have kids either.

      Reply ↓
      1. doreen*

        I don’t know how many childless people would use those- but I know I would have used some of them before I had children and after they were grown. Not the $400 dress store but definitely others – the discounts on waterparks/theme parks etc that I’ve had access to were not only for children’s tickets and a discount on something I’m buying for someone else’s kid (nieces, nephews, friends’ kids) is still a discount.

        Reply ↓
    6. amoeba*

      I mean, I assume the problem with the couples was that the partners weren’t given a reduction. How would that translate to singles? When I was single, I had no desire to extend my gym benefits to anybody…

      Reply ↓
      1. Sleeping Panther*

        The original letter said that parents got gym memberships and swim lessons to employees with children, their spouses, and their children all for free, but employees without children only got a 50% discount, and the spouses of employees without children got no discount on those services at all.

        Reply ↓
    7. Meep*

      I am less concerned about that one, tbh. Only because I am assuming you can give the pass to your best friend or roommate. No one needs to know you are platonic.

      Reply ↓
    8. Meow*

      The way I read it was that single people got the same 50% discount that married employees without children get, so they would be getting a free gym membership now too. It’s just that previously, employee’s spouses without children got nothing, and they don’t qualify for a “family plan” for some reason, so they’re making a new 2 person plan.

      Reply ↓
    9. PlainJane*

      I assumed that the employee gets the membership, but that the parents were getting the extra benefit of allowing a family membership instead of just an individual one, and now they’ve added couples. Maybe I’m wrong, but my guess was that single people had the individual membership anyway as part of their benefits.

      Of course, the question becomes, “Well, if so-and-so can bring her girlfriend, and such-and-such can bring his kids, why am I not able to bring my sister/bestie/etc”. It seems to me that the fair solution would be to allow people a network–you can have a three person network that can accompany you to the gym. Whether they’re your kids, partners, siblings, spouses, or randos off the street, you can have three people.

      Reply ↓
    10. Jaydee*

      I would bet that there were two membership tiers – single and family. A family membership probably costs more than 2x a single membership.

      If you’re a couple buying your own membership, you would pay for two single memberships. You could pay for a family membership, but it would cost more. If you’ve got kids or extended family in the household who also want to use the gym, then a family membership might make sense rather than paying for 3 or more single memberships.

      But if you’re the employer, you probably pay for a single membership for the employee. And then you give an added perk to employees with kids by paying for the family membership. But the spouses or partners of employees who don’t have kids lose out. The employer probably isn’t paying for a second single memberships for the spouse, and they sure as heck aren’t paying the more expensive family membership price for just an employee and spouse.

      Reply ↓
      1. PlainJane*

        I think that’s probably true. My beef is more with the gym. Why not have a network membership instead of a family membership (eg, the same number of people, whether they’re related to you or in a relationship with you or whatever)? Then they could sell that to the employer in question as a benefit.

        Reply ↓
    2. GammaGirl1908*

      The most shocking thing is that this utter madness lasted as long as it did with no one spilling the beans. You would think, like, a kidfree person in HR would have revolted at this long ago.

      Reply ↓
    1. Not Tom, Just Petty*

      The absolute disconnect of everyone in that company makes my head hurt. The person who blurted in the Zoom meeting…”can you believe that they want to give our perks to other people?”
      The more I read, the more I understood 18th century revolutions.

      Reply ↓
      1. MigraineMonth*

        Interesting, I read that as an always-parent who *didn’t know* about the disparity and was genuinely confused by a “new benefits!” announcement for benefits they already had.

        Reply ↓
          1. Lady Danbury*

            This letter says that they were told to be discreet and that some of the parents were also upset when they learned the extent of the disparity, so at least some parents weren’t aware of the full nature of the issue.

            Reply ↓
      2. Lab Boss*

        Here’s a thought experiment. Who should that guy be more afraid of? The non-parents, for being the public face of the secret benefits club and being annoyed they might get benefits? Or the parents, for letting the cat out of the bag?

        Reply ↓
        1. Joana*

          I’d say the parents, if anything. It seems like the group of non-parents were focusing on management even after his accidental cover blowing. Meanwhile, as the letter said, all of the c-suite and most managers were parents, so if they’re were really mad about having to make nice…

          Reply ↓
      3. cleo*

        I read it as being annoyed that parents were actually losing a benefit because they went from being able to WFH the whole summer and now they have to come in on Weds.

        Reply ↓
  18. Another Chris*

    I’d like to nominate OP’s boss for worst boss of the year competition, even though his awfulness only came about in the update!

    Reply ↓
  19. PicklePants*

    This is an epic update, thank you for speaking out, the unfairness of it all is staggering! All the best in your new job too!

    Reply ↓
  20. Keymaster of Gozer (she/her)*

    Oh I LOVE this! A really good, well organised push back against inequality :) Hopefully that firm pulls its head out of its fundament and embraces the reality.

    Reply ↓
  21. Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender*

    This was as satisfyingly dramatic as I’d hoped it would be. Bravo, LW, for leading much-needed transparency and shaking things up.

    If you ever find out what happens when the dust settles on the retirement contributions, please let us know. The org is still being banana crackers on that.

    Reply ↓
  22. fine-tipped pen aficionado*

    Oh I love to see good things going to people who do good. Thanks for organizing with your comrades and a huge congrats on the new gig and the funemployment!!

    Reply ↓
  25. pally*

    Thank you for the update! I’m impressed with the drama that resulted. Good job!

    My cynical side wonders why management just didn’t find a way to show those who objected to the benefit differential to the door. Or at least told them if they didn’t like it, they could leave.

    Reply ↓
    1. Sloanicota*

      I was sure management would respond by dumping the perks for families rather than bringing up the perks for non-families. Glad to be wrong.

      Reply ↓
      1. ScruffyInternHerder*

        I actually figured that this might be the result – the overall bumping. I figured if there were enough people who knew about them and were in charge of them, there’d be an utter riot and mutiny (and potential mass exodus) if the family benefits were walked back.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          Eh, things like free gym membership are a “nice to have” but I don’t think people would walk over that alone, particularly if it was previously only granted to some and not all anyway. But maybe I’m coming from a very different field where we don’t have high expectations of perks.

          Reply ↓
          1. MsM*

            I think it’s less the gym membership than the PTO and remote arrangements. That absolutely would be an issue for any parents who had made their childcare arrangements around that.

            Reply ↓
            1. Hannah Lee*

              The retirement plan stuff is the one that keeps boggling my mind.

              Like, what does this company’s plan document even look like? How do they define the various benefit levels to these different classes of employees, and given that management is heavily weighted to the ‘gets the extra matching” benefits, how does this plan pass anti-discrimination testing and maintain its special tax status?

              Or do they somehow maintain multiple retirement plans and employees only see the docs for their plans? and don’t report it in their annual reporting?

              Reply ↓
              1. Orora*

                THIS. OP, check your plan documents; you should get a plan summary every year. This plan does not sound ERISA compliant.

                Reply ↓
        2. Laura*

          From a practical standpoint, for the parents who have come to rely on the secret benefits it may not be possible for them to stay in the job if those go away, especially the childcare-related stuff like being able to stay home in the summer and after school. If they dumped the benefits, they might have both a mass exodus from the parents and the non-parents.

          Reply ↓
          1. Coverage Associate*

            I haven’t considered carefully, but didn’t the employer extend basically only perqs with no cash outlay for the employer? The employer adjusted paid leave and comp time policies, and of course that has a cost, but it’s not a cost you can easily determine. Whereas doubling the retirement match for all the employees without children is easy math. They probably already have a chart with all the information.

            Reply ↓
          2. Coverage Associate*

            Reply was cut off. My experience of perqs like gym memberships is that they are cash neutral to the employer. The gym or a middleman offers the deal to the employer for no employer expense, and the gym gets the goodwill and word of mouth advertising from the employees. For completely free memberships, maybe the employer paid a single price based on employer size, etc, rather than by membership.

            This does sound like an employer that’s big enough or in a close enough relationship with the gym to be able to get the gym to make a special policy. I think it was Apple or some other big tech company that did that with my old, one location, family owned gym. (I never worked in big tech but saw the signs at the gym about how to show you qualified through the employer.) I doubt management even knows that our outside payroll and health insurance both offer identical discounts to the chain gyms.

            Reply ↓
          3. GammaGirl1908*

            It frankly also sounds like there are enough parents at this organization, and, specifically, in the upper echelons of the organization, that adding the comparatively few non-parents to as many of the perks as they could as cheaply as they could was simpler and cheaper than risking the revolt of the large population of parents.

            They walked back the couple of things where they really couldn’t give it to everyone (WFH all summer; SOMEONE has to man the office to some degree), and made universal the ones that are cash-neutral (gym memberships). They should have done this all along instead of building a whisper network.

            But now, the last battle is over the perks that require a bigger outlay of actual cash.

            It’s honestly a miracle this situation lasted as long as it did without someone spilling the beans.

            Reply ↓
  26. LifebeforeCorona*

    I don’t usually advise razing the place down and salting the earth but it sounds like this is a good time to raze the whole place down and salt the earth. Going forward there is going to be bad feelings on both sides of these issues which may take years to sort out.

    Reply ↓
    1. Slightly Less Evil Bunny*

      My thoughts as well. (For me, the red mist re-descended when OP wrote that the company wouldn’t address the retirement matching disparity. Grrrr.)

      Once I was well and truly free of the place, I’d be hitting up Glassdoor, Reddit, wherever, to burn it all to the ground.

      Reply ↓
  27. Skippy*

    I am shocked and/or skeptical that different matching for passes the legal standards for retirement plans. Especially if all the management and highly compensated employees benefit from the increased match and fewer of the lower-paid/non-executives do, this sounds like it wouldn’t pass 401k fairness/Safe Harbor testing.

    LW’s labor lawyer relative is probably already on it, but they have deprived you of possibly years of retirement. I hope there is some financial penalty for these awful, awful people.

    Reply ↓
    1. ScruffyInternHerder*

      And that we see them in the news, some way, some how…because that was where my brain went “wait how’s that legal aren’t there rules and crap about this?” even though I’m definitely not in the financial world.

      Reply ↓
    2. Sloanicota*

      I’m not at all surprised it wouldn’t be illegal to discriminate openly against non-families (in fact I thought if OP raised it, the company would probably point to the legality of what they’re doing) but you’re right that if most of the senior leadership is benefitting the most, it’s surprising there isn’t some sort of healthcare or 401K policy that prohibits this. But I guess given CEO pay around here there’s probably nothing illegal about giving yourself 10% matching and everyone else 1%. It does seem like a loophole if you can just say “everyone with an E in their name gets these better benefits” knowing that arbitrary rule only applies to a certain favored group like leadership. But they probably don’t need a loophole anyway. They can just say “leadership gets better benefits.”

      Reply ↓
      1. Bruce*

        My company has higher bonus target percentages for more senior employees, but it is documented and is not targeting something not work related like parental status.

        Reply ↓
      2. Tio*

        You could, technically, raise a potential discrimination lawsuit about Names starting with E type things if you can show that the only people with names starting with E are of a certain protected class. Companies don’t have to be quite so outright about their discrimination. It would be more of a burden of proof, and you’d probably have to point to timing and who it has historically affected – like if the only people whose names begin with E are the only black/gay/jewish person(s) in the company, you could probably still win a suit. They don’t have to say the quiet part out loud, it’s just easier when they do.

        Reply ↓
        1. Sloanicota*

          Yep, but there’s no law that protects non-parents from discrimination, I think. And I’m pretty sure there’s no law against treating management much better than non-management. Just like they can arbitrarily fire someone who wore a purple shirt, or offer lower benefits to someone who wore boots rather than loafers to an interview, unless there’s policies in the benefits program I’m unaware of (which still might not have the ful force of law). All part of the joy of at-will employment system, I guess.

          Reply ↓
        2. Hlao-roo*

          Just a note–everyone is part of a protected class (in the US, can’t speak for other countries’ laws). The protected classes are race, color, religion, sex (including pregnancy, sexual orientation, or gender identity), national origin, age (40 or older), disability and genetic information (including family medical history).

          So white people are protected from discrimination based on race, just as black people and people of other races/colors are. Christians are protected from discrimination based on religion, just as Jewish people and people of other religions (or no religion) are. And so on.

          I just want to clarify because it’s a common misconception that (for example) women are a protected class and men aren’t. But all people are protected from discrimination based on sex.

          Reply ↓
      3. Temp Anon*

        I am in the retirement/finance biz, though IANAL, nor is plan compliance my specialty. But I wondered about the legality of this also. Eligibility for match can depend on business factors such as being in a union or not, location, length of employment, or location. I have even seen plans that offer more match based on seniority. But this seems discriminatory, in both the regular and plan compliance sense. I’m surprised this employer’s plan passed muster with ERISA, the DOL, etc.

        The additional detail in the update that all the C-suite execs making these rules also had kids means they were also steering additional company monies to Highly Compensated Employess (HCE’s), about which there are many restrictions.

        Now that labor attorneys are on the case I bet all this results in significant fines and orders to restructure the retirement plan.

        Great update!

        Reply ↓
      4. L.H. Puttgrass*

        But I guess given CEO pay around here there’s probably nothing illegal about giving yourself 10% matching and everyone else 1%.

        That part, at least, would be illegal—or at least run afoul of the rules for qualified retirement plans. There are tests designed to ensure that retirement plans don’t operate mainly for the benefit of execs and other “key employees.” A plan that gave 10% matching to execs and 1% matching to the proles would almost certainly fail the “Actual Contribution Percentage Test” (which compares average contribution, including employer match, of highly compensated employees vs. non-highly compensated employees) and possibly the “Top Heavy Test” (which requires that key employees can’t hold more than 60% of plan’s account balance).

        So although it’s technically not illegal to have a plan that gives execs a 10% match and everyone else a 1% match, the only way that plan is going to meet the requirements for a 401(k) is if the execs contribute so little, and other employees contribute so much, that the 10% match isn’t that much of a benefit anyway.

        Reply ↓
    3. Strive to Excel*

      It depends how many of the rank and file employees are parents, but I’m also surprised. I’d love to get an idea of the math.

      Reply ↓
      1. Hannah Lee*

        It also depends on levels of compensation, like if predominantly highly-compensated employees benefit more (which I’m assuming because the executives, owners weigh heavily in “are parents” group)

        Reply ↓
    4. Indolent Libertine*

      Exactly this. I’m not a financial professional, but based on all the discussions we had with our CPA when we were pressuring my husband’s employer to start offering 401(k) matching I really can’t conceive of a way that this is legal.

      Reply ↓
    5. HB*

      I had the same thought but when I thought back to the law school class I took on Pensions, I couldn’t actually think of a reason other than it just *feeling* wrong.

      With qualified retirement plans the main testing is on discrimination in favor of Highly Compensated or Key Employees. This includes things like looking at what the *contributions* of your employees are (irrespective of matching). Safe Harbor plans got really popular because they got you out of certain nondiscrimination testing (but not the top heavy test).

      However there aren’t really rules per say about matching other than you need a formula and it needs to be applied consistently. It looks like you can create a formula that allows you to match more to certain employees (someone mentioned above about seniority) and so long as that formula doesn’t end up discriminating in favor of highly-compensated/key employees… seems like it’s okay (from the IRS standpoint).

      Whether or not doing that results in employment discrimination is a different question. Compensating parents differently than non-parents is certainly discriminatory, but to make a claim under the EEOC you’d have to frame it as discrimination based on certain protected characteristics and I’m not sure parent or non-parent really qualifies. *However* it is highly probable that their allocation has a discriminatory effect. Unless the parent and non-parent groups are absolutely identical in terms of age/gender/race, etc then you’re going to run into problems. If it turns out that most of the child-free employees are women, then telling the EEOC that you were just trying to discriminate against non-parents and you had no idea that all the men had kids and the women didn’t isn’t going to be a great defense. This is why *any* kind of discrimination in the workplace is stupid – because it doesn’t matter if the thing you’re discriminating against isn’t protected if it turns out that all the people who have that thing happen to be in a protected class. Now I think the Supreme Court has watered down some of the case law around effect versus intent, but you’re just inviting trouble if you make decisions based on non-business related factors (so formulas about seniority aren’t really an issue because it’s not really discriminatory on its face).

      In other words… I think the retirement contribution allocation may be *technically* legal which is why they’re still clinging to it, but it’s highly likely that it has resulted in illegal discrimination in compensation and will continue to do so. Even if the groups are fairly well mixed and it’s really difficult to prove a material difference in compensation based on protected characteristics, it’s still really really dumb to cling to it because there is no good business reason to pay parents more money than non-parents (unlike just general flexibility possibilities which allow you to retain good employees who have kids) and that makes it really hard to defend against. In law school I heard someone talk about his work in consumer advocacy and he said once he knows he has a good case, it’s really easy to win because juries HATE unfairness.

      Reply ↓
  28. a clockwork lemon*

    LW I hope you or someone still at your company sues the hell out of them. I’m not an employment lawyer but I dabbled in it early in my career and I would be pretty surprised if there wasn’t a legal mechanism to get that discriminatory retirement contribution bumped up to what the parents were getting.

    Reply ↓
    1. a trans person*

      +1. No idea how they’re supposed to make you whole on the retirement contributions, but that is absolutely lawsuit worthy IMO. Get that tax-advantaged money.

      Reply ↓
  30. Three Flowers*

    LW, I am abso-f-lately delighted to see you all nuke this site from orbit. A thousand kudos to you for taking none of this nonsense.

    Reply ↓
  32. Dust Bunny*

    The employment lawyer bit at the end is the cherry on top, too.

    we knew about the benefits differences and were 100% prepared to publicly share with the full organization and an employment lawyer

    So what the Hell happened here? Is this a sector C-suite that got out of control and it snowballed until it was too big to hide?

    Reply ↓
        1. Ex-Prof*

          I’m imagining a dash of natalism, a soupçon of “We’re a family oriented company!” and a heaping measure of C-suite echo chamber in which those ingredients were overbaked.

          Reply ↓
          1. VP of Monitoring Employees' LinkedIn Profiles*

            Except that “family-oriented” isn’t supposed to mean “actively hostile to those without children.”

            Reply ↓
        2. Lab Boss*

          I have to assume this was something that started with a healthy germ of an idea, like “We can let Susan leave 15 minutes early on Tuesdays to get her son from soccer practice,” and then a steady succession of “well if that was OK, this is OK too.” No doubt it all seemed like a great idea at the time.

          Reply ↓
          1. GoodNPlenty*

            I’ve seen a one day permission for one person to WFH because of a sick kid snowball to *every parent and grandparent* WFH 5 days a week. It absolutely can happen that way.

            Reply ↓
        3. Sloanicota*

          In my experience, one powerful HR person (but in this case probably a CEO) had a family and suddenly wanted to rewrite the benefits system to give themselves things they wanted. However, they had no incentive to apply those benefits to anyone other than parents, since that’s what they had in mind.

          Reply ↓
        4. Sparkles McFadden*

          If you get enough people at the top of the corporate food chain who agree with each other, they come up with ways to skirt any laws because they believe they’re doing things “the right way.” This is pretty much what the LW describes in the update.

          The 401K thing is infuriating.

          Reply ↓
  33. Warrant Officer Georgiana Breakspear-Goldfinch*

    Dear Santa, please let us find out what was said in those panicked C-level meetings, they were VERY naughty.

    Reply ↓
  34. Observer*

    I’m glad that the person who started this mess was forced out. And your relatives who helped you craft that email to your former manager and HR get a round of applause.

    But I’m also glad you are out of there, because there is lot still wrong there, and even if things do start improving, it’s going to take a loooong time.

    I mean in addition to the stark lunacy of the original policy, you’ve got them *still*doubling down one of the most important issues – and one that is highly likely to bite them legally, and a bunch of stupid unforced errors. Also, did *no one* in management realize that depending on people to not discuss this was asking for all sorts of trouble? Did they not realize that it’s not legal, or did they not care? I’m not sure which is worse, but *both* are signs of significant dysfunction.

    Reply ↓
    1. bamcheeks*

      “don’t let money get in the way of teamwork” is so breathtakingly cynical that there should be a screenwriter noting it down for the next “bad leader” character.

      Reply ↓
  36. Strive to Excel*

    Reason they’re fighting the retirement benefits: that’s the one that will be the most expensive to fix, and it will need to be in liquid cash.

    I cannot figure out how they got that past ERISA auditors.

    Reply ↓
    2. Notwithstanding the Foregoing*

      I still don’t get how the retirement matching can be different as described and not fail discrimination testing required of employer plans. ERISA and other DOL regulations do not mess around on this stuff. They are very strict and non-compliance has many impacts including declaring the whole plan invalid.

      Reply ↓
      1. Three Flowers*

        I googled this and now I want another update, in which LW, their former colleagues, an employment lawyer, and a very annoyed DOL representative have saddled up and just ravaged this company.

        Reply ↓
    3. Nonsense*

      Could they maybe be classifying parents differently to nonparents? As in, something in the backend of their job classification means the company can try and justify the different matches? I doubt that would hold water – and their pushback suggests it wouldn’t – but I could see that as being why ERISA auditors missed it.

      Reply ↓
    4. Moose*

      I’m curious about why LW never reported them to auditors or even the employment lawyers they’re friends with. It seems like they tried to handle it themselves when resources were available.

      It’s certainly not how I would have gone about it.

      Reply ↓
    5. Cheap ass rolling with it*

      Good point. This should be a big sticking point too. The employees need to fight for this. It’s REAL cash the non-parent employees are losing out on.

      Reply ↓
  37. Almost Empty Nester*

    So happy this all worked out for you! I will say though that with such easy access to employment lawyers, I’m curious why you didn’t bring them in as soon as you learned of the discrepancies in benefits.

    Reply ↓
  38. bye*

    This almost ALMOST makes me want to get a job at this company just so I can learn all this gossip first-hand. I feel like it would be amusing enough to put up with whatever other nonsense probably happens.

    Reply ↓
  39. Bruce*

    The way one of the beneficiaries (aka conspirators) spilled the beans in a meeting is priceless… “Oh, what a tangled web we weave/When first we practise to deceive!” to quote Sir Walter Scott…

    Reply ↓
  40. Ostrich Herder*

    VINDICATION! Congrats on starting a revolution and thanks so much for the update! Hope you and your wife enjoyed those Tuesday drinks!

    Reply ↓
  41. TeapotNinja*

    So, so, so glad about the non-parents going nuclear against this policy. Collective action at its best!

    Since they’re still maintaining an illegal retirement savings benefit, I’m looking forward for some additional fireworks. /gets popcorn

    Reply ↓
  42. Adds*

    I missed the original letter but omg, that is absolutely insane. This update is awesome, I love the inclusion of an employment lawyer on your way out. Enjoy your “unemployment” LW!!

    Also “No White Clothes” is a great chirp, and I love a good chirp.

    Reply ↓
  43. A Simple Narwhal*

    Man this was a fun update! Light that match and bask in the warm glow.

    Surely the company couldn’t have thought this would last forever, right? Maybe they thought the parent benefits were so good they’d be incentivized to keep their mouths shut? But these benefits aren’t invisible, it was only a matter of time before this happened.

    …Also why? Did this start as someone trying to weasel extra perks for themselves and it snowballed from there? I’d love to see how this started. In like a “eat popcorn and watch a car wreck” sort of way.

    I’m so happy OP was able to get out of there, and earn themselves some funemployment! I hope they enjoy it, they deserve it!

    Reply ↓
    1. Captain dddd-cccc-ddWdd*

      You might be surprised how much wishful thinking goes on in (management levels of) companies…

      The part that surprises me, or perhaps not, is that not a single person who was told about these benefits on the quiet when they became a parent – or joined the company as a parent already – seems to have questioned it with HR or whoever told them about it. No one said “this doesn’t seem fair to non-parents” etc, just took the benefits. I find that quite a disappointing lack of solidarity.

      Reply ↓
      1. pally*

        Maybe someone did and they were told something along the lines of “non-parents receive a comparable set of bennies”. IOW a flat-out lie.

        I would have taken HR at face value and assumed as much. It would not occur to me that HR would allow an unfairness to occur.

        Reply ↓
        1. Beth*

          Many people become parents while at a job though–you’d think at least one of them would have gossiped about the new perks they got just for having a baby.

          Reply ↓
          1. Nonsense*

            Could also be a slow boil situation. You had a baby so now you get this. Your kid’s in daycare so now you also get this. Your kid’s in school and now you get all this. Oh you want to get the family more active? We offer this.

            Added all at once it would be pretty obviously imbalanced, but if it was added in bits and pieces as your family situation evolved it probably wouldn’t occur to you to think that the cumulative effect is so disparate. And then, of course, comes that mental struggle of “but this really benefits me and I don’t want to give it up.”

            Reply ↓
      2. Rowan*

        They probably didn’t want to risk the benefits going away for themselves, and neither starting a new job nor having a first child are stress-free situations which allow a great deal of presence of mind to push back.

        Reply ↓
        1. A Simple Narwhal*

          Yea this was my thought too. If you’re aware of the before and after but the after is so incredible, it’s enough (especially at a very stressful and expensive time of your life) to just shut up and take the win for yourself, even if it’s not the best/right decision.

          Reply ↓
  44. Roy G. Biv*

    The entertainment value of this update — it’s 9 to 5 meets The Secret of my Success meets Norma Rae! I need some popcorn!

    Reply ↓
  47. Retired early Miss the money*

    Technically most employers give parents more benefits if they pay a higher percentage of family coverage than single or plus one but this one was pretty flagrantly ridiculous. If I have kids and just think about signing up for something I get paid for it? Something well intended seems likely to have blown up somehow!

    Reply ↓
  49. Ex-Teacher*

    As an FYI for everyone- check your state’s laws to see if familial status is a protected class in your state! In New York State, it is a protected class. This sort of scheme would absolutely violate NY state law, and if you were affected by this you could complain to the NYS Division of Human Rights (no lawyer necessary).

    Many states have protections stronger than federal ones, and you should always become familiar with your state’s protections (and local ones, if applicable), as well as how and where you can file complaints.

    Reply ↓
  50. Margaret Cavendish*

    Hell yes, OP! I will happily buy you a drink on Tuesday, or any other day of the week. Good for you for advocating, and for being the one to get this snowball rolling down the mountain!

    Reply ↓
  51. Annastasia Von Beaverhausen*

    What a fabulous update OP!!

    I’m a parent and was outraged on your behalf and behalf of all your non-parent colleagues!

    Please enjoy your lovely Tuesday beverage and I hope you love your new job!

    Reply ↓
  52. They knew and they let it happen*

    Why was the boss nicknamed No White Clothes? Is it because parents with ikids don’t wear white clothes because the kids will spill things on them?

    Reply ↓
    1. Elbe*

      It references an informal Americal fashion rule of thumb. During winter months “fashionable” people wear a cream color and only wear true white during the summer months between labor day and memoral day.

      Reply ↓
    2. LeSigh*

      There is an old “fashion rule” in the USA that you can only wear white clothes between Memorial Day and Labor Day. I think the implication of the NWC nickname for the boss was that they didn’t have white clothes to wear, so didn’t show up to the office?

      Reply ↓
    3. Hlao-roo*

      If you search for “WheresMyPen” there’s a thread that explains the No White Clothes nickname.

      The short version is there used to be an old fashion rule about not wearing white clothes after Labor Day in the US (early Sept) and before Memorial Day in the US (late May). The only “appropriate” time to wear white clothes was between Memorial Day and Labor Day (roughly the summer months). Because the boss was always working remotely during the summer months as part of the parents’ benefits package, the letter-writer and colleagues never saw them wearing white clothes.

      Reply ↓
  53. LeSigh*

    THIS was the story I wanted an update on. It’s very satisfying to read about the advocacy and collective action. Hopefully the retirement matching does get resolved.

    Reply ↓
  54. Elbe*

    Good for the LW! And good for the other employees at the company for standing up to this, too. I don’t understand how the HR and the C suite didn’t know this would blow up eventually.

    Apparently, because families with kids spend more money, and the changing economy means more young adults need financial support from their parents in their 20’s, parents need more money in retirement to make up for it.
    I’m curious about this. I know that having kids doesn’t automatically equal having help in your senior years, but it always seemed to me that, on average, childless people would end up spending more in retirement because they’re more likely to have to pay for services (rides to appointments and errands, personal care, household tasks) that adult children could provide for free. Does anyone know how this actually plays out in real life?

    Reply ↓
    1. doreen*

      I wouldn’t even try to guess because there are so many ways it can go – I know people who are still working in their 70s because they are still financially helping their children ( not to live, to live in a town where the median house is $3 million) , I had childless relatives who didn’t pay for services because they had many local nieces and nephews who took them to the doctor and on errands etc

      Reply ↓
    2. Chirpy*

      Well, my grandparents certainly would have had to pay for a lot of services if they didn’t have children/ grandchildren to do stuff for them for free.

      I am under no illusion that I’ll even get social security, myself, so this single person is definitely going to need money when I’m old.

      Reply ↓
  55. Jack Straw from Wichita*

    This update is a textbook example of what Alison always advises–pushing back in a group–in action and with pretty remarkable success! Loved to read it, OP!

    Reply ↓
  56. Meep*

    This is definitely one of the more amusing OG and update letters, because in a bid to make the company family friendly and encourage people to stay long-term, they really screwed the pooch.

    The gym membership is a perfect example of this. Like it would’ve been so simple to just allow all single and married without kids employees to have a +1 upon request. Instead, they doubled down on not giving it, increasing how much they paid out benefits long term, because they were actually encouraging people to have children or leave.

    Same to a degree with the 401k matching. Comes off as some silly underhanded way to get more babies in the world first and foremost, over being gracious to families and people who want families.

    Reply ↓
  57. Anonymouse*

    I’d still be upset that they didn’t make things equal – besides the retirement, what about the comp time pay out/time used, and the money savings for gym payments for example. If that person who left the company and originally blew the whistle saved approximately $18,000 dollars I would be wanting that to be made up for non parents somehow. Like making the fixes going forward is good but there is such a retroactive mess to clean up too.

    Reply ↓
  58. Saturday*

    This makes me see red:
    …have discretion around benefits so we don’t “let money get in the way of teamwork.”

    I’m so glad this blew up for this company.

    Reply ↓
  59. Tradd*

    So glad to see non-parents win for once, instead of eternally being shit on by employers. I’ve had that since the early 90s (unmarried, no kids female in my mid 50s).

    Reply ↓
  60. KimC*

    Ohhh, I was hoping we’d get a an update on this one!

    Yeah, I got the vibe the parents seemed to think that they deserved better benefits and more privileges merely because they had kids, and the update confirmed it. Good on OP for pushing back on the obvious retaliation, and all the luck to the childfree/less people demanding equality in matching. Because that’s “Well, men have families at home, so they get paid more”, regressive reasoning.

    Reply ↓
  62. RubyJackson*

    Please, please put this information in a GlassDoor review. If so many people left because of this, it might not be obvious who wrote the review.

    Reply ↓
  64. Anne Shirley Blythe*

    Now THAT’S an update. You go, Letter Writer! Reading it was a rollercoaster ride, but in a good way.

    Reply ↓
  65. The Turtle Moves*

    I RAN to the kitchen to make a cup of tea and grab some cake before reading this – I am so so glad I did! What an epic update! Well done OP, hope you have a great funemployment break!

    Reply ↓
  66. Moose*

    There’s no way having separate retirement matching for parents only is legal and didn’t fuck up the company’s taxes at the end of the year.

    The company was definitely screwing itself regarding how much they paid in taxes.

    Reply ↓
  67. Cowboy Lendo*

    The thing I found most shocking about this story was the one thing they wouldn’t budge on! HOW can you justify giving people with children larger retirement benefits? It’s the difference between a comfortable retirement and having the state take all your possessions so you can live in a low-grade retirement home. It’s also the one-two punch for millennials who graduated into a recession and weren’t able to build their 401ks in their twenties AND who might have decided against kids for financial reasons. I took a government job with a pension specifically because my early contributions were so paltry.

    Reply ↓
    1. Milo Spiral*

      Oof. Your point about Millenials graduating into a recession is a good one. I’m on the very very end of Millenial, so I managed to miss this, but my oldest sister graduated in 2009. She seems to be doing fine, but it’s never really occurred to me how her 401(k) might look. She did recently share her decision not to have children–reasons are many and complicated, but expense was one of them.

      Good for you for getting what you need!

      Reply ↓
    2. Meep*

      A lot of millennials (and older gen z) aren’t actually putting money into their 401ks or setting up IRAs or Mutual Funds. They are just hoarding it in their savings accounts.

      Part of that is a lack of financial literacy from their Boomer parents. Studies show that Millennials actually have more savings than Boomers did at their age – even accounting for inflation. Which when you account for pensions, makes complete sense. Boomers know they can rely on pensions and Social Security. We know we won’t get those things.

      Part of that is many have the mindset that they aren’t going to live long enough to retire anyway, so what is the point?

      Of course, it isn’t every millennial. Myself and a lot of my friends have retirement funds. But I know enough of them that think feeding into 401Ks or putting money in a Roth IRA is a scam.

      Reply ↓
  68. Ally McBeal*

    This is BY FAR one of the most satisfying updates I’ve ever read on this site. Congratulations LW, both on forcing the correction of this insane practice AND on getting the f out of that office.

    Reply ↓
  70. PayRaven*

    “This is just our benefits but now I have to be in on Wednesdays” ABSOLUTELY KILLED ME

    Way to spell out the problem buddy!!

    Reply ↓
    1. Milo Spiral*

      I didn’t quite understand this wording. Was the parent saying “These benefits used to be only for parents but now they’re not!” ?

      Reply ↓
      1. PayRaven*

        Yep, that’s how I read it! They had their secret “you don’t have to come in at all” arrangement (*which they might not have remembered was secret), and now EVERYONE comes in on Wednesdays.

        Reply ↓
      2. EDIA*

        I think the guy saying it didn’t realize the full breadth of the discrepancy in the way parents/nonparents were treated, and took it for granted that everyone used to have Wednesday off, which is why he let it slip so easily—he thought it was normal, so he thought his complaint would be universally relatable among coworkers.

        Reply ↓
        1. HB*

          Yeah, the way I read this was that the email that was sent out made it sound like there was going to be a massive change (for the better) in terms of benefits. However to him, there was no change – other than one thing that was slightly worse – and so he was super confused. Pretty good sign that he hadn’t been one of the ones to suddenly get the new benefits along with the “Shh, don’t tell” speech. I don’t think it was a matter of him not realizing that there were non-parents on the call – I think he would have said it to anyone under the assumption that he may have had slightly different benefits, but not that they were substantially worse.

          Reply ↓
  72. Hroethvitnir*

    Wow! Commenting before reading comments so probably redundant – but that was a highly entertaining update, and mostly positive?

    Having kids totally is expensive! Equity isn’t always equal! I think parents should get far more societal support (as a sterilised non-parent)! That doesn’t make any of this OK, and yeah, especially retirement matching. Let’s be honest, kids were traditionally needed for retirement, and while it’s not a sure thing, people with kids have a higher chance of having support in retirement. Wild.

    Reply ↓
    1. Hroethvitnir*

      I forgot to say: so inspiring seeing collective action, and pushing back against retaliation!

      I’ve only had experience with no one being willing to stand up with me, and frankly understandably in most cases. I’m still not sure if I regret burning bridges with an organisation where something like 2/20 people including me left honest (professionally written!) feedback on the actively counter-productive management and bullying on site to central HR… nothing has changed, and no one has learned anything. Sigh.

      I know for a fact that my carefully worded feedback was taken as an attack by my direct manager. I want to believe having it on record helps, but there was someone about 6 levels above my bosses working on it with no noticeable impact, so maybe it’s a lost cause.

      Reply ↓
  73. VP of Monitoring Employees' LinkedIn Profiles*

    Something tells me that OP’s employment lawyer contacts might have attracted more than a few new clients!

    Reply ↓
  74. EDIA*

    It seems everything has blown well up. Well, it does seem to have been the inevitable outcome of the setup, one way or another. Congrats, LW! As much as it would be entertaining to have an in on the drama to its conclusion, I am very glad you found a safe escape route.

    Reply ↓
  75. Lucifer*

    Is this company in the US? I don’t know how other countries work but if they’re in the US, how are they getting around the legality and compliances of futzing with the retirement contributions like this? And that’s apparently the one big thing they’re still digging their heels in about even after threats about “employment lawyer” this and “media exposure” that??? Who is this unicorn company, Mormons R Us????

    Reply ↓
  76. JeezLouise*

    I can’t have kids. Like, physically, it’s not possible.

    Even if family status is generally not discriminated against, I feel like this could be considered discrimination against people like me – especially since they can’t make me disclose a medical condition that doesn’t affect my ability to do my job.

    And it could be seen as discriminating against people who are, based on age, more likely to be entering menopause or have a partner who is.

    And a lot of queer people don’t have relationships that could result in children.

    And there are those who are unmarried whose religions dictate that they can’t have kids if unmarried.

    After all, not everyone who wants kids wants to adopt, can afford to adopt, or qualifies to be an adoptive parent. And they can’t even ask if you want or plan to have kids as anything related to your employment

    They’re still saying only people with children deserve the full possible amount of retirement benefits.

    I feel like a lawyer could have some fun with this one.

    Reply ↓
  77. Corner Office Dad*

    This is an incredibly gratifying update! The comment on lunch and drinks on a Tuesday afternoon made me smile. Incredibly happy for you, LW and here’s to your bright future!

    Reply ↓
  78. GoodNPlenty*

    This letter and update was so important to me. As a childfree employee for over 50 years at many many jobs, I felt that I was universally treated poorly compared to employees with children. When I’d bring up issues of horrific unfairness, I’d be told it was fair because “you’ll get your turn”.

    The assumed leaning on the childfree in the workplace to cover, do extra, stay late is an overwhelming reality. Thank you for taking this on and highlighting what goes on every day.

    Reply ↓
  79. whatchamacallit*

    IANAL but it would be interesting to see someone get creative with legal strategy here.
    What about asexual/aromantic people who no interest in a partner?
    What about people who are infertile and cannot have children?
    What if a same-sex couple wants children but can’t have them due to difficulty and cost of surrogacy, IVF, adoption, etc.?
    They’re being discriminated against in a way, based on sexual orientation and medical condition.

    Reply ↓

Leave a Comment

Before you comment: Please be kind, stay on-topic, and follow the site's commenting rules.
You can report an ad, tech, or typo issue here.

Subscribe to all comments on this post by RSS