Too friendly?

An article in the New York Times raises one of those issues that is unmentionable in most company - do companies discriminate against the childless? A moment's thought indicates that most of them do: think of maternity and paternity leave or staff leaving early or arriving late because their child is ill or for a parent's evening/school play/whatever. These excuses for, well, not working, seem to be treated as if they were morally better than 'I was hungover', 'I wanted to visit a gallery' or 'my friend was ill'. The answer is to offer the same benefits regardless of the reason: some firms for instance permit their staff to take 4 half days a year in addition to their vacation for whatever reason and on short notice. This covers everything from doctor's appointments to interviewing a new dog walker and goes a long way to tackling the inevitable resentment the childless will feel if work/life balance is only seen to apply to those with children.

In this context then, the recent news that Gordon Brown wants to give flexible working rights to 4.5M extra parents is particularly annoying. Why just parents? Don't the rest of us deserve a work-life balance too?