The Workplace Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for members of the workforce navigating the professional setting. It only takes a minute to sign up.
Sign up to join this community
Is there a "hidden-standard" where an employer is going to give an employee a raise just for the fact that this employee is expecting a new family member soon (will give birth) and will have more personal expenses to cover? Despite the gender: Father/Mother getting new baby.
Assuming nothing about giving birth case or sudden expenses increase case was mentioned in the contract/offer letter and during the initial interview.
To narrow it down, country is the U.S and company is +350 employees.
Many good questions generate some degree of opinion based on expert experience, but answers to this question will tend to be almost entirely based on opinions, rather than facts, references, or specific expertise. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
Would employees get a raise just for the fact that soon they will deliver a baby?
Based on my experience, I don't believe such a hidden standard exists. If the employee wishes to expand their family, that financial burden is totally on them.
There is no "Oh, you are having a child let me give you more money" sort of thing. Not at least that I have ever seen.
You may see a company give a baby shower style gift, but in over 20 years of being in the USA work force, I have never seen this.
I know I've seen this on TV, but upon review, was subtly different. With a baby coming, the families income needs rose, which caused the employee to initiate a renegotiation with the employer. Since many wages are negotiable, and at this point the employee has established knowledge and a quality baseline, they can often succeed in negotiating a higher wage. The key difference between this answer and the others is that the employer doesn't hand out raises to employees who have children, but that the employer gives out raises to employees who renegotiate, and new children trigger renegotiations.
On the other hand, at least in my field, I've never actually heard of this occurring.
A long time ago many employers based wages and salaries on what they perceived the needs of the employee was. They would pay single people less than married people with children for the same work. You still hear echos of this in phrases like “a family wage” and “a good wage for a young man”. Its possible that there are some older, probably family owned businesses, which still operate like this.
In the US I think there was somewhat of a tradition of this at smaller companies where people have closer relationships, but I think that tradition is fairly dead.
I can definitely say I haven't been given any raises in these kinds of scenarios.
No, there should be no reason for this to happen without just cause. However, it could be that a raise was already close, and it just happened close to finding out about the pregnancy.
Now, if my memory serves me well, I do recall seeing this happen a few times before. However, it was not a raise, but instead it was a bonus.
Unfortunately, the times I've seen this happen the bonus was always for the woman, perhaps suggesting there was some unconscious gender bias, or even some misconception on "helping" the woman because of some assumed disadvantage.
In many companies you will get a de facto raise when you have a child, because your company subsidizes your health insurance. If they subsidize the family health insurance at all, they're giving you a raise (in effect).
Companies also often have programs for workers with children that allow them paid time off (maternity/paternity leave), flexible schedules, working from home, etc., which are in effect bonuses often less available to those without children. They do this not to reward people having children, but to attempt to retain employees that may be good employees but will be less interested in working once they have children. These flexibilities may be less available to childless employees, as some companies assume that childless employees value this kind of incentive less (though many companies are equitable in how they allow for flexibility).
As far as direct paid bonuses for having children, it is rare if not unheard of in the US to get that.
Several employers ago they had a policy that was an adoption benefit. We took advantage of as my kids (now young adults - 23 & 20) were international adoptions.
Other than this I have not heard of getting a raise for having a baby.
Is there a "hidden-standard" where an employer is going to give an employee a raise just for the fact that this employee is expecting a new family member soon (will give birth) and will have more personal expenses to cover?
In my 45+ years of working, I never saw that happen once. If it actually happened, it would be an exception rather than a "standard".
In general, employers never give pay raises just because an employee's expenses increased, any more than they would decrease pay just because an employee's expenses decreased. Similarly, you wouldn't expect an employee to get a raise just because they moved to a more expensive house, or bought an expensive car.
Now it may be possible that a particularly valuable employee was enticed to stay this way. But that's not standard practice anywhere I have ever worked.
I have seen it happen once: In Australia. In a small family owned company (10-15 people). And the person who got the pay rise was the owners son who had the title: General Manager. To be fair the owner gave his other son (field technician) a pay rise as well and gave them both new work cars (family SUV's).
Yes, of course it does.
Wages are not paid on anything remotely fair. It's not based on "what value does this employee bring to the company, and how much of that value should accrue to them".
The cold hard logic is:
Cost of raise = the additional salary.
Cost of not giving a raise = the additional chance that the employee will quit, multiplied by the costs of them quitting (mostly lost productivity).
So to get a raise, an employee needs to make the employer believe there is a significant chance of the employee quitting, and that a raise will significantly decrease this chance.
One such way to achieve this, is to apply for a better paid job, receive the job offer, and tell your employer. This shows that you are serious about quitting (going to a lot of effort), and have low risk better options.
Another way to achieve this, is to let your employer know that your current salary is insufficient. Providing a reason, such as an upcoming baby, shows that you are more serious than someone who just says they want more money. It would work just as well if the reason were medical bills, flood damage to a house that insurance won't cover, wanting to buy a house or pretty much any other expense.
Note of course that no HR team would ever admit they take this into consideration.
Not that I'm aware of. What happens in an employee's private life is their business, and if they want a raise they will have to negotiate for it.
Now, if the emplpyer wants to give them a raise for that, that's also their business.
No.
There was a story in the NYT recently that addressed a related question: how does childbirth effect income?
Even in the most progressive northern European countries, it looks like this:
Could be a retention thing - most western countries offer some kind of paid maternity leave, but to qualify you have to return to work afterwards. Some countries offer paid paternity leave.
In the US there is no such leave, so it would have to be Personal Time Off or Annual Leave, which could be paid or unpaid. Once spending a week or two outside of work, the employee might reevaluate their priorities and decide to not return to work.
It would make sense for the employer to offer this pay rise starting "from the date you return to work" as an encouragement to return and keep that training/upskilling investment.
