When I was a child, I attended school at Sequent Computer Systems in Portland, where my father worked. The school, known as Sequent Learning Center, offered kindergarten through 5th grade and day care for children of employees. I have fond memories of lunches at the corporate cafeteria and walking around campus with my dad.
Sequent folded over two decades ago. But its Learning Center has been on my mind. I now work at a tech company in the Seattle area. Last month, my department announced a requirement that we work from the office at least three days a week. When asked to submit questions for an upcoming department meeting, I asked if on-campus child care was on the table.
During the pandemic, many parents found that working from home allowed them to spend more time with their little ones. Even as grade schools reopened for in-person classes, parents found that their flexibility allowed for timely pickup and drop-off, in some cases eliminating the need for after-school care.
While at-home child care burgeoned during the pandemic, commercial child care languished. The average cost increased by 41%, by one estimate reported in Fortune magazine. Center for American Progress reported that a wave of day care closures left 51% of Americans in “child care deserts”: regions without child care providers or three times as many children as open child care slots. Even parents within short distances of providers reported lengthy waitlists.
As companies recall workers to the office, the parenting benefits of working from home are under threat. Employers expect parents to cede the flexibility they’ve become accustomed to while a national child care crisis roils in the background. If employers insist on returning to in-person work, they should offer on-site child care to ease the burden on working parents.
Currently, less than 6% of employers offer child care at or near their workplaces, according to a 2022 survey from the Society for Human Resource Management. The main argument against their expansion is cost. But the advantages outweigh the expense.
For companies, on-site child care improves employee retention. According to a 2022 U.S. Chamber of Commerce report, nearly 60% of parents cite lack of child care as their reason for leaving the workforce. Employees who would leave careers after having children are likely to think twice if affordable child care is available on campus. Additionally, employers can tout the perk to recruit attractive candidates looking to balance family and career.
For employees, co-locating office and child care empowers parents to pursue professional ambitions without neglecting familial responsibilities. While not all employees would benefit directly from on-site child care, even nonparent employees would benefit from improved morale among their co-workers who feel more supported.
Another potential source of opposition to on-site child care is the risk of decreased productivity. But such fears are unfounded. At companies like mine, workers already enjoy a high degree of autonomy. My colleagues attend meetings, meet deadlines and develop professionally with minimal oversight. Discipline is unlikely to dissolve with the appearance of children. To minimize distraction, employers can limit the areas and times in which children are allowed (no children in offices, “Family Fridays” in cafeterias, etc.).
In fact, on-site child care may decrease disruption. Several of my co-workers leave the office midday to pick up kids from school. If school and day care were on campus, they could continue working through the afternoon and pick up when finished.
I do not have children. But if I ever do, I’d like to maximize my time with them without sacrificing my career. I want the kind of arrangement my dad had at Sequent.
Should I never have children, I’d still advocate for kids on campus. I don’t want my co-workers to see their jobs as a trade-off with parenting. It takes a village, and employers should assume their place at the center.
Originally published by the Seattle Times.
An aside, submitting to Seattle Times, I was up against a tight word limit. But had I more space, I would have mentioned that, in practice, corporations probably wouldn’t foot the entire bill. Employees who use the service would pay to use it.
Also, it is not unusual for an employer to offer a perk that does not benefit all employees. For example, Amazon allows dogs on campus, though not all employees have dogs. Google offers student loan reimbursement, but not all employees have debt. Microsoft covers the cost of bike tune-ups and not all employees bike. The availability of these benefits is not seen as a detriment to those that don’t use them; rather they are part of a suite of offerings, not all of which each employee will use.
Furthermore, parent employees who feel empowered to nurture their children will experience improved morale. A rising tide lifts all boats and even non-parent employees will benefit from happier coworker.
Comments