What always bothered me was when the employees themselves acted like having children meant that they were automatically entitled to the most favorable schedules.
I've seen this sort of thing happen a number of times:
An employee (who has children) would ask a co-worker (with no children) to trade shifts. The co-worker says no, because he/she already has plans, has a commitment, has an exam to study for, etc., and the employee would act like the co-worker had refused them a lifesaving medication or something.
An employee would ask for a particular night off to look after their children, and the manager is unable to find coverage.
Manager: I’m sorry, but there’s nobody to take that shift for you.
Employee: What about Nicole? She’s not on the schedule for that night.
Manager: She requested that night off weeks ago, and I granted it to her.
Employee : But she doesn't have kids!
Since when does squeezing a bowling ball out of your uterus entitle you to superseding someone else's pre-approved plans?
There is nothing wrong with asking somebody to accommodate you because you have children, but in my opinion, they cross over into entitlement when they act like managers and co-workers are under an obligation to do so … and we hate entitlement.
These people chose to have children and accepted the responsibility that comes with that. Their managers and co-workers are under no obligation to rearrange their entire schedules, miss important engagements, give up class time, etc., to accommodate them.