> Of course I'm not objective. I can't be objective since it's my direct experience. I'm also asking you to take my word on me having the overriding reasons.

It's kinda hard to. What are you doing on that time? Caring for your elderly and sick grandmother? Tutoring orphans? It's kinda hard to come up with a legitimate reason that is better than that guy spending time with his kids.

"Spending time with" being shorthand here for performing quality parenting that over time makes their kids grow up to be well-adjusted, valued members of society. What could a single, childless person possibly do with that schedule that is more important than improving the future of a dependent that has more life ahead of them than you or I?

No, you don't have to provide an answer if you choose not to. But don't expect us to take you on your word either.

You say your reasons are more important, but your actions don't seem to back that up. If your reasons were more important you would find a new job - perhaps making less money (it is understood that you might have to work the bad hours for a couple months while looking).

Beyond that, importance is different to everyone. To the company it isn't just your reasons, it is also if they give you the better shift they look anti-family. So they are not only risking you or the other guy quitting, they are also risking dozens of other people deciding this isn't a company they want to work for.

People who can't arrange their work schedules to spend time with their kids often find other jobs. If the company has 2 people who want the same shift, management has to make a choice, and choosing the one most likely to impact the company by leaving is a reasonable decision.

It's possible that the business is making a bet that the married person needs better compensation to be stay at that job, simple supply and demand.

OR, as the article states, it has nothing to do with marriage and the married person is better at their job and gets to push their weight around more where scheduling is concerned.

>employees shouldn't be discriminated against because another employee needs/wants help

Explain why not?

Shift selection isn't discrimination.

If two people are in competition for the same resource (a more desirable shift), someone is going to lose. The company has to choose one of them, making at least one happy, or neither of them, upsetting both. How are they supposed to "not discriminate" here? They are forced to choose which employee should receive the shift.

Bear in mind that if the tables were turned, the other guy would be going all over the internet saying "My employer gave this shift to another guy because they hate children and discriminate against families with kids", and the same responses would be had in the opposite direction.

Making these choices is always going to alienate someone, but they're a fact of life.