wage level disputes
 

any thoughts on this:

employee A comes along looking for a job. he is offered a job at £Y.

later, employee B comes along. He is offered a job but negotiates over salary and ends up being paid £1.2*Y.

A then finds out that B is being paid more that him for doing effectively the same work. They demend to be put on the same money as B. Is this a valid demand? Could they claim that they are being discriminated against as they are not being paid the same?

My argument is that they accepted the wage level when they took the job. If they weren't happy they shouldn't have taken the job in the first place. Does that hold any water? I'm fed up with this bullsh*t and i've only been back from holiday for 2 hours.

<sigh>

tia.

If they are just as productive and competent then pay them the same. Dependant on the durations of the employment, it could be said that A should possibly be the favoured one due to time served loyalty. To save appearing a push-over, delay the decision to the next annual pay revue and consider backdating A's rise as a goodwill gesture. Your employees are more likely to remain faithful and productive if they see you as fair rather than advantageous.

Ideally 2 should be paid for the same work however salaries are private and as such what you earn is what you earn.

If you accept a salary that is basically it.

If you were to argue "I want a payrise cos <person> earns more than me" you'd be ignored.

trouble is if i do that i'll have to pay everyone on the firm the same as whoever is the highest paid person with similar duties. the point is that some people come with no skills, training or experience. we then spend money training them, and then they demand to be paid the same as someone who had skills to start off with. when we happened to need a particular sort of tradesman, we had to pay whetever they demanded cos we had to get the job done. other people work with them and aquire skills, then say that they are worth the same. maybe i should have explained that in the original post.

that is exactly what their argument is.

They won't get anywhere though I do sympathise with their view.

The problem is that this causes bad feeling between staff and towards management.
I understand the argument about training etc but how would you feel if the "underpaid" member of staff took everything he learnt from you and went to work for a competitor? A distinct possibilty in the current situation.

I'd even up the playing field.

Agreed but as wages should be personal between you and the company this info shouldn't be advertised for that very reason.

basically i wouldn't be too bothered. at the moment our wage and benefits package is very good for the sector. in fact it's so good that we are in danger of becoming uncompetetive. if one person leaves - fine. if 10 people leave i might start to get worried.

as it is i have a stack of application forms so high, for positions that do not exist at the moment. every other day someone asks me if "their mate" can get a job with us.

btw - wage levels aren't advertised. unfortunately people have a habit of telling each other what money they are on. *sometimes* they even tell the true figure. :rolleyes:

I can't see the problem them, get the underpaid member of staff in the office and tell him why you won't be raising his rate. If he doesn't like it he can walk.

They should keep their personal details to themselves. The person paying less should have negotiated better on their salary if they thought it wasnt a fair rate of pay for the job. Obviously they thought the salary was ok until they found out someone was earning more than them then its 'throw your toys out the pram' and stamp your feet until you earn as much.

The problem you will have now is that the 'underpaid party' may resent this fact and their work may display this. It is a slippery slope - being an evil ******* at heart I'd drop the higher paid persons salary, that way the person doing the moaning now will be hated by his/her colleague for causing their salary to drop.

If in doubt seek proper advice as the laws are out there to protect the employee and you could open up a huge can of worms here.

oh come on - if they are both equally competent and do the same job then the person being paid less should be given the same salary as the higher paid person - it's only fair. i know - i'm in this very situation and it doesn't make for a happy employee i can tell you.

The line from management will be "if you don't like it...."

Morally wrong but if you are happy with your wage for the job you do then suddenly become unhappy cos someone earns more its considered wrong. You were happy before basing your salary on its own merits.

If I was in the situation of being "underpaid" when compared to my collegues and couldn't accept it then I'd find a better paid job elsewhere, then walk. I'd also keep my old workmates informed about opportunities at the new place.

If you don't like something then just leave, chances are just a switch of workplace will increase your salary by a far greater factor than an uplift.

Its bad management imo cos it was always bound to come out.

it's not ideal, i admit. however, i don't accept that we should be held to ransom just cos A has discovered that B is getting more money. i am the lowest paid member of the management team, (i am also the youngest but the most highly qualified) but i am not having a hissy fit about it.

Hello

You are allowed to pay people whatever you wish (over minimum wage), the fact that one person negotiated a better salary is tough.

Having said that, if he is a valuable person, isn't being too stroppy about the request, then you should probably give him the rise.

Steve.

I guess a lot depends on the type of firm/job.

All footballers have different wage contracts whereas all public servants have exactly the same(for each level that is)

Hello

Although they have the same contracts, those grades have bands of salary (i.e. from X to Y). So you will still find two people doing the same job, with the same contract on different salaries.

Steve.

Difficult situation. Fundamentally, the employees have broken the rules by discussiing their personal terms. I would suggest to send the underpaid employee on a negotiation skills course and not give them an arbitrary increase.

Maybe they'd get more out of that in the long run and stop being the victim!

Suresh

There is no black an white answer to this. First of all, what is the job? If it's manual labour and the jobs are identical then there's a very strong argument for paying them the same.

Are there unions involved? If so, put on your tin hat and wait for the balloon to go up.

Are they both the same sex and have no disabilities? This could come into play re any claims of discrimination.

How much experience do they have in their job? I work with 2 other people doing the same job and my pay is in the middle. Suits me fine - the guy who gets the most has far more experience within the field and the girl who gets less than me is very new to the role.

If you're worried about discrimination then go get professional legal advice. If that's not the issue then it's up to you what you pay. No organisation should be held to ransom by it's employees and no manager worth their salt should ever have a gun like this to their head.

If they are both being paid a fair rate for the job and the person on the lower wage doesn't like it, then it's a free market and they are welcome to find employment elsewhere. If it's a skilled role and you'd find it hard to replace them, then maybe you should reconsider what they're worth to you.

no unions, no disabilities and both men doing manual work.

i've already decided not to give a pay rise due to the "snowball effect". (i.e. persons C to Z hear that A had been given a pay rise, and next minute you've got 60 people all with very detailed spurious arguments as to why *they* should get a rise.)

i was just curious as to whether there was any particular precedent for demanding equal pay to another employee. in the end of the day i expect that this chap will listen to the voice of reason. if not, he is quite free to "test the market" elsewhere.