What looks like another piece of poorly thought out legislation

[cambsno]

I suspect most larger companies have equal pay scales because they wouldn't want the publicity of explaining why two people doing the same job level are paid differently.

At bt I had people doing the same job on 25k and 37k simply because the person on 37k had been there 7 years and they had been paying more to attract talent whereas the new person came in on far less. I can also remember that the starting salary at yell stayed the same for around 8 years so assuming a 2% yearly pay rise there would be. 5-6k difference between a new starter and someone there 8 years.

 

[ancient_mariner]

At bt I had people doing the same job on 25k and 37k simply because the person on 37k had been there 7 years and they had been paying more to attract talent whereas the new person came in on far less. I can also remember that the starting salary at yell stayed the same for around 8 years so assuming a 2% yearly pay rise there would be. 5-6k difference between a new starter and someone there 8 years.

Many large business operate in incremental salary scheme, therefore one would expect those who had been in post for longer to have higher salaries. That might affect the relative salaries of men & women where the women had returned to work in a new position after having a family.

 

[jamesev]

At bt I had people doing the same job on 25k and 37k simply because the person on 37k had been there 7 years and they had been paying more to attract talent whereas the new person came in on far less. I can also remember that the starting salary at yell stayed the same for around 8 years so assuming a 2% yearly pay rise there would be. 5-6k difference between a new starter and someone there 8 years.

Is this semantics of job vs role? Those who have been in a job for 7 years you would expect to have picked up more skills and competencies than some one new. That would deserve higher salary. This is where the numbers are skewed by other factors.

 

[noneforit]

Is it a gender pay gap or a job role pay gap?

I get paid a different amount to another member of my team yet our job titles are identical.

I have been at the company longer, therefore received pay rises and he only started recently.

Should he have been on the same salary at me from day one?

Of course not, it doesn't work like that.
If he were a she, would it =automatically be discrimination?

Women should NOT be be discriminated against on their pay due to their sex, there is no question on that but expecting everyone on the same job role to get the exact same pay is complete nonsense as there are far too many factors involved.

Edit due to embarrassing typos there....

 

[nilagin]

I get paid a different amount to another member of my team yet our job titles are identical.

I have been at the company longer, therefore received pay rises and he only started recently.

Should he have been on the same salary at me from day one?

Of course not, it doesn't work like that.

It should work like that though. As I explained earlier we have a two tier pay system that started back in 2013. This was a means for the company to remain competitive with other facilities around the world and so keep jobs in the UK. But everyone of us in tier 1 earns the same hourly rate and everyone in tier 2 is on the same hourly rate. That is all regardless of service. I am in tier 1 and have over 38yrs service. I am on the same rate as someone with 5yrs service. We are all expected to do the same job so why shouldn't someone with 5yrs service get the same rate as me. Just under a year ago the company took on people who were mechanics or engine builders. They received the necessary training to be able to do the job and received full pay whilst they did so. If you are all doing or expected to do the same job then experience shouldn't come into it.

 

[cambsno]

Is it a gender pay gap or a job role pay gap?

I get paid a different amount to another member of my team yet our job titles are identical.

I have been at the company longer, therefore received pay rises and he only started recently.

Should he have been on the same salary at me from day one?

Of course not, it doesn't work like that.
If he were a she, would it =automatically be discrimination?

Women should NOT be be discriminated against on their pay due to their sex, there is no question on that but expecting everyone on the same job role to get the exact same pay is complete nonsense as there are far too many factors involved.

Edit due to embarrassing typos there....

I have been involved in recruiting something like 40 people over the years, and probably been involved with 200+ interviews across very large, medium and small companies, and can honestly say I have never seen any discrimination over sex for salaries or who to recruit. Its always been the best person for the job, can we afford them, are they happy with the package type of mantra. I know historically things have been different but do companies today really look to may women less than a man?

 

[jamesev]

It should work like that though. As I explained earlier we have a two tier pay system that started back in 2013. This was a means for the company to remain competitive with other facilities around the world and so keep jobs in the UK. But everyone of us in tier 1 earns the same hourly rate and everyone in tier 2 is on the same hourly rate. That is all regardless of service. I am in tier 1 and have over 38yrs service. I am on the same rate as someone with 5yrs service. We are all expected to do the same job so why shouldn't someone with 5yrs service get the same rate as me. Just under a year ago the company took on people who were mechanics or engine builders. They received the necessary training to be able to do the job and received full pay whilst they did so. If you are all doing or expected to do the same job then experience shouldn't come into it.

Thats why the furore over the results are likely to be jumped all over by the media. They love to fuel discrimination stats.

 

[noneforit]

It should work like that though. As I explained earlier we have a two tier pay system that started back in 2013. This was a means for the company to remain competitive with other facilities around the world and so keep jobs in the UK. But everyone of us in tier 1 earns the same hourly rate and everyone in tier 2 is on the same hourly rate. That is all regardless of service. I am in tier 1 and have over 38yrs service. I am on the same rate as someone with 5yrs service. We are all expected to do the same job so why shouldn't someone with 5yrs service get the same rate as me. Just under a year ago the company took on people who were mechanics or engine builders. They received the necessary training to be able to do the job and received full pay whilst they did so. If you are all doing or expected to do the same job then experience shouldn't come into it.

I guess we will have to disagree on that one then.

Even if your idea was forced upon firms in that those on the same job title get paid the same amount regardless of length of service, firms would find ways round it but changing the job titles.
Suddenly you were a 'Senior Engineer' as you have been there for 5 years.

Why strive to do better at your job if you know there is no chance of getting paid more?

You could have somebody working flat out and their colleague doing the bare minimum.
Under your system they both deserve a payrise together or nothing together because that is more fair?

What about bonuses based on performance?

Two people doing the same job, one gets a £3k bonus and another £5k based on their performance.
Presumably you disagree with this?

If that is the case then why bother to do well at your job?

 

[Uneducated_Rick]

We are all expected to do the same job so why shouldn't someone with 5yrs service get the same rate as me.

What about places that don't have 100 people doing the 'same job'. In your workplace do the people with 5 years experience work at the same rate as someone with 25 years? If so then great and I'm all for equal pay. But what happends when your boss expects you to go quicker and do more because of the extra 20 years experience? Is it now fair that someone expected to do 15% more gets paid the same?

In my job I'm in a sub-team of 5 and none of us do each other's role (other than the absolute basics for covering holiday and sickness etc.), we all have different skills and fulfil different roles. Needless to say we all get paid differently despite in theory being the same 'rank' within the orgnaisaiton as a whole.

 

[john.margetts]

<snip>Why strive to do better at your job if you know there is no chance of getting paid more?

Because you have standards? I have always, over my 45 year working career, done the best job I can. I would consider that deliberately doing a poor job was to insult myself.

You could have somebody working flat out and their colleague doing the bare minimum.
Under your system they both deserve a payrise together or nothing together because that is more fair?< snip>

Yes, I would say that was fair. But I would want to discipline their manager!

 

[noneforit]

I admire your stance John but that is just not how things work in business and it never will be as a general rule.

Personally I don't know of any companies who pay exactly the same salary across the board for those doing the same jobs.

Jobs often offer a salary range for a position so it's rarely a fixed amount from the get go.
When I applied for job, I said it was the upper figure of the salary range or I was taking a job elsewhere.

I got what I asked for but I could easily have accepted the lower figure.

If you are good at your job and know your self worth, your pay should reflect that.

 

[nilagin]

I guess we will have to disagree on that one then.

Even if your idea was forced upon firms in that those on the same job title get paid the same amount regardless of length of service, firms would find ways round it but changing the job titles.
Suddenly you were a 'Senior Engineer' as you have been there for 5 years.

Why strive to do better at your job if you know there is no chance of getting paid more?

You could have somebody working flat out and their colleague doing the bare minimum.
Under your system they both deserve a payrise together or nothing together because that is more fair?

What about bonuses based on performance?

Two people doing the same job, one gets a £3k bonus and another £5k based on their performance.
Presumably you disagree with this?

If that is the case then why bother to do well at your job?

A senior engineer is a different pay grade to an engineer. It also entails different responsibilities. Plus it's not a position given as a result of years service. It is a job that someone has to apply for.
Everyone gets the same percentage pay rise. If doesn't matter if someone works hard or does little. If someone is found not pulling their weight then someone will have a word with them. If they continue they get a written warning on their record, if they still continue, they get a 1 day suspension without pay, if they still continue they then get a week's suspension. After that it is the sack.
There is no bonus system, we are all paid a wage to work. You may get a pat on the back and a thank you but that is it. However if you come up with an idea that saves the company £1M they do give you a car.

What about places that don't have 100 people doing the 'same job'. In your workplace do the people with 5 years experience work at the same rate as someone with 25 years? If so then great and I'm all for equal pay. But what happends when your boss expects you to go quicker and do more because of the extra 20 years experience? Is it now fair that someone expected to do 15% more gets paid the same?


In my job I'm in a sub-team of 5 and none of us do each other's role (other than the absolute basics for covering holiday and sickness etc.), we all have different skills and fulfil different roles. Needless to say we all get paid differently despite in theory being the same 'rank' within the orgnaisaiton as a whole.

As above, we are all expected to work at the same rate. If someone is struggling because they are inexperienced at doing something there are people there to assist them. I have been doing my current job for just 4 years yet there is stuff I have done in that 4 yrs that some people who have been in the job 10 maybe 20 years who haven't a clue on how to do some tasks but I will happily show them how and go to the trouble of writing or typing out an instruction sheet to enable anyone to carry out certain tasks that they may never have done before. Because overtime is done on a Rota I am more than likely going to be doing somene else's job. Even after only 4yrs I am fairly proficient and confident at carrying out the work. We always get a handover on what work is expected and always make a note of any special instructions. If somene isn't confident at carrying out certain jobs they can request not to be given those jobs but it can reduce the amount of overtime they may receive if no suitable alternative is available.

 

[nilagin]

Because you have standards? I have always, over my 45 year working career, done the best job I can. I would consider that deliberately doing a poor job was to insult myself.
!

I am the same. I was a press bookmaker for over 30 years. Quite a number of those years my work involved getting new press tools to make panels. It didn't matter if the panel was going to be hidden away inside a car never to be seen again or an outer skin panel like a door, bonnet, roof, tailgate or wing. I wanted the press tools to produce the best panels possible. No hollows, no loose metal or slip lines from where the sheet metal was drawn and when i see the panels on a vehicle on the road, i can think to myself with pride " I made that possible". Now I am testing and developing a new engine and I am determined to do a good job on that too and then I can have the pride in knowing my work helped make that engine possible.

 

[noneforit]

A senior engineer is a different pay grade to an engineer. It also entails different responsibilities. Plus it's not a position given as a result of years service. It is a job that someone has to apply for.
Everyone gets the same percentage pay rise. If doesn't matter if someone works hard or does little. If someone is found not pulling their weight then someone will have a word with them. If they continue they get a written warning on their record, if they still continue, they get a 1 day suspension without pay, if they still continue they then get a week's suspension. After that it is the sack.
There is no bonus system, we are all paid a wage to work. You may get a pat on the back and a thank you but that is it. However if you come up with an idea that saves the company £1M they do give you a car.


As above, we are all expected to work at the same rate. If someone is struggling because they are inexperienced at doing something there are people there to assist them. I have been doing my current job for just 4 years yet there is stuff I have done in that 4 yrs that some people who have been in the job 10 maybe 20 years who haven't a clue on how to do some tasks but I will happily show them how and go to the trouble of writing or typing out an instruction sheet to enable anyone to carry out certain tasks that they may never have done before. Because overtime is done on a Rota I am more than likely going to be doing somene else's job. Even after only 4yrs I am fairly proficient and confident at carrying out the work. We always get a handover on what work is expected and always make a note of any special instructions. If somene isn't confident at carrying out certain jobs they can request not to be given those jobs but it can reduce the amount of overtime they may receive if no suitable alternative is available.

We obviously work in very different areas then.

Every company I have worked for has been nothing like that but if you are happy with that then fair enough.

 

[gman]

However if you come up with an idea that saves the company £1M they do give you a car.

For a company the size of Ford, surely something like putting a slightly cheaper brand of tyres on all new cars would save a few million? I'll have a Ford Mustang 5.0 thanks.

 

[jamesev]

For a company the size of Ford, surely something like putting a slightly cheaper brand of tyres on all new cars would save a few million? I'll have a Ford Mustang 5.0 thanks.

However you would have to weigh up the safety risk of putting cheaper (and unassumingly) less effective tyres on new cars and the potential publicity,

 

[nilagin]

The way I see it is if a company needs to pay a performance related bonus, then they aren't paying enough in the first place.
The bonus should be that in the unfortunat event of a cut in workforce. The ones who do what they are supposed to do keep their jobs. The rest are in the firing line.

Back in 2013 when Ford closed our toolrooms and press shop, they offered a voluntary redundancy / early retirement programme. But they also promised re-employment. Out of the skilled workforce they ended up with 80 bookmakers over the number of skilled jobs they had available. We all had to have interviews but it wasn't by any coincidence that anyone with a poor and very "regular" sickness record and those that didn't work as hard as they should, or a disciplinary record more or less guaranteed themselves a job on a production line as opposed to getting a skilled placement. It has only been in the last year those people have started to receive training for a new skilled role. They were, however, fortunate enough to be allowed to keep their skilled pay grade whilst working on the production line, but they were warned that if a skilled job became available regardless of what it was or what shift pattern, if they turned it down they would lose their skilled pay grade and be demoted 2 grades to a line workers grade. This would not only have impacted on their future earnings but also their pension too. Regardless of the number of years they had paid into the scheme as a grade 5, if they were to have retired on grade 3 they would only receive a grade 3 pension.

 

[noneforit]

The way I see it is if a company needs to pay a performance related bonus, then they aren't paying enough in the first place.
The bonus should be that in the unfortunat event of a cut in workforce. The ones who do what they are supposed to do keep their jobs. The rest are in the firing line.

Back in 2013 when Ford closed our toolrooms and press shop, they offered a voluntary redundancy / early retirement programme. But they also promised re-employment. Out of the skilled workforce they ended up with 80 bookmakers over the number of skilled jobs they had available. We all had to have interviews but it wasn't by any coincidence that anyone with a poor and very "regular" sickness record and those that didn't work as hard as they should, or a disciplinary record more or less guaranteed themselves a job on a production line as opposed to getting a skilled placement. It has only been in the last year those people have started to receive training for a new skilled role. They were, however, fortunate enough to be allowed to keep their skilled pay grade whilst working on the production line, but they were warned that if a skilled job became available regardless of what it was or what shift pattern, if they turned it down they would lose their skilled pay grade and be demoted 2 grades to a line workers grade. This would not only have impacted on their future earnings but also their pension too. Regardless of the number of years they had paid into the scheme as a grade 5, if they were to have retired on grade 3 they would only receive a grade 3 pension.

The problem with that is that it's not how the vast majority of businesses operate.

Finance is likely the biggest sector who do bonuses, good luck trying to take that concept away from them.

There will always be a pay gap between those doing the same role and this line of meaningless stats is not to change that.

As long as women and both both have equal opportunities then there is no issue.

At my first workplace we had 5 staff in one team, all doing the same job.

The lowest paid was the guy who had just started and the highest paid was the guy who had been there the longest. There were 3 men and 2 women in that team.

 

[nilagin]

However you would have to weigh up the safety risk of putting cheaper (and unassumingly) less effective tyres on new cars and the potential publicity,

Something along those lines happened several years ago in America. It resulted in some SUV's rolling over, there may even have been some fatalities. Ford and the tyre manufacturer were subjected to some very large lawsuits as a result.

 

[nilagin]

At my first workplace we had 5 staff in one team, all doing the same job.

The lowest paid was the guy who had just started and the highest paid was the guy who had been there the longest. There were 3 men and 2 women in that team.

But that doesn't mean the bloke with the longest service is the hardest worker or most capable.
Different rates of pay for doing the exact same job can cause resentment. I have work colleagues who are on tier 2. They would rather they were on tier one but accept the fact that had there not been a tier 2 then there was a good chance jobs wouldn't have become available and they wouldn't have their current jobs earning 40-50% more than they had been in their previous jobs. But imagine how they feel when they see tier 1 colleagues who find excuses to do very little or leave extra work for them and are earning a lot more money.

When I started my new job we had to be retrained, they asked the existing workforce who would like to train us and they paid them an extra 10% whilst they trained us. There were a few who didn't feel confident enough to provide training, they don't even train apprentices, which is fair enough. But there are some that didn't want us there as we weren't trained mechanics, even after more than 4yrs some still won't even talk to us. But I know that many of my colleagues and myself who all started this new job at the same time, are more than capable of doing a better job than some of those who resent us being there.
There's been times I have had to use some of my toolmaking skills as part of my job, even showing some of my new work colleagues how to do stuff or been able to give them advice and they have been very thankful for that and it has broadened their skill base.
Yet in some companies I would be paid less because I don't have as many years service at the job. I am sorry but that is just [PLEASE DON'T TRY TO BYPASS THE SWEAR FILTER].

 

[gman]

However you would have to weigh up the safety risk of putting cheaper (and unassumingly) less effective tyres on new cars and the potential publicity,

It was a bit of tongue in cheek.

 

[rick448]

But that doesn't mean the bloke with the longest service is the hardest worker or most capable.<snip>
Yet in some companies I would be paid less because I don't have as many years service at the job. I am sorry but that is just b****x.

I agree 100%, in my experience, time served means very little, in fact in lots of cases the staff who have been there the longest do the least. This was the case in my current role, however as the manager I dealt with this. The fact that 90% of these "experienced" staff have now left due to the fact they were expected to come to work and actually do a job is quite telling. I now have a much more inexperience workforce, but they are competent in doing their job, and work far harder than those with many years "service."

Granted, they were poorly managed in the past, but things have changed now.

 

[nilagin]

We have quite a few engineers at Ford who are on contract as opposed to being a full time employee. Each Chistmas their contracts are renewed or not as the case maybe and normally for 12 months. However this time, as we will be having a downturn in workload, the contracts were only extended for 6 months to coincide with the downturn. One bloke was told his contract wasn't being renewed at all and walked out straight away even though he had 3 weeks left at the time. It will be interesting who if any gets an extension when the 6 months is up. The engineer I work with was the last man in and although he was unsure at the beginning his aptitude and knowledge for the job is amazing. He is now getting called upon to assist other engineers not just at Dunton where we work but other testing facilities not only in the UK, but in mainland Europe too. It would be a travesty if he isn't allowed to stay and the same for many others too. But depending on how many can stay some good engineers could still be lost and should the ability to offer new contracts occur sometime in the future they won't be able to get them back again. Worst thing is some of them are far better than the Ford employed engineers and their jobs will be safe.

 

[noneforit]

It obviously depends on which sector you work in.

In IT for example it's common to get paid a different amount to your colleague as you get a discretionary payrise each year. Some firms are based on individual performance, some are a set percentage but are different as people are on different salaries depending on what they started on.

In finance it's common to get a discretionary bonus each year also.

Like I said, depends on the sector you work in and I really don't see that changing.

If I were told everyone gets the same each year regardless of performance, I would probably start contracting.

 

[nilagin]

It obviously depends on which sector you work in.

In IT for example it's common to get paid a different amount to your colleague as you get a discretionary payrise each year. Some firms are based on individual performance, some are a set percentage but are different as people are on different salaries depending on what they started on.

In finance it's common to get a discretionary bonus each year also.

Like I said, depends on the sector you work in and I really don't see that changing.

If I were told everyone gets the same each year regardless of performance, I would probably start contracting.

We have people at Ford who work in IT and finance and if they are Ford employees instead of contractor they will all be on pretty much the same money. They can get merit money each year which is effectively a sub grade. If they get a merit awarded they are generally required to take on extra roles as a result. They still all receive the same percentage pay rise though.

 

[Furtim]

You start at a salary, and annually you get reviewed and awarded a score (say 1-4); Those on 1 get no pay rise, scaling up to those on 4 getting the biggest rise - how much depends on the overall scoring and the pot available (say 2% of total payroll). Those on 1 rarely last long and leave anyway as they are usually on some form of performance management.

On top of this there's a bonus element - say half is based on the performance of the company in some way (and dependant on what part of the company you work for), the other half is based on your personal performance and you hitting those targets.

Individually you can also always ask for more - perhaps you get an offer elsewhere, perhaps you don't feel you're getting enough - you're always free to ask, sometimes you will get it, sometimes you won't - depends on how compelling your case is and how valuable you are. Plenty of people leave because they can get more elsewhere, but they can't justify their value here. Some comeback too!

All this means there is a relatively large mix of salaries for similar roles. Perform well, you will get more, keep performing well and you'll get this year on year compounding the difference. Be particularly useful at a difficult to fill role and you can push it a bit further through negotiation. I suppose in this sort of arrangement - which has been common to all my jobs over the last 30 years, there's always an inbuilt risk that conscious or subconsciously the scoring, the 'added value' could be influenced by individuals, and result in one gender, race, or other demographic group being impacted.

While the company will have the best intentions (and I believe we do), the implementation is in the hands of 1000's of individual managers, and it's always going to be a challenge to ensure complete balance. Measures can be taken, and we have a lot of stats to help spot adverse trends, but all that relies on far greater granularity than these new stats will collect. The new legislation's only purpose is to shine a rather harsh, and simple spotlight on companies and cause a knee jerk reaction so the government can say they are doing something.

 

[TimHughes]

The (over) simplistic published statistics may make it more difficult for individual companies to take corrective action...as candidates impacted will likely select against joining those companies reporting the worst numbers.....?

 

[gman]

What if a company decides to join the Insanity Express and adopt gender-neutral language? No more men and women, just employees.

How does someone who is either a man or a women but identifies as something like non-binary fit into the whole gender pay issue? I'm not 100% sure as it's not a topic I've ever looked into but I think the Government does recognise non-binary genders and is widely accepted, so doesn't this conflict in some form?