lecturing pay scale issue?

positivenote

Hi all,
just an issue to run past you for opinions and the like. Started working in an IT in jan 2003 whilst finishing my MA. Completed it that sept and then started to get more part time hrs, following year (2004) got full 18hr timetable with even more OT, totalliNg approx 20 hrs a week (being paid the hrly rate). Sept 2005 started pro rata. June 2007 interviewed for perm position in the role i had being doing since jan 2003 and got the position made perm whole time. Delighted tbh.

Now my issue is that i am still, over 7 yrs after my first payslip, on level 5 of the AL scale... this i dont mind,despie everything. HOWEVER, i found out that a lad that was appointed the same day as me from the same interview panel with no teaching experience prior to the interview is progressing to level 1 of the Lecturer scale. He has been getting paid 2 scales higher than me since the day he started? Im sure that HR will say that he has industry experience (he wrked in the private sector for 7 or 8 yrs previously) but for the first 2 or 3 semesters i was helping him out with any issues he had, advice on teaching and dealing with students and exams etc...
Does anyone think that i have a just case for approaching HR to move me up the scale to a level par? Its as if the system values work/experience in the prvate sector and ignores any teaching experience? this just doesnt seem right?
i have no issue with the other lecturer, in fact we still work very closely together, but i couldnt believe it when he said he was progressing to the lecturer scale this sept and i still have two more years to go despite being here 4 years longer than him? (i know its hardly his fault)
Any advice or am i wasting my time?
regards

drusk

I would have thought that progression on the scale would be purely a case of the amount of hours worked. You say that when you started, you were on part-time hours. If you did two years on half hours, then you should be brought up one point on the scale, as far as I know. Unless, something in your contract then said that this would not be the case.

If I were you, I'd check out all of your contracts, and add up all of the hours you worked in each given year since you started. If there's any discrepancy between your point on the scale and the hours you've worked, then pop in to HR and have a word.

I think it's a bad idea to look at the scale-discrepancies between you and the other guy. I would imagine that when he started off in 07, it was on two points of the scale higher than yours which may have come down to effective negotiation on his part, taking into consideration his industry experience. I doubt that HR would listen to you if you went in complaining about the fact that he's getting paid more than you because his contract was agreed several years ago and took into consideration something you don't have - industry experience.

I may be totally wrong by the way. Just thought I'd give my opinion.

Best of luck with it!

positivenote

thanks for the opinion. regarding not having industry experience... here is where i see the role as a teacher/lecturer being somewhat undervalued. As far as i am concerned teaching itself is a skill that i feel should be considered as 'experience'.

smcgiff

positivenote wrote: »

thanks for the opinion. regarding not having industry experience... here is where i see the role as a teacher/lecturer being somewhat undervalued. As far as i am concerned teaching itself is a skill that i feel should be considered as 'experience'.

Some would argue that you need to experience it to teach it... Just saying

positivenote

i hear you
just think that teaching as a skill in itself is being undervalued in my situation.

homolumo

don't you have to be at the top of the AL scale for a number of yrs b4 progressing? so how is this guy going onto the lecturer scale? have they
done a postgrad lately?

I would go back to HR positivenote. When you became pro rata you should not have started point 1 on the AL scale. Considering you had a masters and 2 yrs teaching under your belt in 2005 when you became pro rata you should have started around point 4 on the scale imo. At the very least the situation should have been reviewed when you became permanent.

atgate

When was the parchment issued for your relevant honours degree? AFAIK you do not become "qualified" for 3/4 years after conferral. And no incremental credit till then. Also, HR might have looked at the other guys earnings from the year before he started and adjusted him up the scale to match.

positivenote

graduated from hons degree in 2002. I think they did look at his private sector wage and brought him in accordingly... but i still have an issue with it tbh. He is doing the same job as myself with nearly 4 years less teaching experience and when he progresses on the L scale will get a big increase and work 2 hrs less a week? as i say the lad is a good guy and i have no issue with him getting what he is entiled to, but it's hard to understand why he is recieving a better wage than i am given my 'experience'.... moreso, because ive just found out about it.

hairybro

Atgate’s point is very important – you need 3 years IIRC experience before you are qualified for a permanent appointment or incremental credit. You graduated in 2002 => you were qualified for appointment/increments in 2005 only, so being on point 5 of AL now is pretty much right TBH. Your teaching experience *is* being valued through the incremental credit you have received so far.

When did this other guy get his degree? Excluding the 3 years postgrad experience requirement, allow him one increment for each year above this (industry experience is also valued for incremental credit, not just teaching experience – this is commonplace). Where does this leave him? Also, initial appointments on the AL/L scale can be negotiated to some degree depending on the applicant’s experience. I know of someone with no teaching experience who was offered the top of the AL scale to start out on – she had bucket loads of industry experience (18 years, I think) and a good postgrad, etc. but the position was advertised as AL, so that’s what had to be filled. She was on the L scale very soon afterwards.

Anyway, don’t let it chew you up. Anomalies happen in any case whereby similarly qualified/experienced people end up on very different scales and points (right time, right place, etc.). You’re in a good position with your permanent appointment, etc. that many people would give their right arm for in today’s climate.

positivenote

hairybro, thanks for the clarification etc and i more than most appreciate the position i am in re: perm contract... and i also know why i do the job i do, and its not primarily for the wage, but it is somewhat disheartening to hear of someone being paid a better wage for the same job dispite you may have being doing the job for longer.

homolumo

atgate wrote: »

When was the parchment issued for your relevant honours degree? AFAIK you do not become "qualified" for 3/4 years after conferral. And no incremental credit till then. Also, HR might have looked at the other guys earnings from the year before he started and adjusted him up the scale to match.

spot on I forgot that bit.

dingding

THE issue is that you both started on different points of the scale. This was for one of two reasons.

If you were not quallified i.e. 3 years from the date of graduation when you started you will start on the bottom of the scale and remain there until the 3 years have passed.

If you are quallified you can join at up to the 6th point on the AL scale based on your previous pay.

Either you were not quallified, or yout colleague came from outside the sector on a higher pay scale.

You should ask the HR department how the calculated your salary.

Obviously they wil not discuss your colleagues situation but it should help you figure it out.