Inequality Re. Pensions & Benefits in SMEs

ZeroThreat

ok, I seen a general thread asking people did they have pensions or not over on after hours.

Not sure if it belongs here, but I'm just curious if people working in family run SMEs have had the same experience as me.

From the day I started I was informed there was no company pension, but while this was true in that no 'official' company pension exists, certain employees are provided with pensions (private arrangement) by the company with annual lump sums paid into it by the employer.

Notably all the family members are also in a pension scheme paid for by company, along with relatives via marriage, some only fairly recent additions, while the 'unconnected' employees some of which have been in company many years were never offered any such benefits of this sort.

Ditto as regards company cars, even being provided to non-director family members doing general office work.

Ditto as regards health insurance. Even relatively small stuff such as company mobile phones were never provided to anyone outside the circle.

Now, this may seem like a mainly whinge thread, but the reason I put this up is out of mere curiousity, have any of you experienced e a similar internal company culture in family-owned & run SMEs or is this more the exception than the rule and I'm a mug for working there??

Stheno

NOpe, it's perfectly normal, benefits differ by employee depending on relationship, seniority, ability to negotiate, all sorts.

The only obligation your employer has is to provide you with information on accessing a PRSA regarding your pension, nothing more.

ZeroThreat

Stheno wrote: »

NOpe, it's perfectly normal, benefits differ by employee depending on relationship, seniority, ability to negotiate, all sorts.

The only obligation your employer has is to provide you with information on accessing a PRSA regarding your pension, nothing more.

Stheno, oh I know there's no obligation, (wasn't really questioning that) but sometimes it's hard to see someone with no qualifications whatsoever, doing some receptionist & basic office work & getting about 50k (including BIK for car) & pension, while I know if the person wasn't a sibling of the director they'd be getting about 25k & diddly squat else.

The general setup has generally damaged morale overall from what I've seen and decent people have left.
To be frankly honest, ability to negotiate wouldn't work with these people, remuneration seems to be based mainly around bloodties (or marriage ties).

I'll be doing some job hunting over the next few months anyhow, so I'm not planning on sticking around for much longer.

Stheno

I've come across that a few times, and just moved on tbh.

ZeroThreat

Stheno wrote: »

I've come across that a few times, and just moved on tbh.

Indeed, the job is dead end (should have moved on a few years ago), I'd swear they want to demotivate me enough to leave anyway so they have a spot in accounts dept. for another brother in law or cousin anyway

I shouldn't be surprised though I guess - the directors have worked in the place since their teens (part time during school holidays even), they have no experience whatsoever of working anywhere else or for anyone else (apart from Daddy). So I guess that could limit the broadness of someone's mind from a business pov.

Stheno

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Indeed, the job is dead end (should have moved on a few years ago), I'd swear they want to demotivate me enough to leave anyway so they have a spot in accounts dept. for another brother in law or cousin anyway

I shouldn't be surprised though I guess - the directors have worked in the place since their teens (part time during school holidays even), they have no experience whatsoever of working anywhere else or for anyone else (apart from Daddy). So I guess that could limit the broadness of someone's mind from a business pov.

In my experience that sort of setup does limit the managers/owners ability to think differently.

One place I worked in, the directors all sloped off about 3 on a Wednesday to go on the piss, all inter related to each other.

No question of the rest of us doing so

ZeroThreat

Stheno wrote: »

In my experience that sort of setup does limit the managers/owners ability to think differently.

One place I worked in, the directors all sloped off about 3 on a Wednesday to go on the piss, all inter related to each other.

No question of the rest of us doing so

They're not quite that bad, but some of they do take planned days off, yet you'd only find out when they don't turn up in the morning.
They also love delaying payments to other small businesses either founded by ex-employees or containing ex-employees as managers. I think they have a general bad attitude (perhaps a grudge) against anyone who has left and done well for themselves.

I usually hear a colourful phrase like "Those ****ing c**ts can wait 120 days at least."
Then of course credit is suspended after a while of that malarky (I'm not surprised) and we have to pay on an upfront basis, so out of spite they source goods somewhere else, even if slightly more expensive.
A lunatic asylum in many ways....

Stheno

ZeroThreat wrote: »

They're not quite that bad, but some of they do take planned days off, yet you'd only find out when they don't turn up in the morning.
They also love delaying payments to other small businesses either founded by ex-employees or containing ex-employees as managers. I think they have a general bad attitude (perhaps a grudge) against anyone who has left and done well for themselves.

I usually hear a prase like "Those ****ing c**ts can wait 120 days at least.
Then of course credit is suspended after a while of that malarky (I'm not surprised) and we have to pay on an upfront basis, so out of spite they source goods somewhere else.
A lunatic asylum in many ways....

You literally are describing several SMEs I have worked in.

_Brian

ZeroThreat wrote: »

ok, I seen a general thread asking people did they have pensions or not over on after hours.

Not sure if it belongs here, but I'm just curious if people working in family run SMEs have had the same experience as me.

From the day I started I was informed there was no company pension, but while this was true in that no 'official' company pension exists, certain employees are provided with pensions (private arrangement) by the company with annual lump sums paid into it by the employer.

Notably all the family members are also in a pension scheme paid for by company, along with relatives via marriage, some only fairly recent additions, while the 'unconnected' employees some of which have been in company many years were never offered any such benefits of this sort.

Ditto as regards company cars, even being provided to non-director family members doing general office work.

Ditto as regards health insurance. Even relatively small stuff such as company mobile phones were never provided to anyone outside the circle.

Now, this may seem like a mainly whinge thread, but the reason I put this up is out of mere curiousity, have any of you experienced e a similar internal company culture in family-owned & run SMEs or is this more the exception than the rule and I'm a mug for working there??

Seriously, the family
Have taken the risk and hassle to start a business. They can pay themselves as they see fit and "fairness" doesn't come into it.

If you want these benifets then go and start a company successful enough to employ a good number of people and by the time you have all that some I'm sure you will look after yourself and family.

LegacyUser

I work for a family business and unfortunately that's the way it works in most of these businesses!

They are obviously going to treat their own & their extended family preferentially and you either live with it or go to work for a large MNC instead. I find it has other benefits as they are usually more flexible with timekeeping & time off than the larger companies I have worked for. That said, it is hard sometimes to see some of the family earning more than me for doing waaay less and generally taking the p**s when it comes to putting in a days work!

CruelCoin

ZeroThreat wrote: »

have any of you experienced e a similar internal company culture in family-owned & run SMEs or is this more the exception than the rule and I'm a mug for working there??

Why would you be a mug?

What has their level of pay/benefits got to do with you if you're nothing working their roles?

I see nothing wrong with a family business seeking to enrich the family.

ZeroThreat

CruelCoin wrote: »

Why would you be a mug?

What has their level of pay/benefits got to do with you if you're nothing working their roles?


I see nothing wrong with a family business seeking to enrich the family.

I presume you meant to say 'not working their roles' ? Well I wouldn't be working their roles, since many of their roles would be junior & the simpler tasks and my skills would be wasted doing what they do. So I would have issue with their overly generous pay/benefits, considering the company are complete skinflints when it comes to the 'hoi polloi'.

I think some here are taking me up wrong. I never said businesses shouldn't be making their owners wealthier.

In the case of where I work my grip was with relatives & inlaws being brought into the company with no qualifications and little skills immediately starting on higher pay with benefits (Pensions/company car) which qualified good performing workers there for years were never offered.

I'm not complaining about the company directors/owners who work hard, more about all the hangers on, many of which regard the place as a social club with flexible days/hours.

Sure of course it's perfectly legal to pay anyone whatever you want, but I don't think operating an inner circle based solely on connections (not skills/experience or competence) is a good way to run a business, it's going to harm them in the long run.

Of course I get the impression that some commenting here are on the other side of that barrier, so it's in their benefit to diss me.

The situation has badly impacted on the moral within the rest of the staff. During the downturn years, we were brought into an office room (the non-connected employees only) and told about the paycut we were getting and that we were 'all in it' and all that stuff.

Of course being involved in the area of the business where I see what money's coming in/going out & payroll, so I could see that they were lying about applying the cut to themselves.

Even in the good times, the poor mouth is constantly put on, which is pretty stupid when some of use are aware of the cashflows, yet any increases never materialised even in the good times.

Anyway as someone said earlier you can vote with your feet & leave which is what I'm doing. It's not the same working there anymore since most of the staff members I was somewhat friendly with already seen sense and have left, some to the MNC sector.

Arbiter of Good Taste

It's really none of your business what someone else earns in their role. Provided you are on a reasonable wage for the role you do, then it doesn't matter whether or not the receptionist is objectively on a higher wage.

If you can get a higher wage doing the same role somewhere else, then either negotiate a payrise or change jobs.

ZeroThreat

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

It's really none of your business what someone else earns in their role. Provided you are on a reasonable wage for the role you do, then it doesn't matter whether or not the receptionist is objectively on a higher wage.

If you can get a higher wage doing the same role somewhere else, then either negotiate a payrise or change jobs.

Arbiter, I'm not on a reasonable rate, considering my skills & experience which is why I'm leaving. Poor rates for some are effectively subsidising ridiculous perks for others.

Since part of my work is involved in payroll, I'm afraid my knowledge isn't as a result of unauthorised poking of my nose into other people's business as you term it.
Anyway giving someone starting in a fairly basic role (such as a receptionist) a company car is going to be noticed by everyone even if they're minding their own business.

People such as you seem to think I'm somehow questioning legality issues.
Once again, all I'm saying is that the total lack of any meritocracy in the organisation has driven good people away and is clearly going to cause a lot of problems down the road (and soon for them).

Sadly anyone who considers issues of fairness in this country seems to be considered a communist, crank or loony AAA-PBP type. :rolleyes:

CruelCoin

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Arbiter, I'm not on a reasonable rate, considering my skills & experience which is why I'm leaving. Poor rates for some are effectively subsidising ridiculous perks for others.


Sadly anyone who considers issues of fairness in this country seems to be considered a communist, crank or loony AAA-PBP type. :rolleyes:

The rate you're on, is it less than the industry average for what you do? Or is it just less than what you feel you should be paid?

The best scenario for everyone involved would be for you to move on and get paid more for your experience elsewhere, and for the company to replace you with someone with less experience able to do the same job (i'm assuming that your role is static).

ZeroThreat

CruelCoin wrote: »

The rate you're on, is it less than the industry average for what you do? Or is it just less than what you feel you should be paid?

The best scenario for everyone involved would be for you to move on and get paid more for your experience elsewhere, and for the company to replace you with someone with less experience able to do the same job (i'm assuming that your role is static).

Cruelcoin, from what I see online, I'd have to say at least 5,000 less, (excluding other benefits which are also advertised for these jobs) so you're probably right that it's best I move on. It's my own fault for staying too long really. I was led on for a while about expansion of roles which never materialised, especially after the owner retired and the kids took over.

Anyway from the replies I see significant preferential treatment seems to be standard across most of the indigenous sector so I know where I won't be going this time.

CruelCoin

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Anyway from the replies I see significant preferential treatment seems to be standard across most of the indigenous sector so I know where I won't be going this time.

That's a little misguided.

Again, it must be said, that once you are adequately paid for your role, then it's none of your business whatsoever what others are getting paid.

Once you're paid properly for the job you're doing, then any complaints you have are just you being petty. Getting mad at family being treated better in a family business is like getting mad at water for being wet.
You'll do better to accept it, or as you say, join an MNC.

ZeroThreat

CruelCoin wrote: »

That's a little misguided.

Again, it must be said, that once you are adequately paid for your role, then it's none of your business whatsoever what others are getting paid.

Once you're paid properly for the job you're doing, then any complaints you have are just you being petty. Getting mad at family being treated better in a family business is like getting mad at water for being wet.
You'll do better to accept it, or as you say, join an MNC.

Cruelcoin, its easy to say that if you're not affected. It's more than mere payment, it's stuff like taking unannounced days off affecting other people's work and not being considerate enough to inform them in advance, coming in at any hour of the day they wish - read Stheno's posts of his own experiences earlier in the thread. That sort of carry on is pure ignorance in my book, it's not being 'petty' to not want be treated like a doormat.

If I were running a business I'd expect good time keeping from all staff including relatives.