Job wants candidates to take a pay cut...

Stovepipe

Hi all,
In my workplace, two lads went for promotion for two jobs, for which they are both well able and qualified. Both were interviewed and in both cases, were told "you'll have to take a pay cut of four grand". Both refused, naturally. The Company backed down and the lads got the jobs anyway. Is it even legal for a company to try this on? This is not the first time this has happened and it's gone so far as to be an expected question at interviews.

regards
Stovepipe

skallywag

Do you mean that they would be paid 4K less than their current salary if they received this 'promotion'?

Pawwed Rig

Is it that they would lose overtime or shift allowances or is it a lower basic pay?

Stovepipe

No, the job is still a shift job (nights and weekends on a rolling roster) for which a shift allowance is paid. In effect, the Company has stated in the past that the pay for the role is , for example, Eu 48K all in and the two lads would have to match that, ie, come down to 48 from 52. This comes on top of a history of long pay freezes and the pension being slashed, while the people demanding the pay cut are in receipt of bonuses..

Rulmeq

sugarman wrote: »

Sure why even take the promotion if it's the same pay as their current role? Nevermind 4k less! Surely it comes with more work and responsibilities? Where's the benefits in that?

Sound like chancers, I'd be reading every bit of any contract they offer.

I'm thinking it could be a clever bargaining trick.

Stovepipe

The job is a genuine step up and gets them in off the manual labouring/out in the weather end of a particular aviation role and is always a route to higher things so it's worth going for. As we have talked about it amongst ourselves, we are of the opinion that we should not have to "sponsor" a wealthy company with a history of pay freezes/slashed pensions and generous bonuses for managers. What I'd particularly like to know; is it legal?

ted1

Stovepipe wrote: »

The job is a genuine step up and gets them in off the manual labouring/out in the weather end of a particular aviation role and is always a route to higher things so it's worth going for. As we have talked about it amongst ourselves, we are of the opinion that we should not have to "sponsor" a wealthy company with a history of pay freezes/slashed pensions and generous bonuses for managers. What I'd particularly like to know; is it legal?

Yes it’s very legal. They are not being forced a pay cut. They are applying effectively for a new job.

seamus

There is absolutely nothing illegal in this. Applying for a new role, whether it be a promotion or not, means that you will be offered new terms and conditions. One of which may be a paycut.

You might be getting confused with "mandatory" promotions; that is where someone gets awarded an upgraded job title as recognition for hard work. In this case the company cannot cut their pay without the employee's agreement. Technically they can't raise it without the employee's agreement either, but it's rare that an employee refuses a payrise!

It's actually quite common in some industries - where someone might earn generous shift bonuses, allowances and overtime, some companies have a policy that disallows managements from claiming allowances or overtime. So when someone gets "promoted" from shift to management, their basic may increase but their overall compensation drops.

OMM 0000

Coming at this from a different angle:

Does the company have money problems?

Sometimes companies do things like this because they have serious cash issues and are barely surviving. I've been there a few times.

LegacyUser

Sounded hard to believe until I saw its in Aviation. My husband works in a company in Shannon. Hes looking for a way out of it ASAP! Madness what cuts and bad conditions they expect people to put up with. He used to contract but needed to take a permanent job to further his career and they offered him 26k a year - 10 years experience and licenced engineer! I started on more than that in my first job out of college.

Stovepipe

OMM 0000 wrote: »

Coming at this from a different angle:

Does the company have money problems?

Sometimes companies do things like this because they have serious cash issues and are barely surviving. I've been there a few times.

Not a bit.Company is loaded and making money hand over fist. It's nothing but pure cynicism to me and the job requires the incumbent to make decisions that previously, he could have referred to a supervisor. The position still requires night and weekend work so it still has the same effect on work/life balance.

Stovepipe

Also, the same tactic is tried on, time and time again; applicants always say no and there is always a shortage of candidates even willing to go forward, so the Company is shooting itself in the foot.

Stovepipe

askljlasdf wrote: »

Sounded hard to believe until I saw its in Aviation. My husband works in a company in Shannon. Hes looking for a way out of it ASAP! Madness what cuts and bad conditions they expect people to put up with. He used to contract but needed to take a permanent job to further his career and they offered him 26k a year - 10 years experience and licenced engineer! I started on more than that in my first job out of college.

they must have that figure etched inside their eyelids...that's the exact amount has been offered to lads to join our Company in Dublin airport, when the going rate for new joiners was rising past 48K for licensed engrs around the various companies in Dublin. The Shannon companies are notorious for below par Ts and Cs. Many skilled aircraft engineers have left aviation entirely, especially to IT firms/aircraft leasing firms/DITs for better wages.

_Brian

Nothing wrong with the company asking. Same as nothing wrong with the lads refusing.

Sometimes people take jobs at lower pay because the position better suits them. I’m in a lower paid role now by choice because of the hours and flexibility it offers me. I’m confident I could secure roles at 30% more pay but I choose not to.

odyssey06

I am struggling to see how this is a promotion or why it is perceived as such... are the company even describing it as such? Or just as an open role?

Wildly Boaring

_Brian wrote: »

Nothing wrong with the company asking. Same as nothing wrong with the lads refusing.

Sometimes people take jobs at lower pay because the position better suits them. I’m in a lower paid role now by choice because of the hours and flexibility it offers me. I’m confident I could secure roles at 30% more pay but I choose not to.

Amen. On 20% less than this time last year for a similar role with more decision making and less politics.

Took the reduction to move sideways and slightly upwards but less pay and never happier.

Knew what I was getting into. Life too short to worry only about the pay packet

Stovepipe

odyssey06 wrote: »

I am struggling to see how this is a promotion or why it is perceived as such... are the company even describing it as such? Or just as an open role?

it gets the postholder off the regular maintenance shift and into a decision-making office job, but with shifts and weekends included. It takes away some things but adds other factors, such as being in the direct firing line if anything goes wrong. It is also considered a step towards higher office. Over time, in this Company, the actual pay scale for the post has gradually been whittled down so it has become less and less attractive but it retains enough of an attraction to get people to apply for it.

Pawwed Rig

Stovepipe wrote: »

it gets the postholder off the regular maintenance shift and into a decision-making office job, but with shifts and weekends included. It takes away some things but adds other factors, such as being in the direct firing line if anything goes wrong. It is also considered a step towards higher office. Over time, in this Company, the actual pay scale for the post has gradually been whittled down so it has become less and less attractive but it retains enough of an attraction to get people to apply for it.

So a step back to take 2 steps forward?
I've done that

beauf

Stovepipe wrote: »

Hi all,
In my workplace, two lads went for promotion for two jobs, for which they are both well able and qualified. Both were interviewed and in both cases, were told "you'll have to take a pay cut of four grand". Both refused, naturally. The Company backed down and the lads got the jobs anyway. Is it even legal for a company to try this on? This is not the first time this has happened and it's gone so far as to be an expected question at interviews.

regards
Stovepipe

They should have counter offered, staying in their current job, doing less hours but for more money.