Discrimination in Pay

jt69er

Hi, just wondering if anyone has experienced Discrimination in Pay for the same work in their job. If so,and a complaint was made, was it resolved to the claimants satisfaction?

Vestiapx

jt69er wrote: »

Hi, just wondering if anyone has experienced Discrimination in Pay for the same work in their job. If so,and a complaint was made, was it resolved to the claimants satisfaction?

Do you mean two people doing the same job for the same amount of time and on different pay. I'm interested in this as I've been asked by a person who has much less time served but actually is more productive querying their lower pay. However in the civil service time served is clearly an allowed differential.

Mrs OBumble

Which of the nine grounds do you believe is leading to the discrimination?

If it's something else (prettier, fitter, more experience, the person is the manager's cousin). then it's allowed anywhere but in the civil service.

Strumms

It’s a regular enough occurrence. So I doubt it’s illegal.

A company who I worked for linked pay increases with performance reviews. A good way of doing things if the reviews are done honestly, fairly and respectful of the policy and criteria. So in a team of ten you had nobody really earning the same .. even though they all had the same job title.

I always prefared rewarding performance monetarily as opposed to seeing which has happened... a couple of chronically underperforming bozos being overpaid due to length of service while younger people proved to be more dynamic, hard working and just better at their jobs yet getting less reward. That’s never an acceptable scenario.

_Brian

jt69er wrote: »

Hi, just wondering if anyone has experienced Discrimination in Pay for the same work in their job. If so,and a complaint was made, was it resolved to the claimants satisfaction?

So unless its a union environment there is nothing can be done as no discrimination is heppening.


There is no law that states that two equal employees should/must be paid the same rates..


I've worked in many companies where wages would have been different depending on many factors such as hire date etc..


Just look to teachers and other public servants and you have same workers on different pay scales..

Jim Root

Be careful throwing around the discrimination word unless it directly relates to one of the 9 no-no’s.

dekbhoy

I work for a semi state wholly unionised company where some employees doing exactly the same work with exactly the same title are on different pay levels. When arguing for pay equality and parity the companies and unions stance is nobody has right to tell an employee taking up a role what amount of money they can and cannot work for. its up to them if they want to sign the contract. joke but thats the way it is.
Perfectly legal.

nthclare

dekbhoy wrote: »

I work for a semi state wholly unionised company where some employees doing exactly the same work with exactly the same title are on different pay levels. When arguing for pay equality and parity the companies and unions stance is nobody has right to tell an employee taking up a role what amount of money they can and cannot work for. its up to them if they want to sign the contract. joke but thats the way it is.
Perfectly legal.

Those semistates are a joke with their pay scales and job's for the boy's etc it's sickening.

You'll see soon a lot of those places are going to be overhauled, Shannon Airport is a semistate and the only hard workers there I'm told are the hare's running around the rushes and the tumble weed's scraping across the runway.

dekbhoy

nthclare wrote: »

Those semistates are a joke with their pay scales and job's for the boy's etc it's sickening.

You'll see soon a lot of those places are going to be overhauled, Shannon Airport is a semistate and the only hard workers there I'm told are the hare's running around the rushes and the tumble weed's scraping across the runway.

Thats probably because theres tumble weed blowing through Shannon airport hence there is little or no work to do. Semi state of which im employed is a little busier but lets stay on topic please.

thefa

Strumms wrote: »

It’s a regular enough occurrence. So I doubt it’s illegal.

A company who I worked for linked pay increases with performance reviews. A good way of doing things if the reviews are done honestly, fairly and respectful of the policy and criteria. So in a team of ten you had nobody really earning the same .. even though they all had the same job title.

I always prefared rewarding performance monetarily as opposed to seeing which has happened... a couple of chronically underperforming bozos being overpaid due to length of service while younger people proved to be more dynamic, hard working and just better at their jobs yet getting less reward. That’s never an acceptable scenario.

Agree with the logic but believe there’s a downside since there’s often a human element at play, particularly where the goals and ratings aren’t clear cut, so the honesty and equity mentioned can take a hit. Relationship with the manager can have an impact on the review process. Small department size can affect the increment too.

OMM 0000

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Which of the nine grounds do you believe is leading to the discrimination?

If it's something else (prettier, fitter, more experience, the person is the manager's cousin). then it's allowed anywhere but in the civil service.

And it should be allowed. I really hope we never get the Icelandic model as it just ends up hurting the workers, especially the women.

It's like the minimum wage - it sound great, but when you think it through you realise it's a bad idea as it just hurts the workers.

I hope the OP comes back with details...

WAW

Well you can be working in the civil service at a higher grade than the people you are managing but earning less than them, not necessarily because they have more work experience than you but because CS/PS only recognise experience solely in the CS / PS for the purposes of pay increments. They recruit EOs externally with management experience to come in and manage COs who are earning more than them. The mind boggles as to how this is allowed. Likewise you can have two colleagues doing the same job at the same grade, one of them with a qualification and same number of years' experience but the other earns more because their experience is in the public sector and came up through the ranks and the other one got their experience in private sector and then moved into public sector. Protectionism of the highest order. How is this allowed?

Littlefinger

WAW wrote: »

Well you can be working in the civil service at a higher grade than the people you are managing but earning less than them, not necessarily because they have more work experience than you but because CS/PS only recognise experience solely in the CS / PS for the purposes of pay increments. They recruit EOs externally with management experience to come in and manage COs who are earning more than them. The mind boggles as to how this is allowed. Likewise you can have two colleagues doing the same job at the same grade, one of them with a qualification and same number of years' experience but the other earns more because their experience is in the public sector and came up through the ranks and the other one got their experience in private sector and then moved into public sector. Protectionism of the highest order. How is this allowed?

Yes but after an increment or two the EO will be higher.. the end payscale of an EO is higher than a CO.

WAW

Littlefinger wrote: »

Yes but after an increment or two the EO will be higher.. the end payscale of an EO is higher than a CO.

A manager should be earning more than the staff they manage.

You would have to be at point 6 or 7 of the EO scale to equal the top of the CO scale ( Inc long service increments).

Mrs OBumble

WAW wrote: »

A manager should be earning more than the staff they manage.

Why?

If you're a generalist manager with a team who have specific, in-demand skills, then they team members are likely worth more than you are.

WAW

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why?

If you're a generalist manager with a team who have specific, in-demand skills, then they team members are likely worth more than you are.

In Civil Service? Generic clerical staff should be earning more than their manager?

OMM 0000

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Why?

If you're a generalist manager with a team who have specific, in-demand skills, then they team members are likely worth more than you are.

I agree.

There's a myth out there that manager means you're the "best" person on the team, or the most skilled, or the most knowledgable, or the most important.

I recently hired a senior data scientist who is paid a lot more than me. My option was pay him what he's demanding, or spend another few months trying to find someone with his skillset. At no point was my ego bruised - the fact of the matter is he is currently more valuable than me. Good for him.

3DataModem

Vestiapx wrote: »

Do you mean two people doing the same job for the same amount of time and on different pay. I'm interested in this as I've been asked by a person who has much less time served but actually is more productive querying their lower pay. However in the civil service time served is clearly an allowed differential.

It’s an allowed differential almost everywhere.

The salary market varies for a job but it doesn’t mean that existing staff salaries are adjusted accordingly, Therefore if a job that previously would require paying 45k now has a lot of people available willing to do it for 35k, and you hire one... you don’t *have* to pay them 45k and nor should you drop the 45k persons salary to match. So you end up with two people doing same job earning very different amounts.

beauf

WAW wrote: »

....because CS/PS only recognise experience solely in the CS / PS for the purposes of pay increments. They recruit EOs externally with management experience to come in and manage COs who are earning more than them. The mind boggles as to how this is allowed. Likewise you can have two colleagues doing the same job at the same grade, one of them with a qualification and same number of years' experience but the other earns more because their experience is in the public sector and came up through the ranks and the other one got their experience in private sector and then moved into public sector. Protectionism of the highest order. How is this allowed?

Promotion and advancement in the PS can take a very long time and its often very boring work. That's the trade off for the job security. No one would do it if after serving their time they could be bypassed by a new hire. The pension is the same is based on time served. Though there are variations on that.

If you want dynamic opportunities you work in the private sector but the tradeoff is less job security but more opportunities.

beauf

OMM 0000 wrote: »

I agree.

There's a myth out there that manager means you're the "best" person on the team, or the most skilled, or the most knowledgable, or the most important.

I recently hired a senior data scientist who is paid a lot more than me. My option was pay him what he's demanding, or spend another few months trying to find someone with his skillset. At no point was my ego bruised - the fact of the matter is he is currently more valuable than me. Good for him.

Bit like you might be managing a mix team of contractors and permanent staff all on different wages some on more than the manager.

beauf

This actually causes an issue in ps because the only way to hire some special skills is to offer high salaries. But those high salaries are only available to management grades. There maybe a quota of management grades and not everyone wants to be a manager or should be a manager.

tscul32

Common place in the private sector. If you have 2 staff members say hired at the same time at same level for same money. A couple of years later one has an offer with another company with a pay increase, the company should be allowed to match the salary to keep a valuable employee. It would be mad to suggest they're not allowed without also increasing the other person's salary too.
If any individual feels they should be paid more then they are entitled to present their arguments and they may or may not get what they want.

nthclare

WAW wrote: »

Well you can be working in the civil service at a higher grade than the people you are managing but earning less than them, not necessarily because they have more work experience than you but because CS/PS only recognise experience solely in the CS / PS for the purposes of pay increments. They recruit EOs externally with management experience to come in and manage COs who are earning more than them. The mind boggles as to how this is allowed. Likewise you can have two colleagues doing the same job at the same grade, one of them with a qualification and same number of years' experience but the other earns more because their experience is in the public sector and came up through the ranks and the other one got their experience in private sector and then moved into public sector. Protectionism of the highest order. How is this allowed?

It won't be long before a politician like Michael McNamara or Pierce Doherty will out these practices and question the logic of this unfairness.

We need more politicians like Pierce Doherty and Michael McNamara I am not politically minded.
I just go on how the politicians approach the subject matter.

Watching Michael McNamara or Pierce Doherty ask these people straight forward questions is a breath of fresh air.

The Civil service and semistates are a total mess and the sooner there's fairness the better.

People have had enough of the manipulation, favouritism and ineptitude of these state bodies bringing in buddies and putting them 14 years up payscales when they're in the door and making it up as they go along.

Women in the same positions of men on different pay scales, which is totally unfair and HR then lying to people's faces, taking it personal and worried about themselves rather than admitting they messed up and will fix it.

Middle management not standing up for their own team and going along with the lies from their manager's so as not to put their own jobs in jeopardy.

The semistates and state bodies are going to have to pull their socks up and look after their staff.

Watch this space because I can see Michael McNamara questioning and tying these people up in knots when they're before him.

He's already making a good impression and between himself and Pierce Doherty I'd say they'ed clear the air for a lot of people.

If some of you knew the wastage and different wage's being paid in semistates you'd be shocked.

It stinks...the lies and cover ups are well hidden but not locked away if you get my drift...

Ohmeha

The only really scenario you can claim any discrimination in pay is if you're in a company with defined roles/grades and being made work in a role full-time that is outside & above your defined role/grade, for example if you're being made to do a executive officer role in the civil service while you're on a clerical officer grade/salary or in a bank if you're being made to do branch manager role while on bank teller grade/salary

Otherwise employers in both private and public sectors can pretty much have two people doing the same job with one on double the salary of the other once all parties have happily signed up to their respective employment contracts T&Cs

jrosen

You can have entry level salaries/salary bands etc but ultimately people negotiate with their employer and can end up with a better salary.

I

nthclare

Ohmeha wrote: »

The only really scenario you can claim any discrimination in pay is if you're in a company with defined roles/grades and being made work in a role full-time that is outside & above your defined role/grade, for example if you're being made to do a executive officer role in the civil service while you're on a clerical officer grade/salary or in a bank if you're being made to do branch manager role while on bank teller grade/salary

Otherwise employers in both private and public sectors can pretty much have two people doing the same job with one on double the salary of the other once all parties have happily signed up to their respective employment contracts T&Cs

This is totally wrong, why would the same employer pay someone double the salary for the same job.

But yet lie to people's faces and say it's company policy to start everyone on the same rate...

Are people absolutely stupid.

Are words being so manipulated that these companies can say and do what they like, and not get into trouble ???

jrosen

I think the double pay is probably an exaggeration.

Salaries dont have to be set in stone, some people bring more to the table than others and are more valuable to the company. The company will be willing to pay to keep these people and more than happy to see others leave.

beauf

nthclare wrote: »

This is totally wrong, why would the same employer pay someone double the salary for the same job.

But yet lie to people's faces and say it's company policy to start everyone on the same rate...

Are people absolutely stupid.

Are words being so manipulated that these companies can say and do what they like, and not get into trouble ???

Why would they get into trouble?

The world is not fair or equal.

That the way the world works.

beauf

nthclare wrote: »

It won't be long before a politician like Michael McNamara or Pierce Doherty will out these practices and question the logic of this unfairness...

It's only unfair if you want to skip the time served.

Or if your want to ignore the essential differences between private and public sector.

The rest of what you posted is a lot of disparate issues..

Mrs OBumble

WAW wrote: »

In Civil Service? Generic clerical staff should be earning more than their manager?

There's nothing in the OP to say that this is about the Civil Service, or generic clerical staff.

Strumms

thefa wrote: »

Agree with the logic but believe there’s a downside since there’s often a human element at play, particularly where the goals and ratings aren’t clear cut, so the honesty and equity mentioned can take a hit. Relationship with the manager can have an impact on the review process. Small department size can affect the increment too.

Yep, relationship with the boss and how mailable or how much of a yes man/woman the employee is can be a big part. I worked with a useless article but he never said no to anything the bosses asked, hungry overtime worker so they scratched his back, him, theirs... his performance reviews were about 85%....best case showing should have been 60-70%... errors all over the gaff.