Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 1:53 PM
    • 11Posts
    • 0Thanks
    Clivek77
    Changing pay anniversary from 12 months to 15 months
    • #1
    • 29th Nov 17, 1:53 PM
    Changing pay anniversary from 12 months to 15 months 29th Nov 17 at 1:53 PM
    My employer is reportedly moving the pay review date after just having awarded 2.1% this year.

    The next pay review will be 15 months away instead of the normal 12 months.

    People are claiming that this results in the pay award being in real terms 1.8% for 15 months.

    I can't quite understand it as I worked out the monthly value and subtracted 3x that from 2.1% and came up with 1.57%


    Can anyone with strong maths skills break this down so it can be discussed rationally?

    thanks,

    Clive
Page 1
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 29th Nov 17, 2:27 PM
    • 30,764 Posts
    • 18,377 Thanks
    getmore4less
    • #2
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:27 PM
    • #2
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:27 PM
    What they are saying is the is the 2.1% has to stretch for 15 month

    They will need to explain their working none of the sensible ones get 1.8


    All irrelevant as it is up to the employer what rises they give and when unless there is an agreement in place that has guarantees in it.
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 2:36 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    • #3
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:36 PM
    • #3
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:36 PM
    Of course they can give what rises they like, but this is about the information betting presented truthfully.

    I wish to prove or disprove the 1.8% claim, or quantify the effect moving the pay date to 15 months has on the pay award as claimed.

    If you could list one of the sensible options for working this out it would quite obviously settle this.


    Looking forward to your explanation 👍
    • TELLIT01
    • By TELLIT01 29th Nov 17, 2:40 PM
    • 4,245 Posts
    • 4,421 Thanks
    TELLIT01
    • #4
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:40 PM
    • #4
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:40 PM
    If the employer has told staff they are getting a 2.1% payrise, and then at a later date say they are moving the review date back 3 months it might be interpreted as a bit underhand, but it's not illegal and there's nothing much you can do unless you want to get unions involved and the potential hassle of 'industrial action'.
    It's still a 2.1% payrise, it's simply not going to change for a longer period.
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 2:42 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    • #5
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:42 PM
    • #5
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:42 PM
    There is union involvement and they are claiming the 1.8%

    I want to verify both sides claims but need someone with strong maths to explain.
    ��
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 29th Nov 17, 2:55 PM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • #6
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:55 PM
    • #6
    • 29th Nov 17, 2:55 PM
    I don't really see why it matters.

    The only "loss" though is between what you are being paid for the 3 extra months and what you might have been paid for the 3 extra months. They might have given you a 0% payrise in 12 months time anyway. As you don't know this figure I don't see how you can make a calculation.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 29th Nov 17, 3:06 PM
    • 841 Posts
    • 1,909 Thanks
    nicechap
    • #7
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:06 PM
    • #7
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:06 PM
    My employer is reportedly moving the pay review date after just having awarded 2.1% this year.

    The next pay review will be 15 months away instead of the normal 12 months.

    People are claiming that this results in the pay award being in real terms 1.8% for 15 months.

    I can't quite understand it as I worked out the monthly value and subtracted 3x that from 2.1% and came up with 1.57%


    Can anyone with strong maths skills break this down so it can be discussed rationally?

    thanks,

    Clive
    Originally posted by Clivek77
    I presume the 2.1% is instant from date of implementation, and you will not have to wait for 15 months until the payrise happens? In which case, you need your union to argue that the next pay rise needs to take account of 15, rather than 12 months worth of CPI/ RPI or equivalent wage rises in similar industries.

    There are multiple mathematical ways of getting to 2.1%, it could be monthly compound (which at 12 months I make it 1.55%, daily, weekly or quarterly compound will give different figures) or it could be additive, (e.g. 1.8% at 12 months and another 0.3% at 15 months) but are only relevant to the next negotiation.
    Quote was right and saw into the future.
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 3:08 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    • #8
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:08 PM
    • #8
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:08 PM
    Mathematical answers only please.

    The politics doesn't matter, because if the maths can't be explained it will be decided by who shouts the loudest as you all can imagine.

    Or is it the way i worked it out, which still doesn't coincide with the 1.8%?

    Suppose the only sensible reaction is to ask for whatever rise is given at the extension be backdated to the 12 month period end
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 3:09 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    • #9
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:09 PM
    • #9
    • 29th Nov 17, 3:09 PM
    This guy gets it ☝️☝️☝️
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 3:11 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    Yes it's been awarded . It's just the date for the next rise had, understandably, been moved to coincide with the new owners accounts.

    It's just quantifying the effect.
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 3:12 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    If you could show the workings it is case closed!

    Thanks.
    • ReadingTim
    • By ReadingTim 29th Nov 17, 3:53 PM
    • 2,216 Posts
    • 3,138 Thanks
    ReadingTim
    You need to know what the rate of inflation is (and the measure by which you're judging it - RPI or CPI) before you can make a comment about "real terms".

    So what are you actually trying to calculate - what the annual (ie 12 month) equivalent is to a 2.1% rise for 15 months? Or whether your wages aren't rising as fast as your bills?
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 4:09 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    12 month 2.1% equivalent at 15 months.

    According to the above poster the additive equation will produce the 1.8 which is what I'm looking to check/ reproduce.
    • nicechap
    • By nicechap 29th Nov 17, 4:29 PM
    • 841 Posts
    • 1,909 Thanks
    nicechap
    I'm not going to do the maths for you as you've misunderstood my post.

    The 2.1% is since your last rise - whether that be 6 months, 12 months or much, much longer - when the next negotiation comes around, you would take into account the period since the last pay rise.
    Quote was right and saw into the future.
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 29th Nov 17, 4:33 PM
    • 30,764 Posts
    • 18,377 Thanks
    getmore4less
    The first obvious calculation is this pay rise is based on the previous 12months pay rises are not in advance/anticipation so 2.1% foe 12 months.

    If you consider it in advance then on flat rate it would be 2.1*12/15 1.68% for 12months.

    As already mentioned you can use compounding calculations but they don't really make sense neither does flat rate.

    The real issue is you can't really give an equivalent as that would depend on what might have been given at 12 months in the future to cover those extra 3 months.

    It is not this pay rise that needs to be equivalenced it's the next one.

    I suspect the union just made a number up to try to argue it was too small.
    • Clivek77
    • By Clivek77 29th Nov 17, 4:40 PM
    • 11 Posts
    • 0 Thanks
    Clivek77
    Thank you all. It makes sense that at the very least it is something that really is to be sorted out at the next review. Just how that would be addressed so that if they were awarded exactly the same rise for example, there would undoubtedly be less money in people's pockets if they waited 15 months and the continued with 12. As they would spend 3 months on a lower amount where it should have been earlier.

    Seems most sensible action would be backdating on whatever rise is agreed, as it is only for accounting/ organisational reasons that it was moved.
    • ReadingTim
    • By ReadingTim 29th Nov 17, 4:48 PM
    • 2,216 Posts
    • 3,138 Thanks
    ReadingTim
    I suspect the union just made a number up to try to argue it was too small.
    Originally posted by getmore4less
    The union would probably also argue the glass was half empty while management claim it's half full, so I wouldn't get too hung up on the exact number...

    What's the real issue here OP - the range of possible answers is less than half a percent, so what does it matter? Why are you getting so het up about such tiny numbers?
    • lincroft1710
    • By lincroft1710 29th Nov 17, 4:53 PM
    • 10,032 Posts
    • 8,091 Thanks
    lincroft1710

    Seems most sensible action would be backdating on whatever rise is agreed
    Originally posted by Clivek77
    Not if you're the employer!
    • getmore4less
    • By getmore4less 29th Nov 17, 5:05 PM
    • 30,764 Posts
    • 18,377 Thanks
    getmore4less
    If it is the new owners that set the rise they will have done it as part of their budget including the move of dates, there is no equivalency looking forward that makes any sense.

    If the unions were negotiating they may have missed the obvious looming change of date for the next rises.

    It is fairly common practice to align pay rises with budgets
    Last edited by getmore4less; 29-11-2017 at 5:08 PM.
    • ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    • By ScorpiondeRooftrouser 30th Nov 17, 12:23 AM
    • 2,101 Posts
    • 3,127 Thanks
    ScorpiondeRooftrouser
    Thank you all. It makes sense that at the very least it is something that really is to be sorted out at the next review. Just how that would be addressed so that if they were awarded exactly the same rise for example, there would undoubtedly be less money in people's pockets if they waited 15 months and the continued with 12. As they would spend 3 months on a lower amount where it should have been earlier.

    Seems most sensible action would be backdating on whatever rise is agreed, as it is only for accounting/ organisational reasons that it was moved.
    Originally posted by Clivek77
    But you are making assumptions. The pay rise on 15 months might be 0%. In which case it won't make any difference that you didn't get 0% 3 months earlier.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,874Posts Today

8,154Users online

Martin's Twitter