Fair treatment in workplace

zzzLazyDaisy

SuperMum2010 wrote: »

Thankyou! No, other person not the same sex...

Well that potentially puts a different slant on it.

My original view still stands - you need to do what they have asked you to do, and produce a good case for them to give you study leave. But don't get too hung up on perfectionism - get the info, put it together, and get on with it. If they need nore info they'll ask for it.

If you feel you have presented a good case, but they refuse your request, then post again on this thread (so those of us who have replied will be aware that you've come back with an up-date) and we can look at it again.

Good luck

paulwf

I don't think you have a case for discrimination, it's not like you both started off at the same time at the same grade and then been treated differently.

It sounds like their procedure is similar to a fast track graduate programme. You see it all the time; one person has worked for a company for years and years then another person half their age and on a poor salary for their position is put straight into a management position without any experience and fast tracked through the training process.

As you've been there 16 years they seem to be taking the long view as to your training and goals whereas they are fast tracking the other person so they can fit into the role they recruited them for...all perfectly above board.

zzzLazyDaisy

paulwf wrote: »

they are fast tracking the other person so they can fit into the role they recruited them for...all perfectly above board.

I have to say that, in my view this is a very simplistic approach. We simply do not have enough information to make a judgement (I speak as someone who has specialised for years in discrimination in the workplace).

Consider, for example, the new under qualified recruit is a man, and is fast tracked over a more senior and longer serving female employee, so that he can leapfrog and take up a more senior role within the company. This is potentially sex discrimination, paricularly if the existing senior management structure is under represented by women. Whether it does in fact amount to unlawful discrimination would depend on a full consideration of the facts, but there is no doubt that such a scenario is capable of being unlawful.

SueC_2

I'd be a bit careful what I wished for if I were you.

If you want all to be completely 'fair' your salary should be dropped to the same low level as the new recruit.

SuperMum2010

SueC wrote: »

I'd be a bit careful what I wished for if I were you.

If you want all to be completely 'fair' your salary should be dropped to the same low level as the new recruit.

What a bizarre comment?? My salary reflects my current qualifications, 16 years experience and skills acquired through that. I therefore am on a salary scale appropriate to my position. The new person is a junior with no qualifications or skills in the job. Thats like saying a consultant heart surgeon should be paid the same as a 1st year medical student?? However we both want to end up with the same qualification, and the newbie is being paid to study, but I am not.

SuperMum2010

paulwf wrote: »

I don't think you have a case for discrimination, it's not like you both started off at the same time at the same grade and then been treated differently.

It sounds like their procedure is similar to a fast track graduate programme. You see it all the time; one person has worked for a company for years and years then another person half their age and on a poor salary for their position is put straight into a management position without any experience and fast tracked through the training process.

As you've been there 16 years they seem to be taking the long view as to your training and goals whereas they are fast tracking the other person so they can fit into the role they recruited them for...all perfectly above board.

Thankyou Paulwf - the position isnt a fast track graduate one- we are a smallish organisation so dont have that sort of thing. The post advertised wasnt even a trainee post, it was for a part qualified post - the newbie simply needs training because they dont have the skills or qualifications for the job that was advertised! I've only been with the company 2 years, but have 16 years experience in total in this field.

SuperMum2010

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Consider, for example, the new under qualified recruit is a man, and is fast tracked over a more senior and longer serving female employee, so that he can leapfrog and take up a more senior role within the company. This is potentially sex discrimination, paricularly if the existing senior management structure is under represented by women. Whether it does in fact amount to unlawful discrimination would depend on a full consideration of the facts, but there is no doubt that such a scenario is capable of being unlawful.

Yes, there are no women in any senior posts in the company sadly!

SueC_2

SuperMum2010 wrote: »

What a bizarre comment?? My salary reflects my current qualifications, 16 years experience and skills acquired through that. I therefore am on a salary scale appropriate to my position. The new person is a junior with no qualifications or skills in the job. Thats like saying a consultant heart surgeon should be paid the same as a 1st year medical student?? However we both want to end up with the same qualification, and the newbie is being paid to study, but I am not.

I think you possibly missed my point, but your example actually backs it up quite nicely.

No, the consultant surgeon doesn't (and shouldn't) earn the same as the 1st year medical student. But equally, he doesn't get as much time away from the workplace for classroom based training, or as much supervision, or as much support and guidance.

The surgeon is a senior professional, whose salary reflects the massive responsibilities and liabilities of his role. It is up to him to maintain and develop his professional standards and qualifications accordingly, and a lot of this will be done in his own time.

The medical student on the other hand is just starting out, and therefore (in exchange for their significantly lower salary) is rewarded with the addtional training, development and assistance.

'Fair' is a much misused term, and is often erroneously taken to mean 'equal'. What you are receiving is categorically not equal to what the new recruit is receiving, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is not fair.

By all means approach your employer and try to negotiate a study package, but do it by demonstrating the value it would bring to your performance within the company, not by making a "He's got it so I want it" comparison with someone else.

SuperMum2010

ok, thanks for your comments.

R.SOLE_3

SuperMum2010 wrote: »

Am hoping someone can help me with a query.

I have 16 years experience in my job, and am almost fully qualified to a high level and have a high level of technical knowledge and skill, but have one more batch of exams to sit which could take me a year of further study.

A new person has joined the company with no previous experience in the business and wants to sit the same exams. They have asked for, and are likely to get, 6 weeks study leave on the basis that their salary is low and "it would only be fair".

Knowing my employers as I do, it seems unlikely that I would be offered 6 weeks study leave because my salary is considerably higher than the new person's (although still below the national average and below the average for my position in other companies). Is this fair? Should I be offered the same amount of study leave to sit the same exams regardless of my current salary. Any advice very welcome! Thankyou.

can't post proper link yet, but you do/will have the right to ask:
worldwideweb.direct.gov.uk/en/Employment/Employees/Timeoffandholidays/DG_183635