Fair treatment in workplace

paulwf

SuperMum2010 wrote: »

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.

This seems fairly straightforward...they've identified someone they want and as they don't have the relevant qualifications they have started them on a low pay and fast tracked them until they get qualified.

They have shown huge favouritism over who they have employed so the interview process looks rather unfair but I'm not sure if you could demonstrate favouritism once they have been employed. They might well have come to an agreement before the contract was agreed, something along the lines of low pay in exchange for being fast tracked for the qualifications.

Whether you should be fast tracked as well OP might depend on how important it is for you to get these qualifications to fulfil your job role. As you've been in your post 2 years they might not be so important to your role so perhaps that is why they are taking their time?

As another poster said there *may* be discrimination. However it could also be argued that as they are on much lower pay and need the qualification to fulfil the role they have been given study leave.

Small companies do work informally with pay and who they select for jobs...bias and inconsistencies should be kept to a minimum but the human element will always creep in to some extent.

SueC_2

A completely separate example to backup what paulwf has said.

I earn less than some of my colleagues. But I have a higher holiday entitlement, because that was what was important to me at the time of negotiating my package.

Taking either side of the case in isolation, my colleagues could say "I want more holiday because Sue has more". And I could say "I want more pay because my colleagues get more".

But in real terms, when the whole picture is taken into consideration, neither party is being treated unfairly, we have each simply agreed a package which is most appropriate to our individual requirements.

DVardysShadow

If you took the 6 weeks unpaid over a year, would your remaining salary be higher or lower than the new person's salary?

Judas

DVardysShadow wrote: »

If you took the 6 weeks unpaid over a year, would your remaining salary be higher or lower than the new person's salary?

I think you have hit it on the head. The OP's salary is probably far greater than the colleagues (and potentially the industry standard) hence the employer is reluctant to further increase the package.

Its also worth noting the new colleague could have significant repayment terms attached to their training.

Many graduates get this; for example some accountancy firms offer as low as 14-15k for trainees with full study package and stick by them until they pass; others offer 22k but as soon as one exam is failed say goodbye.

The overall package is what is important.

Why not post full details of yours and there package and we will make a judgement.

ceridwen

The thing is that the new person might have stated at interview for the job that they would only take it provided they got this "package". In that case - it is perfectly fair for them to be given it, as the employer is just sticking to an agreement that they made with this person (and so they should). The new person was probably totally unaware of what pay/conditions existing workers at the firm had at that time - so would not have known that they were asking for more than "the existing norm" in this particular firm.

The question is as to whether you can get a bit of "leverage" to improve your own position in order to "match" what the new person has. On that - I'm afraid I don't know your circumstances well enough to know whether you can work out a bit of "leverage" to use to get this "matching".

SuperMum2010

Thanks everyone - all very helpful and thought provoking!

Googlewhacker

R.SOLE wrote: »

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

It is a nice idea but will rarely work IMO, people are employed to do certain hours for a reason and companies will more than likely just say that they are to busy to allow time of for study.

I know that where I work that if requested it is highly likely to be denied because everything is on a tight budget and we can ill afford someone of for training.

Also let's be honest, why would a company allow someone time of to train for them to only go and move company?