Hugely Under-Paid for the job

Blitzwing85

jonnyd281 wrote: »

Does your partner have any engineering qualifications, or qualifications to do the job she is doing? That could explain the pay differential

Unfortunately not, so obviously i understand there will be a difference but being paid HALF seems a bit excessive just because she doesn't have an HNC...which is hardly a major qualification. I know this as i have one and it was incredibly easy and i've never used anything i learnt once in 9 years of the job i got it for.

It really annoys me how much importance companies place on qualifications. But that's the way it is so what can you do other than get them. At least it means they are pathetically easy to achieve. haha.



Maybe overall i just need to chill out and stop getting worked up about it. I think i get more annoyed than her...mainly because next year (buying a bigger house) is the first time so far we've had to make a sacrifice and not go on holiday. So it's the first time it's hit home that if she was paid a proper wage then we would not have any financial worries at all...which is a nice thing not to have!

It's got me going for a degree and looking for a better paid job...when in reality i have the perfect job for a good pay already. I mean i'm my own boss and the only one who knows my job so i just get on with it in my own time and have no stress. I don't want to push myself and end up with £10k a year more but coming home from work everyday still thinking about work and getting stressed.

Blitzwing85

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

She can speak informally and confidentially to a case worker at the EHRC who will be able to give her information about her rights re equality of pay and sex discrimination. What she chooses to do with that information is up to her, but at least she will be in a position to make informed decisions

http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/

Thanks, i'll keep hold of this and shee what route she ends up having to take depending on how things pan out initially.

getmore4less

Time to up the politics.

She has got to start selling herself internaly especialy to those that have P&L accountability and actualy have real influence.

Make sure they know you can do a good job so they ask for you to do projects.

Immediate management hate having to make cases for their employees and offen take the credit for the good projects so can't then say it was the lowest paid person in the team that made the difference.


On the projects so far find out who realy benifits and do followups directly with them asking for feedback on how things have gone since ,anything else that can be done.

Ask for prestige jobs that have global viibility and make sure the people that matter know it is you doing the work and suggest bonuses based on results when taking on projects,
eg,
"I saved the company more than I earnt on that last project how about a bonus" (Might prompt a how much do you get from a higher up).

Look for other parts of the company other sites and countries where you can work. You have to show that you are willing to move for the career/salary progresion so start to ask about jobs at other sites secondments to get more experience or just help out on a big project elsewhere.

Currently local bosses probably think they "have her" based on the number of familiy ties so don't see the need to try to keep you.

International experience is worth loads so definately worth looking at that anyway.

Another stratagy is to look for a crisis projects, with very high visability and make sure you are seen to be doing stuff to sort it out.

Being visible(as the good guy/gal that is allways there making good) makes it easy for the bosses to give the pay rises because they do not have to just jutify them to their bosses since they allready know you are the DogsB.

Going legal should be last resort, trying the game first is good experience progression in a process/quality career.

Hammyman

If the answers to these are no, then she has no case as it is easily proven that it wasn't down to her sex.

1) Has she been there longer than the 6 men?
2) Has she the same level of qualifications or higher and/or more experience in the role than they have?

If 1) is a no then the argument is that she got the deal a new employee would get and the lower pay is due to her inability to negotiate better terms.

If 2) is a no, then the argument is that they're better qualified and/or experienced and she is paid based on her qualifications and experience.

SarEl

Errmm .... No

Hammyman wrote: »

If the answers to these are no, then she has no case as it is easily proven that it wasn't down to her sex.

1) Has she been there longer than the 6 men?
2) Has she the same level of qualifications or higher and/or more experience in the role than they have?

If 1) is a no then the argument is that she got the deal a new employee would get and the lower pay is due to her inability to negotiate better terms. Not the case. Length of service can only be used to justify differences in pay within a grade, and are limited to advancement within a grade. "Inability to negotiate better terms" is not a defence for equal pay claims.

If 2) is a no, then the argument is that they're better qualified and/or experienced and she is paid based on her qualifications and experience.Again, not the case. If qualifications are required for the role then this must be included within the job specification (so that it can be objectively tested - you either have it or you don't). If she does not have the qualification and it is required, then she shouldn't have the job (I admit, that's a bit of a stumbling block - but the employer gave her the job knowing she didn't have it). Rewarding qualifications that are not necessary for the job anyway to justify a gendered pay differential will not work as a defence either.

I do agree that resolving this amicably is by far preferential to going to law, but that said, if there is an evidenced 90% job match or even a 90% equivalancy of roles, then there would be a reasonable case of sex discrimination. Remember that comparators do not even have to do the same job - only ones that are equivalent in responsibility. There is substantial case law on "equivalent but different" roles.

But before she could go to law, she would have to argue the case out with her employer anyway, and that is more often the stumbling block for people.

Alongside the more formal methods of doing this already suggested, there is another one I have seen used to great effect. Start noticeably job hunting Make sure that the advertisements for more lucrative and interesting jobs accidentally fall out of your note book under the managers noses, or accidentally get left on the top of your filing trays. When somebody notices them, be careful to move them out of sight - but not too far out of sight that they have to rifle through your drawers when you are away from your desk! Just sticking out from under a note book is ideal. If anyone asks about them, neatly avoid the subject entirely, or make vague references to "just being interested". Musing without point about whether it is time for a new challenge, preferably in confidence to the biggest office gossip (who will make sure that it confidentially gets around everyone quicker than sending an e-mail) is also a good trick. Change your style of dress for work - if you would normally dress down, or even moderately well, start wearing a suit, or something that bit smarter. Nothing gives away the fact that you are beginning to think about career advancement than dressing better! Subtle, but not so subtle hints like this can be very effective.

Hammyman

Sorry, disagree with the red bit. I have a funny feeling you work in the public sector. For a start, we've not ascertained she's on the same grade and actually in the private sector it may come as a bit of a shock but not all companies use pay grades. I can't actually think of one company I've ever worked for in my entire career which has had a grade system of pay.

Regarding the red in point 2, as you admit yourself there is a bit of grapsing at straws as whilst qualifications may be asked the lack of them may not be a barrier to getting the job.

At the end of the day when she started, they may have valued her at a lower value than the people already doing it or as has been happening a lot in the current climate, new starters are on lower money. May be just as simple as that. I've had jobs I've started doing exactly the same as guys who've been doing it for longer than I have and I've been on more money.

I notice absolutely no mention has been made of the original job advertisement and what the pay rate was when she applied for it..... To the OP - is she getting the pay rate that the job was advertised for to the public? You mention payscales so I assume a salary was advertised?

I am sick to death of people waving the "sexual discrimination" flag just because someone who happens to have TAKEN A JOB ADVERTISED AT A LOWER RATE THAN EXISTING EMPLOYEES is a woman.

SarEl

Hammyman wrote: »

Sorry, disagree with the red bit. I have a funny feeling you work in the public sector. Incorrect - try I work in law, as an employment law specialist.

For a start, we've not ascertained she's on the same grade and actually in the private sector it may come as a bit of a shock but not all companies use pay grades. I am aware of that. However, if they do not use grades then they have less of an argument than if they did. Equal pay for work of equal value. That is what the law says.

I can't actually think of one company I've ever worked for in my entire career which has had a grade system of pay. Irrelevant. What you can or can't think of does not, perhaps luckily, form law.

Regarding the red in point 2, as you admit yourself there is a bit of grapsing at straws as whilst qualifications may be asked the lack of them may not be a barrier to getting the job. No - you misunderstood. The argument is not grasping at straws. The argument which the employer may attempt is that in order to get a certain job a certain qualification must be held. This would be legal. Unfortunately for the employer they cannot argue thus - because they have already had her doing the job and so have accepted that the qualification is unnecessary to the conduct of the job. That would leave them explaining why they appointed someone without a qualification. My comment was actually directed at the fact that not holding the qualification is actually an argument against her holding the job at all - which obviously won't fly since she has been appointed and holds the job already.

At the end of the day when she started, they may have valued her at a lower value than the people already doing it or as has been happening a lot in the current climate, new starters are on lower money. Maybe that's true. But the law stands as it does. She has 6 male comparators - more than enough for a case. Again, the law says equal pay for work of equal value - not equal pay for work of equal value unless the employer thinks otherwise or the economy changes.

May be just as simple as that. I've had jobs I've started doing exactly the same as guys who've been doing it for longer than I have and I've been on more money. And if you were female and a suitable comparator "the guys" could have made a claim for sex discrimination.

I notice absolutely no mention has been made of the original job advertisement and what the pay rate was when she applied for it..... To the OP - is she getting the pay rate that the job was advertised for to the public? You mention payscales so I assume a salary was advertised? Irrelevant. Advertsing a job which breaks the law on sex discrimination does not make it legal.

I am sick to death of people waving the "sexual discrimination" flag just because someone who happens to have TAKEN A JOB ADVERTISED AT A LOWER RATE THAN EXISTING EMPLOYEES is a woman.

That final statement is sexist rubbish. There are just as many cases brought by men under the same legislation. Personally speaking, I am sick to death of a society that values men and male workers more than women and female workers, and despite decades of legislation to the contrary, still does so whilst dinosaurs whitter on about "pin money" and "second incomes" as though the contribution of women in the world and the economy is of secondary value and importance to that of men.

Savvy_Sue

Just because the company doesn't 'recognise' a union doesn't mean she can't join one, and that might be useful to her.

donquine

In my profession, a very part qualified person unofficially does pretty much the same job as a newly qualified person. A £10k odd pay difference is however the norm. This is not gender specific.

bendix

I'm surprised at SarEl's dismissal of the importance of the qualification thing here. Two people working in a law firm. They do pretty much the same thing day by day . . drafting and reviewing legal documents, interpreting legislation etc etc.

Except one is a qualified lawyer and his/her opinion has validity. The other is unqualified. Should they be paid the same.

There are far too many unknowns in the OP's case to make a judgement, but I will say this. When someone feels they are underpaid, they forget their are two parties to the alleged underpayment - the employer and the employee. If the OP feels she is underpaid she needs to understand why and take practice steps to address it; that might mean negotiating with her bosses, or it might mean getting the necessary qualifications, or it might mean testing herself on the open jobs market.

From what I read of the OP there is absolutely no evidence that the underpayment is anything to do with her sex, and everything do with with her lack of qualifications.