New employee doing same job as me earning more money

KiKi

zzzLazyDaisy wrote: »

Actually, OP refers to working up from receptionist. Most (admittedly not all) receptionists are female. The new person is a man. If they are both doing the same work, or work of equal value, then OP may have a case for unlawful sex discrimination.

You're right, of course, most receptionists are female. I just wasn't making the assumption! For the record I'm fully aware of the legislation - I just meant to say that the post stating the OP should get advice on unfairness isn't necessarily the right way of approaching this because we don't yet know it's an unequal pay case.

Although I suppose the existence of the word 'bunny' in the OP's name suggests that s/he may be more likely to be female...

The legislation does not exist solely for women to make claims against men - equality is equality for both. Unfortunately the law does not allow for anyone to claim equal pay without a comparator of the opposite gender - not very fair, but a fact. Perhaps it should?

Does the equal pay legislation leave room for a margin of difference between a male and female if one should be deemed more competent and more able than the other, if they are doing the same job? Ie, is equal pay only about the job role, or is there scope for a pay difference based on the individual who is performing that role?

KiKi

Any

Interesting - everyone is bashing about Employment tribunal already and noone yet asked whether she (as we are now supposing she is she) is sure that they have EXACTLY the same qualification etc... She says only 1 of the 2 new starters earns more then her...

If the company has reason for it (any of million things, such as experience, future plans, qualification) then the OP will look like a hysterical woman seeing unequality everywhere and that is not best look for future payrise or promotion consideration...

Also she has been "told in past there is no money" but they "have new management who hired new people"... with new management there might be new money and new future plans for the company? Maybe if she asked now she would get the payrise she is after??

King_Nothing

So saying someone comes for an interview for the same job you do, they get through with flying colours, they offer them the job, and tell him the wages. The guy comes back and says "i'm not getting out of bed for those wages, I want more" They want to secure this guys employment, maybe because they think he has good skills, or they may be educated to a high degree, so counter offer him with more money, you think you should get the same as him automatically, because he had the stones to stand up and say I'm not coming to work for you for that money.

KiKi

Any wrote: »

Interesting - everyone is bashing about Employment tribunal already and noone yet asked whether she (as we are now supposing she is she) is sure that they have EXACTLY the same qualification etc... She says only 1 of the 2 new starters earns more then her...

If the company has reason for it (any of million things, such as experience, future plans, qualification) then the OP will look like a hysterical woman seeing unequality everywhere and that is not best look for future payrise or promotion consideration...

Also she has been "told in past there is no money" but they "have new management who hired new people"... with new management there might be new money and new future plans for the company? Maybe if she asked now she would get the payrise she is after??

...but no-one mentioned the word 'tribunal' until you posted??!!

LazyDaisy said that if the OP's a she then she may have a claim, and made a reference to a website which was perfectly sensible. And both she and the other posters are either asking for more information or suggesting she read up further to determine whether it is a problem or not. In fact, some posters refute any case at all.

But no-one - from what I've read - is saying anything that she absolutely has a claim and should threaten an ET!

Not sure what posts we're reading differently that you see people 'bashing' about tribunals?!

KiKi

fluffnutter

Whoa! Employment law protects you from discrimination (age, gender, race, religion, sexuality, disability etc.). It doesn't protect you from your employer choosing to pay new recruits more money, unless you're being paid less because you are male/female, too young/too old, disabled etc.

It's common practice for companies to allow longstanding employees to languish on low wages whilst paying market rates for new recruits. You have little redress other than to ask for a pay review, stating dispassionately why you are worthy of more salary (skills, experience, achievements, etc.). If this is unsuccessful you either put up with it, or leave. And then benefit from the likelihood of the next company employing you at market rates.

That's life unfortunately. It may seem unfair, but it's certainly not illegal. A 3K discrepancy is nothing. In a teamleader role I've undertaken during my career, on average my team members were paid £13K more than me. One member of my team was paid £38K more! More than double my salary at that time. I left in the end.

Any

KiKi wrote: »

...but no-one mentioned the word 'tribunal' until you posted??!!

LazyDaisy said that if the OP's a she then she may have a claim, and made a reference to a website which was perfectly sensible. And both she and the other posters are either asking for more information or suggesting she read up further to determine whether it is a problem or not. In fact, some posters refute any case at all.

But no-one - from what I've read - is saying anything that she absolutely has a claim and should threaten an ET!

Not sure what posts we're reading differently that you see people 'bashing' about tribunals?!

KiKi

KiKi,
It was only figure of speach, because that is where advise to go and check your rights usualy lead.

Even you yourself said that "I just meant to say that the post stating the OP should get advice on unfairness isn't necessarily the right way of approaching this because we don't yet know it's an unequal pay case. "

You cannot deny that there is few people who advised to the OP to go and check out her rights, which frankly I think is jumping a gun A LOT from what she said in her original post.

KiKi

Any wrote: »

KiKi,
It was only figure of speach, because that is where advise to go and check your rights usualy lead.

Even you yourself said that "I just meant to say that the post stating the OP should get advice on unfairness isn't necessarily the right way of approaching this because we don't yet know it's an unequal pay case. "

You cannot deny that there is few people who advised to the OP to go and check out her rights, which frankly I think is jumping a gun A LOT from what she said in her original post.

Fair enough. I guess I just read the advice posts more as 'check whether or not this is an issue', rather than 'research your case', that's all.

(And thank you for being one of the very few posters on here who spells my name with two capital Ks. )

KiKi

Hammyman

987654 wrote: »

are you female & the new person male?

equal pay legislation may help if you are doing the same work.

Here we go again...

Naturlee

This sounds quite bad, i personaly wouldnt put up with this.

SarEl

fluffnutter wrote: »

Whoa! Employment law protects you from discrimination (age, gender, race, religion, sexuality, disability etc.). It doesn't protect you from your employer choosing to pay new recruits more money, unless you're being paid less because you are male/female, too young/too old, disabled etc.

It's common practice for companies to allow longstanding employees to languish on low wages whilst paying market rates for new recruits. You have little redress other than to ask for a pay review, stating dispassionately why you are worthy of more salary (skills, experience, achievements, etc.). If this is unsuccessful you either put up with it, or leave. And then benefit from the likelihood of the next company employing you at market rates.

That's life unfortunately. It may seem unfair, but it's certainly not illegal. A 3K discrepancy is nothing. In a teamleader role I've undertaken during my career, on average my team members were paid £13K more than me. One member of my team was paid £38K more! More than double my salary at that time. I left in the end.

We had this yesterday. I am fully aware that in the private sector, in particular, this is common practice. But being common practice and lawful are two very different things. Oftentimes, something is "lawful" only because the employee chooses not to challenge it. Paying someone an "enhancement" for experience / qualifications etc., is only lawful (in terms of equal pay legislation) if the employer can objectively justify the difference - that the person needs the qualification to do the job and could not do it without it (and if they have someone else doing the same job without that qualification it leaves a gaping hole in their argument!). If the position is substantially the same and another position and the differences cannot be objectively demonstrated, then this may give rise to a claim of sex discrimination, either by a man or a woman, if their comparator is of the opposite gender. Comparators do not even have to do the same job - but the claimant must demonstrate that the job is of equal value, so a comparison with someone whose job was of "less value" but higher paid would not do.

I am fascinated by the argument that simply because the private sector do something "all the time" or "frequently" that it should be seen as right and therefore the employee should simply forget about their rights under the law, or get another job. Funnily, it seems to come up most often in the context of women claiming equal pay / rights - never in the context of the fact that private sector employers also "often" breach health and safety laws or sack people unfairly. If we were to apply the same logic to all circumstances, then the private sector should be allowed to still have people working 100's of hours every week, seven days a week; hiring and firing willy nilly; with a blatent disregard for health and safety, just as they did in Victorian times. That is, of course, putting aside the fact that some few employers in the private sector do still act like this despite all the laws to curtail their actions.

If employers, from any sector, want act with blatent disregard for the law, then they should not be surprised if that sometimes has consequences they do not like. Any employer who wishes to do so can easily resolve and avoid such consequences by making sure that what they do is fair and equitable to all.

And none of that is either in support of, or against, the OP's position. None of us know whether there is a case or not, but like all employees she (if she is a she) would be well advised to know her rights - and join a union. If she, like many other workers, does neither, then that is her choice - but if she chooses to exercise any rights she may have it should not be the case that people judge her wrong to do so, when the same people would be up in arms about employers who refuse to pay people, or injure them, or sack them unfairly.