Job Evaluation Scheme help

bigkeeko

Hi people.

This is desperate stuff and I`m needing advice from anyone that knows anything on this. My company is going through the Job evaluation scheme.
The problem is that I`ve been on a `new generation` contract since 1999. That means I`ve been working alongside guys doing EXACTLY the same job with exactly the same contract , hours etc except I`m getting a few grand a year less.
The majority of the employees are on the `old` contract and any union negotiations or votes means they vote literally for themselves.
Its looking now that after this job evaluation has taken place (outcome wednesday) it seems I`m STILL going to be paid less when I had assumed that the Job evaluation scheme meant a system where employees performing work of equal value receive equal
pay.

Anyone know what I can do or if I have any kinda case? I`ve been shat on now for 10 years and it looks likely to continue. Theres on 6 guys on the new generation wages and as such even our `productivity bonuses` are less as well as the rest.

Really not sure where I stand. Any info or insight appreciated here guys. Seriously. Any advice from anyone on here will be passed on to help others in my situation at my work. I feel we`re being really screwed.

suicidebob

Get a new job?

ohreally

What job factors does the evaluation take account off?

Given

I`ve been working alongside guys doing EXACTLY the same job with exactly the same contract , hours etc except I`m getting a few grand a year less

how does the evaluation exercise fail to address this?

Who consistency checks the evaluation outcomes?

Are you a union member?

SarEl

I have got to admit to some sympathy with that view - it can't be all that traumatic a situation if you have willingly stayed in the job for ten years whilst "being shat on".

There is no automatic right to be apid the same as someone else, and the only way in which there might be a case would be through a discrimination case - which would mean one of the "standards", ideally sex or race discrimination. But beyond that, it's impossible to say because your post doesn't make real world sense. "New generation" contracts don't exist - this is obviously a company practice and meaningless to us. And if there is a "new generation contract" there must be an "old generation contract" - so how can you be on exactly the same contracts??? You are going to have to unpack what you are talking about in a way that makes sense to the rest of us if you want any advice.

bigkeeko

ohreally wrote: »

What job factors does the evaluation take account off?

Given how does the evaluation exercise fail to address this?

Who consistency checks the evaluation outcomes?

Are you a union member?

Got this from the ACAS site

"Care should be taken that any job evaluation scheme
should be non-discriminatory in its effects and be linked to a payment
system where employees performing work of equal value receive equal
pay"

Yes, I`m in the union but the majority of union members just outvote the minority of low paid guys to keep their own wages up. Its creating friction.
As far as failing to address this mate I think we`re having the wool pulled over our eyes but don`t know how to go about challenging it.

bigkeeko

SarEl wrote: »

I have got to admit to some sympathy with that view - it can't be all that traumatic a situation if you have willingly stayed in the job for ten years whilst "being shat on".

There is no automatic right to be apid the same as someone else, and the only way in which there might be a case would be through a discrimination case - which would mean one of the "standards", ideally sex or race discrimination. But beyond that, it's impossible to say because your post doesn't make real world sense. "New generation" contracts don't exist - this is obviously a company practice and meaningless to us. And if there is a "new generation contract" there must be an "old generation contract" - so how can you be on exactly the same contracts??? You are going to have to unpack what you are talking about in a way that makes sense to the rest of us if you want any advice.

Ok, a bit harsh but fair enough.

I started work in 1999 with XXXXX. The contract I signed was identical in every way to the rest of the employees except the salary was lower. This was the companies way of `saving money`. Now at the time that was perfectly legal to do and i needed the job so i took it (like most people unemployed would)
NOW. Its not legal but theres that much grey areas I`m needing help. The company is going through the `Job Evaluation` process to `address this BUT, they STILL don`t want to pay the rates as this means either A; Putting the lower paid guys up or B: bringing the higher paid guys down. The JE scheme should rectify this but the company are trying to cut corners and pull a flanker.
I`m just an employee but I genuinely thought I was at least after 10 years going to achieve parity.


Sorry for my lack of knowledge on this subject but thats why I origianally posted

bigkeeko

Sorry sarel I meant new generation wage.

Really what would help would be....

Should two men doing the same job receive the same pay? Its seems strange that f I was an ethnic minority/female or have different religious beliefs i`d have a case.

bigkeeko

I just can`t accept that after we`ve been `evaluated` I`m still worth less. That doesn`t equate and contradicts nearly everything that the Job evaluation scheme stands for.

ohreally

bigkeeko wrote: »

BUT, they STILL don`t want to pay the rates as this means either A; Putting the lower paid guys up or B: bringing the higher paid guys down

There is a third alternative (which i suspect may result)...bringing earnings down to the lowest common denominator but protecting the pay of those who would suffer a detriment, effectively meaning from this point on-wards all employees would earn a lower wage except those who have been in post the longest would receive limited or indefinite protection.

I think you need to get a full time officer from the TU in and get assurances from him that the union will fight to improve or maintain your terms of service. Get him to set out his strategy and agree that way forward for your group.

ohreally

bigkeeko wrote: »

I just can`t accept that after we`ve been `evaluated` I`m still worth less. That doesn`t equate and contradicts nearly everything that the Job evaluation scheme stands for.

This is a process i've been through several times. Not everyone can accept that their job won't come through the process well - some jobs don't achieve high outcomes in terms of the post holders expectations - which was why i asked what factors of the job is being evaluated.

Do you have an on-line resourse which is used to score the jobs?

bigkeeko

ohreally wrote: »

There is a third alternative (which i suspect may result)...bringing earnings down to the lowest common denominator but protecting the pay of those who would suffer a detriment, effectively meaning from this point on-wards all employees would earn a lower wage except those who have been in post the longest would receive limited or indefinite protection.

I think you need to get a full time officer from the TU in and get assurances from him that the union will fight to improve or maintain your terms of service. Get him to set out his strategy and agree that way forward for your group.

That scenario is possible and i had even thought it possible to have the two salaries meet in the middle but according to the union representative its not looking good for the lower paid people. Again.

Struggling to understand how this can be given the very purpose of Job evaluation.

but Ohreally thanks for your input, it was helpful informative and non patronising.