Job Evaluation Scheme help

ohreally

bigkeeko wrote: »

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

Is it possible that the JE exercise has been poorly explained to the guys?

Its likely purpose is to protect the employer from equal pay claims (from a discriminatory perspective) and not to ensure you get paid the same as a higher paid same job employee (hope that makes sense).

It may be prudent to remove your name and your employer from your post.

SarEl

bigkeeko wrote: »

Ok, a bit harsh but fair enough.

I started work in 1999 with P&O. The contract I signed was identical in every way to the rest of the employees except the salary was lower. No it wasn't identical - the salary was lower! That is a big difference and makes the contract non-identical.

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) Yes it was legal... and it still is!

NOW. Its not legal but theres that much grey areas I`m needing help.As I said - it is still legal. It is only unlawful if the reason for the pay diferential is based on chracteristics of certain groups against whom is is unlawful to discriminate. There is nothing unlawful per se about paying people different wages even if they do the same job. In fact, it is far from uncommon.

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. Actually, I think you misunderstand what a job evlaution scheme is. It is designed to rank posts and to place them in a specific grading order. It has nothing to do with equal pay, and it does not mean that it will result in different pay for anyone.
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

Ohreally is almost certainly correct - the original pay differential is a result of protected pay for workers who have already been through a similar exercise once and have had their pay protected (which is not a legal requirement) to prevent it from being reduced. This may, or may not, be the same in this exercise - people on higher pay may have their pay protected - that depends on the strength of the union, and in this case that strnegth is pretty good, but not unbeatable - it depends how much the employer wants to take them on.

But realisticallly it was never on the cards that you would get your pay increased to the level of a protected group of employees, no matter what the employer said about job evaluation. And nor would I for one instant blame the union or the other workers for protecting their position - it was never on the cards that the employer would pay you the same wage as people with protected salaries, and no union membership can be expected to vote to cut their own pay. This is not about being unfair to you - this is about the fact that these people had grades and salaries long before you ever arrived on the scene and they are prepared to fight to retain them. They had no power to protect the wages of staff that were not even employed, and the fact is that you took the job and accepted the conditions - and whilst you may have been entirely unaware of it, what you were offered and took was part of the employers strategy to reduce the wages and conditions of other staff who were already there. The fact that this didn't work out was down to the union - I am sure that if they could have, as other employers have, the employer would have reduced their wages to a lower level.

But in terms of your query - there is no right to equal pay unless you can demonstrate that the pay differential is based on unlawful discrimination.

SarEl

ohreally wrote: »

Is it possible that the JE exercise has been poorly explained to the guys?

Its likely purpose is to protect the employer from equal pay claims (from a discriminatory perspective) and not to ensure you get paid the same as a higher paid same job employee (hope that makes sense).

It may be prudent to remove your name and your employer from your post.

Actually, I suspect that the job evaluation has been introduced to reduce pay and conditions - or to attempt to. That is what usually happens these days. I doubt the employer explained it poorly at all - I think they explained it very well, but people made assumptions that read into the explanation what they wanted to hear. "Ensuring that people who do similar jobs are graded accordingly and in relation to the value of that job" can easily be heard as "we are going to pay everyone the same for similar jobs" with an added assumption that people on lower pay will get higher pay. What I heard in that first sentence is "we are going to attempt to reduce pay and conditions by ranking jobs according to the lowest common denominator and by doing this exercise we are following the same route that a tousand other employers have used to lawfully reduce the grades of employees" But then, I'm a cynic and, in my experience, many employees remain optimists in the face of facts!

Take a look at the job evlaution schemes that have occurred in councils across the country - inevitably they have resulted in reductions of vast amounts of pay for many workers, and imposed contractual changes.

bigkeeko

SarEl wrote: »

But in terms of your query - there is no right to equal pay unless you can demonstrate that the pay differential is based on unlawful discrimination.

If thats 100% true then thats what I wanted to know. But in my defence absolutely Nothing was explained about any of the process and the union representatives don`t seem to know much either OR its in the majorities best interests to `keep their heads down` until it blows over knowing they won`t have their salary reduced to suit a bunch of guys who work for less.
I know when companies merge then under that particualar corporate umbrella theres same job different wage set ups but I wasnt aware that one employer could do that to its own employees in this day and age.

bigkeeko

SarEl wrote: »

Ohreally is almost certainly correct - the original pay differential is a result of protected pay for workers who have already been through a similar exercise once and have had their pay protected (which is not a legal requirement) to prevent it from being reduced. This may, or may not, be the same in this exercise - people on higher pay may have their pay protected - that depends on the strength of the union, and in this case that strnegth is pretty good, but not unbeatable - it depends how much the employer wants to take them on.

But realisticallly it was never on the cards that you would get your pay increased to the level of a protected group of employees, no matter what the employer said about job evaluation. And nor would I for one instant blame the union or the other workers for protecting their position - it was never on the cards that the employer would pay you the same wage as people with protected salaries, and no union membership can be expected to vote to cut their own pay. This is not about being unfair to you - this is about the fact that these people had grades and salaries long before you ever arrived on the scene and they are prepared to fight to retain them. They had no power to protect the wages of staff that were not even employed, and the fact is that you took the job and accepted the conditions - and whilst you may have been entirely unaware of it, what you were offered and took was part of the employers strategy to reduce the wages and conditions of other staff who were already there. The fact that this didn't work out was down to the union - I am sure that if they could have, as other employers have, the employer would have reduced their wages to a lower level.

But in terms of your query - there is no right to equal pay unless you can demonstrate that the pay differential is based on unlawful discrimination.

makes sense. Thanks .