Internal candidates getting paid more

Steve321

Hi folks,

I have been a long time lurker on the forums, but I have finally taken the plunge to actually post and ask for some help.

I started a new job recently for a large organisation, and of the group of 20 new candidates, half were appointed internally, and half externally (of which I am one).

During an induction day for the job, we were told that everyone taking up a position would be paid £X. However, a few weeks into the job, and it seems that the people who have worked for the company before and were already getting paid more than that, are staying on their higher salary.

The position is question is brand new - the internal recruits have no more useful experience for the role than external.

Is it lawful to create a position, and then pay one group of recruits less, simply because they have not worked for an organisation before?

Thanks for your help.

Steve

blessings3

Of course it is.

Steve321

blessings3 wrote: »

Of course it is.

Hi Blessings, thanks for taking the time to comment. Is there a discrimination issue in the sense that external candidates are being paid less solely because they are external? i.e. none of us are any less qualified that the people who already worked for the company in totally different types of work (night and day difference between their old and new role).

For example, Company A advertises a job for a software engineer, paying £25k. 10 appointments made externally get paid said £25k, and are told that is the pay for the position, no negotiation.

However, they take 10 candidates who already worked for company A, as sales people, who were already earning £30k.

All candidates have identical qualifications and experience.... why should the people who already worked for the company get paid more?

Incidently, during the training and subsequent skills testing for said job, the external candidates outperformed the others.

It just doesn't seem right, especially when there has been no transparency.

InsideInsurance

Unless you can prove it is related to a legalised "ism" then they are free to offer whatever wage they want (at or above minimum wage) and you are free to accept or not.

Generally, internal candidates will often get lower salaries than external because you are also much more likely to be given "development opportunities" as you have a proven track record whereas an external candidate will much more likely be more experienced and thus better remunerated.

Personally have had new recruits coming in to work for me who were earning more than me and they complained their salaries were too low

It sounds like there is a bit more going on if you have a load of internal candidates applying for a role with a lower salary than they are currently holding.

Steve321

InsideInsurance wrote: »

It sounds like there is a bit more going on if you have a load of internal candidates applying for a role with a lower salary than they are currently holding.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. In a nutshell, this new position has fantastic career opportunities ahead. Their existing jobs within the company were very secure.

So yes, I had a right not to take the job at the salary proposed, but I took a salary reduction due to the prospects. However, the internal candidates had no such concerns it seems!

hcb42

It is unusual to be that way around, normally it goes the other way!

getmore4less

At least you now know that if you change jobs you have a good chance your pay will be protected.


Actually this(pay protection) is very common,

The key time will come when the first part of the good prospects start to happen.

When service becomes a factor then over performance that the time to kick up a fuss.