Challenging pay comparing against colleague

King_Nothing

I personally don't agree with the pay equality legislation, I don't think companies should be forced to pay two people the same wages under threat. I work in a department, think the highest paid person is paid about £7k more than me, we're all men though, so it's largely based on length of service, with some performance related pay as well.

Situation I would use is, we open two positions, recruit, get multiple people come for interview, woman and man chosen for second interviews, with the intention of them being offered the jobs at the end of it. Woman is interviewed first offered job for £20k, accepts without question. Man comes in for interview, offered job for £20k, tells them to "stuff it up their !!!!!! for those wages" wants £25k, company offers him the job at £25k.

How can their be justification that the woman now gets an extra £5k for essentially nothing? The man has put his neck on the line by getting the companies back up by asking for more money, fully compromising his job offer, but the gamble paid off and he gets the extra money. It's not solely the companies fault in instances like these, you're selling your time and skills as much as they're paying for them, you sell yourself short or don't take a chance at the opening gambit, then more fool you, don't see how it's the companies sole fault that two people of different sex get different pay, and should have to rectify this.

Just before anyone climbs on their high horse, the situation above could work vice versa, if the mans interviewed first and accepts, and the woman pushes for more money, why should the man get the extra money for not asking for it??

The last three people (same sex) to join my department were all offered the same starting wages, one asked for more, and got it, how is forcing the companies arm into paying the same for all three people (if the higher wage was a man, and the other two were women) fair?

SueC_2

King_Nothing wrote: »

I personally don't agree with the pay equality legislation, I don't think companies should be forced to pay two people the same wages under threat. I work in a department, think the highest paid person is paid about £7k more than me, we're all men though, so it's largely based on length of service, with some performance related pay as well.

Situation I would use is, we open two positions, recruit, get multiple people come for interview, woman and man chosen for second interviews, with the intention of them being offered the jobs at the end of it. Woman is interviewed first offered job for £20k, accepts without question. Man comes in for interview, offered job for £20k, tells them to "stuff it up their !!!!!! for those wages" wants £25k, company offers him the job at £25k.

How can their be justification that the woman now gets an extra £5k for essentially nothing? The man has put his neck on the line by getting the companies back up by asking for more money, fully compromising his job offer, but the gamble paid off and he gets the extra money. It's not solely the companies fault in instances like these, you're selling your time and skills as much as they're paying for them, you sell yourself short or don't take a chance at the opening gambit, then more fool you, don't see how it's the companies sole fault that two people of different sex get different pay, and should have to rectify this.

Just before anyone climbs on their high horse, the situation above could work vice versa, if the mans interviewed first and accepts, and the woman pushes for more money, why should the man get the extra money for not asking for it??

The last three people (same sex) to join my department were all offered the same starting wages, one asked for more, and got it, how is forcing the companies arm into paying the same for all three people (if the higher wage was a man, and the other two were women) fair?

<<Stands back and waits for the firework display>>

King_Nothing

SueC wrote: »

<<Stands back and waits for the firework display>>

I aim to please

ILW

Southend1 wrote: »

The evidence is the male comparator doing like work (at a lower evidenced level of performance) with higher salary than OP. Granted there may be TUPE complications but it is up to the company to justify the difference, not up to OP to prove intentional discrimination has occurred.

If a man and a woman are both taken on at the same time for the same work and are asked what salary do you require? If the man says £40,000 and the woman says £30,000 why should the employer not pay them what they asked for?

Missme

I like fireworks.

Luckily for women, King_Nothing, you don't have to agree with pay equality. Perhaps you'd like it if all of the benefits unions have negotiated for staff were to apply only to union members? No? Would that be because there should be parity across the workforce.

Approximately 75% of the part-time workforce are women; a mere 6 million or so. Part-timers are paid less (ignoring pro-rata) than full-timers and so women are affected disproportionately. The gender pay gap also exists for full-timers but is less pronounced. Help me out here, why should ther be a gap at all?

ILW, the reasons why a woman might ask for less, or rather not ask for more, may well be wrapped up the expectations and constraints that society has historically forced onto women. Or perhaps if women had higher coursing levels or testosterone they might behave differently.

AP007

Missme wrote: »

ILW, the reasons why a woman might ask for less, or rather not ask for more, may well be wrapped up the expectations and constraints that society has historically forced onto women. Or perhaps if women had higher coursing levels or testosterone they might behave differently.

I must be half man :eek::eek::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

ILW

AP007 wrote: »

I must be half man :eek::eek::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Top or bottom half?

Missme

AP007 wrote: »

I must be half man :eek::eek::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

You typed 'man' but did you mean 'witted'? Because I sincerely hope you're not indicative of an average woman.

ILW

Missme wrote: »

I like fireworks.

Luckily for women, King_Nothing, you don't have to agree with pay equality. Perhaps you'd like it if all of the benefits unions have negotiated for staff were to apply only to union members? No? Would that be because there should be parity across the workforce.

Approximately 75% of the part-time workforce are women; a mere 6 million or so. Part-timers are paid less (ignoring pro-rata) than full-timers and so women are affected disproportionately. The gender pay gap also exists for full-timers but is less pronounced. Help me out here, why should ther be a gap at all?

ILW, the reasons why a woman might ask for less, or rather not ask for more, may well be wrapped up the expectations and constraints that society has historically forced onto women. Or perhaps if women had higher coursing levels or testosterone they might behave differently.

If you cannot be bothered to even ask, why expect anything?

AP007

Missme wrote: »

You typed 'man' but did you mean 'witted'? Because I sincerely hope you're not indicative of an average woman.

The average woman is probably downtrodden and needy. They don't say what they really want. Or voice an opinion as they are too scared too.

I know I got paid more then the men I worked with and good that's all I say. It has nothing to do with men getting more than women its about getting as much as you can for yourself. I have no time for wingers