Challenging pay comparing against colleague

Dumbe

Southend1 wrote: »

It's not for the OP to prove, it's for the company to justify that she is paid less for a legitimate reason. That is the law.

But team players and those with a positive attitude who base their decisions on facts get promoted.. Trouble makers who assume the worst and make employers prove they are not doing something wrong ( guilty until proven innocent) are not.

People ( including bosses and owners of companies and hr people) want to work with positive team players who are on their side .. Not someone who assumes the worst and whose first reaction is to assume the worst.

martinsurrey

Southend1 wrote: »

I'm not suggesting being impolite. You can assert your legal rights in a perfectly polite and civil way. What you and some others are suggesting is avoiding the issue of gender pay difference in case it is seen as being rude!

Are you even sure its because of gender differences?

Fine one person is a woman and the other is a man, but that is not proof that the differences are because of gender.

I know a company where someone is on 2 times as much as someone else doing the same job.

Market rates rose, so they had to hire people on a higher starting salary, people who were already there didn’t get a pay rise because of it.

OP, even if it is gender discrimination, proving it will be next to impossible, as it’s a 1vs1 comparrison, its simpler in larger organisation where statistical analysis can be used.

Do you think you are underpaid for what you do? if so ask for a pay rise, and get a new job if they say no.

This might be a case of him being a better negotiator than you, which is nothing to do with gender!

(and BTW, if somone came in asking if they were paid less becuase they were a woman or man, without talking about pay with me first, on a performance basis, I would assume to be a trouble maker, and be wary about.)

paddyrg

warez22 wrote: »

The last thing I want to do is to come across as unprofessional and looking like it's sour grapes.

Does it come across that way?

warez

Hiya,

I just want to flag that it could look that way depending on how you frame it. Making comparisons between similar but non-identical situations could come across that way.

If you are looking for a raise on your own merits, you hold more cards and it wouldn't appear like whining. It's surely a better starting point than putting the person you're asking for money on their back foot feeling they have to defend themselves. If you feel you have to defend yourself against pushy staff, you're not going to want to do your best for them!

mixedwrestling

Southend1 wrote: »

Or "going the gender route" may well highlight to the employer that they have a problem they weren't aware of and this could be to the benefit of OP's colleagues as well as herself. The employer could be grateful that OP has brought this to their attention and potentially saved them a lot of money and bad publicity from legal claims.

I'm not sure why so many posters here are so quick to advise people not to assert their legal rights at work. Ordinary working people have fought long and hard for the rights we enjoy today and we need to stand up for them to avoid giving Cameron and his buddies any more excuses to take them away.

Nonsense. It is ridiculous to suggest going down the gender route when there is ZERO evidence at the moment to suggest that it IS a gender based issue.

Good luck to the OP and all that, sounds like she deserves to be paid the same but the gender card, much like the race card, gets massively overplayed, and should only be used when there is thorough evidence to suggest it is that case.

Southend1

mixedwrestling wrote: »

Nonsense. It is ridiculous to suggest going down the gender route when there is ZERO evidence at the moment to suggest that it IS a gender based issue.

Good luck to the OP and all that, sounds like she deserves to be paid the same but the gender card, much like the race card, gets massively overplayed, and should only be used when there is thorough evidence to suggest it is that case.

However, that's (thankfully) not what the law says on the issue.

The facts as presented by OP are:

She is paid less than a male colleague doing like work of equal value and can evidence better performance than this colleague.

This is enough for OPs employer to be legally required to explain the difference in pay. If there is no legitimate reason then the difference is assumed to be due to gender and is illegal.

OP would not be overplaying anything if she raised a grievance based on the above. After all this is exactly the kind of thing grievance procedures are in place for!

Southend1

martinsurrey wrote: »

Are you even sure its because of gender differences?

Fine one person is a woman and the other is a man, but that is not proof that the differences are because of gender.

I know a company where someone is on 2 times as much as someone else doing the same job.

Market rates rose, so they had to hire people on a higher starting salary, people who were already there didn’t get a pay rise because of it.

OP, even if it is gender discrimination, proving it will be next to impossible, as it’s a 1vs1 comparrison, its simpler in larger organisation where statistical analysis can be used.

Do you think you are underpaid for what you do? if so ask for a pay rise, and get a new job if they say no.

This might be a case of him being a better negotiator than you, which is nothing to do with gender!

(and BTW, if somone came in asking if they were paid less becuase they were a woman or man, without talking about pay with me first, on a performance basis, I would assume to be a trouble maker, and be wary about.)

OP does not have to private anything, the law says it is up to the employer to justify the pay difference.

YOU may assume someone to be a trouble maker because they dare to wonder whether their legal right to equal pay for equal work with someone of the opposite gender is being respected, however a good manager would thank OP for bringing their concern to her attention and investigate the issue in a professional manner - starting with asking HR when the last pay audit was carried out.

warez22

Well I did it!

I was very professional and had it all planned out before I went in. Didn't bring gender into it at all because I don't think it is that.

HR was very accommodating and apologised for the oversight in not seeing that I was paid so much less for exactly the same job. They are in the process of bringing other salaries into line with each other but as I am not in his department I was overlooked.

HR are going to back me, put together some figures showing my exemplary performance in comparison to the other employee and produce to the MD. HR obviously has no say as to what MD will say but it is the most positive outcome I could have hoped for to start with.

I will know within the next couple of days what happens next. Of course, I do have to prepare myself for the fact that the MD might turn it down flat, at which point I will have to consider my next move. But the initial meeting was all positive.

I will ask tomorrow for confirmation from HR via email as to what the next step is to be.

Thank you for all your help and I will let you all know what the conclusion is as soon as I get it.

I know feel quite proud of myself that I have tried to address what I feel is an unfair situation, it's so easy to sit back and not want to put your head above the parapet. But I have done, but in the right way and hopefully it will all be worth it.

warez

Southend1

warez22 wrote: »

Well I did it!

I was very professional and had it all planned out before I went in. Didn't bring gender into it at all because I don't think it is that.

HR was very accommodating and apologised for the oversight in not seeing that I was paid so much less for exactly the same job. They are in the process of bringing other salaries into line with each other but as I am not in his department I was overlooked.

HR are going to back me, put together some figures showing my exemplary performance in comparison to the other employee and produce to the MD. HR obviously has no say as to what MD will say but it is the most positive outcome I could have hoped for to start with.

I will know within the next couple of days what happens next. Of course, I do have to prepare myself for the fact that the MD might turn it down flat, at which point I will have to consider my next move. But the initial meeting was all positive.

I will ask tomorrow for confirmation from HR via email as to what the next step is to be.

Thank you for all your help and I will let you all know what the conclusion is as soon as I get it.

I know feel quite proud of myself that I have tried to address what I feel is an unfair situation, it's so easy to sit back and not want to put your head above the parapet. But I have done, but in the right way and hopefully it will all be worth it.

warez

Well done :T

Come back with an update soon

Helpfulone

Wow that's great news well done.

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

Well done :T

Come back with an update soon

Not disappointed that she didn't bring gender into it then?