Challenging pay comparing against colleague

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

Should I be? It sounds like there is already a pay audit underway and HR are aware that they are not equality act compliant in some areas. The main thing is that OP receives the same pay as her male colleagues doing the same work, as she is legally and morally entitled to. It doesn't matter if the correction is initiated by her or HR, as long as it happens!

Where where where did you get that from?

The OP clearly says that she didn't bring gender into the discussion.

HR have said they are already in the process of bringing salaries in line with each other. Nowhere has it been said that is because of equality issues.

If I'm reading it correctly, the OP and her male colleague were originally employed by different companies, before one was absorbed by the other. Is that not, just possibly, an explanation for how the salary differentials have arisen, and why HR would be looking to bring things back in line?

Missme

SueC wrote: »

Just thought you might think she'd avoided asserting her legal rights for fear of being seen as rude. Don't know why I'd think that....

Lots of people don't assert their legal right for fear of something or simply through ignorance. How, as seems to be implied, is letting them know what rights they have a bad thing?

It was the OP who brought up gender.

And, yes, Southend1, men can be feminists. The more the merrier! I'm sure you know it's not all about burning bras and emasculating men but as in all realms of politics there are extremes at both ends of the scale.

scheming_gypsy

fruitedeli wrote: »

If I were you I'd start finding another job. Expect to be given warnings over petty things or be put first for redundancy. You just bypassed your manager and went to HR about your pay issue, which is no different to raising a grievance against your manager. Since your manager has the final say, you should have brought this issue to him, not HR.

Because making up your own version of events is a lot easier than asking the OP if they'd spoken to their manager?

Southend1

SueC wrote: »

Where where where did you get that from?

The OP clearly says that she didn't bring gender into the discussion.

HR have said they are already in the process of bringing salaries in line with each other. Nowhere has it been said that is because of equality issues.

If I'm reading it correctly, the OP and her male colleague were originally employed by different companies, before one was absorbed by the other. Is that not, just possibly, an explanation for how the salary differentials have arisen, and why HR would be looking to bring things back in line?

Inferred from their actions and what's been said about being aware of a problem and taking action to address it.

Even if the differential originally arose from TUPE it is good practise to conduct regular pay audits and act on any issues.

Regardless of whether the issue arose through intentional discrimination, there is an equality issue here.

Southend1

Missme wrote: »

And, yes, Southend1, men can be feminists. The more the merrier! I'm sure you know it's not all about burning bras and emasculating men but as in all realms of politics there are extremes at both ends of the scale.

In that case I will (cautiously!) declare myself a feminist, if that means I believe in standing up for gender equality

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

Inferred from their actions and what's been said about being aware of a problem and taking action to address it.

Even if the differential originally arose from TUPE it is good practise to conduct regular pay audits and act on any issues.

Regardless of whether the issue arose through intentional discrimination, there is an equality issue here.

You're clearly reading very different words to the ones I'm seeing. I see nothing about equality or discrimination whatsoever. I see different people on different payrates (because they were employed at different times by different employers) and a HR department who are already partway through the process of rectifying this.

Southend1

SueC wrote: »

You're clearly reading very different words to the ones I'm seeing. I see nothing about equality or discrimination whatsoever. I see different people on different payrates (because they were employed at different times by different employers) and a HR department who are already partway through the process of rectifying this.

The point is that there doesn't have to be any intention to discriminate for illegal discrimination to actually take place. I think this is why you are not following my argument.

SueC_2

Southend1 wrote: »

The point is that there doesn't have to be any intention to discriminate for illegal discrimination to actually take place. I think this is why you are not following my argument.

As a concept I don't disagree with that whatsoever. I just don't see any evidence of it in this scenario.

Perhaps we should just agree to differ.

Southend1

SueC wrote: »

As a concept I don't disagree with that whatsoever. I just don't see any evidence of it in this scenario.

Perhaps we should just agree to differ.

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.

SueC_2

SueC wrote: »

Perhaps we should just agree to differ.

Failing that, just I will agree to differ.