We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Preferential treatment allowed?
Dizzy651
Posts: 16 Forumite
Hi
The financial accountant in my team left 3 months ago. His manager has spent that time distributing the work to people lower down the chain who should have been doing it all along. The part of his role that is left is to manage a team of 4 and to cover for those people if they are off. Those 4 roles are finance based administration and none of the staff in those roles have any qualifications in accountancy.
The decision has been made to recruit for this management role. However, it has been opened to the management accountants only, even though their skills to do this role are no better than the skills of the 4 staff who will be managed. In fact, the 4 staff (or even better an outsider as no-one in house has ALL the skills needed) are probably more suited to the role due to their existing experience in the areas that will be covered and also their history in managing others.
Are employers allowed to offer a promotion to accountancy qualified individuals only, where the role does not require an accountancy qualification at all in order to do it?
(The reason it is offered to the people it is according to the manager, and no-one can work out how this makes sense, is because the 4 staff earn the least in the team. This is followed by the management accountants. The role being recruited for falls above that so, in his eyes, the 4 staff would be promoted 2 levels whereas the management accountants are only 1 step down. This is despite the fact that the work involved should be at or below the management accountants in everyone's opinion except his).
Thanks
The financial accountant in my team left 3 months ago. His manager has spent that time distributing the work to people lower down the chain who should have been doing it all along. The part of his role that is left is to manage a team of 4 and to cover for those people if they are off. Those 4 roles are finance based administration and none of the staff in those roles have any qualifications in accountancy.
The decision has been made to recruit for this management role. However, it has been opened to the management accountants only, even though their skills to do this role are no better than the skills of the 4 staff who will be managed. In fact, the 4 staff (or even better an outsider as no-one in house has ALL the skills needed) are probably more suited to the role due to their existing experience in the areas that will be covered and also their history in managing others.
Are employers allowed to offer a promotion to accountancy qualified individuals only, where the role does not require an accountancy qualification at all in order to do it?
(The reason it is offered to the people it is according to the manager, and no-one can work out how this makes sense, is because the 4 staff earn the least in the team. This is followed by the management accountants. The role being recruited for falls above that so, in his eyes, the 4 staff would be promoted 2 levels whereas the management accountants are only 1 step down. This is despite the fact that the work involved should be at or below the management accountants in everyone's opinion except his).
Thanks
0
Comments
-
Yes, as long as they are not discriminating against a protected group preferential treatment is allowed.0
-
They could ask for a masters in fine art if they wanted.
Imagine the chaos if there was a body that had the power to scrutinise and order changes to job adverts in cases like this. The labour market would grind to a halt.0 -
Thanks. Thought that might be the case; just didnt want it to be.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards