Is this discrimination ?

jobbingmusician

I'm not so sure. I don't think it is a STRONG case, but you do seem to be in a position where you are being paid less than others because you have been with the company a long time.

Those who have been with the company a long time will automatically be older, therefore this is logically indirect age discrimination. It might be worth suggesting this fact to https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance?who=individual ........

Malthusian

jobbingmusician wrote: »

Those who have been with the company a long time will automatically be older

No they won't. Any age north of 36 could have gained 20 years' experience at the same company. It is not automatic, nor even more probable. As you get older you become less likely to have been working at the same company for 20 years, because with each year that passes there is a possibility of being made redundant or sacked, and this possibility is higher if you are 70 than if you are 40.

You may as well argue that paying someone a higher wage because they are more experienced amounts to "age discrimination" because a 16-year-old has had no way of gaining that experience. It may be logical but it is no less wrong. Assuming that by "age discrimination" you mean "something that I could use to win damages in an employment tribunal".

Takeaway_Addict

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I don't think it is a STRONG case, but you do seem to be in a position where you are being paid less than others because you have been with the company a long time.

Those who have been with the company a long time will automatically be older, therefore this is logically indirect age discrimination. It might be worth suggesting this fact to https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance?who=individual ........

OP just don't

Also Jobbing- The op never actually says what those are earning on 39 hours, it could be pro-ratad down
This sounds flimsy at best and unless you want to rile the employer up I see very little from gaining this!

nicechap

jobbingmusician wrote: »

....

Those who have been with the company a long time will automatically be older, therefore this is logically indirect age discrimination. It might be worth suggesting this fact to https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance?who=individual ........

I disagree. As I said earlier, new employees can be any age.


How would your argument hold up about pension rights where people have retained benefits from more advantageous schemes because they are "older" having been there longer. Should all young employees sue to have the same contractual benefits even if they are no longer affordable for the company.


It would be interesting if the OP could, as well as answering my question about breaks/ lunch, they could set out whether they are on a different pension scheme as part of their overall package.

sangie595

jobbingmusician wrote: »

I'm not so sure. I don't think it is a STRONG case, but you do seem to be in a position where you are being paid less than others because you have been with the company a long time.

Those who have been with the company a long time will automatically be older, therefore this is logically indirect age discrimination. It might be worth suggesting this fact to https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance?who=individual ........

I also disagree, but I have additional reasons. The OP is clear. The reason they are on these terms is because of the department they are in! Read the OP again - the hours for the whole department of support engineers were not altered to the same as other departments. And that isn't discrimination in law - "support engineers" aren't a protected group. It might be unfair, but that is tough - it's legally fair and the employer is entitled to keep the department on these hours if they wish to. This is nothing to do with the OPs hours personally - these are the hours of the OPs department.

jobbingmusician

Malthusian wrote: »

As you get older you become less likely to have been working at the same company for 20 years, because with each year that passes there is a possibility of being made redundant or sacked, and this possibility is higher if you are 70 than if you are 40.

Hmm. Whilst I agree with the statement that 'with each year that passes there is a possibility of being made redundant or sacked' I would not agree that 'this possibility is higher if you are 70 than if you are 40' - and any employer who subscribed to that theory would indeed be evidencing age discrimination. Also, saying that more older people have changed jobs, (which is manifestly true and is I think what you are saying) is NOT the same as saying that the statement 'themajority of people who have worked for the same employer for 20 years are older people' is false. Job mobility is far higher in younger people.

sangie595 wrote: »

I also disagree, but I have additional reasons. The OP is clear. The reason they are on these terms is because of the department they are in! Read the OP again - the hours for the whole department of support engineers were not altered to the same as other departments. And that isn't discrimination in law - "support engineers" aren't a protected group. It might be unfair, but that is tough - it's legally fair and the employer is entitled to keep the department on these hours if they wish to. This is nothing to do with the OPs hours personally - these are the hours of the OPs department.

Good point. I realise that I had made an assumption (which may actually be correct, but is not what the OP actually said.) I assumed, when he said 'all the other dept now only work either 37.5 or 39 hours' that he meant 'all the other dept HEADS now only work either 37.5 or 39 hours'. You assumed that he was referring to the whole dept. Neither can actually be concluded from what the OP said, although I think you are more likely to be right.

....oh, hold on! You are right. He refers to the whole dept in next sentence. Ooops. You are right then! *slaps self on wrist*

sangie595

That's ok. But even if it had been all the other department heads, that wouldn't constitute discrimination. The head of one department may be needed to work more hours. That is a business decision.

Akahotpot

Ok to pad this out

I have 6 direct reports 2 are also on 42.5 long termers like me ,the rest on 39 hours, one transferred from another dept and 3 I hired but on 39 hours as that is now the standard contact
breaks are standard across the company two 10 mins paid and 30 mins dinner (unpaid) I only really take the lunch one and I get in 30 mins before my team to set up my stall before the endless questions start :-)
pension is a group wide one we are all the same
I am on max holidays but I dont get any more days than anyone else pro rota for the extra hours I work

Salary is selected from a grade band with an upper and lower but I decide what we offer for my dept hires ,no hourly rate matching etc I just monitor the market rate in this area

The reduction missed us because we dont have a mirror in the wider group I was part of the sales dept when i started and customer facing did 42.5 for core hours but now sales work 37.5 but as my dept grew I became an independent dept
I could leave , my engineering skill set( legal and compliance) is in demand but I am technically disabled (kidney failure/transplant recipient) and past chronic ill health makes you cautious
Oh I worked while on dialysis too

sangie595

Akahotpot wrote: »

Ok to pad this out

I have 6 direct reports 2 are also on 42.5 long termers like me ,the rest on 39 hours, one transferred from another dept and 3 I hired but on 39 hours as that is now the standard contact
breaks are standard across the company two 10 mins paid and 30 mins dinner (unpaid) I only really take the lunch one and I get in 30 mins before my team to set up my stall before the endless questions start :-)
pension is a group wide one we are all the same
I am on max holidays but I dont get any more days than anyone else pro rota for the extra hours I work

Salary is selected from a grade band with an upper and lower but I decide what we offer for my dept hires ,no hourly rate matching etc I just monitor the market rate in this area

The reduction missed us because we dont have a mirror in the wider group I was part of the sales dept when i started and customer facing did 42.5 for core hours but now sales work 37.5 but as my dept grew I became an independent dept
I could leave , my engineering skill set( legal and compliance) is in demand but I am technically disabled (kidney failure/transplant recipient) and past chronic ill health makes you cautious
Oh I worked while on dialysis too

Sorry, but it still isn't unlawful discrimination. You can ask. They said no. All you can do is ask again. But equally, they have you over a barrel - they know you aren't about to leave if your sickness rates and health make another job difficult. And you'd have to start from zero, with two years before you got employment rights. There is no legal reason why people, even people with the same jobs, must have the same terms.

ReadingTim

sangie595 wrote: »

Sorry, but it still isn't unlawful discrimination. You can ask. They said no. All you can do is ask again. But equally, they have you over a barrel - they know you aren't about to leave if your sickness rates and health make another job difficult. And you'd have to start from zero, with two years before you got employment rights. There is no legal reason why people, even people with the same jobs, must have the same terms.

It is simply a business decision based on the time they were hired. Generally speaking, in the private sector, you don't get automatic pay rises for simply being there another year. The workforce as a whole might get a percent or two for cost of living if they're lucky, but that's it. You only tend to get a pay rise when you change jobs, take on more responsibility, or you pay is grossly out of line with the market norm and they think you're going to leave. As a result, your wages stagnate compared to the market, and compared to new hires in the same company. There is literally no reward for loyalty to the same company.

As an example, I'd been in my last role for 2 years. When I resigned, my role was advertised for £10k more than they were paying me. Was I bitter, or felt I'd been discriminated against? No, I simply recognise how business works. And had found a role which paid £20k more....

So, sorry mate, it's not discrimination, it's capitalism. Appreciate you're bitter as you feel they've got your over a barrel due to health issues, but that doesn't make it any more discriminatory. If your skill set is in demand, your health issues won't matter as much as you think they do - suggest you look elsewhere, or at least drop some hints that's what you're doing.