Different wages for the same job within a department

Forum_Name

I think the answer is yes but i would just like to check - is it ok for employees who do the same job as each other to be paid differing rates of pay or do they need to be paid the same (age depending)?

I personally have no issue with my rate of pay. I'm quite happy with it. I've not long since been made manager of a small department of 5 people (4 others plus myself).Of that 5, 2 including myself are in the 25+ category and are paid beyond the minimum anyway. I think one of the others falls in to the 21-24 category whereas the other two are in the 18-20 category for definite. All 3 of these are paid beyond the 21-24 minimum wage with one of them being paid beyond the 25+ wage.

In the past i know the manager of the department has been consulted regards pay for the staff in their department and generally the outcome has been everyone on the same rate. It's only recently where people have been employed who fall in different age categories that that has ended up changing.

What this boils down to is i have 3 great workers and then there's the 4th worker. I think when pay review time comes around, the 3 great workers are certainly due a rise, they've worked very well & have improved massively.
The 4th worker i actually think is overpaid as they are.

I have tried & tried to get the best out of them. They have potential to be a good worker but it's a young person with a chip on their shoulder, angry at the world and thinking they're entitled to everything without putting in anything. They're at times disruptive (trying to bring down the other two young ones by telling them not to do jobs i set), they go out of their way to not do jobs i set which really are not unreasonable at all, they refuse to help other members of staff but not when i'm there, their sick record is poor. They have been busted in the past for lying about being sick. Small patterns have formed with their sickness and even top brass don't believe a word this person says and i've been warned that 'that's your only bad egg' from said top brass.

I've had a word with them to basically buck their ideas up or else kind of thing and i needed to go hire a prop for their bottom lip afterwards, then they dealt with the entire situation totally the wrong way.

I don't believe someone should be given a rise just because a time frame has passed. I think people should get it if they deserve it. I know Tom, !!!! & Harry getting a rise will upset this person (they will find out) which has potential to result in them leaving the company but to be honest, with the disruption that they bring, unless they can mature & be a team player, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

If you can do it that is?

Diamandis

As long they aren't being paid less due to discrimination of a protected characteristic then they can be paid anything as long as it meets minimum wage.

I don't know what work you've currently done with this individual but it shouldn't come as a surprise to someone that they don't receive a pay rise. Make sure you're documenting any issues and discussing it with them so you can point to the reasons when it comes to the pay review.

bugslett

If they are that bad, abusing sick days, not doing what they are told, why not fire them.

Undervalued

Forum_Name wrote: »

I don't believe someone should be given a rise just because a time frame has passed. I think people should get it if they deserve it. I know Tom, !!!! & Harry getting a rise will upset this person (they will find out) which has potential to result in them leaving the company but to be honest, with the disruption that they bring, unless they can mature & be a team player, that wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing.

Indeed. People often forget that there is no legal right to a pay rise unless the salary falls below the national minimum wage.

As has been said there is no automatic reason why two people doing a similar job must be paid the same or given matching pay rises.

However, as Bugslett indicates, it seems to me there are bigger issues you need to address here!

elsien

Is there a formal performance mannagement plan in place. If not, then there needs to be. If necessary that can then be tied into any pay increase or lack of one.

ETA - is there not an HR department who should be advising on this?

TBagpuss

Yes, it is legal to pay people with the same job title different rates, unless the reason is a discriminatory one based on a protected characteristic.

It's also good practice, and good management, to let people know what kind of criteria you use for asessing pay and pay rises, and where someone isn't meeting the standards neded, to let them know that.

This doesn't mean that you have to discuss other workers performance with them, but you can set out very clearly for them what tyoes of thing, in terms of their own performance and behavipur, need to change or improve for you to consider them for an increase.

These may well be the same sort of things which theyneed to change or improve in order to keep their job, if their performance is significantly under what is neded - in which case, look at your formal internal policies and start to think about a formal performance improvement plan and moving to dismiss the person in they can't comply with the plan.

TBagpuss

All that said, some people will not 'hear' what you tell them if they don't want to, and the fact that they will be upset because their actions (or lack of actions) had consequences is unavoidable.

The goal here isn't to stop X getting upset about their co-workers' getting pay rises, the goal is to get X to improcve their performance or alternatively to manage them effectively to the point where they can be dismissed, if they are not able to improve.

bartelbe

If this employee is as bad as you say, my response is get rid.

However I am going to add a caveat. Many employers would consider me a little bit awkward. Not because I am constantly off sick or because I don't do my job. I simply refuse to go the extra mile for free.

I consider my relationship with my employer a purely business one. So if they want me to do something extra beyond my job description or work extra hours, I won't do it for free. I expect to be compensated for it.

Too many workers in this country are doormats, who simply give in to unreasonable demands from their boss. So are you sure this person is being unreasonable or they merely standing up for their rights?

steampowered

bartelbe wrote: »

Many employers would consider me a little bit awkward. Not because I am constantly off sick or because I don't do my job. I simply refuse to go the extra mile for free.

That's fine, as long as you aren't interested in being promoted ...

jonnygee2

What this boils down to is i have 3 great workers and then there's the 4th worker. I think when pay review time comes around, the 3 great workers are certainly due a rise, they've worked very well & have improved massively.
The 4th worker i actually think is overpaid as they are.

What you really want to avoid is using the pay rise as some kind of backhanded way of giving feedback or encouraging the person to leave because you are not comfortable with having direct conversations or managing performance.

Make sure you speak to him regularly and directly about his behaviour and always follow up with an email. Address both specific issues and general underperformance. As others have suggested by now there should be a more formal improvement plan in place anyway.

By the time any pay review rolls around he should be 100% aware that he wouldn't be likely to get a payrise and that his performance is seen as unsatisfactory.

motorguy

Either manage them up (looks like you've tried / are trying that) or manage them out