When is a pay rise not a pay rise?

[Deleted User]

moneysavinghero said:

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Seems fair enough to me. He got a pay rise. 2 pay rises in the space of a few months is something we all would love but unlikely to get.

Really? It seems far from fair to me!

As others have said, sounds like bad form from the company, but nothing illegal. 

Think about it from the point of view of a 22 year old. They also get the 2% pay rise at the annual review. But it turns out his colleague the OP actually ends up getting a 7.09% pay rise. That would seem unfair to me and to them.

Simple the company should have clear performance rewards that everyone understands and can aim for. The fact this person seems confused either shows the company lacks the skills to communicate this properly or the person did not read/understand the terms of contract or how the company reward you.

As for the person getting more of a wage rise than others is a non starter for being unfair to others. He turns 25 he gets the national living wage period. it is law and not up to others to question it and should not be used as somehow to stop getting a performance award for good work because others are jealous or resentful or don't understand the basics about minimum and national living wage. 

Stenwold

moneysavinghero said:

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Seems fair enough to me. He got a pay rise. 2 pay rises in the space of a few months is something we all would love but unlikely to get.

Really? It seems far from fair to me!

As others have said, sounds like bad form from the company, but nothing illegal. 

Think about it from the point of view of a 22 year old. They also get the 2% pay rise at the annual review. But it turns out his colleague the OP actually ends up getting a 8.09% pay rise. That would seem unfair to me and to them.

But good news for the OP, they wont have to wait long, they will get another 2.2% pay rise in April when the NMW goes up. But yeah i can see why they would want a 6.09% rise followed by 2% rise following by 2.2% rise all in space of a few month, i'd love that too.

Except that, all things being equal, the 22 year old will also get the additional increase when he turns 25. Plus it's none of their business what other employees are awarded, anyway.

Got to admire your ability of putting a positive spin on someone missing out on a performance related pay rise whilst on NMW!

 

[Deleted User]

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Seems fair enough to me. He got a pay rise. 2 pay rises in the space of a few months is something we all would love but unlikely to get.

Really? It seems far from fair to me!

As others have said, sounds like bad form from the company, but nothing illegal. 

Think about it from the point of view of a 22 year old. They also get the 2% pay rise at the annual review. But it turns out his colleague the OP actually ends up getting a 8.09% pay rise. That would seem unfair to me and to them.

But good news for the OP, they wont have to wait long, they will get another 2.2% pay rise in April when the NMW goes up. But yeah i can see why they would want a 6.09% rise followed by 2% rise following by 2.2% rise all in space of a few month, i'd love that too.

Except that, all things being equal, the 22 year old will also get the additional increase when he turns 25. Plus it's none of their business what other employees are awarded, anyway.

Got to admire your ability of putting a positive spin on someone missing out on a performance related pay rise whilst on NMW!

 

It's a weird trait some of us humans have where we pick on the small guy for wanting that little bit more in life when we have companies and government screwing money out of society to the tune of hundreds of millions. Its up their when people riot and burn down the local shop because their annoyed with government 

moneysavinghero

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Stenwold said:

moneysavinghero said:

Seems fair enough to me. He got a pay rise. 2 pay rises in the space of a few months is something we all would love but unlikely to get.

Really? It seems far from fair to me!

As others have said, sounds like bad form from the company, but nothing illegal. 

Think about it from the point of view of a 22 year old. They also get the 2% pay rise at the annual review. But it turns out his colleague the OP actually ends up getting a 8.09% pay rise. That would seem unfair to me and to them.

But good news for the OP, they wont have to wait long, they will get another 2.2% pay rise in April when the NMW goes up. But yeah i can see why they would want a 6.09% rise followed by 2% rise following by 2.2% rise all in space of a few month, i'd love that too.

Except that, all things being equal, the 22 year old will also get the additional increase when he turns 25. Plus it's none of their business what other employees are awarded, anyway.

Got to admire your ability of putting a positive spin on someone missing out on a performance related pay rise whilst on NMW!

 

The 22yo will be getting the increase when they turn 23yo (Living wage now starts from 23) and will probably also find that any annual increase will take into account any statutory increases they have already had that year. So totally fair and equitable.

moneysavinghero

As for the person getting more of a wage rise than others is a non starter for being unfair to others. He turns 25 he gets the national living wage period. it is law and not up to others to question it

Totally agree, OP should get the pay increase the law says he should get. Both this one and the further one that they will get in April. No one should take that away from them. His employer has chosen a 2% pay rise, this has already been paid so does not need to be paid again.

[Deleted User]

moneysavinghero said:

As for the person getting more of a wage rise than others is a non starter for being unfair to others. He turns 25 he gets the national living wage period. it is law and not up to others to question it

Totally agree, OP should get the pay increase the law says he should get. Both this one and the further one that they will get in April. No one should take that away from them. His employer has chosen a 2% pay rise, this has already been paid so does not need to be paid again.

that is basically what the OP said but they are asking is that right.

Without knowing more details I can only go on what the OP said and to me it sounds like either the guy does not know how the company do pay awards or the company is either at best lazy in communication or at worse cheap. 

Smiler2947

moneysavinghero said

Totally agree, OP should get the pay increase the law says he should get. Both this one and the further one that they will get in April. No one should take that away from them. His employer has chosen a 2% pay rise, this has already been paid so does not need to be paid again.

Although his employer chose a 2% pay rise, they never actually paid this. The reward is never given until February pay, but they are saying that they worked out how much he should get based on his November wages ie, before he turned 25. 

Malthusian

My son turned 25 in December so automatically went up a band in minimum wage - Great - he saw this in his ~January pay! Then in February he had his annual meeting with his employer where they give him a pay-rise between 1% and 3%, dependant on performance. He was advised he got 2% on this occasion.

The screw up here was that the company told him that he was going to get a "performance-related" pay rise when in fact the law said that he had to get a pay rise whether he performed well or not.

He would probably have been less disappointed if his birthday and the performance review had been the other way round. (That way he gets his 2% wage increase - yippee. A few months later his NMW threshold increases, but there would be no reason to care about that as he is already earning more than the threshold.)

The notion of paying workers on minimum wage "performance-related pay rises" is, to be frank, bloody stupid. The way minimum wage works means there is always going to be a chance that "performance-related pay rises" are absorbed into a general increase, either when the worker goes up an age band, or when the Government increases the minimum wage.

You are pretty much guaranteeing that outperforming workers are going to feel short-changed when their previous "performance-related" pay increases are awarded to their colleagues doing the bare minimum. "Why did I bother" is the inevitable result, even if they got their 2% higher wage a few months earlier. This is the inevitable result of using percentage increases as a reward to people whose wage is based on a statutory fixed threshold.

What the company should do is award bonuses, not pay rises. That way those who outperform get extra money that non-outperformers don't, regardless of what happens to minimum wage.

getmore4less

There main issues here.

Lets say relative performance, because the pay has a floor of min wage unless there is some kind of grading system that is driven on increments above min wage all wages will trend to min wage over time.

Because they are not a min wage + method pretty much stuffed when it comes to pay rises as each April anything you get will stay the same or get topped up if below min wage.

if performance is always based on Nov pay and always start getting paid around Jan the company knows come April some of the pay rises will get absorbed by not having to increase pay.

Not a good incentive scheme as it basically remove any performance related incentive for the lower paid workers.



 

oh_really

Smiler2947 said

Unfortunately no there is no union involved - they just seem to keep doing naff things.

This alone should be focusing the collective thoughts to getting organised and joining a union.