When is a pay rise not a pay rise?

DoctorStrange

I would argue he's never had any performance related pay rises, given the only increases to his salary are the result of NMW legislation.

As such, I'd be asking for a performance review to ascertain why he's deemed to be underperforming, using the previous feedback as examples why he feels he deserves a performance increase. 

If they insist on using the Nov salary as as the starting point and still claim it's performance related based upon that,  I'd counter that the Nov salary must be rebased to his current age, otherwise its still age related and not performance related.

Ultimately its going to come down to the balance of power (as it always does) but even if he gets nothing, he'll earn some respect for standing up to then in the correct way and without emotion. Not much, granted,  but I have seen doors open later from similar circumstances.

bartelbe

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

theoretica

Some employers are really poor at communicating in ways that make their staff feel valued.

To me, the question is not how his pay compares to his pay last year, but to other people doing the same job - despite his years of service he has reset to minimum wage, the same as any over 25 new joiners.  Unless the company employs a lot of young people this is where I would be complaining.

[Deleted User]

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

Well what a depressing life I have had if British workplaces are crap. Been working for 35 years in British workplaces.... how I'm I still alive 

moneysavinghero

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

But has he performed exceptionally. OP said the company gave between 1-3% pay rises. So probably 1% for the poor performers, 2% for the majority who performed adequately and 3% for the exceptional workers and the bosses favourites. As the OP got the 2% they performed adequately. A lot of companies like to dress up a 2% inflationary pay reward as performance related, but in reality it's not.

Just be happy you are getting a 8% increase when most are getting nothing this year.

Malthusian

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

Technically he is getting something because he got his wage increase earlier than those who did the bare minimum, but as I said above, most people would be justified in thinking "why did I bother" when they only got a few extra months at the higher wage before their averagely-performing colleagues get the same increase. It illustrates the stupidity of awarding "performance-related pay increases" to people on NMW.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

Posters are giving him sensible and constructive advice, which is that if he thinks he is worth more, he should move to a less naff employer. "Oh poor you" won't get him paid more for going the extra mile.

They have also correctly answered the OP's original question which is "shouldn't he be getting NMW plus his 2% performance-related increase" - it is a sensible question but the answer is "no", thanks to the employer's stupid remuneration structure.

(Just to repeat, if the employer had paid a performance-related bonus, the OP's son would have got both his reward for hard work and his age-related wage increase and would be happy.)

Bear in mind that the entire point of a minimum wage is that society says it is equitable for some people to be paid more than they are worth (in the sense of the marginal value of their labour, this is about economics and not their value as humans) to ensure that anyone who does a reasonable amount of work can afford a minimum standard of living. (At the cost of more people having to survive on benefits due to higher unemployment and underemployment.)

So a job might be worth say £7 per hour but NMW says the employer has to fork out £8.72 per hour (for over 25s). You might have two people doing that job, one of whom does the bare minimum and the other "goes the extra mile" and works 25% harder / smarter than his colleague. Even if their employer is a good employer who recognises the hard work done by the second employee, they're still both going to get paid the same because the democratic consensus is that the first employee doesn't deserve to be paid 25% less just because they don't go the extra mile.

The only positive solution to that problem (for the hard-working employee; it's not a problem for the slower worker as they get free money) is for the second employee to keep going the extra mile for themselves until they increase the value of their labour significantly above NMW. (The other solution is to stop going the extra mile and being a tall poppy, but that's why I specified "positive" solution.)

[Deleted User]

moneysavinghero said:

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

But has he performed exceptionally. OP said the company gave between 1-3% pay rises. So probably 1% for the poor performers, 2% for the majority who performed adequately and 3% for the exceptional workers and the bosses favourites. As the OP got the 2% they performed adequately. A lot of companies like to dress up a 2% inflationary pay reward as performance related, but in reality it's not.

Just be happy you are getting a 8% increase when most are getting nothing this year.

Erm if someone told me “just be happy your getting something when others can’t” means they can’t clearly explain their decision and was based on crap decision making. Take that reasoning a little further and no one would get any wage rises because there would always be someone out there not getting a wage rise. 

moneysavinghero

Deleted_User said:

moneysavinghero said:

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

But has he performed exceptionally. OP said the company gave between 1-3% pay rises. So probably 1% for the poor performers, 2% for the majority who performed adequately and 3% for the exceptional workers and the bosses favourites. As the OP got the 2% they performed adequately. A lot of companies like to dress up a 2% inflationary pay reward as performance related, but in reality it's not.

Just be happy you are getting a 8% increase when most are getting nothing this year.

Erm if someone told me “just be happy your getting something when others can’t” means they can’t clearly explain their decision and was based on crap decision making. Take that reasoning a little further and no one would get any wage rises because there would always be someone out there not getting a wage rise. 

Unless those people took a job with another employer willing to pay more rather than just accepting it.

[Deleted User]

moneysavinghero said:

Deleted_User said:

moneysavinghero said:

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

But has he performed exceptionally. OP said the company gave between 1-3% pay rises. So probably 1% for the poor performers, 2% for the majority who performed adequately and 3% for the exceptional workers and the bosses favourites. As the OP got the 2% they performed adequately. A lot of companies like to dress up a 2% inflationary pay reward as performance related, but in reality it's not.

Just be happy you are getting a 8% increase when most are getting nothing this year.

Erm if someone told me “just be happy your getting something when others can’t” means they can’t clearly explain their decision and was based on crap decision making. Take that reasoning a little further and no one would get any wage rises because there would always be someone out there not getting a wage rise. 

Unless those people took a job with another employer willing to pay more rather than just accepting it.

Oh I certainly would look for another job if the company stood by a manager for using such a reason for not giving a wage rise. Fortunately never came across such a crass person like that in my employment history. 

Tokmon

bartelbe said:

If you want to understand why British workplaces are so crap, just look at some of the replies in this forum. The employee was promised a performance related pay rise, which he had to earn though his hard work. Only to be told he is getting nothing because his pay has been increases to minimum amount allowable for someone his age.

So instead of being rewarded for going the extra mile, he gets the absolute minimum that the law allows and posters here think that is OK?

They definitely didn't handle it well at all in the way they promised the pay rise and the way they implemented it so that the NMW overtook it straight away. I personally wouldn't be happy with their approach but the reality is that with many jobs (even with someone performing well) they are not actually worth the current NMW with all the increases it has had so many people are being overpaid their jobs worth because of this.