Pay Rises - How Do They Work Where You Are?

anotheruser

I work in an industry that if everyone gets a pay rise, it's the role that gets it rather than the person.
That means if the role pays £20k and gets a £5k pay rise, everyone currently working in that role is now on £25k.  However, if someone new starts 4 weeks after the pay rise, they will also get the £25k salary.

However, I was chatting to someone the other day who said everyone at their place of work (in their role) gets £20k.  Then, when a pay rise happens, everyone gets an extra £5k.  However someone starting 4 weeks after the pay rise would start on the £20K salary.

I find that a little strange as surely how long you've worked for a company shouldn't dictate how much of a salary you get?
Isn't it based on the role being carried out rather than the person, as everyone who is in that role should be capable of carrying out the same tasks?

TELLIT01

There will generally be a base requirement for somebody to be employed in a role, but those who have been doing the role for some time may be more productive due to familiarity with the work.  There are generally valid reasons for not putting new starters on the same pay as experienced people.  However, some employers will have a blanket figure for salary.  Both systems are perfectly legal.

FatherTireseus

When I first started work, roles were graded and each grade had 6 bands.  You moved up a band each year (subject to satisfactory performance) on top of your annual pay rise based on inflation.  The top 2 salary levels in each band overlapped with the bottom 2 levels in the grade above.  I guess the idea was that as time progressed you gained more experience in a role and that was worth some recognition.  If you got promoted I think you were moved up a minimum of 2 bands - so if you were near the bottom of the scale for your current grade you might go to the bottom of the new grade.  But if you were at the top of your old grade salary band you might be placed on the middle of the new salary band.

Then at some point this changed and roles were evaluated to have a certain number of ‘points’ within a grade.  Each set of points had a published salary against it.  You could take on a different role still within the same broad salary band but if the new role had more points you got a higher salary.  

Then over the years this changed again and roles were allocated into particular grades, but particularly for senior roles, there was no set salary against them.  Rather, this depended on a number of factors like how good you were at negotiating (if you were a senior employee coming from outside the business) or your past salary if it was an internal move.  Pay rises for internal promotions were loosely capped at 10%.  HR were at pains to point out you could offer someone more but it would have to be signed off by the Pope, Lady Gaga and David Beckham so of course no-one tried.  (I jest about the names, obviously, but the principle was that someone really senior in the company had to sign it off and that was enough to discourage anyone from trying). 

We also had a situation after a major reorganisation where different parts of the business were given discretion over the salary ranges for their roles.  Some offered better salaries than others so in functions where the role was quite similar, e.g. an accountancy role, the lower paying businesses found it difficult to retain people as staff looked at salaries in other parts of the wider business and voted with their feet (and wallets).

So I’ve experienced a range of different methods all in the same company but I think the principle of paying ‘new starters’ a bit less is not uncommon, as they may not be as experienced in the role as longer standing colleagues.

DingDongitsKingKong

All the jobs I ever had simply paid the same regardless of your performance. You may get an extra 20p or so per hour if you have been there some years. Generally speaking there is no point in working hard, just work hard enough.

Undervalued

anotheruser said:

I work in an industry that if everyone gets a pay rise, it's the role that gets it rather than the person.
That means if the role pays £20k and gets a £5k pay rise, everyone currently working in that role is now on £25k.  However, if someone new starts 4 weeks after the pay rise, they will also get the £25k salary.

However, I was chatting to someone the other day who said everyone at their place of work (in their role) gets £20k.  Then, when a pay rise happens, everyone gets an extra £5k.  However someone starting 4 weeks after the pay rise would start on the £20K salary.

I find that a little strange as surely how long you've worked for a company shouldn't dictate how much of a salary you get?
Isn't it based on the role being carried out rather than the person, as everyone who is in that role should be capable of carrying out the same tasks?

Why not?

It has been long established practice in huge organisations (e.g civil service) that jobs have a salary "band" (scale) and that you move up that band with years of service. There may be some room for negotiation about where you start in that band if you are appointed from outside. If you get promoted to the next grade, the lowest point on its salary band is often only a very small amount above the top band of the grade below. You then progress in increments up that band until after maybe seven years you are at the top.

biscan25

In my industry new joiners to a company from a competitor (not grads) are often paid more than an equally skilled person already at the company (to entice them to join). They will then receive smaller payrises, particularly if they have been brought in at the top of a grade salary scale, so the salaries trend towards each other somewhat.

TBagpuss

It's quite common for there to be variations within a specifc role - obviously it will depend on the type of role; in many jobs, people may have the same job title but not be doing exactly the same work, or be perfomring at different levels of speed/expertise.

e.g. you might have two people working making widgets - both might have the same title (widget maker) but if one makes 100 widgets per hour and the other makes 150 widgets per hour, the second person might well get paid more becuae they are perfmorming at a higher level (which may of course be linked to their level of experience) 

Equally, where there are pay rises these may be different for different people, based on their personal performance (for instnace, where I work, we recently gavce eveyone a cost of living raise, but we also gave meit raiss of different amounts for many employees) 

Undervalued

It is also worth remembering that there is no legal right to a pay rise unless your pay were to fall below the national minimum wage. Anything beyond that is a matter for negotiation, either individually or collectively usually via a union.

If your skill are in demand elsewhere then gently reminding your employer of that may (or may not!) get you what you want.

GingerTim

I'm an academic and we have a nationally-bargained payscale. Each year we automatically move up an increment + get the annually-bargained pay increase. When you get to the top of your grade you get the annual increase, and have to apply for promotion to move up a grade to progress further - on average you are typically in a position to make a case for promotion two or three years after hitting the top of your grade.

redundantmortgage

In my experience we've been told that salary is a personal and confidential thing which inevitably means people are getting different salaries for the same job. If someone is happy getting £20k but then found out all their colleagues were getting £40k for the same job you could bet they wouldn't be happy with £20k anymore, but as they don't know they're none the wiser.

For me personally that's meant I've never been happy with my salary because I've always suspected others are getting more.

MovingForwards

They don't where I currently am.

Previous jobs have been spinal point payrises.

Others have been based on time served, experience, knowledge and effort put in.