Pay Rises - How Do They Work Where You Are?

Andy_L

Greymug said:

Andy_L said:

Greymug said:

In my company/industry no 2 people in the same role have the same salary. When you apply for the job, HR tells you the salary window, then it's up to you to negotiate your salary. This is based on experience, skills, if you have others offers on the table, how good you are at negotiating/bluffing....all these will lead to a salary closer to the top of the band.

After that, when you are in the job the main way to get a pay rise is to get a higher offer from a direct competitor and threaten to leave your current company if they don't match the offer or give you an even higher one.

I also worked in government and it's completely different: you have a salary band, when you join you start at the bottom of the band (regardless of experience) and every year they give you a pre-defined and not related to performance pay rise until you reach the top of the band. When you reach the top, the only way for you to get a pay rise is to apply for a more senior role.

its changed in the Civil Service. Now you start at the bottom of the band and then every year they don't give you a pre-defined and not related to performance pay rise. The only pay rise you get is the annually negotiated cost of living one. The only way for you to get a pay rise is to apply for a more senior role

Ok thanks so question is: how do you get to the top of the band?

You don't. To misquote Neo: "There is no band"

Lots of departments just advertise jobs with a single pay rate.

They were taken to the advertising standards agency a while ago as some job adverts still gave the top & bottom. They got away with it because you could, theoretically, still progress to the top via the annual inflation increase.

ETA: Since I have the shortcut saved
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/home-office-a17-381756.html

Andy_L

annabanana82 said:

My part of the CS the grade/function has a base rate and then yearly pay rises are based on performance. 
If the new proposed pay structure is accepted and implement new starters will begin on the 2023 base rate and effectively have the potential to earn more than existing staff

Which bit is that? My understanding was that the Treasury had beaten it out of everyone,  Is it a trading fund who are free(ish) of treasury diktat?

Greymug

Andy_L said:

Greymug said:

Andy_L said:

Greymug said:

In my company/industry no 2 people in the same role have the same salary. When you apply for the job, HR tells you the salary window, then it's up to you to negotiate your salary. This is based on experience, skills, if you have others offers on the table, how good you are at negotiating/bluffing....all these will lead to a salary closer to the top of the band.

After that, when you are in the job the main way to get a pay rise is to get a higher offer from a direct competitor and threaten to leave your current company if they don't match the offer or give you an even higher one.

I also worked in government and it's completely different: you have a salary band, when you join you start at the bottom of the band (regardless of experience) and every year they give you a pre-defined and not related to performance pay rise until you reach the top of the band. When you reach the top, the only way for you to get a pay rise is to apply for a more senior role.

its changed in the Civil Service. Now you start at the bottom of the band and then every year they don't give you a pre-defined and not related to performance pay rise. The only pay rise you get is the annually negotiated cost of living one. The only way for you to get a pay rise is to apply for a more senior role

Ok thanks so question is: how do you get to the top of the band?

You don't. To misquote Neo: "There is no band"

Lots of departments just advertise jobs with a single pay rate.

They were taken to the advertising standards agency a while ago as some job adverts still gave the top & bottom. They got away with it because you could, theoretically, still progress to the top via the annual inflation increase.

ETA: Since I have the shortcut saved
https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/home-office-a17-381756.html

Makes sense. Since the government wants to cut 900 civil service jobs, they're making it way less desirable to stay. The best talent will go to better paid opportunities, leaving the government with only the employees who can't be arsed or are not good enough to find a better job. Makes sense. 

strawb_shortcake

Andy_L said:

annabanana82 said:

My part of the CS the grade/function has a base rate and then yearly pay rises are based on performance. 
If the new proposed pay structure is accepted and implement new starters will begin on the 2023 base rate and effectively have the potential to earn more than existing staff

Which bit is that? My understanding was that the Treasury had beaten it out of everyone,  Is it a trading fund who are free(ish) of treasury diktat?

We have some freedoms from the treasury yes. Its not been the golden goose that was sold to us

sammyjammy

Soot2006 said:

We have bands with annual progression based on satisfactory performance review. All incoming employees will be based on the band most aligned with their current experience, but in practice it means that loyalty is rewarded and people doing the same job with similar experience may well be paid quite differently. Recruitment is time and personnel costly, so the progression system is an incentive to stay with the organization.

Or that can result in rewarding the lazy can't be bothered to move on, we don't have pay progression anymore but we have paybands and the people at the top never stop moaning that they get less of a payrise (the bandwidth is slowly being eroded - about time too!)  What they don't consider is every year they are at the top of that payband they get paid more than everyone else, most probably doing a better job instead of biding their time until retirement

Strummer22

I work for a medium sized privately-owned consultancy company. We have annual pay reviews. A blanket 'standard' (i.e., minimum) pay rise is given to everyone, I suppose except those whose performance review says they need to improve but that's just me speculating. The standard pay rise is linked to inflation and is typically a few tenths of a percent higher. 

From what I understand the company directors review each employee's pay individually. I have received above the minimum pay rise in 3 of my 5 years here. The company is very profitable with a 20-25% margin and the directors have recently stated they are aiming to retain staff by returning more profits in salaries and bonuses, so we shall see how that plays out in this era of rampant inflation! 

anotheruser

comeandgo said:

What industry are you working in?

Your example of pilots getting the same salary, how would you reward the one who goes the extra mile against the one who does absolute minimum?  

The rail industry.

How do you judge who goes the extra mile?
Just a personal thing from the manager?  If you lick their behind a bit more, are you likely to get a bigger pay rise?  If a female gives certain favours to a male manager, are they more likely to get a promotion?  Because none of those are good situations, surely?

If a pilot does overtime, they obviously get paid for that overtime but I still find it rather strange that two people, employed to do the same job (which surely has set requirements / criteria) get paid two different amounts.

Isn't this part fo the reason why women are generally paid less just because they're women?  Pay everyone the same and that situiation is no more.


EDIT:  Apologies for bumping, just thought I'd comment on a few replies - forgot I even posted this!

anotheruser

Undervalued said:

anotheruser said:

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?

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.

So you're okay with someone being paid more, just because they're old?
Are you also okay that women should be paid less just because...  I don't know... they're women too?
If not, what aspects are acceptable for someone to be paid more, and which are not?  Age is okay.  Gender is not okay.  What about disability?  Should the person in a wheelchair get paid less because they may not be able to do as much as the able bodied person?

A little facetious but just trying to find out where it's acceptable and where it isn't.

mumf

Ha ha,what’s a pay rise?

strawb_shortcake

anotheruser said:

Undervalued said:

anotheruser said:

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?

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.

So you're okay with someone being paid more, just because they're old?
Are you also okay that women should be paid less just because...  I don't know... they're women too?
If not, what aspects are acceptable for someone to be paid more, and which are not?  Age is okay.  Gender is not okay.  What about disability?  Should the person in a wheelchair get paid less because they may not be able to do as much as the able bodied person?

A little facetious but just trying to find out where it's acceptable and where it isn't.

It's not about age it's about experience. As a woman I have at times earnt more than my male counterparts due to my time in post and experience, but that's just anecdotal. 

I work in the civil service and within grades women aren't paid less than men due to their sex. 
What you do see is more women put their careers on hold whilst having a family, and drop to part time or stay at a lower grade to reduce stress and workloads or even a function with less of a career path. Whereas men typically forge on with a career when their children come along. There is a gradual change and we see more stay at home Dad's now, but I don't think at a high enough level to show in any statistics, nor do I expect to see a big cultural shift in that regard.


This year our pay rise has been very divisive within the workforce, with pay increases varying from 1.25% to a reported reported 18%. Those getting the 1.25% and lower % increases were primarily women that chose not to pursue a career. Those the other end of the spectrum were quite a mix but typically those recently promoted. 
I was given a 12.83% pay rise, given the transparency within the department on pay made for some awkward conversations.