Pay Rises - How Do They Work Where You Are?

anotheruser

JReacher1 said:

Just because you’re doing the same job doesn’t mean you’re doing it at the same level of ability. A more experienced person in the same role could well be doing the job at a higher quality level and require less support from the manager. Or they could do it quicker. 

But they could equally do it slower too?

Perhaps it's because my industry requires everyone to pass assessments and work to the same base standard.  If someone wants to go above that, good on them but it's not required.  Just because you're younger or younger within the business, doesn't mean you're not working to the same standard and thus should be paid the same.

comeandgo

anotheruser said:

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.

We had targets to meet and had meetings with management to gauge how we were doing.  I’m female and was one of the highest paid in a male dominated environment and I can assure you I did not sleep with anyone nor lick behinds.  We were all treated as equal, if you can add value to your employer you get rewarded.

anotheruser

annabanana82 said:

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. 

But how do you define experience?
Age in the job?
Age of the person?

Let's remember, older people can do the job just as rubbish as younger people.

They're hired to do job X.
If person 1 wants to go over and above that, why should that mean they get paid higher?

Don't get me wrong, not arguing about it, just still not sure I really understand why experience, that isn't required to do a job = more money.  If that experience is required to do a job, surely everyone should have that same experience, no matter their age.

sevenhills

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?

Surely someone that has been doing a job for 10+ years, does it much better than someone in their first year.
A teacher for example, I know I am much wiser as a 60 year old, compared to my 20 something self.

strawb_shortcake

anotheruser said:

annabanana82 said:

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. 

But how do you define experience?
Age in the job?
Age of the person?

Let's remember, older people can do the job just as rubbish as younger people.

They're hired to do job X.
If person 1 wants to go over and above that, why should that mean they get paid higher?

Don't get me wrong, not arguing about it, just still not sure I really understand why experience, that isn't required to do a job = more money.  If that experience is required to do a job, surely everyone should have that same experience, no matter their age.

I think age is irrelevant, it's about your experience in the role. Some job roles may not have distinguishing aspects that set people apart so that could make it trickier to allocate pay ranges to different people.

In my role and in my business, a bonus or pay increase would be based on my outputs for that year. My role can be completely different to someone at the same grade as me.
I don't have to exceed my objectives and there may be some years where those opportunities don't arise, but I am expected to meet my objectives.
Some people coast, some people under perform and some people over achieve.

TBagpuss

comeandgo said:

anotheruser said:

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.

We had targets to meet and had meetings with management to gauge how we were doing.  I’m female and was one of the highest paid in a male dominated environment and I can assure you I did not sleep with anyone nor lick behinds.  We were all treated as equal, if you can add value to your employer you get rewarded.

In most functional workplaces it's possible to specifcially identify why on person may be worth more, to rule out favourtism, and in my experience, it's usual for there to me more than one person involved in the decision amkaing process so harder for someome to get unfiar advantage becaue of their personal relationship or simply 'sucking up' 

I'd also point out that it's just as possible that a man might get an advatnafge if he were flirting with or sleeping with him boss, as for a womna, and it's pretty sexists to assume that a woman getting paid more must have given 'favours' to achive it rather than recognising gthat by far the most lkely reason isthat sheis better at her job than others who get paid less. 

If you just pay eveyone the same then it's very demoralising for those who do work harder or achieve more as they see no benefit or reward for doing so. It's a good way to encourage people to do the bare minimum, since there's no benefit in doing more. 

Rewading better workers is much fairer and give more of an incentive for people to do their best work. 

Obviously the specifics are going to be very variable depending on the role, and it may be more difficult to assess in some roles than others, but in most cases it would be possible to identuify specifc ways in which one person has done more / worked harder than another. 

Ath_Wat

sevenhills 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?

Surely someone that has been doing a job for 10+ years, does it much better than someone in their first year.
A teacher for example, I know I am much wiser as a 60 year old, compared to my 20 something self.

An individual will probably do a job better after doing it for 10 years.

There's no reason that a different individual might not start off at a level higher than the first individual will reach after 10, 20 or 40 years.  The second person will of course also become even better with experience.

biscan25

My OH has just started work for a charity, and I was amazed at the transparency of their pay structure.
The bands are disclosed in the colleague handbook, separated along 8 job titles. It even formulates how the bands go up each year (min of 2% and CPI).
Everyone can see how much their boss earns (within a £4k band anyway), and how much a promotion would be worth.
Personally I'm in favour.

TBagpuss

biscan25 said:

My OH has just started work for a charity, and I was amazed at the transparency of their pay structure.
The bands are disclosed in the colleague handbook, separated along 8 job titles. It even formulates how the bands go up each year (min of 2% and CPI).
Everyone can see how much their boss earns (within a £4k band anyway), and how much a promotion would be worth.
Personally I'm in favour.

I think it can work well - probably better in larger organisations where it's practical to have broad bands and where you have larger numbers of people doing the same / broadly similar jobs. 

I suspect it also works better wherte the process is very rigid and there sn't a lot of flexibility on salary based on performance

Brie

Ath_Wat said:

sevenhills 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?

Surely someone that has been doing a job for 10+ years, does it much better than someone in their first year.
A teacher for example, I know I am much wiser as a 60 year old, compared to my 20 something self.

An individual will probably do a job better after doing it for 10 years.

There's no reason that a different individual might not start off at a level higher than the first individual will reach after 10, 20 or 40 years.  The second person will of course also become even better with experience.

Or someone who has been working in a job/company for decades is bored, not bothered about promotion, doing things according to outdated processes and tech and really couldn't give a monkey's. 

Don't get me wrong I think that companies that are all over promoting uni grads over experienced staff are short sighted.  But just as some youngsters hit the ground running and others have to learn that they need to do a bit of something before lunch there are also those wise old owls who keep up with everything that is going on and others who are just nodding sleepily in a corner waiting for retirement.

And this can happen at 60 or at 40 or whenever.  It's down to the individuals and they need to be judged as such.