Discussing your salary with co-workers
Discussion
Is this ever a good idea? It’s not something I do because talking about money can be a bit classless plus I try and keep my cards close to my chest.
However I only work in a small office and some people do talk and compare theirs, this resulted in one person resigning due to having more experience and time served at the company yet being paid less than others (only £800 a year less but apparently there was no money left in the budget to pay him fairly).
This has spiralled a bit further recently when someone left a list of salaries in a place where they shouldn't have and now it’s spread like a rash.
What I find totally baffling is how a group of people who all do the same job can all be paid vastly different figures. The salary ranges from £20k to £50k for exactly the same job, it’s irrational.
I’m in the middle of those figures although I’d still consider this below average for the position. I’ve accused management of adopting age related pay bands, yes age related not experienced.
I know everyone likes to think highly of themselves but when pushed management have told me “you can’t pay someone in their twenties 50 grand, that’s just wrong, that’s a family man’s salary”.
What extra experience do they have that warrants that sort of difference? What do they bring to the table that nobody else can? Why are they unable to complete their work without me helping them?
"look when you get older you earn more money whether you are good at your job or not", came the answer in a patronising tone.
However I only work in a small office and some people do talk and compare theirs, this resulted in one person resigning due to having more experience and time served at the company yet being paid less than others (only £800 a year less but apparently there was no money left in the budget to pay him fairly).
This has spiralled a bit further recently when someone left a list of salaries in a place where they shouldn't have and now it’s spread like a rash.
What I find totally baffling is how a group of people who all do the same job can all be paid vastly different figures. The salary ranges from £20k to £50k for exactly the same job, it’s irrational.
I’m in the middle of those figures although I’d still consider this below average for the position. I’ve accused management of adopting age related pay bands, yes age related not experienced.
I know everyone likes to think highly of themselves but when pushed management have told me “you can’t pay someone in their twenties 50 grand, that’s just wrong, that’s a family man’s salary”.
What extra experience do they have that warrants that sort of difference? What do they bring to the table that nobody else can? Why are they unable to complete their work without me helping them?
"look when you get older you earn more money whether you are good at your job or not", came the answer in a patronising tone.
mike9009 said:
This is a tricky one.
Firstly, who on earth left the salaries of staff in a public place? Who spread it round? Were other personal details 'published'?
There definitely sounds like a case for age discrimination - although it can be difficult to prove. The market should decide the salaries - a bit like energy supply - if enough customers/ employees switch then the energy supplier/ management of the business have to change their pricing structure/ wages. Without this (people voting with their feet), there won't be a catalyst to change.
I ran a small engineering team, which equally had a disparity of pay. Through development reviews, target setting and managing expectations I was able to slowly reduce the disparity (it did feel grossly unfair when I started). It is always difficult for a business, especially those that are paying below the 'going rate'. We found it difficult to attract new talent so needed to pay appropriately - but this left a chasm between existing experienced staff and those new starters. It was tough convincing higher management about the pay increments, but quantifiable data about the worth of individuals (new business generated/ savings offered) can be a powerful tool - along with the inability to recruit the required skills.
Therefore you need to have a sensible discussion about this. It is tricky now that everyone knows each other salaries. Money is not a good motivator but can be a de-motivator. Is your direct manager approachable about this? Are you given PDRs, feedback, targets, additional training?
It has always been an issue in the companies I have worked at, as pay grades/ scales are so wide, experience/ age/ training/ qualifications are interchangeable and pay is seemingly governed by negotiation skills rather than talent.
Just my general ramblings - but an open discussion is required.
Mike
Very good post so thank you for that.Firstly, who on earth left the salaries of staff in a public place? Who spread it round? Were other personal details 'published'?
There definitely sounds like a case for age discrimination - although it can be difficult to prove. The market should decide the salaries - a bit like energy supply - if enough customers/ employees switch then the energy supplier/ management of the business have to change their pricing structure/ wages. Without this (people voting with their feet), there won't be a catalyst to change.
I ran a small engineering team, which equally had a disparity of pay. Through development reviews, target setting and managing expectations I was able to slowly reduce the disparity (it did feel grossly unfair when I started). It is always difficult for a business, especially those that are paying below the 'going rate'. We found it difficult to attract new talent so needed to pay appropriately - but this left a chasm between existing experienced staff and those new starters. It was tough convincing higher management about the pay increments, but quantifiable data about the worth of individuals (new business generated/ savings offered) can be a powerful tool - along with the inability to recruit the required skills.
Therefore you need to have a sensible discussion about this. It is tricky now that everyone knows each other salaries. Money is not a good motivator but can be a de-motivator. Is your direct manager approachable about this? Are you given PDRs, feedback, targets, additional training?
It has always been an issue in the companies I have worked at, as pay grades/ scales are so wide, experience/ age/ training/ qualifications are interchangeable and pay is seemingly governed by negotiation skills rather than talent.
Just my general ramblings - but an open discussion is required.
Mike
The document in question contained salaries, the salary rise budget for departments, employee talent scores and the calculation for working out pay rises.
We've been recruiting new people recently and the job adverts pay more than what the majority of us are on, yet still low for the market and as such we've not really had many applicants!
I think one of the problems we have is the pay review scheme implemented by the shareholder doesn't allow for big rises to get people where they should be - this is especially apparent when people get promoted and the system won't allow for an increase in remuneration.
For example say the manager of 5 employees is given £5000 to increase remuneration to their subordinates as they see fit. They could give raise 1 persons salary justifiable by £5000 but then this would leave absolutely nothing for the others.
So either you all get buttons or none at all...
mike9009 said:
DrummerBen said:
mike9009 said:
This is a tricky one.
Firstly, who on earth left the salaries of staff in a public place? Who spread it round? Were other personal details 'published'?
There definitely sounds like a case for age discrimination - although it can be difficult to prove. The market should decide the salaries - a bit like energy supply - if enough customers/ employees switch then the energy supplier/ management of the business have to change their pricing structure/ wages. Without this (people voting with their feet), there won't be a catalyst to change.
I ran a small engineering team, which equally had a disparity of pay. Through development reviews, target setting and managing expectations I was able to slowly reduce the disparity (it did feel grossly unfair when I started). It is always difficult for a business, especially those that are paying below the 'going rate'. We found it difficult to attract new talent so needed to pay appropriately - but this left a chasm between existing experienced staff and those new starters. It was tough convincing higher management about the pay increments, but quantifiable data about the worth of individuals (new business generated/ savings offered) can be a powerful tool - along with the inability to recruit the required skills.
Therefore you need to have a sensible discussion about this. It is tricky now that everyone knows each other salaries. Money is not a good motivator but can be a de-motivator. Is your direct manager approachable about this? Are you given PDRs, feedback, targets, additional training?
It has always been an issue in the companies I have worked at, as pay grades/ scales are so wide, experience/ age/ training/ qualifications are interchangeable and pay is seemingly governed by negotiation skills rather than talent.
Just my general ramblings - but an open discussion is required.
Mike
Very good post so thank you for that.Firstly, who on earth left the salaries of staff in a public place? Who spread it round? Were other personal details 'published'?
There definitely sounds like a case for age discrimination - although it can be difficult to prove. The market should decide the salaries - a bit like energy supply - if enough customers/ employees switch then the energy supplier/ management of the business have to change their pricing structure/ wages. Without this (people voting with their feet), there won't be a catalyst to change.
I ran a small engineering team, which equally had a disparity of pay. Through development reviews, target setting and managing expectations I was able to slowly reduce the disparity (it did feel grossly unfair when I started). It is always difficult for a business, especially those that are paying below the 'going rate'. We found it difficult to attract new talent so needed to pay appropriately - but this left a chasm between existing experienced staff and those new starters. It was tough convincing higher management about the pay increments, but quantifiable data about the worth of individuals (new business generated/ savings offered) can be a powerful tool - along with the inability to recruit the required skills.
Therefore you need to have a sensible discussion about this. It is tricky now that everyone knows each other salaries. Money is not a good motivator but can be a de-motivator. Is your direct manager approachable about this? Are you given PDRs, feedback, targets, additional training?
It has always been an issue in the companies I have worked at, as pay grades/ scales are so wide, experience/ age/ training/ qualifications are interchangeable and pay is seemingly governed by negotiation skills rather than talent.
Just my general ramblings - but an open discussion is required.
Mike
The document in question contained salaries, the salary rise budget for departments, employee talent scores and the calculation for working out pay rises.
We've been recruiting new people recently and the job adverts pay more than what the majority of us are on, yet still low for the market and as such we've not really had many applicants!
I think one of the problems we have is the pay review scheme implemented by the shareholder doesn't allow for big rises to get people where they should be - this is especially apparent when people get promoted and the system won't allow for an increase in remuneration.
For example say the manager of 5 employees is given £5000 to increase remuneration to their subordinates as they see fit. They could give raise 1 persons salary justifiable by £5000 but then this would leave absolutely nothing for the others.
So either you all get buttons or none at all...
Hence managing expectations is also key.... It could lead to some difficult reviews, but the only real way to handle it for the longer term.....Normally at a minimum everyone would get about 3% for inflation although under our previous shareholder bigger pay rises were no problem.
Our new one however has a calculation (which is extremely complex) which if applied evenly amongst departments comes out to about 2%
Sheepshanks said:
DrummerBen said:
What I find totally baffling is how a group of people who all do the same job can all be paid vastly different figures. The salary ranges from £20k to £50k for exactly the same job, it’s irrational.
I've worked in places where there's been a range, but nothing like that kind of scale of difference - that seems immense.Also if your salaries are below the industry average, how on earth do you hang on to the people on £20-30K?
The experience is good though and sets people up well for an identical role at a different company.
Gassing Station | Jobs & Employment Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff