6 Employees, same role, different T&Cs.

[rash_decision]

Hi All,

I'm looking for a little advice if possible please?

I have been working with my current employer for a little over 3 years, and my colleague a little over 2. Within the last 18 months, the company has employed another 4 personnel in the same role. New hires, no TUPE or other complications, same company, role etc. However, the 4 new hires have a car allowance. I asked about this and I was told that they must have negotiated this during the recruitment/hiring stage. I know in speaking to them, as I know them of old, that this was not the case. It was part of the offer. We all are required to travel quite regularly for company meetings, length and breadth of the country.

I was told earlier this year that we would also be eligible for a car, and they were working on it. I didn't really see what there was to work on as the procedure was obviously in place for the other 4 employees, but I waited patiently.

Around March 2019 I was told they were working on a car list for a company car option, that I questioned based on the fact the other guys got an allowance on top of their salary. They then said they would get back to me, and to be patient, they were working on it.

This morning, I spoke with my boss, and he told me that there is no way that I can get a car allowance, or company car. No real reason. To be honest, I think he is just being tight with his budget.

Anyway, what I would like to know, in terms of T&Cs, can these differ in such a way? I understand salary disparities, but I thought the T&Cs were with the role, and not the individual?

Thanks in advance.

[borcy]

By what manner do you travel for work purposes now? Pool car, hire car?

[Marlin45]

Do you know if the new hires base salary when added to the car allowance makes their gross nearer to your level of salary? Smoke and mirrors?

[rash_decision]

borcy said:

By what manner do you travel for work purposes now? Pool car, hire car?

Just now, I get a taxi to the local hire car depot as they won't deliver due to our company hammering the rates, then hire car. Then vice versa on getting home.

[coldel]

Not sure if it helps but the company I am at got bought out by a company which has worse benefits for its employees than ours, we have had our protected for 3 years and anyone joining our part of the business has to accept the terms of the other company, which are now worse than ours who have been here a while - so for our management team, the two new people out of the five of us have less benefits, we are all same level etc.

[rash_decision]

Marlin45 said:

Do you know if the new hires base salary when added to the car allowance makes their gross nearer to your level of salary? Smoke and mirrors?

I know that the lesser paid of the new hires is on 6% more than me, plus the car allowance.

[The_Nugget]

I’ve been in this situation. I call it the loyalty penalty.
The way I dealt with it was by having a reasonable conversation with my boss/his boss.
In the end when the promise of Jam tomorrow didn’t materialise, I found a suitable alternative job advert for a competitor and then had another reasonable conversation with my boss.

Ultimately they either value you or they don’t.
In the end I got what I wanted, but it’s not a trick you can pull often.

[DanL]

The_Nugget said:

I’ve been in this situation. I call it the loyalty penalty.
The way I dealt with it was by having a reasonable conversation with my boss/his boss.
In the end when the promise of Jam tomorrow didn’t materialise, I found a suitable alternative job advert for a competitor and then had another reasonable conversation with my boss.

Ultimately they either value you or they don’t.
In the end I got what I wanted, but it’s not a trick you can pull often.

This, unfortunately. You had (presumably) a market comparable package when you joined. Since then, the market has moved on and you're now suffering in comparison. If you really believe you're behind where you should be, the only certain way is to test this by looking for a new job.

If you can find one, you can then decide whether you want to jump ship or see if your current company will match or better the offer you have. As noted, you can't pull this often, and you will have to be ready to follow through and leave if they don't counter offer, or you're basically in a worse position than you are at the moment.

[Sir Bagalot]

The_Nugget said:

I’ve been in this situation. I call it the loyalty penalty.
The way I dealt with it was by having a reasonable conversation with my boss/his boss.
In the end when the promise of Jam tomorrow didn’t materialise, I found a suitable alternative job advert for a competitor and then had another reasonable conversation with my boss.

Ultimately they either value you or they don’t.
In the end I got what I wanted, but it’s not a trick you can pull often.

^^This

[Kent Border Kenny]

I agree with the above, you need to find a way to negotiate a better package, put up with it, or leave.

There’s usually no legal issue with paying different employees different amounts unless it involves a protected characteristic.

[breadvan]

I think it’s mad there’s more law protecting equal pay for temps than protecting you against new perm hires.

[anonymous-user]

Protect against what? Inability to negotiate a better deal is not a protected characteristic. It appears that all of the employees in question are male, and if so no question of equal pay arises.

[hyphen]

rash_decision said:

This morning, I spoke with my boss, and he told me that there is no way that I can get a car allowance, or company car. No real reason. To be honest, I think he is just being tight with his budget.

What's the relationship like?

How do they judge your performance?

As doesn't sound like he values you.

[anonymous-user]

Or the budget is stuck. When you are working in a company that has decided to cut down on a certain kind of spending, it can be hard to persuade the company otherwise.

[breadvan]

Breadvan72 said:

Or the budget is stuck. When you are working in a company that has decided to cut down on a certain kind of spending, it can be hard to persuade the company otherwise.

By giving cars to new hires?

[breadvan]

Breadvan72 said:

Protect against what? Inability to negotiate a better deal is not a protected characteristic. It appears that all of the employees in question are male, and if so no question of equal pay arises.

Again, I’m not with you. Just pointing out there’s no AWR equivalent for perms.

[anonymous-user]

So what? The OP's beef is that his deal is not as good as someone else's deal, but he identifies nothing that suggests the difference is based on anything that makes it unlawful. The remedy for an uneven deal is to attempt to get a better deal.

[breadvan]

Breadvan72 said:

So what? The OP's beef is that his deal is not as good as someone else's deal, but he identifies nothing that suggests the difference is based on anything that makes it unlawful. The remedy for an uneven deal is to attempt to get a better deal.

Yes! That’s his question and we agree there’s nothing in law. Blimey, you’re like a argumentative little brother......



Technically, I’m breadvan71.

[anonymous-user]

I am not your brother, and I was born long before 1971. When people post nonsense, I point it out. If that upsets you, don't post nonsense,

[breadvan]

I didn’t say you’re my brother, idiot.