Pay Inequality

[TynePaul]

Hi all,

 

The team I am on at work has people on a wide range of earnings (the difference between the highest and lowest is double the lowest earner's wage). Mostly people were not "new hires" - some moved to the company about 20 years ago under TUPE, whilst others either moved to the team from elsewhere in the company or started as apprentices (although for some that was about ten years ago). There were a few new hires - contractors who were taken on permanently (but again more than ten years ago). However, we now have five new hires and their starting wage is £7,000 more than the lowest earner and about £5,000 more than quite a few other people's. These people who have been taken on do not have previous skills or experience that put them ahead of current workers nor will they be doing a different job to the rest of us.

 

These new hires seem to have finally established a base line for pay and "job level" (it's a large company with extensive job "ratings"/"levels").

 

I have done some research and seem to be getting mixed messages whether it is legal or not and if we have a credible argument to be at least brought in line with the new starters.

 

A lot of the information out there is about pay inequality between genders (two of our high earners are actually women, almost all of the men are paid less than them - however, their pay I guess is a "reward" for experience and performance over the years), but this is not really the issue here (aside from the two women, everyone else is a man). The issue that we see and want to deal with is to be paid the same wage as someone doing to same work, i.e. the same as the new starters (well, once we have finished training the new starters they will be doing the same work as us - it usually lasts for a few months).

 

Has anyone been involved in such a situation before? Does anyone know of success stories for pay equality outside of gender-related disputes?

[steampowered]

This would only be unlawful if the reason for the difference in pay is a 'protected characteristic', such as gender or race. Otherwise, the difference in pay would be perfectly lawful.

 

While a few of the high earners are women, it doesn't sound like their gender is the reason for their pay. It also doesn't sound like gender could be a reason for the difference between new-stater wages and the lower wages, as you say that both these categories of people are largely male.

 

I don't think you have a legal case but you probably have a business case. If you all band together and ask for a salary uplift, the amount getting paid to new starters is a good reason, especially if there are better paying opportunities with other companies. It will presumably be more expensive for the employer to recruit and train new people than to keep existing people.

[ericsbrother]

is there a problem with recruitment and retention in your job sector? They may see you as being people who wont up and leave so they feel as if they dont need to motivate you by pay as much as th new people, who may well go if they arent rewarded. Look at what others are being offered by your business competitors to get a feel of what is the going rate for the job

IF you have annual assessments/reviews then it would be the main subject to raise as to why you are thinking of leaving.