Different pay scales in work.

[dowie]

The thing is sickness is targeted, there's a system in place, but you have like 5 or so "unplanned" life events per year which can be given at the discretion of a line manager. I'm not one to skive, but I'd probably get questioned if I had more than 1 or 2 days where something in my house broke, yet like you say - kids get sick all the time, so that's just a free day off no questions asked. Even if the kid is sick, we're all being paid a salary yet someone is working less.

but presumably you have life event days too, it isn't like they're exclusively for kids right?

Like say a relative gets taken to hospital or your house gets flooded or you get burgled and have a whole load of still to sort out at short notice etc... then presumably you can take them too?

 

[d_brennen]

but presumably you have life event days too, it isn't like they're exclusively for kids right?

Like say a relative gets taken to hospital or your house gets flooded or you get burgled and have a whole load of still to sort out at short notice etc... then presumably you can take them too?

If your sick mother needs taking to the hospital, you just man up and call her a cab, obviously!

The reason sickness is targeted is that so many people abuse it. Being at home with a sick child is harder than work

 

[krooton]

And as someone else has said, kids do get sick quite a bit.

Been spending most their lives... living in an anti-vaxxers paradise,
Caught measles once, they die... living in an anti-vaxxers paradise.

 

[mjt]

This is one of the dumbest thing's I've read in a while. You deserve more money because of your life choices? You genuinely believe this? Reminds me of that government poll where people were saying "give us 15 free hours of childcare per week", except it isn't free, it's paid for by tax payers who don't have kids.

And if those kids didn't exist, who would pay your pension when you retire?

The reason sickness is targeted is that so many people abuse it. Being at home with a sick child is harder than work

My kid is sick tomorrow and my gf has something on so I need to take the morning off. Massive pain in the backside as I've had to re-arrange meetings, interview with a prospective new hire, etc.
Staying at home with my sick kid IS harder than going to work, and I also lose most of the day, which I will have to make up in the evening if I want to stay on top of my work. Can't speak for those who abuse it, but those who say "UR CHOICE TO HAVE KIDZ I DON'T HAVE ANY SO FO" are just silly.

 

[Meridian]

This type of thing seems to be getting more and more common

It has always been common. But now the internet generation have discovered it. I remember cases of this back in the 1980s, and I'll bet money it goes back to when wages were invented. The whole point of capitalism is to pay the workforce the least you can get away with. If they are already working for a particular salary, why pay them more? But if the only way to get another person is pay what will get them into post. Which is often more than current staff will work for. It's like insurance: the existing people get screwed to release the money for new people. Why do you think many companies make it a disciplinary offence to talk about salaries.

 

[chaparral]

What people fail to understand is the salaries are negotiable and companies are happy to pay people different amounts. there is nothing wrong with that.

i get paid a good 20K more than some others in my company, but I have just asked for more money and justified it by having higher living costs. Someone earning less money but has no kids, wife, and is happy with a cheap rental will have far more net savings at the end of each month.

LOL

 

[D.P.]

LOL at all the people getting butthurt over the fluid nature of salaries. Guess what, the value of a salary is very much a personal thing and your own personal circumstances will dictate whether a salary offer good value or not. Someone earning 50K on London sees a very different value to 50K in Glasgow, which is why salaries typically adjust due to living costs. The same concept applies at an individual level. If you have fixed monthly costs then you minimum viable salary demand is going to be a certain margin above the net salary once taxes are removed, otherwise you will soon find yourself bankrupt. If someone has higher fixed monthly costs then it is obvious they will ask for more money, or only apply for jobs that will meet their salary requirement. Hence during the wage negotiation of an interview companies often ask what your salary requirement is, because that is exactly what it is, a requirement form you for a minimum pay level to make the job viable. If you have lower living costs you will have a harder time justifying to the company why you should earn your requested salary. If you have 3K a month in fixed child care costs then you will obviously be negotiating a salary well over 5K per month gross. If the company wants you then they will simply have to pay that. If they can find someone to do an equal job for less money then they can choose to keep looking.

The only things companies can't do is discriminate based on protected status such as gender, sexuality, skin colour or religion. They can;t pay you more because you are a man/gay/hindu etc., but they can certainly pay you more if you ask for more and provide reasons that take into account both your ability, prior salary, and living costs. as long as a company takes steps to remove systematic bias then there is no issue.

And lol at the incels complaining at children. Human race would go extinct pretty soon if it wasn't for parents having kids.

 

[D.P.]

It has always been common. But now the internet generation have discovered it. I remember cases of this back in the 1980s, and I'll bet money it goes back to when wages were invented. The whole point of capitalism is to pay the workforce the least you can get away with. If they are already working for a particular salary, why pay them more? But if the only way to get another person is pay what will get them into post. Which is often more than current staff will work for. It's like insurance: the existing people get screwed to release the money for new people. Why do you think many companies make it a disciplinary offence to talk about salaries.

There are a lot of factors in negotiating someones salary.

If someone joined the company and accepted the salary then they were presumably happy with it, otherwise they could negotiate more or change jobs. If they can't change jobs to get more more then presumably they are getting the market rate. If the company suddenly needs to hire a new person then they may have to pay a much higher salary to secure a quick hire.
Or perhaps the companies wants someone that has some particular experience or skills and the person they find has a much higher previous salary, you wont get them to jopin if you don;t get close to their requirements. And it is probably not viable to get everyone's salary to the same level.


A few years back we hired somone who had spent 5 years at one of the meg-tech firms and was getting 200K a year salary. We couldn't match that but certainly ended up paying him 30k or something more than other engineers with the same education and years experience. Difference was we valued the candidiate's project specific experience a lot.

 

[GiraffePencils]

LOL at all the people getting butthurt over the fluid nature of salaries. Guess what, the value of a salary is very much a personal thing and your own personal circumstances will dictate whether a salary offer good value or not. Someone earning 50K on London sees a very different value to 50K in Glasgow, which is why salaries typically adjust due to living costs. The same concept applies at an individual level. If you have fixed monthly costs then you minimum viable salary demand is going to be a certain margin above the net salary once taxes are removed, otherwise you will soon find yourself bankrupt. If someone has higher fixed monthly costs then it is obvious they will ask for more money, or only apply for jobs that will meet their salary requirement. Hence during the wage negotiation of an interview companies often ask what your salary requirement is, because that is exactly what it is, a requirement form you for a minimum pay level to make the job viable. If you have lower living costs you will have a harder time justifying to the company why you should earn your requested salary. If you have 3K a month in fixed child care costs then you will obviously be negotiating a salary well over 5K per month gross. If the company wants you then they will simply have to pay that. If they can find someone to do an equal job for less money then they can choose to keep looking.

The only things companies can't do is discriminate based on protected status such as gender, sexuality, skin colour or religion. They can;t pay you more because you are a man/gay/hindu etc., but they can certainly pay you more if you ask for more and provide reasons that take into account both your ability, prior salary, and living costs. as long as a company takes steps to remove systematic bias then there is no issue.

And lol at the incels complaining at children. Human race would go extinct pretty soon if it wasn't for parents having kids.

I have to say I agree and disagree, but it's mostly on your wording.

You could be an expensive asset to your company because you want a higher salary due to your living costs.
You shouldn't get a higher salary due to your living costs.

Your posts came across very much like 'I require more money so I should be paid it', and if someone came to me asking for more money on those grounds I'd find it laughable.

But if you say 'I require this more money, so I'll need to go get it' Then I'd consider the companies need of you and pay you it if that need > cost.
Like any other person.

But having higher living costs is sort of 'your problem'..... so using them as the reason for more money is 'LOL'

 

[D.P.]

I have to say I agree and disagree, but it's mostly on your wording.

You could be an expensive asset to your company because you want a higher salary due to your living costs.
You shouldn't get a higher salary due to your living costs.

Your posts came across very much like 'I require more money so I should be paid it', and if someone came to me asking for more money on those grounds I'd find it laughable.

But if you say 'I require this more money, so I'll need to go get it' Then I'd consider the companies need of you and pay you it if that need > cost.
Like any other person.

But having higher living costs is sort of 'your problem'..... so using them as the reason for more money is 'LOL'

You honestly think people living in London will accept getting paid the same as someone in the NE?
That is laughable, of course companies have to adjust salaries to living costs otherwise big cities would be empty ghost towns.

Having higher living costs simply means the company will have to pay your more, or find someone cheaper. it is only your problem if you price yourself out of the market you can work in. Otherwise for the company it is mostly just filling in a box for HR to deal with.

 

[GiraffePencils]

Maybe this is my wording that's throwing us out of sync. here....

..Having higher living costs simply means the company will have to pay your more, or find someone cheaper...

Yes, that's what I meant by:

I'd consider the companies need of you and pay you it if that need > cost.

I'm not sure where you're getting the London vs NE from here? That's a proper strawman if I've ever seen one.

You're comparing different sites/office/companies with that sort of geographic disparity between workers.
If that was your point from the start, then I'm sorry I misunderstood.

I've been talking about if 2 people work in the same office, and one says "I want a raise because my big house and 5 kids cost me a lot" which is entirely the wrong way to put "I'm looking to earn X a year and willing to change role/job to achieve it"
Hence why I said I agreed with you, but disagreed mostly with your wording.

[edited, didn't need the full quote]

 

[D.P.]

the point is companies are perfectly happy to adjust salaries based on living costs, and that doesn't simply have to be geographic but can extend to personal circumstances.

this also goes back to individual people's perception of value. Someone single has lower living costs than a parent, giving them the same gross salary will mean the parent has less money at the end of the day and the value of that salary will thus be lower. This will incentivize the parent to negotiate a higher salary or look at other job offers.

 

[Stumble Bum]

God you talk out of your arse.

 

[Angilion]

I think D.P. is refering to negotiating skills and incentive to apply them harder despite the increased risk that should result from doing so. Asking to be paid more money for doing the same job should carry a degree of risk and does require either sales skill or leverage over your employer. A person with higher living costs would generally have more incentive to take that risk that a person with lower living costs.

 

[Tone1979]

The company will always look to pay the least to get the same skill set, that's just a fact.

I know my peer is on 20k more than me but has more experience (moderate) but has more responsibility so maybe not a fair comparison. I hate talking money but when it comes to a job I am really to the point. I look up the role and the salary and argue why I am worth what the market pays. It never works out totally but I always get more than the offer and as long as it's a rise and I feel valued, I am ok with it.

however, I always have a clause in my contract that stipulates a review as soon as anything changes. So far this has worked well, for me.

 

[FoxEye]

My wife gets £3000 less than one of her colleagues for doing the same job.

They did a pay review recently and though she did get an increase, it didn't change the pay difference. Her colleague has been in the role longer but often asks my wife for advice.

They work for the county council so you can't just request a raise apparently....I find it maddening.

It's true.

e: Rest of post deleted.

 

[FoxEye]

It has always been common. But now the internet generation have discovered it. I remember cases of this back in the 1980s, and I'll bet money it goes back to when wages were invented. The whole point of capitalism is to pay the workforce the least you can get away with. If they are already working for a particular salary, why pay them more? But if the only way to get another person is pay what will get them into post. Which is often more than current staff will work for. It's like insurance: the existing people get screwed to release the money for new people. Why do you think many companies make it a disciplinary offence to talk about salaries.

It's precisely this attitude and these ideas - which are considered "common sense" to many managers - that are actually damaging companies and reducing productivity.

Appreciate this article is 20 years old, but it's well worth a read.

https://hbr.org/1998/05/six-dangerous-myths-about-pay

Long story short - you can pay your staff more and have greater productivity and staff who are more invested in your company's success... or you can try to squeeze pay as much as possible and potentially lose money/productivity compared to your rivals.

 

[VincentHanna]

It's true.

e: Rest of post deleted.

I read it, very interesting.

She would lose 15 years continuance service, for a 12 month contract though

 

[Nasher]

Been spending most their lives... living in an anti-vaxxers paradise,
Caught measles once, they die... living in an anti-vaxxers paradise.

Measles is making a big come-back because of those moronic "anti-vaxxers" :/

Oh well, almost 100% of vaccinated people are immune so I guess it will fix itself eventually.

 

[Diagro]

What people fail to understand is the salaries are negotiable and companies are happy to pay people different amounts. there is nothing wrong with that.

i get paid a good 20K more than some others in my company, but I have just asked for more money and justified it by having higher living costs. Someone earning less money but has no kids, wife, and is happy with a cheap rental will have far more net savings at the end of each month.

This right here is the kind of thinking that has lead to the delay of Brexit.