Job advertisements, Why do they do it!

Bouton Aide said:
Then surely you categories each job role then have a set salary unless it's like sales or something. There's only so many categories you can do in a workplace. If it's DevOps Engineer then that's 1 role, with 1 salary.

Unless that's a role where it's paid per fix or something like that? I do understand where people are coming from though.
Click to expand...
I might have someone who's just completed the 2 year grad scheme join at 50k, and then I interview someone who's got 10 years experience who joins at 100k - they all work supporting the same kit for the same customers in the same team - so they all have the same title and job description.

We have tried banding our roles into various levels but it doesn't really work and becomes a situation where time in service = more pay. This didn't work for us - so now its talent and delivery = more pay

Since moving to this model we have seen increased staff retention, and it makes it far easier to have salary conversations with people. Those on lower pay can see exactly how much value and work others are generating - so have things to work toward that we can help them move forward with. Before this they were just trying to check boxes on a form from HR that said junior/senior/principal and they couldn't capture things like creativeness/innovation/commitment to role etc.
 
Bouton Aide said:
FFS man. If someone has the same job with the same job title then they should be paid the same. It's as simple as that. If your mate crap brains is doing a job with extra duties then of course they should be paid differently.

If someone's doing the same job then YES. PAY = EQUAL.

What's hard to bloody understand about that? I don't care if crap brains knows more they shouldn't be paid more just because they know more. If their mate Johnny is doing the SAME job then the pay SHOULD be the same regardless of how skilled they are. (unless they are doing more work with more responsibility than sure pay them more).

So you lot would be happy your work collogue getting an extra 20K for doing exactly the same role? (I think not.)

Once a work colleague knows your been paid more then it ALWAYS gets to the point of "you are paid more than me, not in my pay grade - you do it" attitude.

You lot are missing my complete point but it doesn't matter. I don't give a ****, I'm out.
Click to expand...
You seem very angry, what do you do for a living? It might help people contextualise this for you.

I started a new job a few years ago.
I wasn't inexperienced enough to join as a junior grade, but I wasn't experienced enough to be paid as much as some of my more experienced, qualified and possibly talented colleagues performing the same role.
So I was the lowest paid member in my role.

Within six months it became clear to my manager that I was capable of applying my (small amount of) experience to my work far more quickly than my established colleagues, and that I had a better aptitude for the role than they did - so I leapfrogged them in terms of salary.
I was now being paid more than my higher qualified (on paper) and more experienced colleagues in the same role.

Surely you can understand this scenario? If I worked in a team of 12 for example, and you wanted to apply your same job = same pay system, you'd need everyone to have a different job title in order to pay them any differently. That would be madness
 
If experience had zero value it could be got cheaply and consistently. Your angry and petulant responses do you no favours in this debate. Life is not black and white and you can’t cookie cut the corporate world to suit your one dimensional thinking.

You may be offended that people disagree but that’s all on you. No one cares about anger so your just burning yourself for no reason. Don’t be a zebra.
 
I agree with the same pay argument for an unskilled job role that has specific fixed hours (i.e. not salaried) where the tasks undertaken are the exact same for each employee, but beyond this it gets a lot more fluid, and deservedly so, even if a salaried job has the same title and the same overall job description.

Ultimately, the reward a person receives is based on their value to the company. As an example, in my sector, there could be two individuals doing the same role, but person A may have a larger client base, be more efficient and hence generate more fee income for the company, as opposed to person B who may not be as pro-active in this regard and generate less income for the company, result is a lower salary for person B.

The reasoning for the disparity could be numerous and it may not be down to individual ability, person B could be equally as intelligent and able as person A, but person A may work longer hours and less concerned about work/life balance, but conversely it could just be as simple as person A is just better skilled.

That isn't to say both employees are not valuable to the company, both will likely be at different levels of salary for the same role, but the reward they receive is commensurate with the output they generate, and will dictate their own equilibrium of earnings where the company considers them a good going concern.

This is where the pressure arises with high paying salaried roles - if you do not deliver you will pretty swiftly be under massive scrutiny. The lower down the pay scale you are in a salaried role the more leeway you will have until your superior starts to question your viability.
 
Last edited:
2004typer said:
I agree with the same pay argument for an unskilled job role that has specific fixed hours (i.e. not salaried) where the tasks undertaken are the exact same for each employee
Click to expand...
Even then, you might want to reward productivity. Simple example might be crop harvesting, person A harvests 100 units a day, person B harvests 150 units a day. Why should person A get paid the same as person B despite doing the same job? Now you could argue that in that scenario you would have a bonus scheme or something to reward the best harvesters but it's just an example, you could apply the same concept to any job in terms of them being more productive, but probably in a harder to measure (and hence put a bonus structure around) way.
 
HangTime said:
Even then, you might want to reward productivity. Simple example might be crop harvesting, person A harvests 100 units a day, person B harvests 150 units a day. Why should person A get paid the same as person B despite doing the same job? Now you could argue that in that scenario you would have a bonus scheme or something to reward the best harvesters but it's just an example, you could apply the same concept to any job in terms of them being more productive, but probably in a harder to measure (and hence put a bonus structure around) way.
Click to expand...

Possibly, and in a way this is the same overall effect of being a higher salaried worker but without the pressure of having to perform (i.e. if you don't end up achieving bonus but still put in adequate effort to remain viable your job wouldn't be at risk). Obviously, if the minimum standards are not met in terms of productivity (i.e. being a lazy git) then performance management will come into play.

I think what I'm trying to say in my original post is the amount an employer is legally contracted to pay you, and another person in the same role, the expectations for the higher paid individual will be set commensurately. In a skilled salaried role the choice is then down to the individual to live up to these expectations, through skill, time expended etc., and the more you live up to these expectations the higher the salary will go.
 
HangTime said:
Even then, you might want to reward productivity. Simple example might be crop harvesting, person A harvests 100 units a day, person B harvests 150 units a day. Why should person A get paid the same as person B despite doing the same job? Now you could argue that in that scenario you would have a bonus scheme or something to reward the best harvesters but it's just an example, you could apply the same concept to any job in terms of them being more productive, but probably in a harder to measure (and hence put a bonus structure around) way.
Click to expand...

Probs can do that with farming to be fair - pay based on productivity rather than hours worked etc...

Doesn't work so well with large employers in other areas though even when the same principle can be argued for... just look at how people kick off, supermarkets paying warehouse staff more than till staff is supposedly "sexist", ditto to binmen earning more than cleaners... That women can work in supermarket warehouses too, aren't forced to work on the till doesn't seem to matter... I can almost guarantee that if tesco warehouse workers were paid based on their physical performance in the job then lawsuits would start.
 
randomshenans said:
No salary up front ****** me right off. If you're going to make me do 27 hours of interviews and preparation for presentations and ****, and then low ball me with some **** less than I'm on now, you're wasting my time. More should be done to put this upfront in my opinion.
Click to expand...

That happened to me last year. I said to them I won't do the interview process unless I have a ball park figure. They went, it's very competitive, it's at least £x! I politely explained that that is around 20% less than my current wage, to which they went, but the work life balance is awesome and it's a great company blah blah blah. I politely declined, although the recruiter was aggressively trying to push me to it .

I tell them what my package expectations are based on my current situation. It's the only way to weed those calls out.
 
I ignore job adverts with no salary. I work in a demand outstrips supply industry so not great for recruiters. I've interviewed candidates for our team globally and know how difficult it is.
 
I don't even know why "competitive" salary is mentioned, it's one of those meaningless statements that is a bit subjective based on what roles you are comparing against. You could argue that if it is competitive, then by definition they must be able to state what the range is, otherwise how do they know it is competitive?
 
Freefaller said:
Indeed. I use it as a minimum and add minimum of 10% on top. If there's a crap pension or just less benefits then I add more.
Click to expand...
This is what they often fail to understand too. Basic is 1 part of the package. I don't want a 20% higher basic and then be screwed with a useless pension, bonus, holiday etc etc. it's all a part of the package and it all matters. I like to try and be upfront about it as that's what makes the difference. If they don't know it or can't tell me I won't talk to them.
 
randomshenans said:
This is what they often fail to understand too. Basic is 1 part of the package. I don't want a 20% higher basic and then be screwed with a useless pension, bonus, holiday etc etc. it's all a part of the package and it all matters. I like to try and be upfront about it as that's what makes the difference. If they don't know it or can't tell me I won't talk to them.
Click to expand...

Often it kills the conversation but then you don't waste your time.

I've taken paycuts before for better or more exciting roles it has to be right.
 
I refused a role a few years ago which was partly based on the leave and pension weren’t as good as where I was.

Similar to the above I’m upfront when recruiters contact me about roles about what my current package is at a high level (salary and bonus/commission, not into the weeds of pension and leave just yet)/expectations are, and if there’s not a match then we don’t waste either of our time.

Seems to work so far, either kills a conversation dead or they go sure that’s ok.

I wouldn’t ignore ads that have no salary stated though as in my sort of role in the industry (similar to Beerbaron from what I remember) they are often not stated, but it would be one of the first things I’d mention before progressing.
 
Kreeeee said:
You have such a backwards and entitled attitude towards this. If my colleague was 20% more efficient than me in the same role then yes of course I would expect them to be paid 20% more.
Click to expand...

Really even though they where doing the same job? I don't ****** think so. So does that mean if I keep a secret on an easier way to do a job that entitles me to 20% more pay?

Alright from now on then **** everyone else I'll just keep secrets and take all the pay. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom