Same pay for trainees???

I've found out that another trainee doing the same training in the same seats etc. is paid massively more than the rest of us because he worked at the firm before in research and was quite senior. Is this right? No equal pay discrimination but surely we should be paid the same as he had to break his old employment and start the training contract .

What do you guys think?!

So he's returning to work at his old employer. They know him and value his previous (apparently senior) experience, and are happy to pay something probably more in line with his prior salary. It's not the same at all.

That is true, but he's had to resign from the pernament supervisor role and become a fixed term contract trainee under very different terms i.e. we all need to do the same training and have the same supervision, I think its like an apprenticeship. Do you think that makes a difference?

How do you know this level of detail? Has the individual told you this? And if you have been discussing salaries in a law firm more generally, I would recommend not doing so. I have known disciplinary action to take place for people who regularly discussed these type of things in the work place.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I have known disciplinary action to take place for people who regularly discussed these type of things in the work place.


Posted from TSR Mobile

I'm very interested to hear more about why this is, how the 'culture' can become a disciplinary issue in some working environments. I ask because I started my career in an organisation where salaries were public knowledge and talking about money/earnings was commonplace. Since then, I've worked in a series of very different organisations and I've noticed this 'say nothing about salaries' culture to different degrees.

I (slightly) understand the bad taste argument for not discussing salaries, and I understand non-disclosure agreements, terminations etc, but I can't see why, if the people involved want to discuss their salaries, it should be a disciplinary matter. It seems to me to hark back to the 50s mentality about money, and the only reason I can think is because companies don't want workers to work out the inequalities that are hidden in a secret salary structure?

Pay discussion is healthy and legal

It's not uncommon for employment contracts to have such a "gagging" clause in the private sector.

And is there any business reason, other than to stop staff members discovering internal pay inequalities?

Correct, that's largely the reason. Although under the Equality Act 2010 those "inequalities" can't be due to sex discrimination.

Goodness gracious, of course not!!!! Heaven forfend that any differences in salary should be due to anything other than perfectly justifiable reasons. Which begs the question why such a clause or disciplinary action would be necessary, but get me and my public service background!

Well take this specific example, the other "trainee" is on a higher pay level because of his particular circumstances, and this situation is a perfectly justifiable action for the employer with that trainee. The other trainees know about his previous history with the employer but the OP still feels agrieved (for some reason).

In other words, even with justifiable reasons for a pay "inequality" the OP is still unhappy.

If the salaries had been kept confidential the "problem" wouldn't have arisen...

That is true, but he's had to resign from the pernament supervisor role and become a fixed term contract trainee under very different terms i.e. we all need to do the same training and have the same supervision, I think its like an apprenticeship. Do you think that makes a difference?

It's not uncommon for employment contracts to have such a "gagging" clause in the private sector.

But the "problem" may just be that the OP doesn't understand the idea of greater experience getting greater reward, the fact that the other person once newly trained, has accelerated utility to the company, so greater value, and that the company valued keeping them in the organisation at a greater sum than an untested direct entrant. But rather than justify that, if it comes up, in a logical way, they hide behind a "no discussion" clause in a contract and disciplinary action if it is discussed. It just all seems very strange to me!