Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    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?!
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    What is massively more (out of interest)?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    We have this situation at my work and it is annoying that people doing the same job get paid more than me even though I think I'm better at it than them.

    It is just one of those things. Whatever employers do, they'll be people think they deserve more money.

    It certainly isn't something that should be legislated against. If you think you deserve more, ask your boss for more. If they say no, accept it or find another job.

    I don't have anything against overpaid people. May be they got lucky or may be they played their cards well. I try to concentrate on playing my own game and looking for ways to earn more.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    What I think is wrong is that people who are aged 16-24 who do the exact same job (lets say a retail assistant as an example) get paid significantly less than someone who is over 25.

    The same applies to your situation.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    There's no such thing as equal pay discrimination.

    You would have to prove that they are paid more because of their age/gender/race etc to be able to have any form of case.

    The fact the person has more experience at the firm, albeit in another role, means they are probably well within their right to pay them a higher salary and they have a longer record of employment. They may also be more qualified than you, and therefore also be entitled to more pay.

    He wouldn't have had to have broken the terms and conditions of his previous role to accept this one either. He could easily be seconded to that role, and all his existing terms exist.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the answers so far! He is paid 100% more than my wage.....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I know I can't claim equal pay but we're both doing the same apprenticeship right?!
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsthTrainee)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    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?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsthTrainee)
    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?
    He's not the same. It's between him and his employer what his pay should be.

    Edit to add: my understanding is there is a minimum pay level but no maximum for these contracts.

    (Btw, IANAL nor do I have any specific knowledge of fixed term training contracts BUT as an employer myself I don't see the problem.)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by EsthTrainee)
    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
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    If this is an apprenticeship, then this becomes a little more murky. Given what you have said about them already having experience within the firm, the individual is probably older and therefore entitled to a higher rate of pay due to the rates you can pay apprentices and how those different rates are linked to age.




    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    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
    Pay discussion is healthy and legal
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by J-SP)
    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?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    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?
    (Original post by EsthTrainee)
    Pay discussion is healthy and legal
    It's not uncommon for employment contracts to have such a "gagging" clause in the private sector.
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    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?
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    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!
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by threeportdrift)
    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...
    • Community Assistant
    • CV Helper
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    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...
    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!
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.