Talk

Advanced search

help needed with pay issues and unfair treatment.

(6 Posts)
Mamathulu Wed 17-Aug-11 19:51:25

DH has been on a 10% pay cut for two years. The first year we got it back, this year, nothing has been said. Now, whilst we recognise that a lot of businesses are facing financial difficulties at the moment, Dh has also noticed that some people (including the boss's girlfriend), have received rather hefty bonuses. And after people have left DH's department, leaving them very short-staffed, other departments have recruited, quite often unnecessarily. It seems like the whole office is incredibly mismanaged, but there we are.
Anyhow, DH is reluctant to leave for another job because they allow him to work from home three days a week, which, as I have ME and we have 4 dc's, is without a doubt a life saver. But DH also says that he ought not to make a fuss about all this, as he's likely to be 'let go' for it. Would anyone know if there would be grounds for unfair dismissal if they did this? I just think it's incredibly unfair what they're doing - they even cut 10% off his travel allowance, which doesn't even cover his rail fare, and never has done, despite the fact that covering the rail fare was an agreement before he took the job in the first place!
Should we really just shut the fuck up and be grateful he has a job? (It's in media, so pretty competitive.)

flowery Wed 17-Aug-11 21:32:19

If his pay was cut two years ago, was there a (written) agreement that it was a temporary adjustment, and any conditions set on when/whether he would get an increase back to his previous salary?

Did he accept the cut at the time?

Mamathulu Wed 17-Aug-11 21:43:13

The first year, DH signed an agreement which didn't specify the length of time at all, but he assumed it was for the year because it stated that he would get paid back if they achieved a certain amount of profit. He says they didn't achieve that set amount of profit but repaid that 10%, but then continued deducting the 10% over this year, but nothing further had been signed. He said the original document was quite vague, but also thought that if he hadn't signed it, he just would have lost his job.

flowery Wed 17-Aug-11 23:13:57

Doesn't sound as though it was just for the year particularly, if there was no end date.

Have they achieved the required level of profit this year to trigger the payback?

Mamathulu Thu 18-Aug-11 12:57:35

I don't think so, but the whole thing is a) they've not said anything at all. B) if they haven't reached the profit target fair enough, but how is it hen justifiable to give some people bonuses and employ new staff if they can't afford it? I think it's also shocking that the one person they've employed to replace a fully trained and qualified member of staff is someone straight out of uni working for them for the minimum wage. It seems incredibly unbalanced, unfair and to be piss poor management. A few years ago they did this 'you're not getting a bonus but we'll give you share options instead' thing. The only way it's ever going to amount to anything is if the shares are worth more than they were at the time of the agreement, which'll only happen if they sell the company. It's about as likely as Dave Cameron raising benefits & not cutting the public sector. angry

flowery Thu 18-Aug-11 13:35:44

Well a) yes they haven't specifically said whether profit levels have been reached or whether they intend to increase his pay on a temporary or permanent basis, but he can ask them rather than stewing. It's possible to ask politely what the situation is without 'making a fuss about it'. Once he's done that and knows what's happening, he can then decide what actions he wants to take.

b) Only they can judge whether they need to employ new staff. Your DH may think recruits in other departments are unnecessary but it's really none of his business.

I agree it seems odd and potentially unfair to be giving out bonuses while staff are still not back up to previous salary levels, but there's no legal complaint there.

I'm not sure what you find shocking about employing someone straight out of university on minimum wage instead of someone trained and qualified. Assuming the trained qualified person left of their own accord, are you shocked that the job is being done by someone not qualified, or are you shocked the new member of staff is only on minimum wage? Again it's a business decision. If they feel the job can be done adequately by someone without qualifications and if the going rate for a person like that is minimum wage, that seem fine. Of course if the person is not doing the job adequately because they are not qualified, that does sound like bad management.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now