Misleading salary - pro rata

Apologies, I didn't really look at the date before posting. I arrived here from a google search.

You're not likely to get a response from such an old thread though

I was just browsing and reading that infuriated me so much I felt I had to say something!

And that's why the world is so horrible, because of awful people like you milking workers for all they're worth to line your own pockets.

You took advantage of a worker because they weren't aware you would pay them more (when you paid someone else double for the same job). For all you know that person is so desperate they'll take anything you give them, you have no idea what's going on in their life to make them accept a lower pay. It's truly despicable. If you employ two people to do the same job then you bloody well pay them the same.

I hope you get an incurable disease and lose all your wealth, or else change your ways.

The post is from 2017, why are you resurrecting it 7 years later?

What! This is totally criminal! Don't you have any morals?

My niece applied for a job ( and got it) just before Christmas. She is 21 years old, but didn't realise what pro rata meant! The post is 25 hours per week so she is getting a lot less salary wise than she expected.

I think to avoid any possible confusion, it would be good practice to say what the actual salary is - for the hours advertised and then put the pro rata in brackets?

Or teach Latin again in school? :)

OhGod - is it not written in your contract? I'm school staff and the calculation is documented in there.

School admin here and I have never been able to work out how my pro-rata is calculated; there is no combination or permutation of hours/rate that agrees with what's on my payslip. Still, it's a few pence more than any figure I come up with so I let it go but yes OP it is bloody annoying and no, we are not thick as so many are suggesting!

4 + ? = ? Sums it up completely.

Also if employers weren't able to get free labour there'd be more jobs/better paid employees. That would stimulate a growth in the economy too.

"When we just say "part time" with out bejng specific it is because we are open to a discussion about the number of hours /when they are worked."

So why not state hourly rate and 'hours to be negotiated min X max y hrs' ?

"I'm surprised people are disgusted

. That is the way the world works in big companies and at a senior level people are expected to know their worth." I've worked for many different companies, and of course have family and friends in many different careers, including several on 6 figure (and more) salaries, never come across this.

"Graphista im not sure you understand how discrimination works - mere presence of a protected characteristic isn't going to end with me being in "deep shit" you'd need to demonstrate there has been discrimation " you mean like paying the person without the protected characteristic FIFTY PER CENT MORE without a demonstrable good reason you mean?

"Oh, they know what they are willing to pay, they just don't want to tell you, in the hope you can survive on less/are too scared to ask for much." Exactly! And that's unfortunately especially true for women and others regularly discriminated against who are all too aware they're already at a disadvantage!

"This kind of bollocks is part of the reason for the gender pay gap." Well said!

"When I've mentioned this to my salaried colleagues at meetings when extra work outside of hours is discussed, they say 'we're not paid for it either' but I say 'yes, you're on a salary whereas we are pro rata so get a portion of our salary so surely if we work extra we should get a higher portion of our salary' but this is ignored as they are all feeling overworked an underpaid too." A reason all jobs should also be PAID per hour - would stop employers getting free labour! My mum was high level retail worker - regularly ended up working stupid amount of hours for no extra pay!

I don't see your point there Nacho
Why should you get paid overtime when your colleagues don't?
Say that you work until 5 each day but often stay until 5.15 to get stuff done. You do it 3 days a week and your colleagues do it 5 days a week. You are all working over hours. If some were claiming over time then that would be unfair.

It is misleading. They may do it to make the pay look higher than it is but it could also just be due to a lack of thought/intelligence e.g. they may do it because everyone else does. If the hours are negotiable they can put the salary range in. If they want to make it easier to compare jobs they could put the pro rata salary in brackets.

No I'd say your colleagues are correct. You have a pro rata salary, you're not on an hourly wage. Do any of you submit timesheets?

Agree - I think we could all work out pro rata - IF we had the facts - it's the lack of FACTS in the advert not an inability to work it out

I understand the OP's query. How can you work out the viability of a job without knowing the rate per hour you will earn? I.e '20 hours part-time job....£25k pro rata' this is not enough information to be able to work out what your hourly rate would be. The crucial missing part is what does that company deem as 'full time' so you can work out your hourly rate if you only work 20 hours.

Not sure why a lot of commenters are not getting how frustrating this is! And as for school jobs....well they're almost impossible to work out aren't they!

Your colleagues are also paid for each hour they work, they just work more hours. If you're all regularly working more hours than you're paid for then it would be better to challenge that together than to fight amongst yourselves.

The problem I have with my pro rata salary is that I regualarly work about half an hour each day over my hours. So each week I work about 2.5 hours overtime that I never get paid for. If I had a straight forward part time salary I wouldn't be so bothered about it. But because I am paid for the hours I work, but not the hours I actually work, it pisses me off. Over the year I probably put in about 100 hours that I'm not paid for.

When I've mentioned this to my salaried colleagues at meetings when extra work outside of hours is discussed, they say 'we're not paid for it either' but I say 'yes, you're on a salary whereas we are pro rata so get a portion of our salary so surely if we work extra we should get a higher portion of our salary' but this is ignored as they are all feeling overworked an underpaid too.

I don't know what they answer is, but it does seem unfair to me that if you are pro rata but regularly work more hours you should have that reflected in the money you are paid.

Which, Round, as you say you might be willing to ask for more in a sales role or some high flying job, you won't if you are fresh out of college applying for your first office junior job; especially if you are female. (It is proven that women are less likely to ask for a pay rise). This kind of bollocks is part of the reason for the gender pay gap.

Oh, they know what they are willing to pay, they just don't want to tell you, in the hope you can survive on less/are too scared to ask for much.

My big problem with this lack of transparency is that I work because I need the money. I kind of assumed everyone did. There is no point in me applying for a job if I am going to later find out that it won't pay the bills. I hate all this cloak and dagger dancing about that goes on. Why not just say the pay, you must know.

Well, obviously if the "competitive salary" is for an investment banker, that's OK. However, these words appear for part time admin roles, receptionists and other low paid jobs where it is patently obvious "competitive" is bollocks. It is not difficult for an employer to work out what is competitive themselves, for a job like that, rather than hope they get someone who daren't ask for much.

£competitive also means "prepared to be flexible in terms of qualifications and experience for the right person and will pay accordingly".

I disagree that 'competitive' always means shit. But it can often.

Dh is a retail store manager and the disparity in store manager salaries is ridiculous. He's been for interviews at massive, well known companies in the past with huge stores and the manager salary has been £20k for stores with millions in turnover. Then some, which you wouldn't expect (think budget brand stores like pound shops/b&m etc) offer fantastic salaries for much smaller stores/lower turnovers/less work.

The job he's in now though stated 'competitive' and was a brilliant salary so it does happen.

Pro rata can't 'mean anything'. It has a fixed meaning: 'in proportion'.

If your hours are 0.8 of the Full Time Equivalent (FTE), you get the FTE salary x 0.8.

If your hours are 0.6 if FTE, you get FTE salary x 0.6.

And so on. Simple as that.

How they arrive at FTE wages is important. In the NHS it's 37.5 hrs per week and 52.143 weeks per year.

If it's a LSA post, it will usually be FTE x (hours/37.5) x 44.6/52.143 to get the pro-rata salary.