Does anybody work at EY?

[MrsKipling16]

I’ve seen a role on the careers page that I’m potentially interested in, however, there’s no salary listed.

I’ve called the helpline number to ask, and the response I got was “we don’t share the salary until you’ve successfully completed the assessment” - I explained to the recruitment advisor that I wouldn’t want to waste mine on their time by going through an assessment process without knowing what the range was given that it’s a senior role, and in my experience, different organisations use different job titles and have different structures therefore it’s hard to gauge how “senior” the role is and that what I was hoping for was an indication - e.g. “pays between x and y dependent on experience” type thing.

I could complete my candidate profile (which the website suggests will take approx 30 minutes) and hope that I could get the salary range at this stage of the process, but given today’s experience, I’m not sure if I’m right for EY/they’re right for me - I’m not unhappy in current role, was just idly perusing and thought the opportunity sounded interesting! Annual leave allowance and pension contributions were available for me to see, and are less that what I get now, hence being keen to understand the salary before taking further.

Happy to PM a link to the role if anyone might be willing/able to give an indication of pay range? TIA

I really hate when companies think that their benefits make poor pay worthwhile. No - give me the money and I'll decide what I spend it on.

I'm sport as hell, but a gym membership would be utterly worthless to me as the sports I do don't involve a gym at all. How about treating me like a grown-up rather than trying to decide for me?

I also wouldn't go through an application process unless I could get a idea of the potential package on offer.

On the topic of pensions when I was training way back when at a top ten practice you weren't allowed to join the pension scheme until you were 25, which pretty much excluded all the grads (with a few exceptions).

Then when the age discrimination laws came in (I forget which year), that was no longer allowed, so they changed it to having to work for the firm for 3 years before you could join the pension scheme, which was worse as it excluded all the grads.

With auto-enrolment now my top ten practice has gone down to the minimum on pensions so none of this feedback surprises me on EY.

This type of approach hugely contributes to maintaining and widening the gender pay gap and the diversity pay gap. I'd be interested in what your statistics look like on these areas @TreeLine6.

Sounds like they want people from a moneyed background who don't need to worry about what they are earning.

Everyone else need to know what salary they will be earning when they apply for a job. I honestly think it should be illegal to offer a job without stating the salary, and salary bands for each job should be available publicly for every company with over 250 employees.

@Octomore thats not true.

Deloitte is 8% matched pension (used to be 12%) which is on the higher end for the private sector.

KMPG has an odd structure where pension contribution from them increases based on age. If you’re over 40 it’s 6% or 9% from them.

I don’t know about EY or PWC.

For the private sector id say that’s not bad pension wise when so many people I know only get the minimum.

Well I know what KPMG pay if you're under 40, and it's 4%.

I did say upthread that it increased at age 40, but 4% for the first 20 years of your career is shit.

I also know from colleagues who have worked in top 10 firms (next tier down from big4) that 3% is pretty common too.

For context, I have worked in a range of public and private sector roles, and my DH is private sector. So I have a range of compartors to assess against. And in my experience big4 was easily the worst on that measure.

It was a great working environment in other ways, don't get me wrong, but they capitalise on the fact that they have a predominantly young workforce by keeping pension benefits low.

They work in salary bands and it is widely assumed knowledge so the hr response is odd.
I would avoid working for anyone who thinks asking about the pay is not kosher!

Totally agree!

As a company, we feel that setting salary bands before we know who we’re offering a role too would really restrict us.

For example, we had an (unexpected) application for a recent head of sales role from the head of sales at a rival of ours, which is larger and usually able to offer higher pay. We were able to get board approval to offer him a package that is exceptionally high by our standards (quadruple what the incumbent was on) given the experience and quality he will bring to the role.

On the other end of the scale, we had an application from a young woman straight out of uni for a marketing role, which frankly she didn’t have the experience for. However, she did incredibly well at interview and the hiring manager feels she can be developed and moulded over time. We’ve put her on minimum wage with the opportunity to work up to the previous salary for the role over 18 months.

What your posts are saying is that you underpay people for the work they do if you feel you can get away with it.

The previous head of sales wasn't only worth 1/4 of the new one, we're they? Unless what they were actually doing was a totally different job.

@TreeLine6 your company are scumbags and you are brainwashed 😅

And minimum wage for a grad trainee role is crap. You might be training her, but you're certainly getting your pound of flesh over those 18 mths. Let me guess - after 18 mths she'll move to the bottom of the standard wage band for the role?

@Octomore

Every organisation has its Cristiano Ronaldo’s and Jennifer Aniston’s. They deserve to be paid commensurately.

There is a reason why your employees are keen to move to employers that pay them the market rate.

Happy employees aren't that keen to leave.

And here is a good illustration of my earlier comment on how not publishing pay bands for roles can contribute to the gender pay gap. Look at who got more than would normally have been offered for the role and who got less...

Absolutely piss funny. You're basically boasting about the fact that you'll pay people as little as possible where you can get away with it. If you truly had a head of sales who was only worth a quarter of your new one, should he have even been in role?

And the grad you have hired, you could have hired her on a grad salary, which is commonly fairly low anyway, but you've instead decided to hire her on a pittance , train her and get her to work for 18 months for cheap, then likely pay her the lowest grad salary you can get away with despite the fact that she's been 'moulded ' for 18 months.

The funniest thing about this is that either you're thinking we are stupid enough to buy this shite, or you've completely bought into the company spiel hook, line and sinker.

Given that, if things change, most employers will have no qualms about getting rid of people that are no longer needed then it’s entirely rational for the employee to take the same approach and move to one that recognises their value surely? Expecting more loyalty from eployeees than the employer is willing to offer, and all for below market pay, is not a winning strategy when talent is in short supply!! It also perpétuâtes inequality.

I've heard that the really amazing ones can even use apostrophes

What a load of bollox!

Exactly!

Lolz @Octomore 🤣

@Obviouspretzel

The previous head of sales was developed in-house and she has actually only been in the role for a few years. Her replacement was head of sales at one of our key competitors and had a strong track record of growing sales.