Misleading salary - pro rata

[bagpackbagpack]

Doesn't even remotely effect me, but as a contractor I see this all the time as I am jobs boards a lot sourcing my next line if work.

However AIBU to think job adverts for part time roles should just state the actual pay a person will get, not however much pro rata?

It's so misleading, and doesn't make it easy to compare salaries, as pro rata could meet anything! The whole recruitment market is so under regulated in my opinion (I was recently asked by a recruiter what my childcare arrangement was and if I plan on having anymore children, like it's any their business, I am applying for a job that I feel I am capable of, my childcare or child rearing status has no impact)

Probably about 3 AIBUs here!

It's actually extremely useful. As I've discovered lately.

For example I work a TT only job therefore it 46 weeks a year including holidays and 30 hours a week.

I've be looking at similar jobs but for a different civil service. I've noticed that for a job with more responsibility, 37 hours a week and 52 weeks of the year it's only about 3k a year more.

So basically still a shit paid job role despite the level of work and responsibility. It's actually opens my eyes to the issues so many have with low income. General wages in the UK are shit!

Obviously the advert wouldn't state pro rata twice, I give up with my iPad and slow internet connection tonight... there is even a lag on me typing. Game of frisbee with my iPad any one?

I think that "competitive" is a way of preventing existing employees knowing the salary that they are willing to pay.

The problem, then, isn't the use of 'pro rata', but the fact that the ads don't state how may hours the role involves. Which in some cases at least may be because it's negotiable.

graphista and dodo thank you for better articulating this for me, as I say it's NOT a big a problem I face, but I Look at jobs boards a lot and feel a bit uneasy about it...

"Competitive" is a means of not having to nail your colours to the mast and end up paying inflated salaries unnecessarily.

For example I've just recruited two employees and one is being paid 50% more for essentially the same job. We asked what they expected, provided an uplift and they were both satisfied.

If I'd advertised the salary at the lower rate the other candidate might never have applied. If I'd advertised at the higher rate I'd be paying well over what the first candidate was delighted with.

YANBU
Teaching Assistant jobs are usually shown pro rata.Thats because the "full-time" salary looks impressive ( particularly in my area). The reality is a lot different.

It can be confusing, but if the job isn't hourly paid then it's hard to get a feel for the salary without the full-time equivalent. I do think for some jobs it would be handy to quote the full-time rate and then the possible part-time equivalent (eg half time would be £10K).

I used to work in HR and have seen employers get it wrong as well.

I agree that without the full time hours to use as a basis for calculations, it could mean anything.

As has been said part time pro rata for a 35 hour FT job is totally different to a 45 hour job.

Is your issue then not you don't know how many hours they want or classify as part time? The salary is fairly easy maths if you know the hours.

Whispered loudest

What happens if the 2 employees ever compare salaries? What a horrible system

WhisperedLoudest I think that's pretty disgraceful to be honest.

I'd never apply for a job that wasn't transparent about the salary. "Competitive" or "Attractive" to me = minimum wage or just above.

I used to work freelance and we all compared rates - realised 2 of us were being ripped off so we managed to negotiate the same rate.

YANBU. School support staff job adverts are particularly aggravating, as they are often term time only and part-time during those school terms. They almost never specify what full-time hours would be (in schools, this normally seems to be somewhere around 37-40 hours), nor how many weeks per year you would be counted as working - school terms are generally 39 weeks, but do you add on paid holiday time and if so, how much paid holiday? Therefore, without stating both the annual salary and the pro rata amount, it is incredibly difficult/impossible to work out what the actual pay is going to be, because they don't give enough info to work it out.

"For example I've just recruited two employees and one is being paid 50% more for essentially the same job"

Unless there's a damn good reason for doing this (and frankly I can't think of one) that's disgusting!

And provides a bloody good argument for why salaries should be public info!

Is the lower paid employee
Female where the higher paid is male?
Disabled where the higher paid is not?
Non-White where the higher paid is white?
Is there a big age difference ?
Is the lower paid employee gay?

Because if ANY of these are true you could find yourself in deep shit for discrimination!

Ads for school support staff generally say e.g. '15 hours a week, term time only, L2 - L4 depending on experience. Salary pro-rata'
Even phoning the school or LA doesn't necessarily help! Are the full-time hours 35 (LA hours ) or 26 (school hours)? How many weeks is term time only? I would say 39+4 but up thread someone said 46. Combing through the LA website reveals the pay scales so when you have all this information you can start to work out your actual pay. A specified hourly rate would be so much clearer and quicker!

... basically what roundabout said 😄

I think it's a waste of time applying for a job that offers a "competitive salary." It just screams unreasonable, time wasting employer who has no idea what they are doing and is trying their luck in the hope of finding a sucker.

Also yep learned the hard way when younger never to even consider jobs advertised without ANY pay amount stated eg 'competitive' 'attractive' or even just 'good' just put the bloody info on there!

I do know what you mean op.
If you have all the information then you can work it out but without the knowledge of the number of hours full time you can't.

I think this has prompted such a good debate! It's so interesting hearing people's opinions v sectors. Like I said in my original post I am not affected by this just noticed a pattern.

I did say I has 3 AIBUs in my op, I think about 2 others have come out along the way.

Not in my op but genuinely interested! Are recruitment agencies regulated in any way?

Pro rata can't 'mean anything', it means what it means.

It's also a test. If you can't work out the pro rata rate......

hippyhippyshake - it's even worse than that, because I think different LAs calculate things slightly differently, and academy schools likewise. If they don't tell you the formula they are using, it's generally a case of calculating the best and worst case scenario!

As an ex-employer and recruiter, if anyone asked me about the sick pay in an interview, I'd instantly cross them off my list. Doesn't bode well for the future if all they're interested in is what they'll get paid for NOT working! 😤 Bye bye.