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

Well, it can be a bit like being given the question 4 + ? = ?

It's only easy if they give you enough information.

Agree - also I made a wrong calculation when I changed schools in September. They told me the start time and end time of each day at the interview so I based my hours on this assuming an hour for lunch and when I started I was annoyed to find lunch was an hour and a half! Unheard of ime and left me £100 a month worse off than I thought!

I don't apply for jobs that don't state the salary unless the description is very very interesting, so when looking at general admin jobs a couple of years ago I would immediately ignore anything that said competitive salary etc. I am suprised that in this day and age that still females are more likely to apply for jobs without salary stated.

I agree it depends on known full time hours and pay - but why if they advertise part time don't hey say

15 hours a week

• could be two full days or 3 hours a day over 5 days

Could be all day Monday and Wednesday evening!

Drives me mad!

Most large companies have a salary range for each grade. The range tends to be larger for higher grades.

And they should specify the salary range in their adverts. Simples.

They should not ask you about future child plans but they can ask you if you have suitable childcare in place if there is an element of home-working - as long as they ask both male and fenale applicants.

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.

whispered I think that is awful if they are going to be doing the same job. How underhand. You are going to have a very disgruntled employee when they figure that out.

It isn't pro rata that could mean anything.

It's part time hours (unless the hours are specified) that could mean anything.

Pro rata is extremely simple. And I'm a fuckwit at maths.

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.

It also recognises that people come with different skills, experiences and histories and it is fair that packages reflect that uniqueness.

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.

The point about not applying for jobs where no salary is disclosed is interesting. It's a while since I actively applied for a job but I would tend to avoid those with specified salaries because it indicates a lack of flexibility to me and I wonder whether it's opposite approaches at opposite ends of the salary spectrum.

Posters have been talking about it being indicative of minimum wage salaries but I'm talking about the 6 figure salaries where the bands might be 6 figures themselves. No company is ever going to publish salary range 180-240k, they might at a push say c220k depending on experience but in all likelihood they will say competitive which means "we will compete with what you are currently being paid" as much as it means we're competitive against industry standard.

Ive just realised i have no idea what pro rata means. I work part time but nagotiated a salary and my previous jobs have all been paid per hour. Will have to go google.

All this talk of 10k a day makes my £50 seem a bit crap!

I always took it competative salarie meant just above minimum wage but maybe thats just my experience of applying for shit jobs!

I wouldn't apply for a job with no salary stated or "salary on application".

I read "competitive" as code for shite.

WhisperedLoudly
I would agree it depends what level you are at- as I move up in my career I am more inclined to consider jobs that don't indicate salary, in fact my current job didn't indicate salary (actually better then I expected) until an offer was made at which point negotiations began. But when I was still at entry level for jobs anything without a salary indicated definately meant either minimum wage or a salary that was lower then I could afford.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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