Nc'd, dont want to be outing so have to use hypothetical figures...
Basically I took on a job with a probationary salary which the contract states was for 6 months. There was no figure for the end salary, verbally it was what the last person received, which the accountants know but they weren't sure of.
So I get say 10k and the last person got 18k. So after 6 months, a group of "managers" discuss, say I've passed my probation, all happy, but they think I should wait a year for proper salary, so another 6 months (suggested by someone who hadn't seen the contract and the others didn't disagree). I'm actually quite ok with that, I go along with it. I took the job because I really like it and 6 months isn't going to make much difference to me.
So we get to the year mark. It's discussed again. The same person as last time says I should have a 1%/1.5% rise as in their work (different sector) that's what they get. Nobody really understands and so that's agreed between them.
Now it's being fed back to me I'm trying to explain the difference between a yearly pay rise (1%) and a rise to the proper non probationary wage. They're different things altogether. I'm actually quite peeved about it and have said so, my direct manager says I should explain what I mean to the others, which I'm fine with.
But how do I put it without sounding grabby or money hungry? That's not the case, I just don't see why I should accept sub wages for a job I'm currently doing (and have been for a year) better than the person who left just because I'm "young in the job", or they don't seem to grasp pay rise and probation pay to non-probabtion pay are different (in this case).
So aibu? Wwyd? This is a really odd job, there is no hr, I am the only paid employee.