Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To think this is discriminatory (salary related)

30 replies

BlueGoon · 01/03/2019 07:53

DH took a new job last year and the role was offered at 35k as starting salary, with progression through increments to 42k after several years, as normal in many roles.

Since he took the job, several others in the same role have left, and the organisation has struggled to appoint new candidates who are suitability qualified and have the skills needed (technical.)

The role has been advertised again, and the salary states 'starting salary upto 40k dependant on skills and experience.' Presumably this has been worded in such a way to attract more candidates as they have previously failed to recruit.

The issue is, a year ago when DH applied, there was absolutely no mention of there being discretion available in negotiatating a higher starting salary. Wasn't even mentioned in the advert. DH is the most experienced and qualifed member of the team and feels annoyed now.

I've asked DH to put together a business case on why he feels he deserves to be retrospectively offered the higher starting salary due to his level of competance. His bosses are reviewing it atm.

Does he need to just take it on the chin and accept it as a business decision the organisation has taken? or is it actually unfair to offer new candidates (potentially) more money for the same role, whilst keeping existing staff on less money?

DH is from a BME background and cannot help now question if this is a conscious or subconscious factor. I'm loathe to jump to that conclusion so soon. They seem like a fair and open minded organisation on the whole and DH's line manager thinks the world of him and has nominated himr for an award.

Any thoughts? Prepared to be told we are BU if needed.

OP posts:
Original poster
BlueGoon · 01/03/2019 07:55

Sorry if not clear. His starting salary was only advertised at 35k, not 'upto 40k' as it has now been advertised at.

OP posts:
HK20 · 01/03/2019 07:56

It's not discriminatory, especially if they're struggling to fill the role - of course they'll pay more for the right person.

However you're right - DH needs to speak to his manager and put his case forward that with the experience he now has etc he believes he deserves the increase as he's a more valuable asset to the team.
If they refuse, I do think he also needs to be prepared to walk away.

That seems to be how my employer works - people only get paid the additional salary they deserve once the threaten to leave!

SileneOliveira · 01/03/2019 07:56

It's not discrimination.

You said it yourself - they have been advertising at £35k and have failed to recruit. So have tried to make the position more attractive.

There is however nothing stopping your DH from asking for a pay rise to match the new start salary.

Princessmushroom · 01/03/2019 07:57

Wtf this isn’t discrimination.

This is the organisation struggling to retain people and trying to look more attractive.

If he wanted more than £35k when he started he should have negotiated. That’s how job offers work.

Kneehigim · 01/03/2019 07:57

I think it's market rates. He took the job at the then advertised salary. Legally there isn't much of a case on his part. They may adjust his salary but I would think that to be highly unlikely. His ethnicity is irrelevant.

DiamondsInTheMud · 01/03/2019 07:58

Don't know the specifics but surely it jusy comes down to the requirement at different points? Your husband was happy with the salary he was offered and accepted, and now when they are struggling to hire, they are offering more.

I agree that your husband has a case to ask for a pay rise, but the company haven't done anything wrong IMO

PersonaNonGarter · 01/03/2019 07:58

It’s up to him to negotiate or go somewhere else.

Todaythiscouldbe · 01/03/2019 07:59

I think you are being a bit unreasonable, but I can see where you're coming from.
At this stage, although the starting salary is 'up to 40k' this is unlikely to be offered. What if in a couple of years the job is advertised with a starting salary of up to 45k or 50k?

Todaythiscouldbe · 01/03/2019 08:00

Oh, and it's absolutely not discrimination

Namechangeforthiscancershit · 01/03/2019 08:02

Definitely not discrimination. But your DH should use this as a chance to argue for a raise. Doesn’t sound like they can afford to lose him.

babysharkah · 01/03/2019 08:05

It's not discrimination. He could move and earn more that's how it works.

EssexGurl · 01/03/2019 08:06

YABU. Not discrimination. At the time your DH applied, they found a good candidate for the salary on offer. It is typical for there to be some negotiation on salary at offer - whatever the job ad said/didn’t say on discretion. He accepted the role on the salary offered.

A year later the market has changed and the company is offering the salary they believe that will attract the good candidates.

If your DH feels he is now behind the market rate, he could go to his manager with that - but focusing on market rates, his successes in the role etc. Tangible facts. It is a market issue potentially, although does he know it is exactly the same role he is doing? Some companies do up job requirements when upping the salary.

Original poster
BlueGoon · 01/03/2019 08:10

Thanks everyone. It looks like DH has done the right thing in asking for a raise so we'll have to wait and see.

At least he doesn't need to feel hard done by now!

OP posts:
Muddysnowdrop · 01/03/2019 08:11

I wouldn’t ask for it retrospectively but would ask for it going forward. I believe those who ask are the ones who get - which obviously favours middle class white males!
It wouldn’t look great for the company to have two employees doing the same job, and the BME one is paid 5 grand less.

altiara · 01/03/2019 08:22

Focusing on the business is definitely the way to go - the business needs experienced candidates and they should look to retain talent and experience BUT he’s been in the role less than a year or a year at most and happily accepted the salary, it will come across as greedy. Has he even passed his probation period? Had an end of year appraisal? Had a pay review?
If the team have lost lots of people, they will need someone experienced and have to pay accordingly. That’s not a reflection in your DH.

RussellSprout · 01/03/2019 08:34

I work in hr, and was once told by a reward expert that there are only two times you can really negotiate a salary. If you are starting or if you are leaving. Otherwise there is very little incentive for an employer to give a pay rise (except the standard annual inflationary payrises)

It's a business transaction... your husband was happy to accept the role at 35k and agreed that at the time. Now, market conditions are different and the employer has to offer more to attract candidates. Its bad luck that your husband was not on the market at this time rather than a year ago, but hardly discriminatory.

cdtaylornats · 01/03/2019 08:36

Years ago the company I was working for advertised for someone new at a higher salary than any of us had, the advert was through an agency but the description made it obvious. We all applied and our boss was really pissed off.

Guineapiglet345 · 01/03/2019 08:37

You can always negotiate if you’ve got skills that are in demand, it doesn’t matter what it says on the job advert.

sirfredfredgeorge · 01/03/2019 10:07

I work in hr, and was once told by a reward expert that there are only two times you can really negotiate a salary. If you are starting or if you are leaving. Otherwise there is very little incentive for an employer to give a pay rise (except the standard annual inflationary payrises)

No, there's another time too - this one - which is when the company is struggling to fill roles that you are covering, it's easier than starting in fact since they have no risk that you cannot do the job, and they already know that you cannot be easily replaced. That might be covered in your "leaving", but you don't actually need to leave to force it.

Lougle · 01/03/2019 10:27

He can apply for the role Smile He's got the experience, he'll be able to evidence that he does a good job. Should be a breeze.

thecatsthecats · 01/03/2019 11:21

RussellSprout

Not the way it goes in our company. I negotiated a higher salary after following the example of overpaid white men who seemed unashamed to sell themselves on their own evaluation of their worth. My bank balance has thanked me for it.

ilovesooty · 01/03/2019 11:31

standard annual inflationary pay risesGrinGrinGrin

Haven't seen one of those for years.

HedgehogGirl · 01/03/2019 12:17

I've asked DH to put together a business case on why he feels he deserves to be retrospectively offered the higher starting salary

Is he asking for a pay rise (fair) or do you mean he is asking for the additional money he would have been paid for the last year on a higher salary (ridiculous!)

He should definitely ask for a pay rise (as PPs have said, they can't afford to lose him!) but he agreed to the starting salary - there is no way they will pay him retrospectively!

CuriousaboutSamphire · 01/03/2019 12:55

As I told my disgruntled member of staff - just apply for the job as it is now advertised! I had no control over the jump in salary, that was caused by market forces. Every staff member was enittled to apply, or request a salary increase to match.

Your DH won't get any reptrospective pay, frankly that sounds utterly deluded. But he can tell his line manager thathe will be appying for one of the posts with higher salary... let them do thinking...

Barrenfieldoffucks · 01/03/2019 12:58

Unless the advert he applied to was written knowing someone of BMW origin was going to apply, it can't be discriminatory. Though he should absolutely put forward a case for a pay rise. Not retrospectively though, that's a bit silly.