To be upset male colleague is paid much more

[TrixieMixie]

I have an older male colleague who was recruited years ago on a fantastic deal at a time when a lot of money was sloshing round our industry. Back in the day I was young and in a junior position but worked my way up to the point I am at least equal to him in status, responsibility etc. He is well over typical retirement age and has shrunk his role but not his pay which is a multiple of mine. There has been deflation of pay in my industry. I like this man and he has been a mentor to me so I wish him no harm but it feels very unfair to me. I love my job. I’ve raised this with several managers who have agreed it’s not fair but nothing has been done. He shows no sign of retiring despite being in his 70s, why would he as he’s on such a sweet deal. He is valuable to the organisation and makes a good contribution. But I feel like a mug. I don’t think a man in my situation would be expected to put up with it. Any thoughts on what to do to resolve this amicably and not fall out with him or my bosses?

Proteinshakes - the woman you mention can't be in her seventies if her kids are at school surely, or have I read it wrongly? If there are lots of women over 70 in your organisation it is very different from mine. There are several men over 70 in my organisation but no women over 70. There are hardly any women over 50.

TrixieMixie no she isnt in her 70s. She adopted the children in her late 40s.

But she has now worked for the company, coming up on 30 years. She has no plans on retiring because she is on such a great deal.

I worked for british gas and lots of older women worked there and there plenty of older women at where I work now. Above retirement age. Its One of the UK's biggest employers. We have lots of staff above retirement age, both male and female, on much better contracts than newer staff.

The older staff are very reluctant to give up their good contracts and better rates of pay, so drop hours or work it out some other way. Dropping contract hours is a good thing. Because they get paid overtime rates if they feel like doing extra days etc

If there are lots of women over 70 in your organisation it is very different from mine.

My mum is approaching 70. At school I knew one child whose mum worked full time. Its wasnt the norm.

The fact that, your industry might not have been good for women in times gone by, therefore dont have many elderly female staff, still doesnt prove your employer is exercising sexism now. Employers are not obliged to keep contracts the same because they used to employ more men. They can do blanket changes.

It shows that lost employees didnt uses ti entertain women and it was expected for women to work.

I would sat look into it. But you would be more inclined to get what you want ci centrating on yourself. Not someone who was employed way before you on different terms and negotiated different terms for winding down.

That must be really galling. Key question though is if you moved jobs to a similar one elsewhere would you get a significant unlift? If not then hard to make much of a case for you personally. If it is affected your ability to manage the department then that is a different point but to do anything about it you’d need senior support.

There is no retirement age now, if he is capable, he can continue to do his job role

I work in a team. Some team members were Tuped from another company & have a considerably better pay & T&C's than the other half of the team.
I've been Tuped myself in previous job roles, so I understand how it works

In any company you will find people with long service or better deals

So for you it's stay where you are or look for another job in another company

Your employer should publish pay grades or pay bands, so that the pay scale is clear to everyone

In the current climate, employers seem to be employing the best people, on the lowest pay

To be clear, all the people in my team do exactly the same job role

This link might be useful and it has ACAS details at the end.

www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/advice-and-guidance/equal-pay-equal-work-what-law-says

Sc0neCreamJam75
Some of my friends have colleagues who've been TUPE-ed during mergers and buy outs of companies. It would seem that if you're 60+ and worked for the previous company then you have a pension that most of us in our 30s would only dream of. They haven't got the better deal because they are men (it's probably 75/25 men/women at that age in the companies with much better sex balance in under 40s). They've got it because circumstances and timings. Those circumstances and timings benefit the men by virtue of the social sexism and the expectation that women of their age gave up work/went part time. The company isn't responsible for the social (sexist) norms of a generation or so.

Only in the private sector would you get away with paying two people a different rate for doing the same job.

Can you imagine two squaddies side by side being paid different amounts?

NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1
I wish that were true.

Sadly, I'm aware of a few new teachers barely out of nappies who'd argues they should be paid the same as someone with 5 years on the job and they had it granted. Both were what I would euphemistically describe as confident and charismatic young male graduates arrogant bellends who were good at talking themselves up

The thing is that I can see entirely how old contracts vs newer contracts bring about a situation like the OP's (but would agree it's a joke that he has managed to dump his workload further down whilst retaining his salary).
The OP would have better luck finding a man at the same sort of stage and experience as her, same joining time and using that as her benchmark for more pay if there's a sex discrepancy. If there's no sex discrepancy then she needs to make her case based on what she is doing vs comparable roles elsewhere in other companies and the same company. That's going to be much more likely to get the outcome she wants than being (understandably) pissed off that someone who joined at a time when money was everywhere has a better deal.

The above link states when talking about employer defences

'The difference in pay is due to a material factor, which is not gender. In practice, an employer may identify more than one material factor.'

There are material differences here, that are not due to gender.

So the background, is important. Even though lots of people think it isnt.

Its not just a case of 'equal pay for equal work's the back ground and situation has relevance

Of course its discrimination and OP you are right to question it. It cannot be justified in law by experience or "circumstance" because the level of experience of both of you is more than 5 years, so the "reason" for his experience is therefore sex-based. It doesn't matter whether he was taken on when the industry was good, the discrimination is happening now and is not justifiable.

Is it possible for you to have a word with your employers along these lines? Clearly the solution is for his salary to be adjusted downwards and yours upwards. He's in his seventies, you are the more valuable proposition for the company and the one they should put more resources into retaining.

It's not about experience.

It's about the fact that when he joined he had a more generous remuneration package.

The OP admits, the industry as a whole is less generous with wages. So people joking later are getting paid less than people who joined years before.

OP, stop even thinking about his pay.

The fact you couldn’t have got into the industry 30 years ago is not sexual discrimination now. It was then, but you didn’t suffer that discrimination.

The fact he drives a Porsche, given he’s 70 and probably hasn’t paid a mortgage in 30’years is also irrelevant, I’d expect him to have move disposable cash.

Your employer is “not dealing with it” because they cannot “deal with it”, they can’t demote him legally, he has a contract. He’s been there 40 years, their only option is redundancy, which will be enormous given his service, even if he works to 80 and retires they are probably better off. They cannot promote your pay to his level because, apparently, he is paid above market rates, so you can’t get that money from them, or any other employer in the market.

It’s just his good fortune in being in that generation. Nothing you can do except stop letting it upset you.

What you are basically doing is the equivalent of finding out your neighbours made £300k profit on their identical property, having bought it 30 years before you do and thinking that you can just add 300k to what you paid for your house last year to value it.

@incandescentshadow

Can you explain to us how you want her HR department to adjust down his salary?

There’s a funny thing called employment law that prevents that. To achieve it they would have to do a full redundancy process, which would include OP and would require them to benchmark salaries when reallocating or inviting people to reallocate their jobs. You can’t just wander in on a Monday morning and say “by the way your pay is going down £20k and OPs is going up by £20k because Gloria on mumsnet thinks that’s fairer”

I'm heartened to read about older women still in the workplace - that gives me hope. It isn't a feature where I am at all but maybe that will change. I have about 25 years experience, he has considerably more than that, about 45 years. I wouldn't have a problem with a certain amount more - but he is getting a very, very large amount more than I do. That just seems outlandish to me, even in the circs, where I obviously acknowledge no-one set out for this to happen.

Lots in my husband's industry are paid less, male or female, older or younger. Equally, there are those above him who are paid crazy amounts more, because they signed on when the contracts were stellar.

If you wanted the salary he's on, you should have asked for it when you were offered the job.

I wouldn't have a problem with a certain amount more - but he is getting a very, very large amount more than I do. That just seems outlandish to me, even in the circs, where I obviously acknowledge no-one set out for this to happen.

You do realise you will be getting more than someone who joined 5 years ago or 10. Not based in experience but based the the fact companies keep reducing their wages over and over again?

There might be people, who havent been there quite as long as you thinking 'she got a better deal because she joined 10 years before me.

I think I agree with usernumbers. He's just been lucky. I'm lucky too in many ways so I think what I will do is just get over myself and look at what opportunities are on the market.

You haven't said that your are underpaid versus the industry only that you are paid less than him?
Honestly a pay increase should be based on 1.industry norms and 2 your performance. I absolutely wouldn't entertain your comments about your colleague pay. It's completely irrelevant to your own terms and conditions. I'm a bit😯 at your comments about him to be honest. Even if he retired in the morning why would they overpay you?

"If you wanted the salary he's on, you should have asked for it when you were offered the job."

newmomof1

I doubt very much whether her employers told her someone else was earning more when they offered her the job. Another reason why I am in favour of transparency over salaries.

I think I would organise a meeting, outlining your skills and how much of an asset you are, and ask for this to be compensated in your pay.
Either that, or start looking for another job. Theyll likely offer you more to stay, but they think theyve got you wehere they want you, and you wont push for more.

This isn't about being male or female and until we can be frank and say that, then real cases of gender discrimination and the pay gap won't be taken seriously.

I work in a volatile industry that is always contingent on market factors (oil prices) and the reality is employees hired after 2014 (when the price per barrel dropped significantly) would have been hired under stricter standards. Another colleague and I, who is female btw, do the same job but she was hired in 2008 and I was hired in 2013 and she makes 60% more than I do. She would have benefited from annual salary increases which stopped after 2014 while I would not have and that would have raised her salary significantly. Also, when I was promoted, the salary increases would have been far more conservative than when she would have.

Additionally, I work in a position where I have access to seeing salaries and have been involved in compensation analysis for new hires. I can tell you that the main factors considered when determining a new salary is most importantly number of years' experience, relevant industry experience and qualifications (Bachelor's degree vs Master's). We also specifically factor in internal equity, regardless of gender, as we cannot bring in someone in the same role and pay them more than an existing member of staff unless they have significantly more experience.

@NotSuchASmugMarriedNow1 no of course they wouldn't, but you can't ask for 30k then moan that someone else is on 45k.

Transparency doesn't always work. I moved into my current position (management level) from a junior role at a fairly young (therefore inexperienced) age. My boss took a chance on me and was very open about the fact he wasn't prepared to pay me the going rate straight away but we could have a pay review at 6 months, which we did and now I'm on (approx) the going rate.
But, if I hadn't performed, he wouldn't have paid me that going rate, and shouldn't have to, regardless of the official job title.