To think the real salary should have been advertised?

[littlepieces]

I've just been through over four months of interviews, reference checks etc. for a public sector job. Yesterday HR called me to confirm details and casually dropped the bombshell that they're offering me a lower salary than was advertised. I was meant to qualify for a London salary uplift, as it's a London based role, but because the department is working remotely due to Covid that isn't happening now.

BUT, the department has been working remotely since the start of the pandemic, March 2020.

So why didn't they just advertise the remote salary? I would never have applied and wasted my time if they had. Without the uplift I'll be taking a pay cut. AIBU or would I be right to challenge this?

@littlepieces

I told them the salary news was a surprise, I think it came across that I wasn't impressed. I strongly suspect they'll say no if I ask, but of yes I will ask. It's actually a mass hiring campaign and seems more like an exercise in getting bodies into vacancies than carefully hiring. I know they received tons of applications and have a reserve list, so I reckon they'll just pluck someone else out of the hat if I kick up a fuss. It's a very underfunded department and asking them to pay me an extra £8k than what they're offering me now seems unlikely.

except that if it is a public sector role, won't there be loads of formal processes they would have to gio through to explain why they advertised one salary and then offer such a drop?

I'd definitely say you would love to accept at the advertised salary, but can't afford to accept the lower rate. At very least, negotiate substantial weighting for every day you have to come into the London office.

@littlepieces

As it's public sector with set salary bands and starting salaries, I don't think there will be any room for negotiation.

I expect that's the answer, then.

I’m assuming this is the civil service as you say department - if so I would push them hard for the advertised salary, I think you’ll get it. My department did similar in that they advertised a mass UK-wide recruitment campaign (which I was recruited through) on their only salary scale at the time which was a London weighted one, as they’d decided to have a national presence but hadn’t yet introduced a national pay scale. By the time I actually started the job they had implemented the national pay scale, but they honoured the advertised London weighted salary for those of us that applied for the original campaign, whether we were actually London based or not. The exception is specifically set out in the pay guidance. It’s laughable that they’d expect you to take a lower salary than the one advertised and the hiring manager and HR will be extremely keen not to have to start recruitment again so you’re in a good position.

I can’t speak for Govt HR / recruitment teams, but I’ve got experience of this from the private sector.

A lot of HR teams will play the game of under-offering on salary because either they’re comped for lowering the spend on new recruits or they just think it’ll look good to the board if they can show that they’ve saved the business money. It’s a stupid and very short-sighted measure.

By the time they’ve got to the salary discussion (usually late, because so many of them won’t be upfront about banding) they’ll have used up valuable time from probably three or four colleagues, often including at least one very senior one, in multiple rounds of interviews.

The selected candidate will be someone who’s clearly impressed them all through this long and expensive process, who has the necessary skill set, but who they’re now going to risk turning their back on the “opportunity,” or who will join but will do so feeling used. Which won’t bode well for how long they stay and their attitude in the job.

Staff turnover, in terms of costs to the business, will always be much more expensive than the pennies in the pound that an HR team will save from being dickheads about starting salaries. But lots of them still are.

Yes very misleading to nor make it clear the job wouldn't get the uplift (if they want you to go in eventually surely it'll be needed anyway?)

Agree with PPs that you should request the advertised salary, in writing, on the basis that it was advertised. If you have evidence of current salary at a similar or higher value, also offer to provide that.

It’s probable that staff working remotely are still paid their London salary, for the moment.

If they say no you can then decide the job. They won’t go to a reserve unless you decline the job. Reserves may well react in similar ways to you!

The problem with the people saying that you should just ask to be put to the top of the pay scale is that this might work out about the same as bottom + LW to begin with, but then you won't move up - so in a few years you'll be a lot worse off than if you'd been moving up increments and getting the LW.

You're not only right to challenge it, you have to challenge it. You literally can't accept otherwise as it's a pay cut! I would make it very clear that you will be walking if they can't meet the London uplift. If it is in the health or education sector they can't get enough people at the moment and probably money is the least of their problems. The money was there before wfh, somewhere it is still floating around.

It depends on the area/department as to the band. In the case of my last Department, the top of the salary range that is published is not something that is actually offered - it is what certain employees are receiving when the terms of their employment under previous CS contracts are grandfathered in, including transfers in from other public sector bodies.

8k is a significant difference between London weighting and non-London. If this is civil service (rather than say NHS) I would think that puts OP about a grade 7, which is pretty senior (managerial or professional such as lawyer or actuary). In that case it's a pretty big jump to the next band/grade.

OP also mentions 4 months which, if central govt, is not more than one (competency based) interview but involves significant time spent on background checks/security vetting - so there isn't really the same kind of opportunity to raise it during recruitment (and the interviewers won't know the salary information).

By all means, OP should get back to them and point out the discrepancy and that it will mean a pay cut, impact on recruitment etc. it will likely only mean they update the job advert and re-campaign but it's highly unlikely they'll negotiate. Their budgets will also be severely stretched from the resourcing needed to deal with Covid and Brexit.

I wouldn't explain why I want to be paid the advertise salary. I would simple say that unfortunately, I can't take the role for less than the advertised salary and I would be very disappointed to turn down this opportunity. That's it. I wouldn't explain explain my own budget to them, my travel costs, my bills, anything. The job should be paid as advertised, not changed months later.

Don’t muddy the waters by discussing your current salary. You’d be just as deserving of the London weighting if you were a returning SAHM earning zero currently. They’ve advertised a job and a salary, you’ve been offered it through fair and open competition, that’s it.

I had similar when I joined my current employer. There was a salary band for my role but there was only one salary advertised. Turns out they have put the mid point ofcthe band on the advert and tried to get me to accept a £5k salary reduction to start at the bottom. I explained that I couldnt accept that salary given my experience and that I would sadly have to decline the job. A couple of days later I got a call to confirm they would offer me the advertised salary. I would always question it OP

@bcc89

I wouldn't explain why I want to be paid the advertise salary. I would simple say that unfortunately, I can't take the role for less than the advertised salary and I would be very disappointed to turn down this opportunity. That's it. I wouldn't explain explain my own budget to them, my travel costs, my bills, anything. The job should be paid as advertised, not changed months later.

Absolutely this. Good luck OP.

Yes, you should be put on the pay scale for London, not put further up the national pay scale with the ensuing consequences for pay progression. It might be worth contacting PCS.

Thanks everyone.

It's an enormous organisation, one of the biggest. They had multiple ads for a few locations and apparently successful candidates will be placed on the most relevant project to their skillet, regardless of location, since it doesn't matter while everyone is wfh. The HR rep brushed over this like it was fine. I don't think that's fine. I'm quite upset and stressed about it. I was really looking forward to starting, it's a slightly new step in my career. Now I'm suspicious this isn't going to be a good place to work. Also I didn't apply for the role for fun, I applied for the increased salary... It drives me nuts when companies brush off salary concerns as if employees are there for fun!

The uplift isn't just for commuting costs, it's for general cost of living right? Unfortunately I'm stuck in London for a while, by circumstance, which is why I applied for a London job. I still have London area housing costs. Like PPs have said, there are rarely salary increases once you're in public sector. Has anyone here managed to negotiate more than base starting salary for a public sector role?

*skillset

There is an ongoing dispute around London weighting in the civil service since remote working was introduced as people have been recruited to roles from across the UK during Covid, but depending on which office they are contracted to means they may get the London weighting, regardless of where they live. Many people on a London contract have also relocated out of London, but remain on a weighted salary despite wfh 100% of the time.

We've been told that once hybrid working is fully back in force people will need to travel at their own expense and work in London offices two days pw minimum if that's their contracted office, but there are concerns that this won't be enforced (or will fall away over time), or those staff will simply move jobs if it is enforced. So you could end up with two people both living in say Coventry, one on the regional salary, the other on a higher London weighted salary.

So perhaps they've decided all new recruits are starting on the national wage for now. The London weighted wage stated in the advert (usually alongside the national wage) will still be applicable for internal candidates, as it will already be in their contracts from their previous department or role.

There is absolutely no negotiation with civil service salary, external candidates go in on the bottom of the scale and any inflationary increases (sometimes 0%) are negotiated at national level each year, then departments decide how to allocate any awards internally between the grades. Annual increments are no longer automatic, nor linked to performance. Just so you are aware of how it works if you do decide to take the role at the national wage.

I would ask that the pay uplift is honoured if and when there is a change to remote working and i am In office more

Was the salary outlined in the advert as £x plus £y London weighting, or was it just one figure? If the policy has changed in the months since applying and current employees have had their terms changed or its been passed that new entrants won't receive it, of course they should have communicated it as soon as this was decided. If it was a mass recruitment campaign and they probably have people on a wait list that reduces your power to negotiate somewhat, but if you aren't content to accept the lower wage anyway then nothing to lose but challenging it.

Public sector
mass recruitment

Op - you’ll be out on your ear before you’ve even started if you start digging your heels in

DWP?

That’s not on, Op. If you live in London you should get a London salary regardless of wfh or not as living costs are considerably higher here then the rest of the U.K.

How much % difference are we talking about here?

I would certainly question it, but in all honesty I wouldn’t expect a local authority to move, not in the current economic climate where savings have to be made.

I haven’t had a cost of living increase for 2 years now, and I’m top of the scale so there is no more money I can get on the scale I’m on which will
mean moving roles even tho my job role has expanded and I’m taking on more and more we are also being told that we are having our jobs reviewed and the pay may be rebanded more than likely lower.

The authority I work for is struggling to recruit, we have had vacancies within our team for 9 months now (which is an absolute nightmare and we are paying for an agency) but then when I saw the job advert I can see why the salary was appalling! The pay scale outside of LA for the role is 60-80k the pay we are offering is 38-48k and anyone who was appointed would start on 38k, I did tell management this and all I got was the pay scale is the pay scale 🙄 but we are paying the agency person £££ - I can’t get my head around it.

One frustrating thing is different authorities pay different scales for the same job, the same job I do in another authority is paying 2 pay scales up. There is no continuity.

Working for a local authority isn’t all it used to be - a lot of private jobs now offer better t&c’s including better pensions.

@TrophyWinner

Honestly it's something of a surprise that a publicly funded body has started to reduce salaries because of wfh already, I'm surprised they're that efficient, but it is good news in the overall scheme of things, taxpayers' money and all that.

They should of course have made that clear though. I suppose when they started recruiting no one had thought of it.

Also, I wonder how they think they will pay regional money if they want you in the office in London 2-3 days per week going forward?

You think it's good that anyone's salary is going DOWN right now? Are you kidding?