Maternity Cover Getting 10k More Than Me

[Mum2be5756]

I work in finance and have been very involved in the recruitment process for my replacement so I can see everyones salaries
The people we interviewed were all on 1k (for someone much more junior than me) to 16k more than me
We settled on someone who would be paid 10k more than me

Am I right in thinking this is not on? They would be getting the same benefits as me (pension, healthcare, holidays etc.) The only difference is they would be on a 12 month contract obviously

As much as it stings OP in terms of employment law your employer has done nothing wrong.

They can pay your maternity cover whatever they like.

Isn't part of the cost here that they are temp? They don't have any job security so get paid more?

A 12 month contract would put a significant number of people off. We've always had to pay more for maternity cover to make up for the temporary nature of the role and the lack of protection that comes with the short length of service.

Short term contracts have less security so are often paid more than a permanent contract (eg contracting). You should be able to negotiate yours separately though if you feel you are paid below market rate.

Temporary contractors arepaid more than those who have are permanent.

If you can see everyone’s salaries, how does yours compare with permanent employees at your grade?

It’s just a sign of the times. Good staff are demanding good salaries.

I'm freelance and have done most cover contracts. I get paid significantly more than permanent staff - no sick pay, holiday or employee benefits.

Unless you're in a low paid role, I wouldn't do it for any less than £10k more than a permanent member of staff!

The £10k extra is to cover them for being out of work at the other end until the next job comes along. If it was exactly the same pay as a permanent roll why would anyone choose a temp one?

I’d imagine the going rate for someone doing just one year’s work would be higher than someone who has longer term job security, but I don’t have any evidence to back that up, it’s just what I would assume.

It’s also possible that the going rate for someone with your expertise has gone up in the years (?) you’ve been at your company. If you haven’t negotiated any major raises beyond cost-of-living, it’s possible you’re being underpaid. I’ve been told that if you want to maximise your earning potential, you should be moving companies ever 2-4 years and negotiating a higher salary with every move. I know people who have done extremely well that way, though I haven’t taken that approach myself as I value my seniority / flexibility / familiarity more.

When you come back from leave, you could think about having a conversation about your compensation with this as a data point. Maybe not FIRST thing back. ;-)

But overall - I wouldn’t see this alias surprising or offensive.

Seems fair to me.

Assuming you are already getting the going rate, why would anyone choose to take a 1 year maternity cover when there are other companies that will give them a perm role with scope for progression? I would never take on a maternity cover role unless it was waaaay more money, it would be a waste of my time.

Sounds fair enough tbh. I did maternity cover for yonks and there’s no job security, you get less holiday, not eligible for bonus scheme, not eligible for other staff benefits, bare minimum of pension contributions. The only reason to do it is because it pays significantly better than being a perm employee. If they paid the equivalent of your salary but offered the worse terms that go along with a temp contract I don’t know how they would attract someone with a comparable level of experience. It suited me well when I was in my 20s and it was all about the money but I wouldn’t do it now. But I don’t think there’s anything unexpected or unreasonable about them paying the temp more.

I've worked as maternity cover in the past. I had offers for permanent roles too so only took the temporary position when they agreed to a decent premium to make up for the uncertainty.

As others have said, you pay a premium when you hire somebody on a contract because it's a risk for them.
Do you think you're paid a fair market rate? I don't mean compared to your mat cover. If not, it's a conversation to have prior to your return.
Salaries vary greatly even for the same role in a team in any case.

Also, the job market is on fire at the moment. There are plenty of permanent vacancies available so you've got to make a contract role even more attractive than usual.

Alternatively if your cover is an internal secondment, they might already have been on more than you. It wouldn’t be realistic to ask them to take a pay cut, if that was the case.

I think you’re woefully naive. It’s very hard to find staff especially those on a fixed term. You’re taking a year off for maternity leave!

My company literally couldn't backfill my role when I went on maternity leave because they couldn't offer outside our pay bands and no one with my skill set who does contract work would value themselves at less than £20k more than my annual wage (those of us who chose security understand this and have made this choice - I don't begrudge contractors their rates).

They ended up having to contract out my work to a 3rd party at an eye watering sum because stupidly that was allowed in the 'rules' and were embarrassingly relieved that I returned earlier than expected because my husband was made redundant.

Your company are not being unreasonable. If you think your remuneration is unfair that's a different conversation to what your mat cover is being paid.

Do the bring significantly more skills and experience to the role? I'd also expect pay to be better for fixed term contract than a permanent role.

Whatever you do please don't blame the person whose getting this wages

I remember years ago I was treated appalling by another temp because she found out we were on different wage's

Assuming you're on a salary you're happy with then don't begrudge this person earning more, its not hurting you.
They are going to have to work hard to learn the role quickly, then after a year will be back looking for work, of course they should be paid a premium.

People who work c9ntracts don't get the same benefits as you. They don't get redundancy, pensions are meh as thry could have loads of them following them around or get payments refunded cos keeping them in a scheme you joined for just 12m is contrary to the scheme requirements etc. Landing a contract and taking maternity/paternity leave would be difficult too. So people working contracts get paid more, what difference does it make to you?
I assume you were happy on your salary; otherwise, you'd have raised that, right?.... go enjoy your maternity leave with your little un.

Temps do earn more.

Renegotiate when your return if your salary is now below market rate.

Where I'm from people on contract usually get paid more. But their jobs are less secure.

Ideal time to look for alternative employment. Or renegotiate your compensation, whichever works for you. I can still remember the irritation when my old job was advertised at 50% as much again as I had been getting ....

Standard for temporary contracts