To never want to work in a job with fixed payscales

[Middlelanehogger]

I read threads on here about (mostly government/civil service/adjacent) jobs with fixed payscales, like teachers, nurses, NHS admins, civil service etc.

I work in the private sector where you get paid depending on what you personally do in your role. (And yes, a bit based on what you personally asked your boss for in the negotiations, but at least it's marginally in your control.)

I just can't comprehend how people can deal with it. Just read a post about how Band Whatever senior teachers only get £10k more than juniors, why, "because that's the banding". So you either suck it up or quit, there's no "ask for a £10k pay rise" or however much would make it worth it to you?! This isn't how you get to market clearing rates!

But teachers and civil servants and others in the private sector tend to have a lot of job security and get rock-solid, generous pensions — and that's why a lot of people stay. I have friends in the public sector who've looked for jobs in the private sector but have decided to stay because of pensions.

The problem for teaching and nursing is a lack of pay progression to reward experienced practitioners without switching them to leadership/management.

Yes I think this is a big part of it, the higher up you go often the further away from the job you joined to do you go. Of course this suits some people, but what's the incentive for passionate nurses and teachers who want to stay clinical/in the classroom? Conversely there's a ceiling to the role so why should someone be paid x amount more than someone else by virtue of them being there for longer? Its a tricky one really.

OP it depends really I guess, I worked for the private sector fresh out of university and admittedly the pay was very good, but the rest was brutal. I hated the cut throat nature of it, justifying why I 'deserved' a pay rise was grim, and its naieve and foolish to believe that those who do more work or whatever actually always get paid more; it still favours certain type of person.

I work for the public sector now and bloody love it. Flexible working, generous pension, once I've done my hours no putting extra graft in to be top dog, I know where I stand with pay etc. If my prime objective was to make loads of money then sure I'd jump ship, but as its to make a decent living without the additional stresses of working my role in the private sector its perfect.

And the other benefits. I got 6 months fully paid maternity leave, 3 months half pay and then could keep my job open for up to 5 years (unpaid) but meant I could go back after a break with the children no stress. Decent holiday allowance, good provision for family leave, flexi time so no need to take leave for appointments etc, usually flexible with requests for part time/term time working, 6 months sick pay from the first day of illness.

It does vary by department so isn't the case for all of course, but there are a lot of positives beyond the low level private health insurance private companies often offer.

Except that when you step back and analyse the results of this ‘skills focus’, turns out that middle, aged, able bodied, married, white men get paid more than other people.

This would be my take on it.

@NashvilleQueen well put.

I don't think I really understand here (maybe because I'm an institutionalized public sector worker!) - under any system, there would always be a limit on what people would pay for a classroom teacher. In teaching you do earn more with experience and as you take on additional responsibility but you hit a ceiling where you need to seek promotion to earn more. I just don't believe that this isn't what also happens without fixed payscales - if you're doing the same job then you're not going to go up endlessly in value. When people want more experience it's usually because it allows people to do a different job or take on more responsibility, not because they get better and better every year they work. If it were true that in the private sector you'd get paid lots more for 20 years doing a job than someone else who had been doing it for 5 because you were so valued then the job market would be an absolute cake-walk for people in their 50s and 60s - they'd be getting offered plum roles at top rates constantly. But that isn't what we see at all...

I’m private sector and a FTSE100 company with pay scales, I have never come across anywhere that didn’t. Worst part is ours are kept secret, not general knowledge, so it’s all a guessing game what you think the banding is

Yes it's very odd isn't it, unless people genuinely believe that white men just so happy to work harder than any other demographic across any sector.

I was in the civil service for 30 years. I liked the certainty of pay bands, and the fact that each year - certainly back in the 1990s - they were re-valorised. So each year the pay band points were increased, and you’d go up a step. So double increase in pay each year. It was worth it!

Then in recent years (thank you, Austerity) they stopped the revalorisation, and stopped - in many cases - the % pay rise each year too. So people’s salaries were effectively frozen.

I quit and went self-employed.

I've always been in the private sector and negotiated my own salary. It's so much simpler than what I read here about publicised pay bands.

If I don't think I'm being paid fairly, I just wouldn't work there.

Why would I?

I'd go somewhere else where the reward is better. If I can't get a better reward package anywhere, then, yes, I'm being paid as much is anyone is prepared to pay me.

What someone else is being paid to do the same work doesn't really register for me. As it happens, for longer term planning purposes, I have access to high level info on my colleagues's earning so I'm aware that I am at the top end of the pay scales.

Seems fair enough but not as important as being happy with my reward package overall. I'm I'm not happy, it's up to me to negotiate a better package, where with current role or elsewhere.

Despite presumably the clear evidence all around them that the white men really aren’t working harder and outperforming everyone else.

Pay bands and transparency are, IMO, a lot better. Unless you, as creamyyoda says, believe that white men just so happen to work harder and better than everyone else.

I used to work in private sector and you could get fired for talking about pay. Which made sense when I found out that of 6 people doing the same job the pay ranged from £17k - £45k and it was the same in every department, but if you asked for a pay rise you'd be constructively dismissed. My own line manager told us all that if anyone applied for a promotion we wouldn't get it because 'if you have to apply you're not good enough'. All completely toxic, unless you were a rich, middle aged, white man.

Now in public sector and there is no secrecy, no backstabbing or resentment because we all know what the bands are. You make a conscious choice to go into public sector, understanding the pay is generally lower than private but the blatant misogyny of paying the white men a fuckload is lessened.

What about c) being paid less than the men with no redress or even knowledge that the bloke next to you is on thousands more?

Because that's the reality.

Exactly this. There's a news article today about the gender pay gap particularly for older women. It will take decades to get to where it needs to be. At least with pay bands there is more transparency.

But whilst all of these are good reasons why people may choose to work in the public sector, none of them incentivise people to work any more or less hard. You’re entitled to all of these things regardless.

Well that’s your choice OP. Not quite sure what your point is? I’m a teacher and I’m happy with it. I earn 52k and that’s not going to change beyond pay rises now because I don’t want promotion or to move schools. I’m not interested in a competitive world where everyone is hustling for money. I’ve got a great pension and a secure, interesting and rewarding job.

They have pay bands where I work and I am in the private sector. There's no facility to negotiate individual pay rises even within the range of a band. It doesn't really bother me. There is still a gender pay gap within the company but this is driven by more men in senior positions, not people doing the same job but being paid differently.

It’s not perfect but the best way so far to close the sex and race pay gap.
There is still room in most fixed pay grade systems for employees to earn performance awards/bonuses so there is incentive to do a good job.
Promotion is often contingent on not just performance and experience but obtaining further qualifications.

It’s much better than systems where managers can blow the entire departments budget for salary rises on their best friend or their office affair.

There’s a good point here around poor line management, but arguably it’s all part of the same issue.

Line managers don’t exist in a vacuum, they also go to work to get paid, just like more junior employees. Good management often isn’t incentivised or rewarded (the system isn’t in place for that). Many of the best managers I’ve worked with are the ones who ended up leaving for the private sector.

Shortly after returning from mat leave I somehow got stitched up and was given four underperforming individuals to line manage. Had it come with a pay rise to compensate (or the prospect of a decent bonus) I probably would have stayed. But as it didn’t, I swiftly sorted out a level transfer to another role in a different team; same pay but a better working experience.

I don’t know what the answer is though as there are advantages and disadvantages to all systems.

I believe the NHS is the largest employer In Europe, can you imagine having everyone paid differently?!!

I work in the 3rd sector. We're paid according to bands. However, you can be put up a band if you take on additional responsibilities and there is a scheme for paying a bonus for exceptional performance, which I've had for 3 years running.

Comparable jobs in the public sector are paid more, we've just lost 2 staff to the public sector and they both got significantly higher salaries. And we had trouble filling the vacancies because the salaries were so low for the work we do. Management are undertaking a benchmarking exercise with a view to uprating the salary for our role.

The difficulty we have is that the work we do is awarded via a tendering process and the contracts invariably go to the lowest bidder. How any increase will be funded is a mystery.

Yeah, that's option A.

In option A you're getting paid less than the men around you but more than you'd be getting in option B. The comparison is on the two possible jobs you personally would be doing, not between you and the other employees.

So like
Option A
You get £40k. Your incompetent annoying male colleague gets £60k.

Option B
You get £20k. Your incompetent annoying male colleague also gets £20k.

I'd still take option A knowing that. But it sounds like a lot of people in this thread would take option B. Why?

The biggest contributor by far to the gender pay gap, within levels, is differences between female-majority and male-majority industries. My argument is that women picking option B over option A explains, partially, why that gap arises.

@Middlelanehogger agree with that… some of the responses here are basically saying “we are all getting paid equally badly, which is FAIR”

No it's isn't. They could easily be paying you £18k and the incompetent male £38k.

This is assuming a large pay difference between banded jobs vs none banded jobs. In the vast majority of cases it’s doubtful the pay difference is as high. Option A your on 40k and a male is 60k. Option B both on 35k- 40k . I’d take option B.