To want to be appointed at top of pay band

[MsFrost]

I've been offered a new job in higher education and I want to go in at the top of the band becuase my current salary is above it.

AIBU to negotiate this? Would it make a bad impression to push for them to match my current salary, even though it means starting right at the top of the pay band?

Their policy is to start people at the bottom of the band.

Not true. I have a market supplement that means I earn more at Lecturer than my DH does at Reader (just about). I'm far from the only one in my department either.

It's normal in my sector (local gov) to get salaries matched

If everyone did this then there would be no teachers, lecturers, nurses etc.

In HE, they would only recruit above the bottom of the pay band if you have a particular experience / skill set worth paying for, not just because you've previously been paid more. There's no way you'd get to come in at the top of the pay band because part of recruitment is an element of cost saving in HE right now; it's likely the previous person left at the top of the pay band.

Pay isn't something that can be negotiated in HE in the same way as in the private sector. You may find that they ask why you applied for a job that's lower paid than your previous role.

No, if everyone did this then they would have to find the money to pay teachers, lecturers and nurses better wages.

You don’t always start on the bottom. It can be negotiated. I’ve done this in several sectors.

@hatgirl may I ask what your job title is?

I'd apply with your criteria, and give your reasons why in the interview. If they say no, but are willing to compromise to an extent then the choice is yours. Not applying because you assume (and let be real, probably correctly) that they won't, means you'll never what they can/ will offer if you're the best candidate

Of course you negotiate but give a clear reason why you deserve the higher pay.

I am not in HE but your time is worth money. If the team is on less that is not your concern. The market is open and you have a choice.

Once you're at the top of a band, it's very hard to progress payrise other than cost of living increases in a lot of institutions. If you go in at the top there is nowhere to go - so how likely is someone to stay if they aren't able to progress financially? Recruitment is expensive.

@BugsyDrakeTableScape This reasoning makes no sense whatsoever. I would be perfectly happy to be put on the top of the pay band and sit there, rather than being knocked down a grade or two and be made to climb back up.

I don't see it as giving me a chance to progress next year. All it's doing is putting me on the back foot this year and I then have to climb back up again. Which, to be honest, it much more likely to make me feel undervalued.

If they ask that it would really be none of their business.

They advertised a pay band and the top of that pay band is a salary I would be happy to accept, so I feel I was perfectly fine to apply for the job.

I think if organisations only want to appoint at the bottom of the band they should say that on the job advert. This advert said that they 'usually appoint at the bottom of the band, dependent on current salary and experience' - implying that they would match my current salary or close.

@MsFrost - and you are very valid in your points and feelings. All I'm saying is that in Universities the opportunities for other rewards are often limited. So that would be it for the foreseeable future, it is unlikely you would be able to negotiate a payrise from that point - there are no other avenues, no bonuses etc. Whilst I appreciate you say that works for you - for others the reality might be that after say 1-2 years of not improving financially they start to look elsewhere - which causes the recruitment issues. So people don't like recruiting at the top of the band because they think people won't stay as one of the 'perks' of HE is that ability to progress through the band with relative ease.

It's particularly relevant if they need to invest in any training etc for someone - if they don't get the ROI on that then it's an expensive recruitment exercise.

Again though - it:s not a reason not to ask. I'm just sharing my experiences of 25 years of recruiting in HE and the quirks of the sector. And ultimately you just need to ask the question and see what the answer is - the rest of this is just context as to why it's not as easy as a job offer negotiation in other sectors might be.

You are absolutely right. In the civil service they advertise a pay band which is essentially fictitious. Occasionally someone might manage to be appointed towards the bottom of it rather than right at the bottom of it. But the way they word their advertisements suggests that you can be appointed anywhere on that pay band and that you then move up it. This is false. Where you start is where you stay, due to the pay freeze which has been in place for over a decade. The only people at the top of the pay band are the people who have been bimbling along at the same pay grade for 20 years without being promoted, but benefited from years of automatic pay increases prior to 2011, i.e. the dead wood. I worked with someone in that position. Utterly useless, she was. Didn't stop her constantly banging on about how impossible it was to get promoted, implying that there was some sort of discrimination going on, when the much more competent people who were actually getting promoted were going in at the bottom of the next pay band and basically getting paid the same as her, only with management responsibilities.

Public sector pay sucks, and you should definitely try as hard as possible to negotiate your starting salary, because that might be your only opportunity to negotiate.

@BugsyDrakeTableScape I get what you're saying but it's utterly nonsensical to knock someone back so they can 'progress' to where they already are.

Most people would rather be put at the top (matching their current pay) and not progress, than take a pay reduction so they can 'progress' back to where they currently are in a couple of years.

That's not progression, it's just knocking someone down and making them get up again.

Public sector: "We're just going to knock you back a bit so you've got room to improve" - how ridiculous!

How about "we're going to increase the top of the band so you've got motivation to improve"?

No?

Didn't think so.

@shitetatts I was just going to say that the OP can ask and may get but (and this is only based on my experience) can expect to be as popular as Covid 19 if existing staff find out that the new recruit is on a higher salary than them. These things create a lot of tension and ill feeling.

@MsFrost I can see how it might look and feel like that - but genuinely I think it's about trying to match skills and experience to the available pay for the role. It's not about 'worth' in that sense - but about how the skills and experience brought to the role are effectively remunerated. Progression is after all not all about money but also skills, experience competencies etc.

If you've got a case to argue for the top of the scale then do it! There are examples on this thread of people who have successfully done it so it's not unheard of at all. But culturally in HE I don't think just having a salary which is at that level already on its own is enough in the first instance - it's about matching those skills and experience to the role at that level. If you think about it - if they appoint usually at the bottom then someone at the top would be deemed to have 6 years relevent experience in that role - that's what they're looking for to match.

It really will depend on the job and your current job.

for example I know senior nurses at matron level who earn more than a lecturer salary but come in on the bottom a lecturer band as they have no teaching experience, no Masters, no pg cert. Now if they have gained some of these in their matron role then negotiation to the top of the band is far more likely. But even if they start mid band they won’t be able to go (initially) do the job as well as someone who started five years ago at the bottom of the band.

it does mean some course struggle to recruit lecturers, health courses, architecture, etc. the only degree course I know who pay on a totally different scale is medicine. I was always told that if you want to get into lecturing you do it because you’re passionate about education and are prepared to take the drop in salary. Or imho you hate working in the nhs so much you’re prepared to take the drop!

im not sure about professional services but I’d imagine it’s a similar argument. Someone could be an experienced admin/PA but do they understand exam boards, the software, the plethora of academic regulations?

That’s incredibly naive I’m afraid

University HR tried the same spiel on me - I called bullshit. Know your worth.

I guess we'll never know, given that most people will just accept it and grumble privately. Which means that some people will do it, successfully, and it's up to you whether you want to try and be one of them or just accept the minimum.

This happens all the time. The solution is for employers to reward loyalty and performance by giving their existing staff appropriate pay rises and access to promotions.

Last year my private sector employer (thank god I got out of the public sector) called my entire team into a meeting and announced that they were giving us all a significant mid year pay rise. It turned out that one of our managers, who I respect enormously, was struggling to recruit new people without offering much more money than her existing team members were on at the same level, due to our pay increases not having kept pace with changing market conditions and the cost of living increase. She didn't want to lose us all so unbeknown to us she had been working behind the scenes for months, benchmarking everyone's salaries against the current market for our sector, and making a business case for it to senior management. My guess is that if two fewer people leave as a result, the overall increase will have been offset by the money they won't have spent on recruiting to fill those posts, and it has generated a lot of goodwill among the team.

But only our team got it as far as I am aware, and we were forbidden from telling anyone outside the team about it.

Public sector employers unfortunately rely on the fact that many of their employees can't really work outside the public sector and have been conditioned to accept crap pay and conditions. But it's still short sighted because they will struggle to find the best candidates to fill vacancies and the overall quality and efficiency of the public sector continues on its trajectory towards rock bottom.

Not sure what area you are applying in but even with previous experience, do you know what REF is?

Do you know the main issues arising from last week’s CASE?

Do you know the changes to the postgraduate visa system that come in in January?

Are you familiar with the issues around the latest NSS?

How is the institution affected by RAAC?

HE comes with a steep learning curve unless you are already in the sector. And even if some of these aren’t directly relevant to your job you need to understand the context.

By all means demand the top of the band but only if you are prepared to lose the job offer. Mid way is possible, top I’ve personally never seen but I have seen offers withdrawn.
You have to weigh it up as a package. Do you currently get 42 days annual leave and a 20% employer pension contribution?

I'd fight hard for this if you really want this job OP. I think you'd be made to accept at the bottom of the payscale when you're currently earning more than the top of their payscale.