Direct report makes more than me

[houwseevryweekend]

Me and my direct report both started in at the same time for the company - we were doing the same role, both the same grade, same skills, same job, same department.

Company then made our role redundant and split the job grade into 2 different roles - with one role managing the other. We both had to interview for the role we wanted, both went for the line manager role - I got it, he didn't so I became his manager.

We've now had our salary review and because I'm his boss, noticed that not only did he get a higher % salary increase than me, his total salary is 4k higher than mine! I've spoken to my boss who hadn't realised (we're a big team) but tried to explain it saying that because he started on a higher salary than me, and they gave him a higher pay rise (to make up not getting the promotion...) - his base is now more than mine. She was non committal about resolving it. Just said to leave it with her.

What's worse is I'm also responsible for hiring more people at my grade and because they're external, they're all at a higher pay. Which pisses me off too but I understand externals get more.

However, AIBU to expect to be paid more than the person I'm managing if we both interviewed for the role and I have more budget and responsibilities and a much bigger team?

Just wondering what my options are: can HR do something like this? Feels like a pretty big issue but I don't know enough whether it's also a legal issue?

For context here - we have both been in the company 8 months, both joined as externals. We got hired at the same time and yes he was on more than me, probably negotiated better than I did which is fair enough.

The restructure happened 6 months in - a more sr role was created - we both went for it. He didn't get it because in 6 months I was able to demonstrate more capability doing the same role. Which is why it is insane to me that in 8 months he has had 2 pay rises more than me even though he has delivered less than me. The first pay rise was justified, the second one - is anyone's guess.

sounds like came in on higher pay than you then when he’s got % increase he’s overtaken you

if that’s the case as shit as it is it’s just one of those things no discrimination

It doesn’t make sense but sadly this isn’t illegal and ultimately companies can do what they like in terms of remuneration, it just so happens most employees don’t find out what one another earns.

It is illegal if the decision to pay him more was made on the grounds of sex or race, which is why it’s important the OP asks for a written justification of the difference in pay. It’s not about skill or experience given the OP has been promoted over him, so what is it about? Giving someone compensatory pay rise is ridiculous especially if they’re paying him more than the person who actually got the job, so I’d be inferring discrimination was at play and letting them explain how that wasn’t the case.

The issue is, why was he on more pay when you were both doing the same job previously. That fact has lead to this situation. Because of this you may well have a case due to sexual discrimination. You need to speak to an employment lawyer.

No, his pay rise % is also higher than mine (to retain him). I can't fathom any organisation who feels they need to increase the pay of someone not performing as well as me, because I got the promotion he wanted. Surely, the fact he was already on higher pay before the pay rise was sufficient.

To me it shows his lower performance is valued more than my higher performance and remunerated accordingly. So if our pay is performance related, because that's how out annual reviews are done - I perform better, get a promotion and the guy who doesn't perform as well comes out with a higher pay rise % - what is driving that decision? It's all well and good saying the payrise % was to retain him, but if he was already on a higher salary than me, objectively it means at every stage they have given him preferential pay over me - even when I perform better. That means I will never get paid more than him no matter what I do, including a promotion - that stops being merit based surely and about HR justifying why they've moved away from merit.

Good luck. Twenty years ago, this was me. My job advertised but for 20% more that I was being paid. I applied for the new job and was told that I already had it - the money was different because I was hired in a buyer's market and we were now in a seller's market.
Given recruitment fees, the time required for interviews, the number of candidates who think they can 'fake it 'til they make it', it is a foolish approach. It will sadly, always be with us because there are enough senior managers (male and female) who can see no farther than the end of their nose.

I disagree that it's fair enough that he was paid more on entry. Employers should be open about what they pay, which should be according to defined pay scales rather than rewarding squeaky wheels. This almost always rewards men with an inflated sense of their worth.

You also say that they've not bothered to move you to the new pay band. That needs fixing straight away, and backdating to the date of promotion. Would this fix the anomaly regarding pay?

It sounds like you're in a niche role. Do you know if other employers pay more and would you find a better paid role with comparable/improved benefits and conditions elsewhere, which would be another incentive for your employer to increase your pay.

He asked for and got more salary. Do the same. You need to present your case as to why you are worth more, and should be paid more. It's up to you, and also how far you're willing to go- would you resign if you're not paid your worth? Because if not, and they know that, then you're at an impasse. Men historically do get paid more, because they ask for it, expect it, request it. Do the same

Given it's niche what are the opportunities like elsewhere?

I was in a niche role and saw others getting pay uplifts around me. There were always 'reasons' why I didn't get more. Basically they thought the niche nature of my role had me trapped.

A couple of years ago I got offered what was essentially the same role in another company for 50% more salary plus much better benefits.

My original company was most shocked when I handed in my notice!

IME employers are shortsighted and pay as little as possible even if it damages their long term stability.

Quite right! You’ll also notice that he had no issues with potentially being labelled a trouble maker when he asked for more money having lost out on a promotion. At least you have a legitimate reason to be paid more! The previous poster’s tripe is exactly why women are more reluctant than men to ask for pay rises, which is one of the factors that contributes to the gender pay gap.

Don’t let this lie. In my experience (both personal and as a union rep) discrimination is rarely open and obvious. It is this sort of subtle, murky situation that is much more common.

Asking their rationale is a good first step. What I’ve done in circumstances of potential discrimination is given my employee a chance to rectify the situation. Both times, I wrote letter outlining my disappointment in the situation, clarifying what I would like out of it and why it would be both fair and in the company’s interests, and subtly hinted at the fact that their behaviour could be perceived as discriminatory.

Eg ‘I was disappointed/troubled to hear that X has been given a pay rise of ££ more than me, given he did not achieve a promotion. In light of my increased responsibilities and work load as __I would expect a similar pay rise to… In a modern workplace, I am sure we’re all aware of the well-documented gender pay gap and want to work together towards gender pay equity…’

I think it is potentially sexual discrimination. Women commonly get paid about 20% less than their male peers.

I would definitely be asking my manager: for a valid rationale why my salary is less than a man’s who is less senior and who was judged less capable in a direct comparison with me in interview recently.

Why would it be a legal issue? What law are you thinking it falls under?

Sex discrimination.

OP go to HR, this is not on.

Yes focus on why you didn't get a pay rise on promotion but he did for no promotion

However as you now have different roles he ceases to be a direct comparator in equal pay legislation terms I'd say. So focus on the second pay rise instead

That sounds like sex discrimination to me and I would say so and be prepared to take external advice.

It's illegal to discriminate on grounds of sex

@BeanThereDoneIt totally agree that discrimination is frequently murky.

It all stems from an underlying misogynistic view that if a woman does a job it is much less valued than when a man does a job.

If a woman does an exceptionally good job she is more likely to be given 'soft' rewards, a bunch of flowers, a public 'thank you'.

If a man does an exceptionally good job he is more likely to get 'hard' rewards ie cash.

This is so entrenched that a lot of the time managers don't even realise they are doing it.

You are being discriminated against. Why should you be paid less for doing and achieving more. I lead a large team in a listed company and if this was ever brought to my attention it would need to be immediately rectified (with back pay). Raise this with ACAS who will advise your next steps. Speak to HR and let them know this doesn’t sit right with you and you are seeking advice. Your own manager is useless and won’t understand equal pay rights and discriminatory protected categories. Good luck!

Where is the evidence of sex discrimination?

In the past, I moved into a team where 2 of the managers were paid less than some of their direct reports. One was a woman with men reporting in to her, the other was a man with women reporting in to him. The two managers were paid the same as each other. Are you genuinely telling me that this must have been sex discrimination for one but not the other? Or was it somehow sex discrimination on both sides?

Jumping to a conclusion of "IT'S BECAUSE YOU'RE A WOMAN!!!" is unlikely to be helpful for the OP. Raising a grievance on the basis of sex discrimination, without having any evidence to support it other than "he has a penis and I have a vagina", is not likely to be constructive.

Presumably the external hires the OP is hiring, at a more junior level, are not all men? That's enough to entirely undermine any grievance based on discrimination. The OP is presumably hiring women and offering them more money than she's on. If she's only hiring men then there clearly is a wider problem...

The OP would be better off focussing on herself and demonstrating why the company should pay her more unless there is actual evidence of discrimination.

Theres no way on this earth I would have the hassle of line managing someone for less pay than they're on. I wouldn't not stand for it. Kick up a fuss!

Please give the actual legal points of how in this precise case it is sex discrimination other than 'well he has a penis innit'

Well done for raising it with your boss I'd be apoplectic.

I think to people saying it isn't sex discrimination - it is discrimination of some sort. Because we are a merit based pay organisation. All our objectives and annual pay and bonuses are linked to performance only - this is an HR policy. We are all peer reviewed to make it fair. If someone (man or woman) is getting paid more for not performing as well as the other - it isn't merit based anymore. It's also discriminatory because it means that short of going back in time and renegotiating my initial contract I will never be able to match this person's pay - even though I am apparently so good at my job I was promoted over him. He will always have an advantage for reasons not based on merit or anything in our objectives.

Whoever has created such a situation where I am on lower pay in a role on the same contractual terms and conditions as him, with additional responsibilities, and have demonstrated superior performance at a specific assessment for a higher paid role, is discriminating against me in some legal capacity. Could be sex, or race (I'm not white).. Just because another man is paid less than this man or another woman is paid more than this man - doesn't change my specific circumstance. I'm not fighting the company's pay review of women as a whole, but my particular case. They can discriminate against me even if they haven't done it to anyone else. And of course I will never know if they are discriminating against others who have lodged grievances. So how they treat others is not on me to prove when I have evidence that my specific pay is not merit based and in fact puts me at a disadvantage to him for no reason.

When you have stopped shouting, jumping up and down and making ugly crying faces.

A man and a woman, as in your example, doing the same job and getting the same pay is not sex discrimination.

But the situation the OP describes isn't that.

Two people start at a company doing the same job. The woman is paid less than the man.

Both go for a promotion, the woman gets a promotion, with I expect, a pay rise, but that is still less than the man.

The man who is now her junior not only gets more pay he gets and even bigger pay rise.

Why is he paid more for doing the same job?

Why, when the woman is promoted above hom does he get even more money?

I don't think how the pay differential has been arrived at is important.

The fact that you can compare yourself with him in terms of your work being comparable and of at least equal worth to the company is sufficient for you to be paid at least the same, but likely more, due to the line management responsibility in addition to the comparable technical role.

I'm not making ugly crying faces. I am rolling my eyes at people not actually helping the OP.

It is fine, legally, for one person to be paid more than someone else, for doing the same or a junior role.

It is not fine if that is the result of discrimination. But the OP would have to prove discrimination. Where is your evidence for shouting and yelling about discrimination? Where should the OP start? Because going to HR and saying, this is discrimination, is likely to be a painful and unsuccessful route, unless there are any indications that there is discrimination and not just poor management.

It is impossible to conclude, based on what the OP has said, that there is discrimination at play. You will be shocked - shocked! - to hear that sometimes companies are just shit in a normal way, not in a discriminatory way.

OP, you’re very good at exposing on here and communicating the issue so I hope you’ll be the same with your employer. Do not let this drop and don’t accept anything less than a bump which takes you 5 or 10% over his pay (or whatever the difference is between other direct reports and their managers) and include back pay from the time of the promotion. Really don’t let it drop, be forceful in a professional manner and mention the buzz words of discrimination under the equality act and start CCing HR into your emails.

Don’t back down.