To want to pay less at work Christmas drinks?

[Rainallnight]

Agh, I just wrote a long post and it got lost!

the short version is - it’s my work’s tradition that SMT members split the bill for drinks at our Christmas lunch. I am the least well paid member of SMT by some distance and have begun to feel this is unfair.

I’d rather we make a contribution that’s proportionate to our salaries.

AIBU?

Could you suggest that SMT put a reasonable amount of wine on the table (say half a bottle per person), and anyone who wants additional drinks beyond that can buy their own?

‘ can we please rethink our Christmas lunch? Rather than paying for the whole drinks bill, could we pay for their first drink instead?’

Surely no one expects drinks to be bought for them? I’m in education, and the only thing we get is a subsidised canteen meal.

The company should be paying for everything. We have a business with about 10 employees (so similar ish size). For Christmas, they have a day of an activity of their choosing (usually it’s a sport or outdoor activity, changes every year), then dinner and drinks and we pay for a hotel for everyone so they don’t have to travel home after a night out. Would never imagine asking senior employees to pay everyone’s drinks tab. It’s the company’s responsibility. I do think there is perhaps something symbolic about your manager buying you something at Christmas (so treating the team to a round of drinks on arrival), but that should be expensed to the company.

I think you should agree with SMT and send a joint email round saying cost pressures etc the SMT will pay for the first drink only. Then it won’t change the cost for any hard up staff as they will just have that one drink if they can’t afford another.

Are you drinking the same as everyone else but think you should pay less because you earn less? Or is it that there are loads of staff who aren’t in the SMT who pay nothing but don’t earn much less than you?

That is not going to go down well with the much lesser paid members of staff. Make it more of a Wahooo we'll buy you a drink!

No she is part of the management team who is funding everyone else’s drinks, so majority of staff are not paying anything

You need to speak to your boss and say that you're unable to afford the bar bill and suggest that the SMT just put a fixed amount behind the bar or pay for just the first couple of drinks, rather than pay for drinks all night.

We’ve done lots of different things over the years (a charity) however the one that works for us is to agree between the SMT the level of what we will pay prior. This is for our directorate of 50 with 6 managers.
So we would normally order a number of bottles of wine, some Prosecco and bottled beer that are on the table. People on soft drinks would normally get 2 (as actually they are expensive too nowadays) and we make sure there is tap water for the table. That way we generally have a pretty clear idea beforehand what we are going to pay.

DH and I work and have worked in public sector/BBC and have never ever had a xmas do where you didn't have to pay for yourself. Maybe sometimes your manager would buy a round of drinks for their team, or buy a few bottles of wine to share around. But surely it can't be a free for all where staff can order whatever drinks they want and managers have to pay??? That sounds like madness.

There are a couple of things for me op.

Firstly could you have a word with SMT and gently ask if contributions could be proportionate to salary. I'd have no issue with that.

Secondly, I'm the lowest paid director where I work but all those who earn more have mortgages, children, etc, so I'm pretty sure I have the highest disposable income. Are you aware of people's circs?

Could the suggestion be that everyone on SMT contributes X to go behind the bar and once its gone, its gone. Madness to just have an opened-end drinks bill that you will have to pay part of. What if someone is ordering champagne or expensive wine?

The SMT in my work put up £50 each (x 4 of us) as a gesture of thanks to our team and once its drunk its drunk.

Just say I can only afford to contribute X this year and stick to your guns.

I think this is the best suggestion.

IME of the voluntary sector, senior managers pay for staff drinks from their salaries because the company can’t use their (charitable) funds for this. £50k is a very high salary for a charity worker. Most staff are on much lower pay. So, senior managers pay as a gesture of goodwill to thank people for their hard work.

It seems OP doesn’t disagree with this approach and is happy to pay a share towards the drinks of 15 staff. It appears OP can afford to treat their staff. Indeed, to not do so would seem a bit mean spirited, when earning £50k.

OP’s problem seems to be the principle rather than the cost. Because of the vast difference in salaries between the Senior Management Team, with some on double the salary of OP. I assume this isn’t just the CEO. Surely this salary difference should be addressed in general if you all have similar responsibilities. Are the higher paid SMT members mainly men? Or perhaps OP’s role isn’t as responsible and therefore shouldn’t really be classified as SMT.

On the drinks, it seems reasonable for SMT to chip in according to salary, given some SMT members are on a vast salary: £100k. In fact, if there are only 15 staff, couldn’t the CEO pay for everyone’s drinks if earning £100k?

The issue is whether to suggest this to other SMT members. IMHO, that really depends on what relationships within SMT. Most charities believe in fighting for a fairer, more equitable society. That should surely start within themselves. So, I don’t see a problem with OP raising it at an SMT meeting, to ask if it’s been considered. That’s surely the sort of challenge to the status quo that’s needed from SMT to create a more an efficient and fair organisation. It should be accepted in that light.

But SMT in some charities can be quite entitled and tone deaf. There can even be quite a toxic atmosphere, where challenges to ways of working aren’t well-received. If that’s the case, OP would have to weigh up if it’s a hill they want to die on. It’s only once year. How much would they save? If less than £100, might be better to suck it up, rather than get colleagues backs up.

I would just say that finances are quite tight this year and you’re worried about the Christmas do cost. Can we bounce some ideas around?

It's not OK though.

You shouldn't be expected to pay for other people's drinks. It's nothing to do with how generous you are in the rest of your life - it's the expectation that is the problem.

They are essentially paying you a salary which they are then taking off you - which, if you really get down to it, is unlawful. I'm not saying you should accuse them of anything that extreme, but you should definitely point out that this needs to be a choice and not a requirement.

Managers paying for Christmas drinks is a nice thing to do, but really, if the CEO wants it to be this way, they should offer to foot the bill for ALL of the drinks, and the rest of the SMT contributes if they want to.

There should not be an expectation that the bill is split.

My DH is a SM and he pays for his team's drinks at the Christmas do - but that's entirely his choice, as he feels it's a nice thing to do.

You need to talk to your manager and point out that your salary is half that of the other people who are contributing and this isn't fair.

How much are you actually having to pay out of interest?

So true.

Why are you getting paid the least?

I think first drink only. Traditions can be changed.

How many senior managers are there in an organisation with only 15 staff in total?

Sorry if you've already answered this.

We do something similar, but agree contributions based on salary (so CEO pays a certain amount, Directors less and Assistant Directors less again) and that gives us the budget for the drinks. No way would we have it agree to an open bar bill

We get two vouchers oer person, for wine, soft drinks or single measure of spirits

A free bar encourages people to drink too much

I'd frame your suggestion as being an issue of health / responsible employer, rather than cost

I was wondering that. Paying £100k to even the CEO in a company with only 15 staff seems excessive.

How much is it?
Just don’t go and say you can’t afford it- if that is the case. Otherwise, it’s a nice thing to do for the lesser paid staff. It’s not possible to know the other SMT’s household expenses - they may have less disposable income than you do. So I don’t think proportionate to earnings would work.

That depends on the make up of the charity does it? If it has 15 staff and 15,000 volunteers it could be a pretty large charity.