Longevity vs Skill

[arielmanto]

I am in the process of taking over management of a very small manufacturing company (furniture). The existing manager is the company director, it's his baby, he set it up in his youth and it's always been run his way. It's his business - I can't argue. But "his" way is not without its issues (cash in hand bonuses with no system in place causing friction/jealousy, no heirarchy in the workshop alternately meaning they fight for power or point the finger at each other..). One of the points that two longstanding members of the workshop like to bring up is that their pay is the same as one of our new member's.
I can't get my head around it ethically - is being in the same job - literally ,the same job - for fifteen years enough to mean you should get paid more than the new guy, even if he is capable of doing the exact same job, to the same standard?
I think that pay should be based on responsibility/capability, rather than longevity - is that naive?

As an aside to this - they all have the same holidays which are governement standard 20+8 days. Should that be the area which increases with longevity?

I was just wondering what the general view of this stuff was so that I can be well armed if I decide to try and change anything during this (lengthy) handover process.

”I think that pay should be based on responsibility/capability, rather than longevity”

I agree with you. But there are plenty of workplace cultures where longevity is (either deliberately or otherwise) a relevant factor in pay.

Deliberately could be having a pay scale with points where people who perform reasonably well expect to move up, combined with perhaps a policy of only putting new recruits on the bottom of the scale regardless of their experience/skills/capability.

Even if there’s no specific scale, if you have someone sitting in a role for a long period, doing a fantastic job, and you want to reward them with a pay rise each year and are not restricted to a scale or range with limited headroom, it can have the effect you are describing.

Personally I think any element of getting rewarded just for sitting there being adequate for another year should be removed from any pay system. But that’s not happening any time soon in lots of places!

Re holidays: I'm in the public sector where holidays increase only with a higher grade, not years of service, because adding holidays as result simply of long service was deemed to be potentially ageist.

I also work in the public sector and we get an extra day a year untill we hit 10 years. Whatever system you have re pay someone will moan about it - doesn't mean it's the wrong one.

Very interesting Icouldbesomebodyyouknow - ageism is not something I had considered. It's pretty rare for us to be able to hire a fully qualified, "grown up" maker - which is why this issue has raised its head. Prior to this they'd all come in as apprentices and worked their way up, and consequently pay had appeared to be in line with longevity as well as capability.

They're definitely apt to complain whatever system we devise. I do think they deserve something more than the new recruits, for loyalty, but I don't think it should be automatically more pay.