Would you say this is fair / normal?

[MoanGroan]

Person A has just found out that their colleague who does the exact same job as them, person B, earns 11K more.
A has worked for the company for 3 years, but only had general experience in the field before getting the job whereas B has worked this exact job before but only been at the company for 1 year (ie both people have worked in supermarkets but only B has specifically worked on a checkout).
A is 'better' at the job when looking at figures, B tends to make more mistakes. A has also taken on extra responsibilities, staying late at night to complete both jobs.

Would you say A is right to be upset at earning so much less? The job is skilled and A has always known they are underpaid but wasn't aware of the amount.

This is entirely normal and A is reasonable to be upset but unrealistic in their expectations.

"Fair" doesn't really matter. There is no requirement for people to be paid the same amount, unless there is discrimination involved. Either the company were struggling to recruit so had to offer more; or B negotiated harder and better when they got the job.

A would need to look at asking for a raise based on their own performance. Not "B makes so many mistakes that I should be paid more" but "I have done x which resulted in this benefit to the company, by doing y I saved the company this much, I am performing to the level of z - as a result I should be paid [figure]. If I were to go to a competitor I would earn more than this, it would cost you more than this to replace me, therefore it is in your interests to pay me this as I am very dedicated to this company and wish to remain here long term."

Is this the kind of company where you ask for a raise rather than having incremental payscales? If so, ask for a raise. I suspect B did a better negotiation when they started, based on experience, previous salary, etc.

I started a new job recently, I've no experience in the field and I'm on almost 8k more than the people who started on the same day as me because of the way our pay works.

B has been quite open about the fact that they negotiated better and also obviously had the experience before. B deserves that much money, it's just that A also deserves the money.
The company is very small and B is leaving, meaning A will be the only person doing the job. Rather a niche job so they will struggle to employ anyone else.
A spoke to the owners of the company today and they were not receptive from the sounds of things. I guess it won't matter as A will also be leaving.
Thanks for your opinions

I think it's quite common that companies pay whatever they have to in order to recruit to a job, so they basically go as low as the market will bear. In the case of A, there is a bigger pool of candidates without the niche experience so they can offer a lower salary but know that they will have to put some effort into training. For B they needed to offer a higher salary in order to have someone ready to hit the ground running and needing far less training and support.

Ideally what should happen is that trainees should have their salary increased to market rates once they have the experience, in practise most companies try to keep costs down by not giving wage increases. Sometimes that works for them, other times (as in this case) it's a false economy because they will have to recruit and train a new person.

Is this because B's post has been advertised with a salary now?

If they advertise for someone with general experience I expect they would pay A's rate again, for someone with specific experience they will pay B's rate. I'd say it was normal (unfortunately, as it can lead to the loss of experienced staff and it will cost the company to advertise and train, money they could have have given A so it's not exactly a cost saving really).

Is B a man? Equal pay claim?

And you are A?

Presumably you are A?

I'm not A, they are both men.

A found out B's salary because B told A when he left. They actually haven't advertised B's job at all yet. A felt they could now bargain their wage as they'll be completely screwed if he leaves now but they don't seem interested. I've advised him just to leave, they're not nice people.

If it's that niche a job- will A be able to leave? A doesn't have qualifications that B has- will that affect them looking for other jobs? It would be reasonable to say based on performance, I'd like to negotiate a raise. Will they now be expected to to both roles?

Unless it is a case of discrimination then yes this is perfectly normal. If A feels they are underpaid, they need to speak to their manager & talk about a pay rise. As their manager though I would expect them to have a few bullet points about why they think they are worth more rather than just saying "you paid B more than me & I found out."
He could try looking around for another role & seeing what the general salary benchmark is.