Role going PT - paid less pro rate?

[ApplestheHare]

If you've gone PT down from FT have you had to take less pay for doing fewer hours in the same role? That's the deal where I am and I can't quite put my finger on what to term it but it's really bothering me.

Sorry, should say pro rata in the title. Autocorrect being unhelpful!

I... Don't really understand the question?

Yes, when you reduce the amount of work you do, you get proportionally paid less.

Do you mean 0.5 PT employee receives 0.5 FT salary?

Or that the hourly pay rate is reduced for being part time and then 0.5 applied to an already reduced salary?

Not quite sure what you mean. Yes, of course your pay packet will be less because you are working fewer hours.

Can you give us some figures to check?

Of course salary is pro-rated according to your part time %. Were you expecting to be paid full salary to work a fraction of a full time role?!

I know some people do think part time staff receive a full time salary and that's why they treat the part time staff with such hostility. It is not how it works though!

Do you mean that if you went from 5 days to 3 days you would expect to be paid 60% of salary but the are proposing less?

My understanding of your question is that you're expecting to be paid pro rata, but they're actually offering you less on an hourly basis for the same job?

If so, then yes that would usually be incorrect because you're doing the same work. What is their justification for that?

If, for example, you have a full time job of 40hr/week at £20kpa and they are moving you to 20hrs at £10kpa to do half of exactly the same tasks then that's alright. If they're moving you to 20hrs at £8kpa per annum to do half of exactly the same tasks then they're trying to screw you. Is that what you meant?

OverTheRubicon and MenaiMna yes, that's right. I'll be doing fewer hours, and would obviously be happy if the salary was going to be worked out on a corresponding pro rata basis, but they're saying that because I'll no longer be working across all of the same projects, I'll also get less per hour. Apparently this is totally legit but it really doesn't feel like it.

I suspect that could be unlawful. There's legislation to protect part time workers from discrimination.

Are you changing role / title / responsibilities or just hours?

Okay I understand now why you are perplexed.

Is there an existing rationale for some projects being more highly paid than other? And a good practical reason why not being FT means you can't work on the more highly paying projects? If not, this does seem dodgy.

That happened to me when I came back from maternity leave 8 years ago - was told that as I was coming back 3 days a week, that some of my responsibilities would be taken away and that the remaining responsibilities were worth less, so they chopped 20% off the base and then 40% off that to reflect the time. Total scandal and I wish I had argued more, instead I came back and then sharpishly moved to another company as soon as a role came up.

user18435677565533 the role and title won't change but some responsibilities will. Apparently nobody other than a secret group in HR know which responsibilities are worth more and which less, so although I have the choice about what to keep, I don't know whether I'm giving away the good stuff.

Respectabitch no, there's no guidance available as to why or which projects are worth more. And no, no reason I couldn't work on the higher paying ones.

If anyone has any links to any resources re: protecting part time workers I'd appreciate it.

ceeveebee that sounds horrible. And how mean to do that after maternity leave. I'm not surprised you moved on.

I work part time and am valued just as much I.e paid same rate per hour. Your situation is disgraceful and probably discriminatory. Are you in a union? Is it public sector? I did an FoI request to my employer to support a grievance for maternity discrimination (I won).

CottonSock I'm not in a union unfortunately. How did you go about the FOI request, and what did you discover to support your case? I'm wondering whether to try and talk to an emplpyment lawyer? Tbh though, I normally really like my job and company. I don't really want to have to leave but I don't feel it would be possible to stay if I went down a legal route.

archive.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=1576

I'd give Acas a call.

I thought there was some guidance or legislation on part timers not being treated less favourably than full timers

It is not just guidance. It is law. Part timers cannot be treated less favourably than full time staff. If the OP's part time job is significantly different from her full time role the employer may be able to justify a lower hourly rate. However, if it is essentially the same, the employer must pay the same hourly rate as full time staff.

From the description given here, it sounds like the employer is skating on very thin ice.

@ApplestheHare - You can only make an FoI request of your employer if you are working in the public sector. FoI does not apply to private sector employers.

I understand your concerns about going down the legal route, particularly if this is a small employer. Unfortunately, if you aren't willing to go down that route you may struggle to get them to pay you correctly. But you should start by raising a grievance and making it clear to them that you know they can't treat you less favourably than full time employees.