How much do you earn

[strangerontheinternet]

Have previously come across a similar thread on another forum and it was so interesting! Basically people commented with their job, age and how much they earn. I hate my job/industry and feel it doesn't pay well like I was led to believe but also feel I have no idea what's out there career/job wise and how much various jobs would earn so what I could do.

I'm 27, a solicitor in Scotland and earn £35k

Besides this as well and I know I'll rub people up with this but why the anger from higher earning women? Have we not fought long enough to be earning equivalent and in some cases more than male counterparts?

I wouldn’t say it’s anger from me, but more a total bewilderment as to how HR roles have grown in pay and status over the last decade.

I’ve sat on several SLTs, alongside the head of HR (and head of legal, operations etc etc)

Comms would give their update about the corporate repositioning and how it’s impacted on sales; legal would give an update on the importance of the changes to our supplier contacts to comply with new legislation; finance would update us on the quarterly budgets and how it will impact on profitability... and then HR chip in with news on the cycle to work scheme

I’m not saying they don’t serve a purpose in organisations of all sizes - payroll has to be run, disciplinaries need to happen and promotions need to be fairly awarded

But I’m yet to see much justification for the function having a permanent seat at the top table or for needing the same salary as the head of the other functions such as legal and finance

but why the anger from higher earning women

In my case, it's because the (female led) HR function undermines women in my workplace. I can get 3 competent, skilled engineers for the price of 1 senior HR employee at work. And 90% of them add nothing. They don't even understand what we do in a lot of cases.

An example: I have a "dedicated" HR person for my unit at work. Who's supposed to help me.

All she ever understands or wants to talk about is shite like wellbeing courses, or mindfulness, or "talent retention", and she has no clue about what we actually do. I've stopped trying to influence her. I'm hoping she leaves eventually. And her salary is taking up 3 engineering spaces for people (potentially women!) who can actually do productive work and deliver.

Why would I choose to hire someone like that in this organisation?

She could start by offering to sort out the lack of female toilets on client sites, or (as i suggested) push for pumping rooms for our female returners (because a lot don't come back from maternity leave, and then they all bleat at the C-level about why their female engineers don't rise beyond middle management).

My "dedicated HR" lady expert is pretty much useless to me as a result. She adds no value, and takes up my operating unit's budget for adding SFA to benefit my engineers, who I care about a lot. And I want more women under me, but I can't hire more without £s, and I can't keep more of them from leaving if HR don't even understand what our job entails.

Anger and hatred- dramatic much?! Can’t see that myself but yes I do question HR seems jargon filled made up initiatives as far as I can tell. When I was doing long hours in the city I wished I had gone for the easier HR option though! They weren’t required to do frequent all nighters or really really difficult negotiations and drafting with massively disastrous consequences if you messed up - do good luck to you if can earn £100k plus without that stress and effort! Whose the smart one?!

p.s. that's not to say I don't care about wellbeing courses, or mindfulness, or talent retention.. i just don't think a 90k a year job needs someone to run those things full-time. it definitely doesn't require the multiple HR degrees she has, or the seniority level. HR have a massively over-inflated rank and importance, and pay, in our org.

@strangerontheinternet

Lots of HR on here (and lots of controversy) but I have always found hr interesting although no employment law experience. I would like to switch to something legal related to still use my skills for a company but not lawyer e.g hr, compliance, health and safety, contracts. But seems impossible when everyone wants industry experience. I've had interviews I know I have a good cv and I know I have good skills but always comes down to "it was very close but the other candidate has more experience". Would be open to admin/lower level role in a dept to work up but no one is interested "over qualified". Any advice? Any hiring managers - would you take someone on with no experience but relevant skills? Feel like there's no hope 😩

I think we'd consider it for the right candidate but all the overqualified but with no relevant experience CVs we've had never acknowledge their situation - no mention of lack of experience in our industry, no understanding of our industry in their covering letter, refer to us as a global company - (we are a SME), no mention of wanting a change of career and why they have chosen our industry and or why they want to work for us - which leaves us with the feeling they are just want any job, not our job. The head in the sand, hoping we won't notice doesn't leave a great impression with me - it's not the way we do business, but other hiring managers might be fine with that.

There are 55 people in my workplace and we don't have anyone with an HR role. Our office manager deals with things like reasonable adjustments and she and our CEO deal with any firing people.

It's by far the best place I've worked at but we can't blame HR professionals: once a business has committed to a big bloated structure and lots of politics and rivalries and fiefdoms and silos, someone is going to have to manage the consequences of that.

But yes, if I get called a "resource" it makes me all I Daniel Blake.

33, Advertising, £80k-ish (full time freelance)

46, team manager for large corporation, £82,000.

I wouldn’t say it’s anger from me, but more a total bewilderment as to how HR roles have grown in pay and status over the last decade.

But I’m yet to see much justification for the function having a permanent seat at the top table or for needing the same salary as the head of the other functions such as legal and finance

No issue with women earning well. However I do see the above points re HR, it does confuse me.

e.g hr, compliance, health and safety, contracts.

Don't get me started on H&S! My life was forever improved when I earned my using a ladder safely certificate 🤣🤣

But yes, if I get called a "resource" it makes me all I Daniel Blake.

🤣🤣 brilliant

Apologies if anger was too strong a word I was just curious as to why people have formed these opinions...it's an interesting thread 👍🏽

@ImsorryWilson

There are 55 people in my workplace and we don't have anyone with an HR role. Our office manager deals with things like reasonable adjustments and she and our CEO deal with any firing people.

It's by far the best place I've worked at but we can't blame HR professionals: once a business has committed to a big bloated structure and lots of politics and rivalries and fiefdoms and silos, someone is going to have to manage the consequences of that.

But yes, if I get called a "resource" it makes me all I Daniel Blake.

I would say your CEO and Office Manager are the HR role. In a small business we wear many hats - the job still gets done. We have a similar set up - the MD and I, are the HR role. Whether we refer to our team as a resource or not - and we often do (the employees will often refer to each other as resources too, as we are project based) - it doesn't change how we treat them. And if we even find ourselves in a situation where the HR role becomes a full time job, then we will hire someone who reflects our values and if they fail to reflect our values, I hope the employees hold us to account - rather than simply blaming the HR person - we are all responsible for how staff get treated and one of our values is personal responsibility - that we don't use the short comings of others as an excuse for falling short - this goes right the way through the organisation.

The HR person at my current company is a nice person but seems completely overwhelmed, disorganised, out of her depth, and frequently bursts into tears in meetings. This has been the case for the five years I've worked here. It does baffle me why she gets paid so much and why she's still here.

However, the HR person at my last company was just a massive arsehole. He was the butt of all our jokes. He was the smuggest man I've ever met. He published a shit book as well, with his smarmy face on it, which might as well have just been called Smug.

I can't remember HR at the companies I worked at before then so I assume they were good at their job but I never interacted with them so wouldn't know.

79andnotout that made me laugh.

"I can't remember HR at the companies I worked at before then so I assume they were good at their job"

this is the problem. to be really good at HR you have to wear the role lightly. but then you don't get paid as much.

JustWatchMe - it is absolutely the values but also the ability to communicate them which is hard when you don't work alongside people on a day to day basis. But yes all nightmare HR people are a symptom of a nightmare element to the workplace more than a cause IMO

Nanny, 33, 30k.
I work for someone in HR 😂

I am looking to move on in 2 years but whatever I go into I will have to take a big pay drop. I have qualifications but not the experience outside of nannying.

I feel like your HR person is my boss

@79andnotout last message was to you, sorry!

32, domicillary carer 30 hrs pw £15600

51 year old pt college tutor £11500

This is why i eye roll rather at the threads ranting about MPs high pay. They would get a significantly higher salary being an HR director and without all the shit they get thrown at them and living away from home! I know I am a lone voice but looking at the salaries stated theirs are more than fair!

They get £81k FYI

32 teacher 40k

43, PA London £60K

Childminder - £48,000 pa before tax