Pay gap

[Nonymous]

I don’t want to give too much away as I don’t want to be “outed” but if I’m being too vague the tell me.

I found out recently that my co-worker, who does exactly the same job as me, same hours etc is paid substantially more than I am (roughly 1/3 of my salary added on) I have been with our company slightly longer but he has maybe 2 years more experience in the field.

I’m looking for advice in how to raise the issue with my boss. If I go in looking for a 33% pay rise they’ll laugh me out of the room, but why should my co-worker get paid so much more? Any help would be appreciated.

why should my co-worker get paid so much more
This is very common, especially in the private sector. The answer may be as simple as they are better a negotiator than you, or that the market rate for the job was higher when they joined than when you did, or that the colleague offered something that you don't. What I wouldn't do is go in to a discussion with a question framed in that way. And I am not convinced of the wisdom of saying that you know what your colleague is earning and you want more money because of that. Your employer might not bother, but some employers can get very shirty in response to such comparisons.

Can you not frame the point in terms of the going rate for this type of work is £XXX and you are now below that point? Or show how you have brought added value to the role and would argue a pay rise is due? However, the most effective method is often to go get another job that pays you what you want - the employer will either counter the new offer or you leave and get a better job.

@Jalisco
so you don’t believe the equal pay legislation should be cited as a reason for a pay award? Of course it should. In fact it’s equal pay for equal value work. It doesn’t have to be the same work. When an employee joins is of little consequence when the difference is so large. The Op should ask for job evaluation and for the employer to demonstrate where there are materiel differences in the Job to permit such a deviance in salary. Experience can account for some difference but not 33%. So I would ask why the salaries are so different. And request a pay rise . Of course the colleague might be on a protected salary or some other explanation for their higher salary. However there should be an explanation snd it’s ok to ask.

Did I say that? No, I didn't. But there is currently absolutely no evidence that sex discrimination is at the root of the pay difference, and going in claiming that it is without any evidence is certainly not going to endear anyone. And actually the law is not equal pay for work of equal value - it is far more complicated than that and pay differences based on anything OTHER than sex, race, age (or any category covered by discrimination laws) are lawful. The OP says that the colleague may have two years more experience than them - that is one very lawful reason for a pay differential. And many, many employers do not have job evaluation schemes at all, so asking for something that may not even exist?

The OP is, of course, free to go in to her manager and demand equal pay for work of equal value and cite the fact that someone on an internet forum told them they should be paid the same. I'm sure that will work out really well for them. But it is certainly A strategy. Simply not the one that I would suggest will result in a positive outcome.

BTW, you are assuming, perhaps accurately, but it isn't in evidence, that the poster is female, because otherwise sex discrimination has nothing to do with it at all. And even if that is the case, sex discrimination is not at the root of all pay differentials, as I said above. So it might be better to find out why the differential exists rather than your "all guns blazing" approach - there are many lawful and good reasons for differentials. Finding out if one exists would be a good first step, and may provide a better route to a possible pay increase than starting a fight without any actual evidence or grounds.

Thank you both for your advice. You are right to assume I’m female and I do wonder how big a role that plays in the difference. I’m not going to go into a pay meeting claiming discrimination, but I am going to ask for the difference to be explained. It’s a no lose situation for me but it’s a good idea to look for another company and see if they’ll match the salary.

Any employer must be able to justify pay differentials. Yes, it could be more experience but it’s a big difference for that. It’s pretty well established in larger organisations that equal pay for equal value is upheld. I’m not suggesting anyone goes in all guns blazing but the question should be asked about equality and a justification should be forthcoming for high/lower pay. Of course there might be one but the idea that someone is paid substantially more because they are a better negotiator is flawed on many counts. An employer must evaluate the worth of jobs. They can pay within a reasonable range to allow for qualifications and experience but no one would expect to see a huge difference for the same job. It’s like saying a newly qualified teacher earns 2/3 of one with 2 years experience. That’s clearly unacceptable.

This is what ACAS has to say on the topic.

But you are making all sorts of assumptions. The OP has already said that the other person has a couple of more years experience than them - you don't even know what the job is, so you cannot assume what that may be worth. They were recruited at a different time - the recruitment market at the various periods may have dictated different offers. And an employer DOES NOT have to justify differentials unless there is an employment tribunal claim - and at that stage it is a little late to discover that you are wrong and that you have just blown all your credibility on a claim you cannot evidence. The fact is that the employer needs explain nothing to the OP. If the OP doesn't like that they can go to a tribunal and claim sex discrimination. By that time the relationship has broken down so much that they have very little chance of continued employment, and tribunals never pay out what people think, assuming they even win. And given that the majority of cases, after months and months of waiting for a hearing, actually lose, the odds aren't great.

So the fact is that the OP needs a lot more than being annoyed someone else is getting more pay. They need to be able to show reasonable grounds that the sole reason for that differential is sex discrimination. Equal pay for work of equal value is beyond a simplistic view of how the legislation works. And I repeat - no employer is required by law or good practice to have a job evaluation scheme. If it is being claimed that they must, please link to the legislation that says that.

Just to provide a little more background; we both have exactly the same roll with the same T&Cs. I would not dream of taking it as far as tribunal but ultimately I do believe at least part of the reason is down to gender and that is simply unacceptable. No other form of discrimination would be allowed so why should this be? My coworker is obviously a far better negotiator but is giving me some tips so 🤞 I’ll get something.

And you may be absolutely correct. But you need to have some evidence of that. And in the end if the employer disagrees them a tribunal is your only route. There really are explanations that can account for pay differentials, and you have mentioned some of them - having more experience, being employed at a different time, or being a better negotiator. Coming from a higher paid previous employment can also be a factor (especially if you are also a better negotiator).

And I am afraid I have to burst your bubble on no other form of discrimination being allowed - lots of forms of discrimination are allowed, and many are entirely legal. Put this scenario another way - what if you were both male, or both female? Both the same race, age group, etc etc. That would not be uncommon and there could still be a pay differential. It happens a lot. Would that be unlawful discrimination? No it wouldn't. Technically, I am allowed to pay someone more because I like their jacket! Which is why you may be right that it is down to your respective sexes, but you do need a little more than a hunch or a belief.

Depending on the role, 33% may be to acknowledge his two years additional experience, transferable skills and to retain him. If this was why, tgat is not sexual discrimination. His value to the firm may well just have been higher than your potential value was at that time.

You accepted the role with the associated terms, conditions and salary.

Makes do tend to negotiate more effectively. But that alone does not indicate sexual discrimination.