Job being advertised for more than I'm on

[feelingshortchanged]

Looking for some clarity and would appreciate your thoughts.

Colleagues falling like flies in the team I'm in due to workload, stress from managers, poor work-life balance, etc. We're now barely operating because there aren't the people to do the job.

A job has gone up- exactly what I do- but at a much higher pay grade. I'm annoyed because when I was employed- just under 2 years ago- I was told it was the maximum they'd offer. I've raised this with the manager and am yet to hear back from him/HR. What are my options short of leaving or applying for this job at the higher salary grade level? Would the employer need to bump me up or keep me at the grade I'm in? How can I negotiate being bumped up? For context, we're all females with a male manager who scoffs at us struggling with our workload because we should "just get on with it".

Apply for the new role - why wouldn't you ?

Because she shouldn't have to apply for a job identical to her own in order to get paid fairly for it.

If she's already doing it then she deserves remunerating at the same rate as the incoming person. They'd struggle to justify two colleagues bringing the same to the team on vastly different salaries.

You don't have any legal grounds to be paid the same as another person unless the basis for the pay differential is disrimination on a protected characteristic. This isn't the case (no matter who they now employ) because the job now has been assessed without a postholder as at a higher grade. Sometimes salaries go up or down just because that is what they are worth to the employer at a specific moment in time.

If you employer has a formal job evaluation scheme and the jobs are exactly the same, you may be able to apply for an evaluation.

Beyond that it is apply for the job (although I can't see why they would appoint someone they already employ for the same job on less money!) or get a better employer.

If she's already doing it then she deserves remunerating at the same rate as the incoming person. They'd struggle to justify two colleagues bringing the same to the team on vastly different salaries.

What people deserve has no relevance in law. And short of a legal argument, which there isn't, the employer doesn't have to justify anyhting to anyone. It isn't fair, but it is legal.

Op just out of interest - have you seen it on an external website (Ie Reed, a recruitment company etc) or is on on your own organisation's website? I work in recruitment and this can have an impact. I can explain the potential reasons for this if it's external but not if it's internal.

I'm not the OP but would you mind explaining this anyway? I've been in a similar situation in the past and often wondered about it.

You will just get told it's the market ie if they tried to recruit now on what they got you for they wouldn't get anyone so they need to go higher.

It's just like I suppose if you buy something now, you can't get it at a reduced price because the exact thing that does the same thing was £200 less two years ago.

There will be loads of frankly eye watering salary discrepancies I bet at your company, just that this one is right in your face.

Way to solve it is to leave, so you are the one who is new getting the higher salary and pissing off colleagues who are doing the same job on less.

@traytablestowed

It can be for a number of reasons. Some more legitimate than others.

1. When we advertise jobs on one of the websites (ie Reed, indeed) they often only give you a banding box to tick (Ie 20-30k 50-60k and so on - but no free field to give the exact salary. Often recruiters might tick the (for example) 40-50 box if the job is paying a max of say 42. The 30-40 box isn't exactly accurate but then neither is the higher one so you have to work with what you have got.

Naturally job seekers will want a higher salary rather than a lower one so it makes more sense for the higher option to be chosen.

2. In the industry that I specialise in, there are often performance bonuses - or sometimes guaranteed cash allowances on top of the basic salary but not all companies pay them - so some recruiters tick the box (and therefore advertise the role) as the basic plus bonus / cash allowance amount. Some include things like the pension in there but that's not accurate and shouldn't be included IMO.

3. If the hiring manager has said 'we are looking to pay 35 to 40 but for an outstanding candidate we might be able to push to 42 - a recruiter rightly or wrongly) will often tick the 40 to 50 box as 42 has been mentioned- even though realistically it's more likely to be the lower bracket

4. (wrongly ) some will just blatantly inflate the advertised salary to attract candidates seeking a higher salary then try and get their expectations down.

It's also worth bearing in mind that a lot of larger and public sector organisations have official salary bandings so the jobs may advertise the bandings (this can apply to intranets and external sites).

But in reality - the upper end of the bracket is actually never paid so it's wholly inaccurate (this happened last week with an organisation) OR if the odd person internally is on that salary then they are the very most senior person In that team and probably about to be promoted. That's not the norm by any stretch but the figures are skewed just by one person being on that much.

It's on external page.

How much of a wage difference is it?

Thanks @lemonsaretheonlyfruit this is so insightful!!! I feel like a lot of aggrieved employees could be helped just by having this explained to them.

OP, sorry for jumping on your thread! When something similar happened to me I started looking for another job immediately and left the business a few months later. Honestly I haven't looked back. Your job sounds like a nightmare, as well as being underpaid, so you should definitely consider leaving if you can! If not, I'd be sooo tempted to apply for the job at the higher pay rate, but I'm not sure if that's good advice...

Definitely sounds like you should be looking for another job.