US companies and salaries

[Muffinbuttered]

About 18 months ago, my DH was hired into a smallish European company. Soon after, it acquired by a much much bigger and richer US company, so now pretty much everything runs out of the US - HR, payroll etc - all fine.

When DH took the job the salary was on the side low for his level of experience in his sector. However, it seemed like an exciting opportunity in a start-up type business and DH was happy with this.

However, when the company was acquired the European salaries have in no way changed since (apart from the founders of the company who of course made individual millions from the sale!) So salaries are not reflective of the fact they are now backed by this huge company and what's more, DH's US colleagues are paid much, much more than their European equivalents. I'm talking people being paid close to double over there (yes, I'm taking into account exchange rates).

Now, I KNOW US companies pay higher salaries to employees in the US because of healthcare needs etc etc, but this seems extreme and I can't help but think DH is being screwed over a bit here, because even if the salaries are going to be higher over there, my understanding is that US companies tend to pay their employees generously wherever they are based - which certainly isn't the case here.

DH thinks I'm wrong and this is just how it is. If anyone has any experience or thoughts I would love to hear them!

My point/question is that surely it is reasonable to expect that if one works for a company that is small, with limited budgets that can only afford to pay up to a certain level (and the salary was known to be low for that particular location for the time) - and THEN that changes so one is now working for a large company with far more extensive budgets - it’s not unreasonable to expect that a salary should be brought in line with the market now.

It's a reasonable assumption that there are bigger salary budgets, but it's not a reasonable assumption that the company will do anything about it unless your DH pushes for it (or he is so uniquely skilled that they fear losing him, but that doesn't sound like the case).

If not, they'll likely be happy to keep the costs low and pay him what he was on at acquisition. It is in their interest to keep acquisition costs low and hopefully get the acquisition turning a profit sooner. As PPs and I have said, your DH has to put together a case for this and actually ask.

@whatt2do - thanks. He is uniquely skilled so the company wouldn't want to lose him - however, he is pretty terrible at discussing money and hates appearing 'pushy' 🙄

I know in business it's a case of 'you don't ask you don't get', and no company would ever just elect to pay an employee more because they could...but ultimately, I don't feel the company have been entirely straightforward on this, and it concerns me a little.

I get that your dh took the job because he thought it was interesting- has that changed? Was he really expecting a good-will pay out on sale to cover his below average salary, without share options, that was maybe a bit too trusting. If your dh feels too uncomfortable asking for a rise would he consider moving jobs to a company who pay closer to market rates?
Btw - my interactions with American Companies pay rates in the UK market have been quite the opposite - ruthless, with low pay and benefits, but that was not in tech or law and I’m sure I probably shouldn’t generalise - but the wealth behind s company does not necessarily translate into more equitable pay for its employees - they have shareholders to think about.

I've worked for two American companies. The first one was pre acquisition and we were paid a lot less than our American counterparts, we as a UK team thought were being underpaid, but thought it was fine because after all it was (is) a big name.

Current company: we're paid a lot more than our American counterparts. So I don't think there's any logic to it.