London Allowance: is a fixed amount for everyone fair?

[LewishamMumNow]

I work in a third sector organisation with offices in about 10 places around the country. I'd guess around 40% of staff are in the London office. They pay a London Allowance of c£6,200 to everyone. So, for someone starting off at the absolute bottom band of admin it's about 40% of their salary. For some mid-ranking like me (I'm on c60k), it's worth c10%. For more senior people it's worth less than 5%. Salaries don't go higher than c£120k, although the number of people on more than 80-90k is fewer than a dozen.
I think this is unfair. It means starting salaries at the bottom range are way higher in London that the regions (proportionately), and that as you go up the ranks you stop receiving any real allowance at all, despite all the extra expenses of London. I've raised this at work, but get met with blank stares and evil looks with everyone responding: "but the extra costs of London are the same for everyone". I just think this is nonsense, and totally unfair on people like me (plus those at the lower ends outside the capital).
What do other people think? How does your organisation do it? I think the London weighting should be a percentage of salary - somewhere between 15% and 20% would seem about right.

You obviously feel you should have a better standard of living for someone with your qualifications and experience. But that's unfortunately one of the drawbacks of living in expensive areas. Like those threads where people talk of struggling to get by on 200k in London. Yes, some London salaries are much higher than elsewhere, but certainly not all. London weighting was always a flat rate. Move elsewhere or look for a better paid job I think .

If she feels underpaid, it’s nothing to do with the fairness or otherwise of the London living allowance.
Her assertion that she’s due an enhanced lifestyle by virtue of her qualifications is utter balls as well.

@NowYouSee "...in London commanding higher salaries than in the regions. Driven by supply and demand. And I think that is really your issue - an in house legal job that is competitive at 60k in Bristol may not be competitive comp at a total of 66k in London."
But my organisation pays X job Y amount wherever it is, and the London weighting to those in London. I am not suggesting that I should be paid more in principle for doing my job in London, as opposed to Bristol, but I do think the London weighting should make the pay "equivalent" in terms of what kind of life your job buys you. And that doesn't work if the London weighting is not proportionate in some way to your salary.

Yiur problem is that your salary is too low, not that the London weighting is not high enough. If you are not happy with what you are being paid renegotiate your salary, don’t begrudge people on a lower salary getting the same “bonus” as you (I think this is how you are seeing it).

Hey everyone. I worked fucking hard (from a modest background and certainly no private school, since you asked) to obtain high professional qualifications. I have a lot of experience doing this work too. I think the pay differential in terms of what it buys you in London, as opposed to elsewhere - and there are offices in many major cities - is unfair. The fixed nature of the London weighting is the reason for this.

Blimey, I'm not surprised you're getting blanked if what you're asking for is more £ for higher earners. NHS London weighting (HCA) is a percentage of salary rather than a blanket sum, but there is a minimum level for all, and a capped upper amount, so those on lower salaries obviously benefit more. I think most people would find it hard to argue against that.

@Kurokurosuke Nope because that would mean that those outside London got less in principle - and I'm not in favour of that at all.
And FWIW my organisation massively struggles to recruit for my role (but not for those towards the junior end). Actually I can't leave without having to pay back lots of mat pay. Anyway, my point was a question about fairness.

But that makes no sense OP!

What if you're a high earner but have a huge mortgage and 6 kids? Then you're going to need much more money than a middle earner who is mortgage and child free.

Your salary doesn't buy you a standard of living it pays you a salary.

You might be worth more money but you're not worth a higher living allowance than a lower paid colleague.

A percentage load wouldn't be a crazy way to do it, but a flat load makes a different sort of sense. As a third sector entity your employer has obviously made a decision about what sort of salary structure they want to have, and has gone flatter. If you think you're worth more than they're paying you then your options are clear.

uk.linkedin.com/jobs/job-search-jobs

@strangeandfamiliar That's something I like. Don't have an issue in principle with minimums and maximums, although obs would depend on the details.

I can see your reasoning - the people with the most money should get more than the mere minions - but it would be a wholly regressive system that way.

Somebody on significantly more money isn't as negatively impacted as somebody (and a higher percentage of women, disabled people, those with caring responsibilities - indirect discrimination categories, basically) on a lower salary.

It's also not a great example of reading the room or fostering employee relations to be saying that you want them to get less than you because you're more important and higher paid already. Or to imply that they don't work hard but you do.

You’re not obliged to work in London.
£60k is a low salary, this is your actual issue.
It’s low for London living, and low for the law profession. Why not move on?

@singularcessation Yes and no. Your salary buys you a sort of lifestyle. And 60k goes further in Bristol, Newcastle etc, than £66k in London. That's the point I'm making.

I think your issue is that you are a lawyer working for a third sector organisation in London. Unfortunately your lifestyle is never going to be comparable to a private sector lawyer. As you say yourself they are struggling to recruit.

It is an unfortunate fact of life that working in the third sector as a professional is never going to be as financially rewarding as in the private sector. Yes you have worked hard to get your qualifications but the reality is that you will never be on a big salary in your chosen field.

Could you move to another city and work for the same organisation?

*It's also not a great example of reading the room or fostering employee relations to be saying that you want them to get less than you because you're more important and higher paid already. Or to imply that they don't work hard but you do." TBF, I make the point by raising the fact that it's unfair on those at the lower end outside of London. And I do work harder - most people literally do 9-5, never work in the hols. I simply can't do either, because of both the workload and my professional responsibilities.

Then take your 60k job and move to Bristol? I know you're trained to argue but good lord.

@feellikeanalien But those doing the same job as me and in principle getting the same salary (minus London allowance) have effectively higher pay than I do. That's my issue. I'm not asking to work in the private sector. My colleagues doing the same role outside of London are not in the private sector, but are able to afford a much better lifestyle. That's what I think is unfair - I don't want private schools, cruises, even a car (never bought any of that).

I make the point by raising the fact that it's unfair on those at the lower end outside of London

It's not though. Those people outside London don't have the extra expenses that the weighting is designed to cover. Whether the actual amount of the weighting is enough to cover the expenses is another matter. You've not convinced anyone here that the payment should be anything other than a flat rate.

I do think the London weighting should make the pay "equivalent" in terms of what kind of life your job buys you

So your peers in Bristol can afford 3 bed semis and you think the LW should enable you too to afford the same? Superficially you have a point, but spend more than 10 seconds thinking about it - if that was the same your assets would be worth way more than theirs which wouldn't be fair. So consider the LW as recompense for travel and other costs that you have to spend rather than invest in.

I’m not understanding the maths here.
In your first post you said “They pay a London Allowance of c£6,200 to everyone. So, for someone starting off at the absolute bottom band of admin it's about 40% of their salary.”

If £6200 is 40% , then their full salary is £15500 (which is well under minimum wage).
But then you say later that the lowest paid staff earn £22k in Bristol and £28k in London.

…so I’m confused before even starting on the rest of it.

I think you do get to a point in your career when you’re in London that you realise you might actually be financially better off outside of London. But you may stay because you love the city, the culture, the vibrancy, the events etc etc. It’s an amazing place to live in, but yes in some ways you pay for that.

But to me that’s not relevant to London Weighting. That to me is there to cover some of the basic higher expenses of London that hit those at lower wages harder. I think it’s fair that those on lower wages get a bit more help proportionally and would never want that to change.

I wouldn't normally say this kind of thing, because it would make me sound like a pompous up-myself lawyer, but on this occasion I am comfortable that I will be in second place on the thread. I have the same higher professional qualifications and more than 20 years experience doing it, working in London, and get paid more than double what you do.

Your years of experience get you a higher salary which you can use for the higher standard of life you feel you deserve. Your travelcard costs the same though. I too would have a much bigger house if I was working outside London - I don't spend my time moaning about it. For both of us, choices have consequences which is why, rather than moaning, you should take action to deal with it if you don't like your current situation: either by leaving the third sector, by leaving London, or both.

And please don't try to convince us you are making this fuss to stand up for the underpaid juniors in Newcastle. That's not your concern at all so own it. This is about your salary not being enough. That's fine, but woe is me'ing that junior people are paid enough to stand a chance of living in a room in a shared house in zone 3 is not.

Take childcare for example. It costs the same to send a child to nursery full time if you earn £40k as it does on a £140k salary.

London weighting at a flat rate is to cover those type of costs.

Would you rather pay a higher amount for childcare than someone on a lower wage to make it proportional?

We live in a capitalist society. Salaries are not about fairness but about the minimum they can pay someone to do the job that you can do. For you - overall - this is a good thing. You have skills that attract well above the average wage.

You have 3 options:-

1. Move to Bristol and enjoy the benefits of a fairly similar salary but a cheaper city
2. Move to another company in London that either has a higher salary or a higher London weighting
3. Hope that lots of other people do either (1) or (2) thus convincing the company that their supply and demand is not working.

I actually got my biggest ever pay rise whilst on maternity leave via (3). New legislation was coming in making my profession suddenly very sought after. Lots of people left as offered more money, the company found they couldn’t recruit and so everyone’s salary got bumped up by between 20% and 30%. I love the people who left. 😉

Are you really a lawyer? Your argument is not cogentl