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.

They're not getting sixty grand for it though - they're getting thirty if they're lucky with zero progression or widespread employability both within and outside the sector.

London Weighting isn’t there to recognise your worth, that’s what your salary is supposed to reflect.

I understand that ILW is to cover the cost of a train fare. If you live on the M25 periphery it's like 3.5k for a season ticket.

Yes 60k in Bristol goes further than 66k in London. But that’s the pay banding they use and they don’t want to change it even if hard to recruit in London.

So your options are suck it up, move to Bristol where said money goes further, or use the competitive London in house legal to move jobs to a market salary perhaps for after after mat leave is our back. In all honesty, talk of “fairness” won’t get you anywhere.

I think your anger should be more directed at the housing situation and the fact the the super rich have bought up all the assets to be honest.

That is the real reason why a lot of money seems to be going much less further and why its noq virtually impossible to come from nothing and become rich in a lifetime without inherited wealth.

There is no more money to circulate because the rich bought up all the assets.

Eh?

I think your salary is too low for the job. I work fully remote as an in-house lawyer outside London and my salary is £95k plus up to 10% bonus. I’m currently applying for in-house positions in the £110-120k region, many of these are still fully remote. I know the third sector is not particulary well paid, but I’m sure you could get a considerable salary increase if you are prepared to move to a different sector.

Your problem is the crap salary you're on - you need more

Not begrudging the allowance as frankly anyone on 22 really needs that 6 k - they literally can't afford to rent a room on that

Then ask for a transfer to one of the other offices.

What? That makes zero sense. If £28k goes further then so does £66k.

The lower paid staff absolutely need that London weighting, more so than higher paid staff.

Agree with others that it's your salary you should be focusing on, not the London weighting. I'm a PA and earn what you are earning.

I love rurally no public transport I have to pay for so much fuel and car costs.

No one pays me extra

For a lawyer your arguments are very illogical. Surely you must realise salaries in general are not based on 'fairness' either within an organisation or more broadly - otherwise celebrities, bankers and lawyers wouldn't be paid massively more than nurses and teachers for example. If you think you are underpaid for your role based on comparable roles in London, get another job. If you can't, or won't because of the other benefits offered by your current role (WFH, flexibility, enjoyment of the type of work - whatever it is) or you cant find a higher paying role then you have your answer.

OP it feels like you are underpaid. The market will determine your salary to an extent and it is because they are struggling to recruit - other firms are likely to be paying more. You are stuck due to having to pay back your maternity - that cash doesn't come free to the business but a new company might offer to absorb that debt as part of their recruitment.
Anyone trying to recruit someone into an admin post at £22k a year in London - might as well whistle in the wind - they won't get anyone capable and if they do they won't stay. You are only staying because you feel stuck - the change will come.

Move to Bristol then, or a different company. Fwiw I think that lower earners should get a higher bump for London weighting. It’s much harder to live in London in £30k than £60k.

Your housing is probably a lot cheaper though than if you were in a city?

I work for an international company with offices all over the UK. A couple of years ago they scrapped all of the territorial allowances and instead just offer salaries inline with the industry median.

you seem a little out of touch with prices in the rest of the UK Bristol is also an expensive place to live maybe your company should be giving them an allowance too to make things fairer.

It’s a flat rate in the NHS too (£2300 for doctors, which honestly after 45% tax is barely worth having). I think that is fairly standard in the public sector.

I don’t think any London weighting is ever going to give you the same lifestyle in London as somebody living in eg Northumberland. That’s the trade off for living in London unfortunately, you have far less disposable income because housing and commuting costs are so much higher.

A London zone 1-4 travel card is £235 per month. Try paying that on minimum wage as a healthcare assistant.

I think that the lower earners need the London weighting more as they are still paying the same commuting costs as someone on say 60k.

I agree that 60k in Bristol will go further than 66k in London so it’s a no brainier to move to Bristol when you get to that level of salary. I think that you’re underpaid for 20 years experience plus qualifications which is the basis of your firm’s recruitment issues in London but I think that the 6k bump for the people on low salaries is definitely fair considering the cost of housing and commuting.

Flat rate is much fairer, those on a lower salary tend not to afford to live centrally and this increases transport costs.

It's recruiting low paid workers that London is going to struggle with if it stays so expensive to live in.

You are blaming people poorer than you for your lack of money. It doesn't read as if you want more money but instead you want the boost from being made to feel "better" than those below you in salary terms. So you are clutching at straws, but you are actually wrong.

It's weird you are comparing to Bristol. Which is actually pretty similar price wise to otter London. Why not relocate to somewhere like Grimsby or Scunthorpe where you will be very comfortable on £60k if the job is flat rated. Your argument lacks substance.

No it’s not unfair. Rent has a huge difference between London and everywhere else.

You are not happy with what you get. Best to move to law firm can offer you that, or get your company to promote you. Rather than talking nonsense.

How about you ask your employer if you can do the job remotely? Then you can ditch the £6K and enjoy a higher standard of living in the regions.

I am surprised that a charity pays that amount of London weighting...

Do donors realise where their money goes?

I have worked in the third sector for quite a while and I am getting more and more cynical about and disappointed by it every day...

Your reasoning is flawed by the way.