Hi  William

It sounds like a big difference but jobs and pay can perhaps be seen as a bit of a free market where  the price of labour is not at all usefully explicable in terms of fairness or other commonsense or rational reasons, but just that which sellers are willing to sell at and buyers willing to pay - for a whole host of possible reasons and influencing factors.

Regarding possible discrimination because the higher paid person happens to be female and not male, in itself this doesn't necessarily mean a thing - you'd need convincing evidence that you'd been treated detrimentally compared

with her because she is female and you aren't.

Rather than harbour feelings of resentment etc though, it might help if you could let those responsible for determining these pay rates know that you believe there is a very big disparity and is this correct and if it is, why did they feel it necessary to operate like that and is there anything you or they can do about it and the aggrieved feelings that it's causing you to have.

In reply to David:

Thanks David.

I think the reasons they will give for the disparity are that it is difficult to find someone experienced who can hit the ground running, for such a short period of time - so offering more money and flexible working (the 4 day a week option) was to secure that type of person.

Which I do understand, however I feel no matter how well someone can hit the ground running, they are not going to have built up rapport with managers like I have, they won't know the company like I do and they won't be here long enough to really achieve those things. If it was say, 10 or 15% extra that would be one thing, but it's a massive disparity.

My boss has said she plans to get the cover person involved in some projects and delegate some of her work (taking advantage of their extra experience perhaps) but I feel this happens anyway - I have various projects and reports on the go at the moment for her to take to the board. So I am struggling to see what the difference will be really. I feel if another department submitted to us this level of disparity for a cover role, we would be questioning it!

Hi William

Interesting issue and one that can easily cause feelings of resentment. Surely there is an equal pay issue here under the Equal pay Act? If the temporary person is simply covering your role while you are away and as you have referenced, will not have the luxury of time to fully integrate, then there is a strong argument that they will not be able to do all that you do so should not be paid a higher salary. The fact that the cover is female immediately sends the message that there could be an undertone of discrimination here. As David as referenced it would be worth raising this with your line manager and discussing that you feel there is an equal pay issue here as if you were not going on SPL, then you would continue to earn your lower salary...

Chris

In reply to William:

Hi William,

Responding to your last paragraph, is there any reason why you cannot question this, particularly if it is part of your role?  

Also, are your own views something you could discuss in a one to one session with your manager?  It will not be good for you to be taking leave with these queries hanging over you.

In reply to admin:

But the statutory right to equal pay just relates to inequalities on account of gender (or other 'protected characteristics') Other than that constraint, employers can (and do) operate grossly unequal levels of pay as between individuals and groupings of employees.

In reply to admin:

Dear William,

I guess my answer is going to be slightly different, although it's hoped you will consider the holistic situation before you decide on a measured first response.

As HR professionals we regularly advocate the provision of flexible working practices within the workplace, and rightly so. This can however create a situation for the employer where a short term fix is needed, potentially in a significant and impacting role.

The successful induction of any new employee can be a tricky business, and productivity during this period may not be at optimum levels. This is likely to be the case with the individual covering your role, who will no doubt spend some of their time navigating the culture and environment - before actually getting on with the day to day. Equally when you return to the workplace they will leave, potentially with no immediate future employment. This has hopefully been factored into their thinking when negotiating their remuneration package.

Without question my emotional response to this situation would be the same as yours, this at face value appears to be unfair. However with my limbic system calmed I'd approach this in a methodical and structured manner. Do you feel the package you receive is reflective of the contribution you make? Are you employers fair and do they make you feel valued and appreciated?? And if the outcome is that you decide to leave - how easily could you find another suitable position??

However you decide to proceed, it may be worth taking 24 hours before you progress, it won't change the facts, but it may greatly influence the outcome.

Best of Luck, Lynn.

In reply to William:

Hi William, I do understand your concerns, but I do agree with David that there could be many reasons why they are paying so much more for someone covering a role for 3 months. The 'pool' of people they can choose from is so much smaller than recruiting for a permanent position, or even a longer term temporary role. You really only have professional interims (who will charge more because they factor in holiday, etc etc).

it is also quite possible that they may have had to look further afield and the individual may have factored travel costs into the package they would accept. I know a few people who are professional interims and they are very much in demand at the moment.

It could also depend on how much notice the organisation had - if it was 6 months or more, then they should have had sufficient time to find someone. If it was only a month or two, they may have only had the option to pay the salary they are paying or leave the post uncovered.

I'm assuming that they are going to be paid through payroll and not on a day rate/through an agency? if it is a day rate or through an agency, the pension/holiday/agency costs are all factored into the amount being paid so it can seem as though the person is being paid much more than they actually are in comparison.

I don't really see it as an equal pay case as arguably a permanent role isn't comparable to a 3 month role which has no prospect of continuation.

I do wonder if there is an underlying concern or dissatisfaction with your salary and/or concern about being away and having such a major (but amazing) change in your life that is making you feel uneasy?

Salary is determined by a number of factors, one of which is market forces. People who stay in roles or with companies generally get paid less because, whilst the market might dictate a salary of £X, it's not palatable to give individuals a huge pay uplift which against a pay review norm of 1% or 2% which is not untypical these days. My experience is there are occasional windows of opportunity to do something around market parity but Finance Directors are generally fairly resistant (except when it comes to their own people!)

I do have personal experience of the scenario you describe but I was that interim. I was called by a headhunter about a short term maternity cover role with an immediate start - the original interim had departed quickly for health reasons and they were pretty desperate to find someone to pick up the pieces. I was probably overqualified for the role but was able to do more than the role demanded because of my experience. I was also able to walk in and be effective from day one. If you're there for three months, you don't have the luxury of a bedding in period; you've really got to hit the ground running.

I think that you also have to bear in mind that an interim doesn't have security of tenure. In the year leading up to that assignment, I'd worked for probably six months of the year. Depending on the employment model, you may also find that you don't qualify for paid holiday or sick pay, nor will you qualify for any pension contribution, bonus or any other goodies that come with long term employment. I also have to pay for my own CIPD subs and any training to keep my skills up to speed.

Like others in this thread, I don't believe that it's a discrimination issue but it does give you an opportunity to have a discussion about salary. My only warning is that having someone else perform your role might shine a spotlight on your true worth, but it also might highlight some development needs so you need to be prepared and open to that.

In reply to Dave:

Thanks for all the responses, very helpful and reassuring! Yes, my cover will be through the payroll and accrue holiday etc. as normal. I would of course like to raise the issue with my boss but I thought it might be better to wait until I return from my SPL instead of bringing it up right before I am departing? That would also give me a chance to find out what exactly my cover does do during the time and if it is comparable or she does get involved in stuff I feel is beyond my remit. What would you all advise on this score?

The other thing is I wouldn't even be asking for a salary at the same level - but maybe a few more thousand to bring it somewhere closer would be very motivating and make me feel valued. I do think something like this can threaten the psychological contract but I'm trying not to let it, and I obviously have other priorities coming up any day now anyway!

Also I did actually get a 5% increase last year but that was on the basis of my role expanding. I feel that makes it difficult to raise again so soon, even though this new 'evidence' has come to light.

In my opinion the role I do is that of an HR Operations Manager, not an Advisor, and that is another reason it bothers me (they didn't even advertise for an Advisor but an HRBP, which I think shows they know the role is more senior than I get credit for). However with the salary raise last year there was a flat out refusal to change the job title (still don't really understand why!) I feel therefore it is more difficult to bring it up again now, as we've not had these discussions that long ago. I don't want to be seen as being too pushy or behaving like a spoilt brat!

Good Luck William, and I sincerely hope you enjoy your time away.

Stay positive and think constructively about how and when you raise the issues you have identified.

Best wishes, Lynn