SPL cover paid 50% more than me - is this fair?

Hi All

I wanted to canvas opinion on this. I'm taking 3 months shared parental leave soon. I'm an HR advisor and the person recruited to cover my role will be paid around 20% more, but only work 4 days a week - making the FTE around 50% more than I get. I understand you have to pay more sometimes to get someone for short term contracts like 3 months, and someone experienced who can come in and get on with it - but this seems an awful lot more and I feel a bit disheartened by it. Is it grounds for me to ask for a pay review for my role once I return? Also as it is a lady doing it, and it is surely a comparable role (well, the same role!) is there an issue of discrimination here? Not that I want to open that can of worms but if its staring us in the face I guess its worth being aware of.

Any comments from others who have seen similar situations or what you think, would be great. Thanks.

Parents
  • 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.

  • 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,

    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.

  • 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.
Reply Children
No Data