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

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.

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.

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?

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?