Can employer pay a higher rate to a new employee for the same job?

D

deco87

Registered User
Messages
423
I work for a transport company.
I get paid a month salary . No contract.
It runs along the school calendar.

I see my employer advertising same job as I have , but it's advertised at 140 euro a month more than I am paid.

Is there any legislation, that says employers are obliged to pay same rates for sane employment.?


If I was a female, I'm sure the discrimination card would come into play thks
 
I presume this is for driving school buses and during the holidays you work elsewhere. I also presume they see you as an employee and not as a contractor?

If you are an employee, then you should have a contract of employment, that is the law.

It is not uncommon in a lot of industries for newbies to start at a higher salary then those who have been there a while.
 
A friend who recently changed career to work as a bus driver tells me that a big drawback is the fact that newcomers fresh in the door are expected to have to work unattractive rosters for the first few years as established staff quite reasonably have first dibs on rosters that minimise weekend or antisocial hours work.

That seems to me to be a reasonable justification for a pay premium.
 
deco87 said:
Is there any legislation, that says employers are obliged to pay same rates for sane employment.?
Click to expand...

Other than the anti-discrimination employment, no.

The Employment Equality Acts and Equal Status Acts prohibit discrimination on specific grounds. Generally, discrimination occurs where one person is treated less favourably than another person in a comparable situation, because they differ under any of the following grounds: Age, Civil Status, Disability, Family Status, Gender, Housing Assistance Payment, Membership of the Traveller Community, Race, Religion, Sexual Orientation.

Nor should there be any such legislation. If and employer wants to reward a better performer with higher pay than a worse performer, they should be entitled to do so.

Brendan
 
Would the section about 'Like Work' in the Employment Equality Act be relevant here?

Discrimination for the purposes of this Act.

Like work.

7.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), for the purposes of this Act, in relation to the work which one person is employed to do, another person shall be regarded as employed to do like work if—

(a) both perform the same work under the same or similar conditions, or each is interchangeable with the other in relation to the work,

(b) the work performed by one is of a similar nature to that performed by the other and any differences between the work performed or the conditions under which it is performed by each either are of small importance in relation to the work as a whole or occur with such irregularity as not to be significant to the work as a whole, or

(c) the work performed by one is equal in value to the work performed by the other, having regard to such matters as skill, physical or mental requirements, responsibility and working conditions.

(2) In relation to the work which an agency worker is employed to do, no person except another agency worker may be regarded under subsection (1) as employed to do like work (and, accordingly, in relation to the work which a non-agency worker is employed to do, an agency worker may not be regarded as employed to do like work).

(3) In any case where—

(a) the remuneration received by one person (“the primary worker”) is less than the remuneration received by another (“the comparator”), and

(b) the work performed by the primary worker is greater in value than the work performed by the comparator, having regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1)(c),

then, for the purposes of subsection (1)(c), the work performed by the primary worker shall be regarded as equal in value to the work performed by the comparator.
 
The market moves, sometimes the pay rates to attract new staff need to be higher.

Existing staff may leave as a result of course and then there are more vacancies to fill and then the rates need to creep up again…or the existing staff threaten to leave and they get a pay rise…
 
Annieindublin said:
The market moves, sometimes the pay rates to attract new staff need to be higher.

Existing staff may leave as a result of course and then there are more vacancies to fill and then the rates need to creep up again…or the existing staff threaten to leave and they get a pay rise…
Click to expand...

If any new employee can be paid more for equal work, do existing staff have a case for discrimination if the new employee has one of the protected grounds? Say the new person is younger, or single with no childcare responsibilities, or is a different religion? How does that work? Surely, the rate for the job is the rate.
 
bipped said:
If any new employee can be paid more for equal work, do existing staff have a case for discrimination if the new employee has one of the protected grounds? Say the new person is younger, or single with no childcare responsibilities, or is a different religion? How does that work? Surely, the rate for the job is the rate.
Click to expand...

That is not how it works.

You would have to show that you are being discriminated against on one of those grounds.

Of course, the new employee is going to be different. They will be older or younger, unless they were born on the same day as you. But you can't claim that they are getting a better salary accordingly.

It's absolutely normal and legal and good business for companies to pay better staff more.
 
Sue Ellen said:
But in this case its a new employee so there's no way of knowing if they are a better performer or not.
Click to expand...

True. But they could look at the experience. And it's also possible that the existing employee is a poor performer so they would expect a new employee to be better.

I have said it to employers that it is very difficult to fire someone for poor performance but there is no need to give them pay increases. Let them move of their own accord. It often works.

Brendan
 
Is there ever really a rate for a job?

does the market not play a role?

If you see an advert for your exact job at better money then ask where your pay rise is. If there’s a need for more staff they won’t want you to leave so it’s a good negotiation space I think.

And if you’ve been years in a job and new person seems to have additional relevant qualifications or skills then that might emerge is reason for the pay difference. My company hired a new person recently, I don’t know his rate, I suspect it was originally less than mine but he’s busy doing additional relevant qualifications and works mad hours for no extra pay so if he’s not on more money than me he will be shortly. Fair play to him. I don’t have the inclination ATM got a lot of other stuff going on.
 
thedaddyman said:
I presume this is for driving school buses and during the holidays you work elsewhere. I also presume they see you as an employee and not as a contractor?

If you are an employee, then you should have a contract of employment, that is the law.

It is not uncommon in a lot of industries for newbies to start at a higher salary then those who have been there a while.
Click to expand...
Interesting , I will be back in a few weeks , I would say I would not be re employed if they were not happy with me ...they know I am reliable and trustworthy and never take a sick day etc ....however with a new employee they don't know how he will perform but yet offer a higher salary ?! Interesting
 
It is understandable that different roles /experience / responsibilties / qualifications / length of service etc command different pay.

In the OP's post however, their employer has just advertised the same job at a higher rate. The employer doesn't know yet what skills or experience any applicant might have and imo it would be upsetting for a current employee in the exact same job to see that advert.
If the role is not exactly the same, the ad should make that very clear.
If it is exactly the same and the company are not rewarding poor performance of existing workers, then the existing employee would likely be aware of that from reviews and feedback.
Sounds like shoddy HR practice.
 
bipped said:
It is understandable that different roles /experience / responsibilties / qualifications / length of service etc command different pay.

In the OP's post however, their employer has just advertised the same job at a higher rate. The employer doesn't know yet what skills or experience any applicant might have and imo it would be upsetting for a current employee in the exact same job to see that advert.
If the role is not exactly the same, the ad should make that very clear.
If it is exactly the same and the company are not rewarding poor performance of existing workers, then the existing employee would likely be aware of that from reviews and feedback.
Sounds like shoddy HR practice.
Click to expand...
I'm at a loss to conceive how a job ad can refer to existing, separate roles in the employer organisation. If you have 10 toolmakers each earning €50K each and you need to offer €60k to attract an 11th toolmaker, I don't see that as sufficient reason to grant all 10 incumbents a €10k pay rise.
 
jpd said:
No, but I imagine they would start soon be looking elsewhere for a better pay
Click to expand...
Why don't they?

It's not the first time the OP has been on here complaining about this particular job, and it seems to be a sellers market for bus drivers at the moment.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top