Salary band changes

[Gastons_Revenge]

Hello all, first time posting in this subforum and I just wanted some advice.
Background: I'm a mechanical design engineer in the south east, I have been with my employer for 6 years including a 4 year apprenticeship & they have funded a degree I studied part time.
HR at this business makes questionably ethical decisions regarding remuneration- salary bands are not published & are tightly guarded, my colleagues assisting in recruiting new engineers have actually had to fight just to get eyes-on the pay bandings.
Since finishing my apprenticeship & becoming an engineer proper I have always been paid a wage below the salary band for my role- I had accepted this as I was still completing my degree. The plan with my immediate managers has been to push for a pay review once I have graduated, which is in a months' time.
Through the grapevine I recently found out that the salary bands will change in the next few weeks, under the new bands my current salary will be 20 odd % or £8200 below the minimum for my role.
Would it be sensible for me to ask for the full 20% uplift or am I better off trying to find another role matching the new salary band?

[Mortarboard]

Short answer- if you were "underpaid" while studying, I would expect to be paid when qualified. You don't graduate for another month yet.

However, you're going from "unqualified" to "inexperienced unqualified"

Expect to be at the bottom of the band. The very bottom.

M.

[Zolvaro]

Mortarboard said:

Short answer- if you were "underpaid" while studying, I would expect to be paid when qualified. You don't graduate for another month yet.

However, you're going from "unqualified" to "inexperienced unqualified"

Expect to be at the bottom of the band. The very bottom.

M.

He has got a hell of lot more experience than a recent graduate joining, he should be paid at least as much and probably more than them. That's not the way it tends to work though!!

[Gastons_Revenge]

Mortarboard said:

Short answer- if you were "underpaid" while studying, I would expect to be paid when qualified. You don't graduate for another month yet.

However, you're going from "unqualified" to "inexperienced unqualified"

Expect to be at the bottom of the band. The very bottom.

M.

Being fair, I was qualified under the job description my org has for my role to begin with as they happily take on engineers with HNCs & relevant experience- plus it's a pretty niche industry with a bit of a leaning curve for engineers coming from most other sectors.
I'd be happy to accept the very bottom of the new band anyway as it's already a significant increase over my current salary of £37.5k; I was mainly looking for insights/advice on negotiation as I'm not even in the current salary band so it would be two jumps as it were.

Edited by Gastons_Revenge on Monday 24th June 14:34

[Mortarboard]

Competency is generally made up of three aspects:
-technical ability (able to competently apply knowledge and skills effectively)
-qualifications/training (ability ratified by independent third party following education/training)
-experience

You can't get experience in what you've qualified as, until you're qualified. Yes, apprenticeships give more experience than academic. But it's not "experience in the qualified role, IYSWIM)

As for the salary advice, I'd ne having a straightforward conversation with my boss.
"Hey, now I'm a qualified engineer, what's my development plan, salary progression expected to be, etc."

Your next development should focus on getting you as good experience and exposure as you can

M.

Edited by Mortarboard on Monday 24th June 14:39

[Mr Pointy]

In general you will only achieve a significant pay rise by moving to another company. HR will resist any attempt to level up your salary.

Start brushing up your CV & polish your LinkedIn page.

[Forester1965]

The answer is in how easy/expensive it would be to replace you. The more of either the greater your bargaining power (subject to your own personal performance metrics and whether the company has clawback of you leave early having paid for your education).

Ultimately life is short and being underpaid for your qualifications needs to be sufficiently offset against other considerations, such as the surrounding T&C's, location, career prospects etc. Intangible future promises aren't worth as much as employers want you to believe.

[Tenacious]

HR are usually there for the employer and not the employee.

[Ken_Code]

Zolvaro said:

He has got a hell of lot more experience than a recent graduate joining, he should be paid at least as much and probably more than them.

You can base your employees pay on experience if you think that’s the best way to do it, but it’s really not a very sensible way to decide who gets paid what.

[Zolvaro]

Ken_Code said:

Zolvaro said:

He has got a hell of lot more experience than a recent graduate joining, he should be paid at least as much and probably more than them.

You can base your employees pay on experience if you think that’s the best way to do it, but it’s really not a very sensible way to decide who gets paid what.

He will have the qualifications, real world experience of the job, experience within the organisation. If they pay or are willing to pay a noob graduate more than him, then unless he is useless he should start looking for a new job asap because they don't value him.

[Ken_Code]

Zolvaro said:

He will have the qualifications, real world experience of the job, experience within the organisation. If they pay or are willing to pay a noob graduate more than him, then unless he is useless he should start looking for a new job asap because they don't value him.

It depends how good he is, how well he’s been doing the job, how reliable he is and so on.

A person’s value to a firm is based on much more than level of experience and qualifications.

[Zolvaro]

Ken_Code said:

Zolvaro said:

He will have the qualifications, real world experience of the job, experience within the organisation. If they pay or are willing to pay a noob graduate more than him, then unless he is useless he should start looking for a new job asap because they don't value him.

It depends how good he is, how well he’s been doing the job, how reliable he is and so on.

A person’s value to a firm is based on much more than level of experience and qualifications.

Then he falls in the useless category doesn't he. I bet you could start an argument in a phone box with your own reflection.

[Ken_Code]

Zolvaro said:

Then he falls in the useless category doesn't he. I bet you could start an argument in a phone box with your own reflection.

No, less valuable isn’t the same as useless.

Do you actually employ people or just like pretending to know about things that you don’t?

[Mr Pointy]

Ken_Code said:

Zolvaro said:

Then he falls in the useless category doesn't he. I bet you could start an argument in a phone box with your own reflection.

No, less valuable isn’t the same as useless.

Do you actually employ people or just like pretending to know about things that you don’t?

Why would a noob graduate be worth more that him?

[fat80b]

Mr Pointy said:

In general you will only achieve a significant pay rise by moving to another company. HR will resist any attempt to level up your salary.

Start brushing up your CV & polish your LinkedIn page.

I'm not sure I'd necessarily agree with this. Not all managers / HR bods are out to get you. In my experience, a good company, manager, & HR team will be receptive to one-off adjustments especially if wildly out of band. It's in their best interests to fix it otherwise they'll find themselves having to hire a replacement!

I'd be looking to find the manager (maybe your direct line manager, maybe 1 or 2 levels up) that wants to support you to "fix" it. Probably because they too were in your shoes once upon a time.

In my experience, I've personally had big out of cycle bumps in similar situations, and have done the same as a manager for many many people in my team(s) over the years - Occasionally after being approached by the employee, but most often, after reviewing the salary bands and realising that someone was being underpaid and then making it my job to fix it.

[Zolvaro]

Ken_Code said:

Zolvaro said:

Then he falls in the useless category doesn't he. I bet you could start an argument in a phone box with your own reflection.

No, less valuable isn’t the same as useless.

Do you actually employ people or just like pretending to know about things that you don’t?

Yes and if I need a nit picker pointing out the bloody obvious I will give you a shout..

There has been no indication given that the OP is a poor performer, in the absence of any such evidence, I stand by my point that if they are not willing to pay him the same rate as a recent graduate then he should move on.

Edited by Zolvaro on Monday 24th June 15:56

[Puzzles]

Tenacious said:

HR are usually there for the employer and not the employee.

very true

[Countdown]

Ken_Code said:

Zolvaro said:

He will have the qualifications, real world experience of the job, experience within the organisation. If they pay or are willing to pay a noob graduate more than him, then unless he is useless he should start looking for a new job asap because they don't value him.

It depends how good he is, how well he’s been doing the job, how reliable he is and so on.

A person’s value to a firm is based on much more than level of experience and qualifications.

How well he can do the job will be determined substantially by his experience and qualifications. You don't know anybody's "reliability" when they start working for you so it would be a strange factor to use in setting pay. In any case "reliability" is a management issue rather than a pay setting issue.

[Ken_Code]

Countdown said:

How well he can do the job will be determined substantially by his experience and qualifications. You don't know anybody's "reliability" when they start working for you so it would be a strange factor to use in setting pay. In any case "reliability" is a management issue rather than a pay setting issue.

He’s not just started working for them.

[Countdown]

Ken_Code said:

Countdown said:

How well he can do the job will be determined substantially by his experience and qualifications. You don't know anybody's "reliability" when they start working for you so it would be a strange factor to use in setting pay. In any case "reliability" is a management issue rather than a pay setting issue.

He’s not just started working for them.

“Reliability” still has zero effect on salary scales. If someone is “unreliable” it’s a staff management issue, you don’t just tolerate it because you’re paying them less.