Equal work, equal pay

[TNT]

Say you have an office with 100 people doing the same job. All of them roughly make the same amount of money because the people who've been there have gotten raises... but the starting wage has also increased every year.

I'm okay with this... we all do the same work, so we should get the same money. Some others aren't... they claim that because they've been there longer, they should automatically make more.

My view is, if you want to make more than everybody else, get a promotion.

What are your thoughts?

[Broomjockey]

hmm... this is quite the tricky question. I can see both sides of it quite well. You've put in the time, and maybe you like the position so you don't want to move up which would give you the bigger bump, and you know the ins and outs of the position more than someone who just started, making you potentially more valuable. But then if someone's a hard worker, why should they be shafted on wages just because they're new?

I come down firmly (yet softly) on the fence

[BookstoreEscapee]

I think everyone should start out the same, but if someone's been there 5 years I would certainly expect them to be making more than someone who's only been there for 1 (assuming there is some sort of periodic raise structure like most places have). If you take on extra work and/or work harder than someone else, I would also say that deserves more of a raise than someone who just skates by doing the bare minimum. Performance counts, too.

[Gurndigarn]

My overall feel for it is that there should be a bit of a difference between rank beginners and people with experience... for a while. However, there shouldn't be much difference between pay grades of someone who's been around ten years and twenty, assuming they have the same work ethic and output. There's not a lot extra you can teach someone in twenty years that they can't teach in ten.

The amount of time where the pay grade increases should depend on how skilled the job is. A highly techincal job should see pay grade increases for much longer than unskilled work, because there will be a noticable experience gap for a much longer time.

And given a work environment where it's easy to see personal output and quality, there should be different pay based on quality of the employee.

[TNT]

If you take on extra work and/or work harder than someone else, I would also say that deserves more of a raise than someone who just skates by doing the bare minimum. Performance counts, too.

I agree with you on that. In the department I'm talking about, the better agents get some additional duties. I think it's wrong they don't get anything extra for that even though it's not technically a full promotion.

I'm hoping that changes soon, as I've heard it might.

[JustADude]

I'd have to say I'm in favor of a system where there's a regular-as-clockwork "Cost of Living" raises for all the current employees, matching the amount the new starting rate goes up, along with more sporadic performance-based raises for people that have been doing an above-average job.

So, basically, I don't think it's fair for a good senior employee to make the same as someone who has yet to prove worth their salt or not.

[powerboy]

I'd have to say I'm in favor of a system where there's a regular-as-clockwork "Cost of Living" raises for all the current employees, matching the amount the new starting rate goes up, along with more sporadic performance-based raises for people that have been doing an above-average job.

So, basically, I don't think it's fair for a good senior employee to make the same as someone who has yet to prove worth their salt or not.

The same way I think

[kathyhansen]

If I may weigh into the debate, at my work in a call centre, we have KPI's' based on talk time for each call. Unfortunately, there is no incentive to come under these KPI's other than a well done from my supervisor. In our work, all the CCr's are paid 16.75 per hour whether they've been there a day or 10 years. I don't have a problem with that. What I have a problem is that my talk times are so short, sometimes half the recommended talk time, that I am taking more calls than a CCR who has just started and therefore making the company more money than someone who has just started and whose call times are longer therefore take less calls. Oh well, I'm interviewing for better paid jobs. It's not that I don't like the job, it's just I'm not recompensed accurately for the work I do and the money I make the company. For the record, I take about 150 calls an hour, or nearly 3 a minute.