There has been a lot bickering at the office at which I work recently regarding the wage structure. It seems some people have been comparing their salaries and people who have almost identical duties/responsibilities are getting paid different amounts, based on their qualifications.
As a mere employee there is nothing I can do about it but my opinion is that salary level should be based on what people actually do rather than which exams they have passed. If someone gains qualifications then they should be given added responsibilties/duties and therefore higher salary, but two people who do the exactly the same work should be given exactly the same salary regardless of qualifications.
How do other members feel? How does it work at your firms?
Replies (8)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
." ... my opinion is that salary level should be based on what people actually do rather than which exams they have passed. "
Totally agree. If you were emtying dustbins the council wouldnt give you more money just because you were a bit smarter that the guys you were working with. I see no difference in a professional office.
Qualifications obviously help in initially landing a job, and they may well help in gaining promotion and taking on more responsibility, but, if a qualified and a QBE are doing the same work, and presumably doing it equally as efficiently, then they should receive the same reward for their efforts.
don't get me started on this one.........
In my previous life I was lucky, the partner in the firm I used to work for paid me very well so I have no gripes, however, the 15 staff in my accounts/audit team were paid, as was the firms policy on qualifications/years experience.
They took this decision to stop arguments about salaries as "the youth of today" seem to think if they have passed exams, they are good at their job and should earn £X.
It used to really annoy me that good people eaned the same as/less sometimes than newly qualifieds for the sole reason they didn't have ACA/ACCA after their name.
And not on age either!
Even worse, in my view, I left the Inland Revenue and joined a firm of accountants when I realised that, having worked hard at my in-house training and been promoted young, I was training new, completely inexperienced, staff (some of whom were slow and lazy) and they were getting paid quite a bit more than me because I was under 21 and they were over 21. Now that can't be fair!
Cathy
He who shouts loudest
I think it depends. Often people think they do the same job, but the reality is they may not. One may have more flair for thinking round problems, or deal with more complex cases. Often things are not as simple as they seem
Training others on a higher salary
I have a similar example to the above. I was a bit later in life when I decided to do my ACCA studies (23). However, I had worked in accountancy since I was 18.
At the time I 'specialised' in Solicitors Audit and accounts for the legal industry. I was quite good at that aspect; however, I was still studying so being paid a lower salary. One of my expectations was that I had to take graduate trainees (who were at a lower level of ICAEW) out on jobs. I was the senior and they were the junior. Whilst out on one job we were discussing Salary and it transpired that they were being paid about £3k more than me!
I therefore had a bit of a barney with the partner and stated that I would not longer be the senior on the job where I was training people who were being paid more than me. It was agreed that my salary would be matched so a nice little pay rise for me. Could have been more but that would have been a bit OTT for them!
I agree totally that people should be paid on the ability of the job they are doing.
New trainees on more
When I trained - about 15 years ago - in the regional office of the large firm I worked for all trainees were paid at the same rate - when the next years influx came in they paid them a couple of grand more than us and gave them a "golden hello". It was only for a couple of months and due to the fact that our office took on trainees earlier than the other offices in the country. But it didn't half cause a lot of resentment and the firm wouldn't budge. Needless to say within a year or so of qualification only about 1 or 2 out of 30 people were still at the firm.