Pay rise but not happy

LegacyUser

My company has been struggling for a few years and recently undertook some significant restructuring resulting in several employees being made redundant. As part of this, last month I got a 'promotion'. The new role is clearly very different with significantly more responsibility.

The pay rise associated with this promotion has not materialised to any significant extent and I am now underpaid relative to what I would get for a similar role elsewhere.

what would happen if I refused to now accept this new role?

I have signed nothing in respect of the new role.

dreamers75

What have you signed in the previous role? and what way would you like your redundancy?

davo10

Crikey, that is a strange read, the company is struggling, your colleagues have been laid off but your pay increase is not enough. Do you think the time is right to complain about your pay increase considering you just escaped joining the dole?

gifted

davo10 wrote: »

Crikey, that is a strange read, the company is struggling, your colleagues have been laid off but your pay increase is not enough. Do you think the time is right to complain about your pay increase considering you just escaped joining the dole?

Why shouldn't he complain? He's got way more work and not being paid properly for it. He isn't a charity. Is it fair of his employer to use the threat of redundancy to get him to work for less than he should?

LegacyUser

dreamers75 wrote: »

What have you signed in the previous role? and what way would you like your redundancy?

I would have signed a fairly standard contract for my previous role.

Not sure what you mean by what way I want redundancy.

LegacyUser

gifted wrote: »

Why shouldn't he complain? He's got way more work and not being paid properly for it. He isn't a charity. Is it fair of his employer to use the threat of redundancy to get him to work for less than he should?

Thanks. This is exactly it. The job market is pretty good and I would be confident of finding an alternative role.

Deub

gifted wrote: »

Why shouldn't he complain? He's got way more work and not being paid properly for it. He isn't a charity. Is it fair of his employer to use the threat of redundancy to get him to work for less than he should?

Or the OP can see it as an opportunity to gain experience in that level. Maybe he can get more money elsewhere for the same job but would he get the job?

davo10

gifted wrote: »

Why shouldn't he complain? He's got way more work and not being paid properly for it. He isn't a charity. Is it fair of his employer to use the threat of redundancy to get him to work for less than he should?

When your collegues are being let go because the company is doing badly, chances are everyone is be paid less than they should and those that remain are usually relieved to have avoided the need to read the job sections.

I'm sure that if the op complains about a payrise, that will go down well with his fellow workers who are praying hard that they won't lose their jobs, and push the op to the top of the page for the next round of redundancies. Who agitates for a payrise straight after people have been laid off?, even the most militant Union reps wouldn't do that, they would wait until the business picks up and money starts flowing in again.

_Brian

Dubgal32 wrote: »

I would have signed a fairly standard contract for my previous role.

Not sure what you mean by what way I want redundancy.

The thing is if your contract is any good it will hold the clause " and any other duties as detailed by the company" under responsibilities. That way the company could insist on you taking on the existing role and a pay rise would be optional to be honest.

marymary1984

I would have thought if you refused to take the new position them employer would make the old position redundant so you would have two options: take the new role or leave. Generally if management want someone in a different position, it happens as your old general contract would have a vague sentence allowing this - most allow for this.

ishotjr2

To answer the OP, I think it comes down to personal perspective, if you do not trust the management: that is the company is doing OK so you should be getting more then make your case.

If it is a small company that is struggling I would give it a while before making your case. But again comes down to if you trust the people you work with. Guess you would not be asking the question if you did

FYI: Making people redundant is not as simple as it may seem, especially for a small company the books need to tie up with reality because you could be asked to provide the financials.

matt-dublin

Find a new job with a similar role profile. When you get an offer use it as a bargaining chip to get your salary aligned with industry standards

Germancarfan

Does your old job still exist or is that position gone ?

If so then you are entitled to redundancy should you wish to pursue same.
I speak from fist hand experience where my old role was dissolved and the company wanted me to map straight across to a new one , no questions asked.

Once we established that the old role no longer existed then i had to be given the option to take redundancy or apply for the role that was on offer.

cnocbui

Why are posters assuming the OP is a man?

If you are confident in the state of the job market and of winning a position at a higher rate of pay, why not just apply for suitable positions? If you succeed, problem solved, if you don't, you haven't potentially upset your apple cart.

DSN

Ask them. Sounds like your old role is not longer there so it would either be take this new one or be made redundant. If you confident of getting another role in another company then happy days take the redundancy payment & get another job.

davo10

Germancarfan wrote: »

Does your old job still exist or is that position gone ?

If so then you are entitled to redundancy should you wish to pursue same.
I speak from fist hand experience where my old role was dissolved and the company wanted me to map straight across to a new one , no questions asked.

Once we established that the old role no longer existed then i had to be given the option to take redundancy or apply for the role that was on offer.

Not quite right is op's case as he/she is being promoted, he/she just isn't happy with the pay rise.

Firstly the op must be working there for at least 2 years to be eligible for redundancy payment, secondly the op was promoted, not demoted nor moved to a different location.

Alternative work:

As with any dismissal, an employer must act reasonably when dismissing an employee in a redundancy situation. This requires prior consultation with you before the decision is made. In addition, your employer should consider all options including possible alternatives.

If your employer makes you a reasonable offer of alternative work, and you refuse it, you may lose your entitlement to a redundancy payment.


The op might deserve to be paid more, but if the company are laying people off, the timing is wrong to be looking for a payrise, also it's probable that others have to do extra work, what's the point in laying off some to pay others more? The op should wait a few months until the outcome of the restructuring is clearer, then ask for a rise when more money is coming in. If the company had the business and the money, they wouldn't be laying people off.

Diemos

Rock and a hard place.
I was in the same position a number of years ago.

What worked for me. Take the new position, work in it for 1 year and then move on to a similar role on a pay scale that is more representative of your market value.

Mezamo

Diemos wrote: »

Rock and a hard place.
I was in the same position a number of years ago.

What worked for me. Take the new position, work in it for 1 year and then move on to a similar role on a pay scale that is more representative of your market value.

Have to agree with Diemos. Use it as an opportunity to gain experience at this level and if an appropriate pay increase is not forthcoming after a year then look elsewhere. It's much easier to find a job when you are in one ;-)

EagererBeaver

Germancarfan wrote: »

Does your old job still exist or is that position gone ?

If so then you are entitled to redundancy should you wish to pursue same.
I speak from fist hand experience where my old role was dissolved and the company wanted me to map straight across to a new one , no questions asked.

Once we established that the old role no longer existed then i had to be given the option to take redundancy or apply for the role that was on offer.

That's not true. If your old role is gone, they have to either offer you a "reasonable alternative" or give you redundancy. Taking on a shed load more responsibility for the same pay would not be considered a "reasonable" alternative in the OP's case.

davo10

EagererBeaver wrote: »

That's not true. If your old role is gone, they have to either offer you a "reasonable alternative" or give you redundancy. Taking on a shed load more responsibility for the same pay would not be considered a "reasonable" alternative in the OP's case.

The nature of restructuring and resulting redundancies mean that retained employees nearly always have added responsibilities, this would be considered reasonable.

How times have changed, those that avoided losing their job used to be relieved that they wouldn't be joining the dole que.

Diemos

davo10 wrote: »

The nature of restructuring and resulting redundancies mean that retained employees nearly always have added responsibilities, this would be considered reasonable.

How times have changed, those that avoided losing their job used to be relieved that they wouldn't be joining the dole que.

There can be a world of difference between added responsibility and being taken advantage of.

Why should you have to work 12 to 14 hour days to get less pay than the guy sitting next to you doing the same job?

I've always been willing to take on extra work, be it hours or responsibility (when needed) but my willingness to adapt or go the extra mile should not mean I should be seen or taken for a chump.


If you are in a position were you can move elsewhere to a company where you will be appreciated then by all means move but sometimes that is not always possible.

davo10

Diemos wrote: »

There can be a world of difference between added responsibility and being taken advantage of.

Why should you have to work 12 to 14 hour days to get less pay than the guy sitting next to you doing the same job?

I've always been willing to take on extra work, be it hours or responsibility (when needed) but my willingness to adapt or go the extra mile should not mean I should be seen or taken for a chump.


If you are in a position were you can move elsewhere to a company where you will be appreciated then by all means move but sometimes that is not always possible.

Did the op say he/she is being made to work a 14 hour day or being taken advantage of? No, he/she said he/she was promoted and as unhappy with the payrise offered. Promotion always means extra responsibilities, you are being promoted to a higher position in the company.

To be fair, it seems the op is being appreciated, he/she was not made redundant and was in fact promoted, that's some nice appreciation. But if the company is not in a position to offer a big raise because of cost cutting then the op has to assess the situation and voluntarily move on if he/she is not happy. This is not the same scenario as in a company which is doing well and can afford big pay increases, this is a company in trouble who have had to lay off some of their workforce.

I'd say it's a like it or lump it situation, the employer has offered an alternative position with an increase in status and improvement in pay albeit not enough of the op's liking.

Wabbit Ears

We had something similar, A group of engineers who weren't doing an engineering role were promoted into one as part of a re-structuring. A few of them did what the OP is doing, complaining that the increased responsibilities and workload did not have a significant or any pay rise associated with the new role.

Others in the same group have seen the amazing opportunity for what it is, The basically got promoted into a previously coveted role. They probably wouldn't have gotten the position if it had gone to interview as, had it been an internal posting, there would have been a lot of applicants for it.

And yea, some other people in various departments were annoyed they got promotions with no interview process and they would love to have applied for the more senior roles.

Also, internal promotions never really come with a market rate price tag, If you get 2K more you're doing well IMHO, even for a reasonable step up.

So, OP, you can choose to see a great opportunity to build out your CV, Increase your experience, progress your career, Gain new skills, network at a higher level and so on, or, you know, you can b1tch about the fact that you didn't get enough of a pay rise in a financially struggling company. Your call!!

LegacyUser

Thanks all. I think most of the replies have covered it pretty well.
Redundancy is an option I would seriously consider. The new role reflects my previous responsibilities plus a lot more. I have a bigger team and also more travel across Europe.

I am not being greedy but I would get another job no problem. I do like where I work currently but I feel if I don't make a stand now, I won't get a better opportunity. If I don't get a decent pay rise on the back of a promotion, I sure as hell won't get one in future years if I stay in role.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Would you have gotten this new role if applying on the market?

In my position in a different field I'm an assistant manager. My qualifications would suggest that I should be trainee, if I was applying for jobs in other firms I would be a trainee. My pay is a little more than a trainee's (roughly 1/3 more) while less than a assistant manager should be (roughly 2/3 of what an assistant manager should be).

What am I doing? I'm working as assistant manager absorbing the experience and waiting till my qualifications come through and I will then move on.

skallywag

gifted wrote: »

Why shouldn't he complain? He's got way more work and not being paid properly for it...

Where does it say that the OP has way more work now? Only more responsibility was mentioned, nothing necessarily about 'way more work'?

OP, if you like the new role, and have a pleasant working environment, etc, then I would stay put for now.

TheDoc

davo10 wrote: »

When your collegues are being let go because the company is doing badly, chances are everyone is be paid less than they should and those that remain are usually relieved to have avoided the need to read the job sections.

I'm sure that if the op complains about a payrise, that will go down well with his fellow workers who are praying hard that they won't lose their jobs, and push the op to the top of the page for the next round of redundancies. Who agitates for a payrise straight after people have been laid off?, even the most militant Union reps wouldn't do that, they would wait until the business picks up and money starts flowing in again.

To be honest its that sort of attitude that has people working through their breaks(when they are unpaid), people putting email onto their phone to read out of hours when there is no on call process, staying behind working longer hours when there is no overtime etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on and on and on.

That "be glad for your job" is an outdated load of nonsense that needs to go off and die in a fire so people here can finally go about getting what they are worth.

TheDoc

Wabbit Ears wrote: »

We had something similar, A group of engineers who weren't doing an engineering role were promoted into one as part of a re-structuring. A few of them did what the OP is doing, complaining that the increased responsibilities and workload did not have a significant or any pay rise associated with the new role.

Others in the same group have seen the amazing opportunity for what it is, The basically got promoted into a previously coveted role. They probably wouldn't have gotten the position if it had gone to interview as, had it been an internal posting, there would have been a lot of applicants for it.

And yea, some other people in various departments were annoyed they got promotions with no interview process and they would love to have applied for the more senior roles.

Also, internal promotions never really come with a market rate price tag, If you get 2K more you're doing well IMHO, even for a reasonable step up.

So, OP, you can choose to see a great opportunity to build out your CV, Increase your experience, progress your career, Gain new skills, network at a higher level and so on, or, you know, you can b1tch about the fact that you didn't get enough of a pay rise in a financially struggling company. Your call!!

There is always the assumption that it is a great opportunity.

And I won't disagree, yes, there are cases where in adversity people can take a small move upward and the longterm benefit is massive.

However I've also seen the flipside where depending on the job, qualifications etc. might be literally crucial, and the time spent meant nothing. OP at the end of the day will need to decide.

Buts its a potentially slippy slope taking that new role on the "ah sure the companys struggling" and assuming they will look after you later. Maybe they might, or maybe they might go totally bust. Or maybe a precedent is set whereby they just keep feeding you the line "sorry we can't afford it at the moment".

Of course there is an opportunity here. Your company clearly cant go to market to hire for that position as they cant afford it, so they gave it to you. But don't get taken for a fool either.

davo10

TheDoc wrote: »

To be honest its that sort of attitude that has people working through their breaks(when they are unpaid), people putting email onto their phone to read out of hours when there is no on call process, staying behind working longer hours when there is no overtime etc. etc. etc. and the list goes on and on and on.

That "be glad for your job" is an outdated load of nonsense that needs to go off and die in a fire so people here can finally go about getting what they are worth.

I dunno, I would suspect that a significant percentage of employees who avoid redundancy are relieved to have a wage and to be able to pay their mortgage and support their family rather than having to sign on.

You are only worth what the market will pay you, if a company is in trouble then that might well be below market rate but there is absolutely nothing stopping you from taking a job somewhere else that pays more, I'm certain some of those who were made redundant would be more than happy to take the job.

I'd like to think that a person such as yourself would be among the first to be let go, a struggling company needs a good, motivated workforce to survive.

Canadel

davo10 wrote: »

You are only worth what the market will pay you

True. (And I wish people moaning about Luas drivers could understand that maxim)

There is a difference between being only worth what the market will pay you and breaking the law however, which would include not receiving breaks and being forced to work unpaid overtime regularly etc. Labour laws exist for a reason and we must maintain a careful balance between market worth to an employer and upholding basic worker rights.

davo10

Canadel wrote: »

True. (And I wish people moaning about Luas drivers could understand that maxim)

There is a difference between being only worth what the market will pay you and breaking the law however, which would include not receiving breaks and being forced to work unpaid overtime regularly etc. Labour laws exist for a reason and we must maintain a careful balance between market worth to an employer and upholding basic worker rights.

You are right, thing is that I don't see any of those in the op's posts, he/she just said there was a promotion and extra responsibilities. Maybe TheDoc is telepathic?