I may be in the minority here, but sine she has more experience than you do, I wouldn't address it. I have managed direct reports at two of my prior companies who made more money than me. Like yours, the employees had at least ten more years of experience than I did. I would let it go if it were only a 3% gap.
Where do you each cap out for your ranges and bands? It is normal to have overlap in pay bands. If she has the same or more earning potential than you, that would seem very off to me.
I think it's fair to ask but IME it's not uncommon for long-time ICs to have higher salaries than the person they report to, especially if that person is new to the organization. My old company wouldn't hire someone at more than 50% of the pay grade, even for a manager/director, so they could have a direct report that was at 75-80% of their pay grade since they had been there a long time. With overlapping bands it wasn't unheard for the IC to make more than their boss. My old manager used to complain ALL THE TIME about this and I think it reflected really poorly on him (not that you are doing that). I think it's a good sign that the company values long-term IC.
HR person here - it's not uncommon for managers to make less than the people they manage for reasons others mentioned, plus different roles are valued differently (I'm thinking of tech in particular, which it doesn't sound like you work in), but in this case it sounds like she has performance issues and possibly needs to be counseled out.
I would focus on the performance issues and leave the salary alone, especially if you feel you are being paid fairly. You could certainly ask HR about the discrepancy, but at this point I would not push for an adjustment since you just accepted the job at your current salary and were presumably happy with it then, and it doesn't sound like your job has changed such that would warrant an additional increase.
Post by hbomdiggity on Apr 22, 2017 12:18:23 GMT -5
I agree that it's not uncommon for managers to make less than ICs. However that's usually because that compensation reflects their experience and value as an IC. This person has experience, but given the performance issues I do question whether she otherwise brings such value to justify the comp.
Maybe this is bad advice since I've never managed people... but what about not giving her a raise or only give 1%? If her performance sucks then you are justified and hopefully your raises will make up the 3% gap eventually.
I know private and government are completely different, but I have people who I supervise who make more than I do based on longevity.
If you think you are deserving of more money I would focus on that and leave the other employee out of it.
Yes, and ask for more than 3%! I'm really leery about potentially starting shit for a COLA equivalent. That seems like a ton of effort, and potential hurt feelings/akwardness, for such a little payout.
Yes that's why I'm asking - is this petty?
I did the exact math and she makes 4.1% more than me.
I'd be bothered by this too, but I also think in reality it's a little petty to quibble over something as small as 4%. Especially since she is a long term employee, I'm sure that the yearly raises she's received over time account for making more. I am not an expert in compensation, but I think it is generally determined by what the job is worth, not by what everyone else around the person doing the job makes, KWIM? So if someone was NEWLY hired for a job a level down from yours, and got a higher salary, I'd see it as a much bigger problem than someone being hired making quite a bit less than your position but slowly having her salary creep up because she's stuck around.
I just looked up the salary of one our long term employees who is a secretary (yay for being a state employee!). She makes about 4k less than I do, and I'm in a higher level role with tons more responsibility, education, and higher level job tasks. From what I understand, she's not even a very good secretary, but she's been with the university since forever and gotten steady raises. IMO, what she makes has no bearing on what I make because even though my role is higher value, she's earned her pay through longevity. If you just looked at our salaries side by side and then looked at the job descriptions/educational requirements, it would appear she was getting very overpaid or that I was getting very underpaid. ETA: Meanwhile, I looked up the salary of another secretary that was hired within a year of me, and she's making more like 20k less than me. So yeah, it's really all longevity that makes the difference and I don't think I'd argue against that.
I know private and government are completely different, but I have people who I supervise who make more than I do based on longevity.
If you think you are deserving of more money I would focus on that and leave the other employee out of it.
I completely agree with all this. I work in Compensation, and this is not uncommon. Given the difference in experience and the fact that you're in the same pay grade (which, depending on how wide your pay ranges are may be weird), I would say you making 3% less than her makes sense. If you had the same amount of experience than her and had more responsibility, then I would say you should for sure be making more money than her.
Make your ask for more money about you, and maybe discuss if you being in the same pay grade as she is makes sense Good luck!