Ok, so bajr has recommended pay rates attached to levels of responsibility for job adverts. But what about when employers advertise for assistant supervisors, or assistant project officers etc? To my mind either you have that responsibility or you don't, and if you have it you should be paid properly for it. If you advertise say for a L3 but ask for 'assistant supervisor' you are implying a level of responsibility which is not reflected in the stated level or stated pay.
I think that if the word supervisor appears in a job title, then it should be a L4 and if the words Project officer appears then it should be a L5.
Employers should not be allowed to underpay by using disingenuous job titles.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
The only way to stop them is by not working for them.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Quite right, but I am thinking of one particular current advert on bajr that has piqued me! By a particular company not well known anyway for it's generous wages.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
And you all thought I wasn't watching the forum!!
Interesting point and valid.
But I hope you notice that the Level is L3.. so I agree with the ranking as in Supervisor should be more towards the L4 while a less experienced or 'assistant' could be down at L3
Level 3 definition: Experienced in most aspects of the work, though will receive supervision and further instruction from higher levels. Usually the person has over 3 years experience in chosen field.
It is difficult to come up with a solution in one go.. but so far (cross fingers) it is a solution that everyone has backed to one degree or another (though it would be nice to hear from the IFA on this matter) I am already in full discussion with Prospect Union to add holiday, sickness benefit and other factors into the equation...
owever I am not a dictator (though it may seem that way sometimes.. I need input and frank honest opinions... please keep them coming like this one.
BAJR
