How do I ethically/morally justify getting paid the higher rate?
May 1, 2008 7:55 AM Subscribe
I'm having a bit of an ethical dilemma about a work/pay situation.
An acquaintance and I were hired as consultants by The Company for a 7 day project which required a 2 person team doing 2 different tasks. Task A was less technical than Task B and thus received a lower pay rate than B (with a lower overtime rate also).
I normally get hired to do Task B outside the context of The Company so naturally when I got hired I assumed that I was getting hired for Task B (with the higher rate of pay). And since Task B is not my acquaintance's area of expertise I figured that it was a no-brainer regarding which one of us was getting hired for which Task.
The confusion came about when my coworker thought that since The Company didn't specify which one of us was to do Task A vs B, that we should split the pay 50/50. The Company (unprofessionally in my opinion) says that they are willing to split the pay any way we agree on. And unfortunately of course, there is nothing in writing. Well there is, but the only thing missing on the contract is specifying who was getting hired for which Task.
The 7 day project is over now and he has since realized that I did in fact do Task B and (even though he tried) he did not possess the technical skills necessary to complete Task B.
I think so far it's pretty clear that I should receive the pay rate associated with Task B and he says he's ok with that and I wouldn't be hurting his feelings by doing so. My dilemma comes because of 2 reasons:
1) For 3 out of the 7 days we both did the same thing. Working as a team doing things that either one of us could easily do and not necessarily in a supervisor/subordinate position. The other 4 days were spent with me specializing in technical stuff on Task B.
and 2) the difference in the pay after all the days and over-time amounts to me getting about 150% more than him. (Re-looking over the rates just now I see that the 150% would happen with or without the over-time, the only difference being that with more hours the dollar amount is what increases).
So really the question is, am I under any moral or ethical requirement to give him a part of the pay I would get for Task B for the 3 days that we did the same duties, while keeping the higher rate for the 4 days during which I did the specialized duties? And what do I say? How do I phrase it?
If we split it that way the dollar amount is a difference of only $187.0 less for me and more for him. I'd make either $1013.0 or $1200.0 more than him otherwise if we split 50/50 I would make about $700.0 less and he $700 more than not splitting.
And lastly, as I said, we are acquaintances but I wouldn't say friends so as far as burning bridges and friendships and whatnot, it's really not a concern. I just want to make sure the end result is a fair one to both of us even if we don't like it.
askmfdilemma@gmail.com if needed.
Thanks in advance.
I normally get hired to do Task B outside the context of The Company so naturally when I got hired I assumed that I was getting hired for Task B (with the higher rate of pay). And since Task B is not my acquaintance's area of expertise I figured that it was a no-brainer regarding which one of us was getting hired for which Task.
The confusion came about when my coworker thought that since The Company didn't specify which one of us was to do Task A vs B, that we should split the pay 50/50. The Company (unprofessionally in my opinion) says that they are willing to split the pay any way we agree on. And unfortunately of course, there is nothing in writing. Well there is, but the only thing missing on the contract is specifying who was getting hired for which Task.
The 7 day project is over now and he has since realized that I did in fact do Task B and (even though he tried) he did not possess the technical skills necessary to complete Task B.
I think so far it's pretty clear that I should receive the pay rate associated with Task B and he says he's ok with that and I wouldn't be hurting his feelings by doing so. My dilemma comes because of 2 reasons:
1) For 3 out of the 7 days we both did the same thing. Working as a team doing things that either one of us could easily do and not necessarily in a supervisor/subordinate position. The other 4 days were spent with me specializing in technical stuff on Task B.
and 2) the difference in the pay after all the days and over-time amounts to me getting about 150% more than him. (Re-looking over the rates just now I see that the 150% would happen with or without the over-time, the only difference being that with more hours the dollar amount is what increases).
So really the question is, am I under any moral or ethical requirement to give him a part of the pay I would get for Task B for the 3 days that we did the same duties, while keeping the higher rate for the 4 days during which I did the specialized duties? And what do I say? How do I phrase it?
If we split it that way the dollar amount is a difference of only $187.0 less for me and more for him. I'd make either $1013.0 or $1200.0 more than him otherwise if we split 50/50 I would make about $700.0 less and he $700 more than not splitting.
And lastly, as I said, we are acquaintances but I wouldn't say friends so as far as burning bridges and friendships and whatnot, it's really not a concern. I just want to make sure the end result is a fair one to both of us even if we don't like it.
askmfdilemma@gmail.com if needed.
Thanks in advance.
Split the pay that you received for the first three days evenly; however, you should receive the higher pay rate for the work done on the last four days - that is the ethically cleanest pay arrangement.
Since he seems to have acknowledged that you should have been paid at the higher rate for your work on Task B, I don't think he will have a problem with this. However, given that the first three days you both worked on the same material, each of you should be payed the same for that time.
posted by taliaferro at 8:14 AM on May 1, 2008
Since he seems to have acknowledged that you should have been paid at the higher rate for your work on Task B, I don't think he will have a problem with this. However, given that the first three days you both worked on the same material, each of you should be payed the same for that time.
posted by taliaferro at 8:14 AM on May 1, 2008
I think so far it's pretty clear that I should receive the pay rate associated with Task B and he says he's ok with that and I wouldn't be hurting his feelings by doing so.
If it were me, I wouldn't argue with him.
posted by Dec One at 8:25 AM on May 1, 2008
If it were me, I wouldn't argue with him.
posted by Dec One at 8:25 AM on May 1, 2008
You were hired at rate X to do a job. Your friend was hired at rate Y to do a job.
Where is the moral dilemma here? You're clearly more experienced/knowledgeable, so even if you were hired to do the exact same thing there'd be a legitimate reason to pay you more. For starters, because of your knowledge/experience you command a higher price in the market and (surprise!) the market is what determines how much you get paid. Not only that, but someone with more experience is worth more because the odds that the job will be completed on-time, under-budget, and correctly go up.
The onus shouldn't be on you to give up a pay rate that you rightfully earned just to make your buddy feel better. If he thinks he deserves more, it's his job to convince the company of that. The bargaining here should be between the employee (alone) and the company, not a pair of employees.
It's not your responsibility to subsidize his pay.
posted by toomuchpete at 9:50 AM on May 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
Where is the moral dilemma here? You're clearly more experienced/knowledgeable, so even if you were hired to do the exact same thing there'd be a legitimate reason to pay you more. For starters, because of your knowledge/experience you command a higher price in the market and (surprise!) the market is what determines how much you get paid. Not only that, but someone with more experience is worth more because the odds that the job will be completed on-time, under-budget, and correctly go up.
The onus shouldn't be on you to give up a pay rate that you rightfully earned just to make your buddy feel better. If he thinks he deserves more, it's his job to convince the company of that. The bargaining here should be between the employee (alone) and the company, not a pair of employees.
It's not your responsibility to subsidize his pay.
posted by toomuchpete at 9:50 AM on May 1, 2008 [1 favorite]
The biggest ethical problem is the company having you "work it out" when it comes to pay. Yuck.
You're not under any obligation.
However, you've gone to the trouble of figuring out some math, so this is bugging you. Do it as a gesture of goodwill, not a post-job pay adjustment. However, I wouldn't share your calculations with him -- just give him the amount you think is fair (I think it would be classier to round it either to 185 or 190).
posted by desuetude at 11:45 AM on May 1, 2008
You're not under any obligation.
However, you've gone to the trouble of figuring out some math, so this is bugging you. Do it as a gesture of goodwill, not a post-job pay adjustment. However, I wouldn't share your calculations with him -- just give him the amount you think is fair (I think it would be classier to round it either to 185 or 190).
posted by desuetude at 11:45 AM on May 1, 2008
It sounds like there isn't any argument among either of you about the pay rates. So take your pay and move on to the next job. The problem with changing things isn't the amount of money you 'lose' on this job, its the precedent you set that could end up costing you a significant amount of money if the two of you work together often.
posted by wabashbdw at 6:55 AM on May 2, 2008
posted by wabashbdw at 6:55 AM on May 2, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Doofus Magoo at 8:08 AM on May 1, 2008