Men Accountants earn 60% more than Women

Source: FinancialDirector.co.uk

Male accountants over 45 earn 60% more than female counterparts, study reveals

The pay-gap between male and female accountants over 45 has stretched to 60%, a new study has found.

The average basic salary for a male accountant over 45 is £98,400, while their female colleagues’ average is £60,500, according to a Career Benchmarking Study released by the ICAEW and recruiters Robert Half.

This difference increased in the past year, with women aged 46-55 seeing their wages drop by an average of 10% from last year’s figures, compared with just a 1% drop for males.

However, for younger accountants the difference is much smaller. Females under 30 receive an average wage of £47,300 (an increase of 3% from the previous year) while the average male salary is only 4% higher at £49,300 (a decrease of 5% from the previous year).

Michael Izza, chief executive of the ICAEW, said: “Our studies show that to attract and retain female talent, it is also vital to meet employee expectations regarding career progression and work-life balance.”

SG Comment: Whilst the above article provides quite revealing stats on male/female salaries, it doesn't attempt to explain why there appears to be a wide gulf between male/female salaries at equivalent grades, particulary for ages above 30. This should be incredibly obvious - a lot of women leave the market to have children, and then resume their careers later on. Of course, a women that has taken 3-5 years out of the market to have a family will be re-employed on a lower salary level than an equivalent man that has stayed in the market, that makes sense and is the case. Conversely, I think it is also the case that, in the majority of situations, women that don't have career breaks to have a family stay at the same salary levels as men, which again is not factored into the above study.

ACCA calls for the term 'Accountant' to be protected

The ACCA are calling for the term ‘accountant’ to be legally defined and protected.

There is an increasing number of cases where people have been given poor advice by individuals claiming to be qualified accountants, when they have little or no professional training or qualifications. ACCA believe that introducing protection for the term ‘accountant’ is in the best interests of all, as it is both unfair and contrary to public interest to have unregulated, possibly untrained and uninsured individuals presenting themselves as accountants.

This will also presumably include the title Tax Accountant, and the expression 'qualified by experience' will hold very little value if all this goes through.

There’s a Downing Street online petition, started by ACCA member Alan Shooter FCCA, that people can sign.

Tax Temps - who employs you?

By Simon Godley
(Legal source: Field Fisher Waterhouse LLP)

In the long-awaited decision of James v London Borough of Greenwich, the Court of Appeal has upheld the decision of the employment tribunal that an agency worker, supplied by an employment agency, was not employed by the end-user (and therefore was not entitled to those statutory rights which are only available to employees, such as the right not to be unfairly dismissed).

The Court of Appeal has clarified, to some extent, in what circumstances an agency worker is or is not an employee of the end user, emphasising that the implication of a contract of service must be necessary to give effect to the business reality of a relationship between the worker and end user.

The Court of Appeal confirmed that the correct legal question is not whether the individual is an "agency worker" but whether he is employed by the end user under a contract of employment. The two types of contract - agency agreement and contract of employment - are not necessarily mutually exclusive and it is legally possible for a worker to have one kind of contract with the agency and another with the end user. A tribunal should therefore assess the factual evidence carefully to determine whether the individual is an employee. Where there is no express contract, the tribunal must consider whether it is necessary to imply a contract of employment between the parties.

In this case, the tribunal was entitled to conclude that the individual, Ms James, was not an employee of the end user (the Council) because there was no express or implied contractual relationship between her and the Council. Her only express contractual relationship was with the employment agency and, similarly, the Council's only express contractual relationship was also with the agency. The tribunal was correct when it found that it was unnecessary to imply a third contract between Ms James and the Council to give business reality to the relationship between the parties: what both Ms James and the Council did was fully explained by the express contracts they had respectively entered into with the employment agency.
Interestingly, the Court added that it is aware of the controversy at both a domestic and EU level about the absence of job protection for agency workers. However, it emphasised that courts and tribunals cannot confer the right not to be unfairly dismissed on a worker who does not have a contract of employment. It is not for them to express views about a change or to initiate change: this is a matter of social and economic policy for debate in and decision by Parliament.

The above case shows that the whole area of companies 'employing' temps via agencies is still a bit of a minefield, particularly regarding the rights of the worker (temp). It seems that the pressure is on the agencies to be very clear about contracts that are put in place, and between which parties.

Any other input or views on this would be very welcome.