Salary Differentiation

The rate at hire is the point here. Unless it is expressed up front that specific acheivements (degree, training, etc..) Allow for an increase in pay. The rate of pay is determined at hire. From that point increases are (usually) based upon merit and performance. The pay rate change is (typically) done during an employee review done by a higher authority. Government entities are pretty set and standardas to pay changes when and how. The inference I gather from your question is that upon review of pay, that any and all within the same scope and position, need to be fair and square and equitable. It is not a law or requirement for all pay to be exact and equal. The emphassis is individual. In order to have exact equality, would require evaluations by the same person in charge. Even if both canididates were identical in experience and training, the reviewer would still "probably" have a preference or different results after reviewing both. Granted the reviewer should access the pay levels for each level, however, this is merely to review the range of scale, and not a specific amount to be paid, This is a tool that is available. The larger the company the more specific policies are in place. The more policy in place, the less ability the "higher" authority has to change rate. It is not against the law to pay different rates of pay. It is to consistantly pay less to a "group" or type of employee. (i.e., women,ethnicity, etc..) As a manger, I can tell you; I have had uneducated positions pay more than their educated counterparts. I have had the opposite as well. After the initial hire, it is merely a function of ability and performance, followed by ability of funds, and position. In my opinion at least, the additional education would warrant a higher initial hire rate.