So, for a potential job change I have tried for a while to get my head around how the dutch CAO works.
As far as I have understood it so far there is a "Functiongroup" ("salarisschal") and a "Functionyear" ("functiejaar") which together in a matrix-like fashion determine what salary slot you fall under.
Now, three questions arise (presuming your employer utilizes the CAO standard):
1. Functiongroup/Level:
From previous discussions in this forum I have gathered that you typically start out in group "G" when you get your first job after graduation. This would then correspond to Architectural Assistant (UK) or Junior Architect (US / International).
Is this always the case and what would then typical Intermediate and Senior/Project Architect groups be?
2. Years experience:
Functionyear seems to denote how many years experience you have. Is this the total years of your career or just inside the current group? In other words do you "start over" from 0 years each time you advance up the Functiongroup ladder?
There are groups down to N as far as I can tell. I am well aware that in a modern office you can perform tasks within a wide range of groups, which brings me to the final question of progression:
3. Once you have signed up for a position in a certain Functiongroup, can this ever be radically changed if you show talent or dedication (or for that matter overqualification)? Or are you from then on forced to take "one step at each yearly review" kind of thing? And will your group designation invariably decide what salary and responsibility you can expect to have?
Grateful for any advise from Archinecters with experience of the Netherlands, thanks in advance.
james webb
Mar 1, 10 3:52 pm
1. F or G is normal. maybe J or K for 5 of 6 years exp after graduation.
2. nr years within that group. you progress 1 level per year or more if employer thinks you earned it.
3. sure can be radically changed. starting in a certain functie group does not hold you down.
james webb
Mar 1, 10 4:03 pm
i should add though that is not a cut and dry as you may think, you could be given a raise and jump from one fuctiegroep to another and at a certain level. you don't have to progress all the way up one group to then get to the next,
in practice the cao is only a guide, in the end it is the salary you are negotiating, the cao 'might' help determine that.
empea
Mar 1, 10 5:08 pm
Many thanks p2an for your helpful replies!
Would you say that a formal offer outlining a certain specific group and year can normally be negotiated? I mean, I totally get your last comment but at the same time the existence of a system such as the CAO sort of implies that employers who use it do so with consequence, so to speak...otherwise it sort of defeats its purpose it seems..?
Either way I guess you are saying that regardless of what group/year I get offered I can ask for a higher salary without necessarily making claims to be in a higher group.
Thanks again.
usernametaken
Mar 2, 10 12:59 pm
It's not as absolute a system as you might think: it's a matter of being able to compare: if you have 10 years of experience as a project manager/project architect, and you get offered a G2, you know you're not getting a suitable offer. But the difference between G2 and H2 isn't as clear: it's about distinct responsibilities etcetera - those can be found in the so-called "functieboek" of the CAO.
Even though, one should note that the descriptions in there are somewhat archaic: they are based on a clear divide of designing and drawing, about hierarchic structures within offices etcetera. The reality is that someone might be a project leader in one project, but assisting in another. So use the CAO only to get a feeling for where you stand - and most of the time there's still some room for negotiation.
Other than that, I think p2an has more or less summed it all up. A typical career is thus not necessarily bound to the order of the CAO. If the employer (or you) thinks that you've advanced more than normally would be the case, a three year progression might even be something like G2 - H3 - J3 or something.
empea
Mar 6, 10 9:26 am
Thanks username, that's helpful.
I guess the point of interest is really the way in which the employers refer to this agreement almost in a sort of one-way fashion i.e. it's a convenient way for them to tell you what the max pay you can get is and why it can't be higher.
It's almost as if the cause and effect relationship gets inverted - if I ask for more money than what my formal experience renders through the CAO, they will necessarily have to give me more responsibility than what they think I should have.
Anyway I seem to understand from your helpful posts that at the end of the day it is indicative and not prescriptive so there is room for negotiation outside the CAO.
prot
Jan 12, 19 11:52 am
Hi everybody,
Do you know if all the architecture firms (in Netherlands) are obliged to follow the CAO agreement?
In case that they do not follow how can I prove that they are not paying according to with my experience and position? (They have offered me a salary below my position).
Any other information will be welcome. Thanks in advanced.
randomised
Jan 12, 19 2:21 pm
They don't have to follow CAO, but since CAO is public knowledge it is kind of the benchmark. Most offices will state it in their job advert if they pay according to CAO, so you know what to expect beforehand. You can always let the office know that you are aware of the CAO minimum, it might trigger them to at least give you that. It is usually a red flag though if offices try to pay below that level, I wouldn't want to work in such a place for such people.
So, for a potential job change I have tried for a while to get my head around how the dutch CAO works.
As far as I have understood it so far there is a "Functiongroup" ("salarisschal") and a "Functionyear" ("functiejaar") which together in a matrix-like fashion determine what salary slot you fall under.
Now, three questions arise (presuming your employer utilizes the CAO standard):
1. Functiongroup/Level:
From previous discussions in this forum I have gathered that you typically start out in group "G" when you get your first job after graduation. This would then correspond to Architectural Assistant (UK) or Junior Architect (US / International).
Is this always the case and what would then typical Intermediate and Senior/Project Architect groups be?
2. Years experience:
Functionyear seems to denote how many years experience you have. Is this the total years of your career or just inside the current group? In other words do you "start over" from 0 years each time you advance up the Functiongroup ladder?
There are groups down to N as far as I can tell. I am well aware that in a modern office you can perform tasks within a wide range of groups, which brings me to the final question of progression:
3. Once you have signed up for a position in a certain Functiongroup, can this ever be radically changed if you show talent or dedication (or for that matter overqualification)? Or are you from then on forced to take "one step at each yearly review" kind of thing? And will your group designation invariably decide what salary and responsibility you can expect to have?
Grateful for any advise from Archinecters with experience of the Netherlands, thanks in advance.
1. F or G is normal. maybe J or K for 5 of 6 years exp after graduation.
2. nr years within that group. you progress 1 level per year or more if employer thinks you earned it.
3. sure can be radically changed. starting in a certain functie group does not hold you down.
i should add though that is not a cut and dry as you may think, you could be given a raise and jump from one fuctiegroep to another and at a certain level. you don't have to progress all the way up one group to then get to the next,
in practice the cao is only a guide, in the end it is the salary you are negotiating, the cao 'might' help determine that.
Many thanks p2an for your helpful replies!
Would you say that a formal offer outlining a certain specific group and year can normally be negotiated? I mean, I totally get your last comment but at the same time the existence of a system such as the CAO sort of implies that employers who use it do so with consequence, so to speak...otherwise it sort of defeats its purpose it seems..?
Either way I guess you are saying that regardless of what group/year I get offered I can ask for a higher salary without necessarily making claims to be in a higher group.
Thanks again.
It's not as absolute a system as you might think: it's a matter of being able to compare: if you have 10 years of experience as a project manager/project architect, and you get offered a G2, you know you're not getting a suitable offer. But the difference between G2 and H2 isn't as clear: it's about distinct responsibilities etcetera - those can be found in the so-called "functieboek" of the CAO.
Even though, one should note that the descriptions in there are somewhat archaic: they are based on a clear divide of designing and drawing, about hierarchic structures within offices etcetera. The reality is that someone might be a project leader in one project, but assisting in another. So use the CAO only to get a feeling for where you stand - and most of the time there's still some room for negotiation.
Other than that, I think p2an has more or less summed it all up. A typical career is thus not necessarily bound to the order of the CAO. If the employer (or you) thinks that you've advanced more than normally would be the case, a three year progression might even be something like G2 - H3 - J3 or something.
Thanks username, that's helpful.
I guess the point of interest is really the way in which the employers refer to this agreement almost in a sort of one-way fashion i.e. it's a convenient way for them to tell you what the max pay you can get is and why it can't be higher.
It's almost as if the cause and effect relationship gets inverted - if I ask for more money than what my formal experience renders through the CAO, they will necessarily have to give me more responsibility than what they think I should have.
Anyway I seem to understand from your helpful posts that at the end of the day it is indicative and not prescriptive so there is room for negotiation outside the CAO.
Hi everybody,
Do you know if all the architecture firms (in Netherlands) are obliged to follow the CAO agreement?
In case that they do not follow how can I prove that they are not paying according to with my experience and position? (They have offered me a salary below my position).
Any other information will be welcome.
Thanks in advanced.
They don't have to follow CAO, but since CAO is public knowledge it is kind of the benchmark. Most offices will state it in their job advert if they pay according to CAO, so you know what to expect beforehand. You can always let the office know that you are aware of the CAO minimum, it might trigger them to at least give you that. It is usually a red flag though if offices try to pay below that level, I wouldn't want to work in such a place for such people.