IIRC, this is a proposal. If so, then the submitted title is inaccurate. Please don't replace titles with misleading ones—that's the opposite of what the guidelines call for:
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
The meat is page 5 under "The changes the proposal would bring". Highlights:
* Job-seekers would have a right to
information about the pay range of posts they apply for
* Employers would be prohibited from asking about an applicant's pay history
* Employees would have a right to ask their employer for sex-disaggregated information on the average pay of other workers doing the same work or work of equal value.
* Employers with at least 250 employees would have to report on their gender pay gap and carry out a pay assessment if the gap exceeds 5 % and cannot be justified.
* Compensation would be available to victims of pay discrimination, with the burden of proof placed on the employer and sanctions for infringements of the equal pay rule.
My admittedly limited understanding of the gender pay gap is that it is based on gender differences in interests (eg. career-wise), differences in willingness to work long hours (especially with age), and differences in temperament, ie. women on the whole having lower assertiveness and thus being less likely to ask for higher salaries and raises.
The "equal work" part takes care of the first two points, ie. the type of work and the amount performed, but it leaves out the negotiation aspect. To emphasize the importance of negotiation: several friends of mine told me their bosses said they could have started with nearly double their starting salaries if they had negotiated better, so this aspect makes a huge difference, at least in engineering.
My understanding of the proposed legislation is that the higher (average) salaries, fought for and won by the men, will be given to the women for free (by companies who will be forced to make such information public and fear it will make them look bad). Not saying that's either good or bad, just interesting. Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
> less likely to ask for higher salaries and raises.
Of all the apologetics around pay gap, I think this is the one that many people could agree is the least fair. The company knows you're worth more, they can feasibly pay you more, they pay someone similarly skilled and talented more. But they do not simply because of a conversation at the very beginning of accepting a role (and once a year). Talk about an abusive angle. That's like saying to a child "Oh you could have got a PS5 and a game for your birthday, but you only asked for a new game for your ps4"... Employers should be seeking ways to retain talent and underpaying is a ticking timebomb.
The cost of rehiring is MASSIVE:
ad/promotion cost for the role(indeed), at least 100 hours of interview time (across candidates), 1/3rd the salary to the recruiter, 3-6 months of gradual training before they're "highly productive", losing 1-3 months of adopting team's productivity to training that person, losing the institutional knowledge of the outgoing person. Losing the opportunity of having a tenured person to promote into a higher level that is even more expensive to hire for. Not to mention the opportunity cost of the work that could have been done (eg if instead all those resources made your product better)
It's asinine to think someone would risk losing an employee over $20k when those costs above easily amount to 10x that.
I agree the gender wage gap is generally an issue at the aggregate level due to individual choices.
I disagree with the language you use later in the comment (fought, won, given). Negotiation skills shouldn't drive compensation. Value to the company should. If someone is doing the same work and making the same value, then they are earning their salary. Differences in pay can be explained by documenting the difference in value that is produced - something they should already be doing in performance reviews.
These steps could help anyone negotiate. I'm not a woman and I was lowballed out of college due to a market downturn at the time and my salary has suffered ever since.
> To emphasize the importance of negotiation: several friends of mine told me their bosses said they could have started with nearly double their starting salaries if they had negotiated better, so this aspect makes a huge difference, at least in engineering.
Which clearly means that equal work doesn't pay equally. Surely your colleagues did not do half the work of those who negotiated a higher starting salary? In fact, mandating equal pay for equal work would take care of the negotiation aspect. The tricky part of course is how to measure work accurately.
Where does contracting fit into all of this? If you leave the formal structure of employment and don't fit into the set job titles of a company (or within, but as a contractor and so a different pay band), then can you effectively work around this?
If so, then will those currently getting paid more move into contracting? They'd probably end up with more pay (even than they get now) if they did, so will we see a decrease in the statistical pay gap within categories based on formal job titles, but an increase in the real world pay gap between those that are actually earning more and less under the current system?
So, it looks better on paper, but - if you care about the difference in pay - it gets worse in reality.
Do we see this kind of thing already in the public sector in any countries? They often have public pay bands, but, as I understand things[1], in many places contractors, consultants, and such like can make better money by working outside of this system. So, transparent and formally equal, but actually less equal.
I wonder, if we'll one day read about this in the economist. How there is a growing real pay gap, and how it differs from the formal pay gap. How legislators are trying to respond, but businesses and contractors are fighting back.
[1] based mostly on anecdote and hearsay, rather than real knowledge, so please correct me!
For contractors the rate is already negotiated up front IME. Either the recruiter will mention the offered rate along with the role details, or you as a contractor will mention what your rate is.
I used to think this (as a euro), then I met an American and he explained that he ended up better off in Europe on a "lower" salary because he hadn't considered the hidden costs of living in the USA.
He claimed (though I'm certainly no expert) that you have to do your own taxes and set aside money for that; he also claimed that "sales tax" had local, state and federal taxes applied, so while it varies from state to state and city to city; it generally ends up being about 18-20%, which is in-line with VAT in most Euro countries.
He made a lot of comments about certain mandatory insurances and the fact that there were no "cost saving" systems, like heavily subsidised childcare or decent enough public transport that meant you didn't have the burden of a car.
Though he said he couldn't imagine living without a car in the US, as it turns you "back into a child". (his words.)
I'm not sure, I don't know everything, but after talking with him I didn't feel bad for being a "poor euro" anymore, because while the absolute "amount" of money he earned was much greater, the amount that he could actually use was lower.
But he also never had any stock grants or anything.. and those are not incredibly common in Europe. So you could be better off anyway. Who knows?
like whom? americans? londoners? africans? indians? but you're right that 60000 INR sounds like a lot more than 3000 EUR, because, uh, the number is 20 times (!!!) bigger.
Is there anything in this mandate that prevents corporations from listing unreasonably large ranges?
For the sake of this example, let's say FAANG is looking for a software engineer and the range for the job listing is: 68k - 600k. Would this be allowed?
I ask because Denver, Colorado has identical mandated restrictions for job listings, and employers are skirting regulations by offering ridiculously broad ranges, putting everyone back at square one.
That doesn't work very well because if you have a large range then most candidates would be disappointed if they got towards the bottom end, even if that made pratical sense. Maybe you could mitigate this by making the range even larger at the bottom end, below the minimum that you would ever pay, but then you'd put off the best people (who are the people that you most want to avoid putting off).
Why dismiss the proposal based on how companies can avoid it?
I like this proposal because it is a step towards transparency. It is not perfect, as any law, but the small steps are compounding over time.
Employers will pull shenanigans, surely, but it's a start. And when the lower bound doesn't compare well with competing offers, the employer might risk losing the best.
I'm not sure. If you can afford to be picky such a large range might be a bit of a red flag.
Also, if I'm looking for something close to the top of the range the possibility that I may get a way lower offer might put me off. Specially if I'll need to fight the company to get the top of the range salary.
I would think that it will be benchmarked and compared against the same role/roles in other Europen countries (taking in to account cost of living etc).
So as an example Junior Software Engineer / Developer in one European country may be 35-45k salary but could be 30k-40k elsewhere (where property prices / food prices etc are lower).
This would also may it easier for job applicants to know what the expected pay scale is before interviewing (in my experience recruiters often contact people with roles that would be below their salary expectation e.g. software developer with 10 years experience being sent a role with a salary scale equivalent to a recent graduate)
The reality (based on my current interviewing) is open roles already have this range, and it is relatively wide. But by not disclosing they can get you lower. Say range is 170-220, you are coming from 170; they offer you 170 and you negotiate 180. You feel good and got a bump, but employer could have gone higher.
But not all employers are offering the same range. I ask up front now and select the higher paying ranges to start, then ideally you get an offer from multiple of them at the same time, and you know how high you can push it. By simply going back and forth between them they negotiate for you. Obviously that is a luxury, but by merely knowing the range, even if wide, you greatly increase your ability to land a higher paying job.
I don't get why pay range guidance isn't just completely standard. I have pretty much always had them and it's really helpful to weed out bad fits. As a job searcher, it also helps me to understand what opportunities to look for, and save everyone time. I don't think this needs to be regulated, but I feel it's a good practice period. The best reason I can think of for not displaying it is because of some other regulatory concerns. Removing regulatory barriers could maybe help here.
* Employees would have a right to ask their employer for sex-disaggregated information on the average pay of other workers doing the same work or work of equal value.
I think this is going to be the natural side-effect. I remember seeing Monzo posting salary ranges of £40k - £100k for certain positions. So for the right person they'll make a plan but they can also lure in more candidates and low-ball them when making an offer at the end of the process.
I never started a conversation with a client or an employer, about work without clear idea how much I will get in return. Usually after taxes on a hourly rate measurement. If a company is not giving this information before the interview is not worth any attention at all. Period.
I think these proposals go a long way towards closing the asymmetrical advantage that employers have when it comes to salary negotiations and generally creates a much better functioning labour marketplace as a result.
Many posts here talk about value-to-employer, but I have only ever seen wages driven by best-alternative-to-negotiated-agreement [0]. I find the discrepancy odd.
Not every employee in role X is as good as every other employee in role X. The better ones deserve higher pay, which creates an incentive for the others to up their game so that they, too, can earn more.
Heavily editorialized title - for "EU to..." to be accurate it would have to be much further along the legislative process. This is at a draft report stage, not even voted on in committee yet.
Money quote:
"... more than two-thirds of them have said they are in favour of the
publication of average wages by job type and gender at their company (64 %)."
I find myself at the other end of the equal pay problem - I am equally payed with equally titled but not equally working coworkers. The entire management chain has clearly different expectations from me: I get most if not all of the difficult tasks and my coworkers rely daily on my guidance.
In this quarter discussion with my manager I've been told I can not get a pay raise as it would create a discrepancy with my coworker salaries. As an current EU and formal communist republic citizen I find this worrying to say the least. The only option I have is to work less and browse youtube more. As that brings back communist memories I started looking for another job.
So I guess my question is how do they plan to measure the work part of "equal pay for equal work"?
> So I guess my question is how do they plan to measure the work part of "equal pay for equal work"?
I do hope that the new laws don't directly require that, but that that would just be a positive consequence of having public salary statistics for each company.
I.e. people would automatically start demanding equal pay if they roughly knew how much other people in that company earn. Especially for insecure or less agressive people (e.g. women, fresh graduates, foreigners, shy people,..) knowing exactly what a fair salary is, would give them more leverage / confidence during salary negotiations.
And all that happens automatically, without the government needing to dictate any specific salary requirements.
> I am equally payed with equally titled but not equally working coworkers. The entire management chain has clearly different expectations from me: I get most if not all of the difficult tasks and my coworkers rely daily on my guidance.
Careful with this line of thinking. It is just going to lead to aggrandizing yourself while downplaying and belittling others work. Once you get to that point you become the problem not others.
You should ask for a promotion. Explain how you are taking a leadership role in your team and mentoring your peers. If you get a new title your employer can also cone up with a salary which no longer needs to match your current peers.
This sounds like a lie. There is no obligation to pay everyone the same (and neither would this regulation, once it is eventually agreed, create such an obligation).
[+] [-] dang|4 years ago|reply
Pay Transparency: European Commission proposes measures - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30429182 - Feb 2022 (44 comments)
IIRC, this is a proposal. If so, then the submitted title is inaccurate. Please don't replace titles with misleading ones—that's the opposite of what the guidelines call for:
"Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."
[+] [-] pimterry|4 years ago|reply
* Job-seekers would have a right to information about the pay range of posts they apply for
* Employers would be prohibited from asking about an applicant's pay history
* Employees would have a right to ask their employer for sex-disaggregated information on the average pay of other workers doing the same work or work of equal value.
* Employers with at least 250 employees would have to report on their gender pay gap and carry out a pay assessment if the gap exceeds 5 % and cannot be justified.
* Compensation would be available to victims of pay discrimination, with the burden of proof placed on the employer and sanctions for infringements of the equal pay rule.
[+] [-] throw0101a|4 years ago|reply
* https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/doug-ford-ontario-job...
Federally regulated industries in Canada have to do it:
* https://www.canada.ca/en/employment-social-development/news/...
[+] [-] mrmuagi|4 years ago|reply
Although the personal emergency leave days and minimum wage freezes do not inspire confidence.
[+] [-] brummm|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] andai|4 years ago|reply
The "equal work" part takes care of the first two points, ie. the type of work and the amount performed, but it leaves out the negotiation aspect. To emphasize the importance of negotiation: several friends of mine told me their bosses said they could have started with nearly double their starting salaries if they had negotiated better, so this aspect makes a huge difference, at least in engineering.
My understanding of the proposed legislation is that the higher (average) salaries, fought for and won by the men, will be given to the women for free (by companies who will be forced to make such information public and fear it will make them look bad). Not saying that's either good or bad, just interesting. Someone please correct me if I'm misunderstanding.
[+] [-] maerF0x0|4 years ago|reply
Of all the apologetics around pay gap, I think this is the one that many people could agree is the least fair. The company knows you're worth more, they can feasibly pay you more, they pay someone similarly skilled and talented more. But they do not simply because of a conversation at the very beginning of accepting a role (and once a year). Talk about an abusive angle. That's like saying to a child "Oh you could have got a PS5 and a game for your birthday, but you only asked for a new game for your ps4"... Employers should be seeking ways to retain talent and underpaying is a ticking timebomb.
The cost of rehiring is MASSIVE:
ad/promotion cost for the role(indeed), at least 100 hours of interview time (across candidates), 1/3rd the salary to the recruiter, 3-6 months of gradual training before they're "highly productive", losing 1-3 months of adopting team's productivity to training that person, losing the institutional knowledge of the outgoing person. Losing the opportunity of having a tenured person to promote into a higher level that is even more expensive to hire for. Not to mention the opportunity cost of the work that could have been done (eg if instead all those resources made your product better)
It's asinine to think someone would risk losing an employee over $20k when those costs above easily amount to 10x that.
[+] [-] giantg2|4 years ago|reply
I disagree with the language you use later in the comment (fought, won, given). Negotiation skills shouldn't drive compensation. Value to the company should. If someone is doing the same work and making the same value, then they are earning their salary. Differences in pay can be explained by documenting the difference in value that is produced - something they should already be doing in performance reviews.
These steps could help anyone negotiate. I'm not a woman and I was lowballed out of college due to a market downturn at the time and my salary has suffered ever since.
[+] [-] skummetmaelk|4 years ago|reply
Which clearly means that equal work doesn't pay equally. Surely your colleagues did not do half the work of those who negotiated a higher starting salary? In fact, mandating equal pay for equal work would take care of the negotiation aspect. The tricky part of course is how to measure work accurately.
[+] [-] sfg|4 years ago|reply
If so, then will those currently getting paid more move into contracting? They'd probably end up with more pay (even than they get now) if they did, so will we see a decrease in the statistical pay gap within categories based on formal job titles, but an increase in the real world pay gap between those that are actually earning more and less under the current system?
So, it looks better on paper, but - if you care about the difference in pay - it gets worse in reality.
Do we see this kind of thing already in the public sector in any countries? They often have public pay bands, but, as I understand things[1], in many places contractors, consultants, and such like can make better money by working outside of this system. So, transparent and formally equal, but actually less equal.
I wonder, if we'll one day read about this in the economist. How there is a growing real pay gap, and how it differs from the formal pay gap. How legislators are trying to respond, but businesses and contractors are fighting back.
[1] based mostly on anecdote and hearsay, rather than real knowledge, so please correct me!
Edited for styling.
[+] [-] tobylane|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] imiric|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aborsy|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dijit|4 years ago|reply
He claimed (though I'm certainly no expert) that you have to do your own taxes and set aside money for that; he also claimed that "sales tax" had local, state and federal taxes applied, so while it varies from state to state and city to city; it generally ends up being about 18-20%, which is in-line with VAT in most Euro countries.
He made a lot of comments about certain mandatory insurances and the fact that there were no "cost saving" systems, like heavily subsidised childcare or decent enough public transport that meant you didn't have the burden of a car.
Though he said he couldn't imagine living without a car in the US, as it turns you "back into a child". (his words.)
I'm not sure, I don't know everything, but after talking with him I didn't feel bad for being a "poor euro" anymore, because while the absolute "amount" of money he earned was much greater, the amount that he could actually use was lower.
But he also never had any stock grants or anything.. and those are not incredibly common in Europe. So you could be better off anyway. Who knows?
[+] [-] rcMgD2BwE72F|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] invalidusernam3|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] stefs|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gzer0|4 years ago|reply
For the sake of this example, let's say FAANG is looking for a software engineer and the range for the job listing is: 68k - 600k. Would this be allowed?
I ask because Denver, Colorado has identical mandated restrictions for job listings, and employers are skirting regulations by offering ridiculously broad ranges, putting everyone back at square one.
[+] [-] realusername|4 years ago|reply
If they put it way lower than their actual budget, it will scare away the candidates they are targeting.
[+] [-] Raed667|4 years ago|reply
"this position salary can be from €35k to 75k€ depending on multiple factors"
Such ranges would render it pointless
[+] [-] quietbritishjim|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glawen|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tgv|4 years ago|reply
Employers will pull shenanigans, surely, but it's a start. And when the lower bound doesn't compare well with competing offers, the employer might risk losing the best.
[+] [-] lentil_soup|4 years ago|reply
Also, if I'm looking for something close to the top of the range the possibility that I may get a way lower offer might put me off. Specially if I'll need to fight the company to get the top of the range salary.
[+] [-] astaunton|4 years ago|reply
So as an example Junior Software Engineer / Developer in one European country may be 35-45k salary but could be 30k-40k elsewhere (where property prices / food prices etc are lower).
This would also may it easier for job applicants to know what the expected pay scale is before interviewing (in my experience recruiters often contact people with roles that would be below their salary expectation e.g. software developer with 10 years experience being sent a role with a salary scale equivalent to a recent graduate)
[+] [-] cloverich|4 years ago|reply
But not all employers are offering the same range. I ask up front now and select the higher paying ranges to start, then ideally you get an offer from multiple of them at the same time, and you know how high you can push it. By simply going back and forth between them they negotiate for you. Obviously that is a luxury, but by merely knowing the range, even if wide, you greatly increase your ability to land a higher paying job.
[+] [-] IanCal|4 years ago|reply
35-75 would also help rule out the role for quite a lot of people.
[+] [-] mchusma|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JanSt|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] new_here|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blunte|4 years ago|reply
They would surely make current employees ask, "So what do I have to do to move from my 45k to the theoretical 75k max?"
[+] [-] Double_a_92|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] estaseuropano|4 years ago|reply
Its not a fait accompli, its a draft under discussion.
E.g. Proposed EU directive on pay transparency andbetter access to justice for victims of pay discrimination.
[+] [-] mtmail|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nbzso|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mhoad|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nmca|4 years ago|reply
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/best-alternative-to-a-n...
[+] [-] destitude|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kerneloftruth|4 years ago|reply
Why try harder if it's run like romper room?
[+] [-] fulafel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Katzmann1983|4 years ago|reply
Since when are 64% more than two-thirs?
[+] [-] trabant00|4 years ago|reply
In this quarter discussion with my manager I've been told I can not get a pay raise as it would create a discrepancy with my coworker salaries. As an current EU and formal communist republic citizen I find this worrying to say the least. The only option I have is to work less and browse youtube more. As that brings back communist memories I started looking for another job.
So I guess my question is how do they plan to measure the work part of "equal pay for equal work"?
[+] [-] zibzab|4 years ago|reply
You think you work too much and are paid too little? Then leave, this has nothing to do with "equal pay".
[+] [-] Double_a_92|4 years ago|reply
I do hope that the new laws don't directly require that, but that that would just be a positive consequence of having public salary statistics for each company.
I.e. people would automatically start demanding equal pay if they roughly knew how much other people in that company earn. Especially for insecure or less agressive people (e.g. women, fresh graduates, foreigners, shy people,..) knowing exactly what a fair salary is, would give them more leverage / confidence during salary negotiations.
And all that happens automatically, without the government needing to dictate any specific salary requirements.
[+] [-] kcb|4 years ago|reply
Careful with this line of thinking. It is just going to lead to aggrandizing yourself while downplaying and belittling others work. Once you get to that point you become the problem not others.
[+] [-] __turbobrew__|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] estaseuropano|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] froh|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] beardyw|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] amelius|4 years ago|reply