Latest news with #payequity
The Guardian
4 days ago
- Business
- The Guardian
Salary secrets: pay transparency is great – until you hear what your slacker colleague earns
Name: Pay transparency. Age: Merely a twinkle in government ministers' eyes. Appearance: Potentially a bit can of worms-y. You can't have a problem with pay transparency. It's a good thing! It is! It highlights and helps tackle gender, ethnicity, age and disability pay gaps for a start, which is why the UK government is looking at ways to promote more openness around what people earn. They should make nonsensically vague salary info in job ads illegal for starters. Don't tell me it's 'competitive' – tell me if I'll be able to afford to eat. You're in luck – one suggestion is making employers include salary bracket or specific salary in job ads. Others include banning asking candidates about their pay history and making the provision of clear information on pay structures and career progression mandatory. Didn't the EU do something similar recently? Yes, the EU Pay Transparency Directive, which comes into force next year, introduces similar measures – it also bans pay secrecy clauses, which stop employees from discussing their salaries with colleagues. Good stuff. So what is the problem? Well, speaking of discussing what you earn, one of the other measures the UK is considering is 'providing employees with information on their pay level and how their pay compares with those doing the same role or work of equal value'. So? That sounds positive. You know your colleague, Darren? The wastrel who moseys in at five to 10, scrolls through his socials for an hour then disappears to the gents until 12, takes two hours for lunch and leaves at four? Yep, that Darren. Well, imagine finding out he's earning 20 grand more than you? Is he????? I don't know. But what if, under these new proposed rules, you found out that he was? I would go full Godzilla, ripping through the open space screaming, tearing out cables and kicking over bins. You see the problem. There's a certain potential for, let's say, tension, if people find out they're earning less than their colleagues (especially crap ones). But, come on, how likely is it that employers will be forced, or choose, to reveal specific individualised information on who earns exactly what? Admittedly, very unlikely – this is all still theoretical. But look what happened when the BBC published pay bracket information on presenters? All hell broke loose! You mean a scandalous gender pay gap was exposed and addressed? I see your point. But we're funny about money – a 2021 poll found 36% of British people don't even tell their spouses what they earn. Pay transparency provisions are definitely a good thing, but this could get messy. Do say: 'So how much do you earn?' Don't say: '£7,840 more than you and I'm worth every penny, Darren.'
Telegraph
13-06-2025
- Business
- Telegraph
The football club that went woke is going broke
They became famous for being the first – and still only – football club to pay their women's team the same as their men's. But almost eight years after launching their 'Equality FC' campaign, Lewes have admitted they now face a fight to stick to that landmark commitment and even 'to keep the club running' this summer. In an extraordinary appeal to their fans they have revealed they need £120,000 to get through to the start of next season after only 'just' making it to the end of this campaign, as well as warning 'the next few weeks' will shape their entire future. So how has it come to this for a club who had sought to 'put an end to the excuses for why such a deep pay disparity has persisted in our sport'? Is the plight of Equality FC a vindication of those behind the catchphrase 'go woke, go broke'? To find answers requires going back to when Lewes faced going bust after the 2008 global financial crisis. Until then, a side from the Sussex town best known as the bonfire capital of the world had barely registered on the national stage, having spent their entire existence outside the professional game since being founded in 1885. After staving off a bankruptcy petition by HM Revenue & Customs, the club were taken into fan ownership 15 years ago as a Community Benefit Society, led by six supporters – calling themselves Rooks125 – who included some well-off benefactors. Having been relegated from what is now the National League the year before the takeover, the men's team suffered two further demotions under the new regime over the subsequent six years. In stark contrast, the women's team, formed in 2002 as Lewes Ladies, was thriving on the field and made it all the way to the third tier, following the merger with the men's side in 2014. Groundbreaking equality drive But the July 2017 announcement that they would become the first club to pay their men's and women's teams equally really put Lewes on the footballing map. As well as pledging to equalise the five-figure budget of both sides, they said they would provide the same resource for coaching and other staff, upgrade equipment and facilities, and invest in local grass roots to drive participation by boys and girls. The landmark news made headlines nationwide and beyond amid an explosion of interest in the women's game driven by England's Lionesses and the Women's Super League. It also came just two years after it emerged England men's captain Wayne Rooney was earning £300,000 per week compared to the £65,000 a year netted by women's counterpart Steph Houghton. As is common with the announcement of many equality drives, there was little public scrutiny at the time about the practicality of such a policy – although it would later emerge that this had caused a split amongst Lewes' board of directors. The move appeared to pay off spectacularly for the women's team when, despite having played only regional football since being established, they were subsequently chosen to join the new Women's Championship. Any fears the men's team would suffer as a result looked unfounded when they were promoted that same season to the Isthmian League Premier Division. Sponsors and Prosecco on tap 'Equality FC' helped attract sponsors such as Kappa, Marsden and Brighton and Hove Buses as the club introduced the likes of on-tap Prosecco, turned a beach hut (their version of a corporate box) into a nail bar, held chanting practice before women's matches and staged suffragette flash mobs. Lewes also began lobbying the Football Association to provide equal prize money in the men's and women's FA Cups. Within two years, they had quadrupled average women's attendances from around 120, including a record 1,958 for a league game against Manchester United. 'I joined a football club – I'm leaving a political party' But, despite soaring revenues, it was their efforts to compete with the relative financial might of the likes of United and Tottenham Hotspur that saw the first cracks emerge in the club's commitment to 'Equality FC'. Since coming under fan control, and without sufficient supporter owners to make them self-sustaining, Lewes had been relying on hundreds of thousands of pounds of loans from directors which were then written off. Those loans began to balloon after 2017 and, in September 2019, matters came to a head when one of the men who had helped rescue the club a decade earlier quit the board. In a scathing blog post explaining why, Barry Collins said he had become 'convinced that much of the hard work I and others had put in to building the club's reputation had been needlessly squandered'. He added: 'The club has become overwhelmed by the single issue of the equality campaign. I joined a football club and feel like I'm leaving a political party. 'I had my doubts about the pay parity initiative, I still do – my side bet is it will be abandoned as impractical once either of the first teams is promoted without the other. The equality campaign has become an internal crusade that trumps all else. 'A couple of directors suggested it should be the board's 'priority' to attend a literary festival the club was running an equality event at, instead of a game at Margate on the same day. My view was that we were running a football club, not a think-tank. 'There are some board members who can't seem to accept that some people's primary motivation for being part of a football club is the football, not the club's politics. In the end, I felt it best to go, rather than risk further confrontation.' Women's professionalism simply too costly Collins is chair of the Lewes FC Supporters Club and, asked by Telegraph Sport about his resignation, he stressed he had not been 'ideologically opposed to equality' but 'ideologically opposed to spending that much money that the club doesn't have'. He admitted that one of the ironies of Equality FC was that the second-tier women's team became more expensive to run than the seventh-tier men's due to the cost of creeping professionalisation in the Championship. Yet the commitment had remained to provide both with the same budget and, as the coronavirus crisis struck, Lewes continued to rely on written-off director loans. So much so that, by the summer of 2023, more than £2 million had been pumped into the club since Equality FC was launched. Almost two thirds of that was provided in 2021-22 and 2022-2023 by two outgoing board members, Ed Ramsden and Charlie Dobres, who were never likely to be able to keep bankrolling the club. Lewes were still being feted for 'Equality FC', including receiving a number of diversity awards, not harmed by providing a home at their 3,000-capacity stadium, The Dripping Pan, to a 10ft statue of two 18th century bisexual female pirates. They were also handed a £750,000 grant via the Premier League Stadium Fund for a new carpet-hybrid pitch at the ground. And, in arguably the biggest match in their history, they hosted United in the quarter-final of the 2023 Women's FA Cup in front of a record 2,801 crowd. 'A never-ending cycle of boom and bust' Financial salvation, and more, then appeared to arrive in the shape of a proposed takeover of the women's team by Mercury 13 as part of a £79.1 million investment into clubs worldwide. But this proved even more divisive, with Collins part of a group of eight former board members – including one of the original six behind the CBS – writing an open letter opposing the move. It read: 'Over the past few years, the club has sacrificed sustainability at the expense of chasing on-field success. The investment has driven the women's team to unprecedented heights. But competing with clubs such as Manchester United and Liverpool has come at a considerable financial cost. 'Directors' donations have climbed steeply over the past five years. In the last financial year alone, one director donated £600,000. That level of donations simply isn't sustainable. 'We believe the answer is not to return to private ownership, with all the risks that entails. Instead, we believe the answer is to remain a 100 per cent community-owned club that finds its natural place in the football pyramid. Private ownership leads almost every football club in the UK through a never-ending cycle of boom and bust. And usually leaves supporters as powerless bystanders and the townsfolk as the bank of last resort.' Takeover and investment plans shelved The deal was put to a vote of the club's 2,573 fan owners and although 67.8 per cent of those who participated were in favour, turnout was just 42 per cent, sparking concerns there was not enough support for the move. It was abandoned, with Lewes even citing the fact that it would have contravened their 'core principles of equality' because it would have resulted in a cash bonanza for the women but nothing for the men. The club later announced it was 'seeking legal advice' over a 'potential conflict of interest' during the Mercury 13 talks, which Telegraph Sport has been told did not find any wrongdoing. Things were also going awry on the field for the women's team, who found themselves in a relegation dogfight which they lost in April last year despite a crowd of 2,614 cheering them on against eventual champions Crystal Palace. That spelt the end of almost £500,000-a-year of FA funding and television revenue and, without access to the director loans that had sustained them, the club slashed their budget for the women's and – therefore correspondingly – the men's teams. By then, not even record average league attendances for both sides could mask the plight facing Lewes and there were calls for the Equality FC campaign to be scrapped, including from Dobres's wife, Karen, a former club director who had been instrumental in promoting it. She and others advocated a move to what they called 'equity', which would involve the women's team being given a bigger budget than the men's in the hope both would ultimately benefit. Instead, Lewes recently floated the idea of launching an investment scheme from which owners could make a financial return but the plans, which contravened the principles under which the CBS had been founded, were quickly abandoned. That was towards the end of a season in which Lewes Women finished sixth in the 12-team National League Premier Division South. The men's team ended the campaign 13th in the 22-team Isthmian Premier. 'You are required to live beyond your means' Lewes's appeal for donations followed less than a month later in an open letter published on their website. It was written by Joe Short, who joined the board a year and a half earlier. Telling Telegraph Sport 'no one's really sure' what would happen if the money did not materialise, he was nevertheless confident the threat to Lewes was not existential. He added: 'It means that we have to shrink to such an extent that our playing budgets would just be relegation budgets.' He also said there were no immediate plans to abandon Equality FC, which had brought income and attention to the club, and that the club were victims of what had become 'aggressively high' licensing requirements at the summit of women's football. Those requirements saw Blackburn Rovers become the second club to withdraw from the Championship in the past two seasons – after Reading did so last year – and Wolverhampton Wanderers chose not to submit an application to join the division. 'You are required to kind of live beyond your means in order to stay in the top two divisions,' Short added. 'We fear it is turning into a template of the men's game, where you lose money year after year.' Collins, meanwhile, had a blunt assessment of what would happen if Lewes failed to raise the money needed this summer. 'It's a business,' he said. 'If you can't pay your bills, you potentially face administration or insolvency.' He also warned they needed to 'stand on their own two feet', even if that meant being unable to 'compete against the Arsenals and Man Uniteds'. He added: 'We just want a club to go to on a weekend.'
RNZ News
11-06-2025
- Business
- RNZ News
Council of Trade Unions take NZ's pay equity fight to international conference
Pay equity protestors voice their opinions outside Parliament on Budget day 2025. Photo: RNZ/Marika Khabazi A representative from the Council of Trade Unions has taken New Zealand's pay equity fight to an international conference. The International Labour Organisation (ILO) is a United Nations agency, which brings together workers, employers and governments to discuss work-related issues, and whose mandate is to advance social and economic justice by setting international labour standards. Council of Trade Unions secretary Melissa Ansell-Bridges is at its annual conference in Geneva, Switzerland. The coalition government announced in early May it would use urgency in Parliament to raise the threshold for proving work has been historically undervalued when making a pay equity claim. Workplace Minister Brooke van Velden said at the time , claims had been able to progress without strong evidence of undervaluation, and some had been "very broad", where it was difficult to tell whether differences in pay were due to sex-based discrimination or something else. The move cancelled 33 in-progress pay equity claims, and saved the government billions of dollars . Ansell-Bridges told RNZ she spoke about the changes during her speech to the ILO plenary on Tuesday. "It was important to inform the 187 member states that despite not being signalled in the last election, reforms to severely undermine the legislation were passed under urgency without any consultation with workers or their unions." The issue had come too late to make it onto the agenda for the ILO's committee on the application of standards, which sat during the two-week conference. "But that's definitely something that we'll be considering in advance of the conference next year," she said. If a case ended up being heard by the committee - which operated on a triage system - it would then be able to make recommendations to governments on how to stay in alignment with agreed conventions. Ansell-Bridges said the response from those international representatives who heard her speech had been one of warmth, support and surprise. "Obviously we have this reputation of being quite a progressive and forward-thinking country that values equality, and so to hear that these kinds of changes are happening in New Zealand, people are very surprised." Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero, a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
RNZ News
10-06-2025
- Politics
- RNZ News
'Where was the care of thought?': Greens criticise ministers over pay equity advice
Teanau Tuiono. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone Government ministers did not get advice on what the changes to pay equity would mean for specific claims in their portfolios, ahead of the legislation that would discontinue the claims being introduced. The Green Party said it is another example of the lack of consultation over the changes, with thousands of workers blindsided by the government. But the government maintains it made the changes to deliver clarity and certainty to workers, and the changes will improve the design and overall process for raising and resolving claims. Thirty-three unsettled claims were halted by the changes passed through Parliament last month, and will need to start again under the new threshholds, due to the legislation applying retrospectively. Review clauses under existing settled claims have also become unenforceable. Affected workers and the wider public were not consulted on the changes ahead of their announcement, there was no Regulatory Impact Statement for the bill, and with the legislation going through under urgency there was no opportunity for a select committee process. Through written questions, the Greens' workplace relations and safety spokesperson Teanau Tuiono asked ministers what advice they received prior to the introduction of the legislation, about specific claims under their portfolio coverage. Tuiono sent the questions to: Brown, Collins, Doocey, and Upston told Tuiono that advice they receive is available on their relevant ministry's or agency's website, but they did not refer to pay equity at all in their responses. Seymour said in his capacity as an associate minister, he had not received advice, but as a Cabinet minister participated in Cabinet discussions on pay equity. Chhour, Mitchell, Potaka, Reti, Simmonds, Stanford, and Watts confirmed they had not received advice related to specific claims. Grigg told Tuiono the changes "do not halt claims," and claims can still be raised "in a manner that is more robust, more sustainable, and more workable to address sex-based discrimination in the workplace." She said she was involved in conversations about the legislation, including policy discussions, and consultation on the Cabinet paper where advice was provided by officials. Stanford's response said the advice she received was regarding policy changes to address historical sex-based discrimination for women overall, and was "not limited" to particular sectors or claims. "This government is committed to addressing sex-based discrimination in the workplace," she wrote. Tuiono said the ministers' responses showed the government had not shown any thought towards the impact the changes would have on the thousands of workers going through a claim. "I thought there would at least be some sort of analysis being done by each of those ministers to determine 'this impacts workers within my portfolio area, what does that actually mean?' But none of that has been done, they've just discarded people's roles and jobs and treated them with the utmost disrespect," he said. "Where was the thought? Where was the care of thought for the impact on these people as well? Why was there no analysis done on what the ongoing impacts would be?" The Public Service Association's national secretary Fleur Fitzsimons said it showed arrogance in developing the changes. "This government promised evidence-based policy, but is not even interested in seeking the views of their own agencies when coming after pay equity," she said. Fitzsimons said it was ironic, given the ACT Party's principles around regulatory standards. "It is hypocritical from the ACT Party to introduce a Regulatory Standards Bill which includes elements of consultation better than they've done when it comes to New Zealand women and pay equity." Since making the announcement last month, the government has defended the lack of consultation, and has been at pains to stress the changes do not get rid of equal pay or pay parity. On Sunday, the Prime Minister again defended the approach. "We moved very quickly, under urgency. We could have done it a different way... and put a lot of people and claimants into limbo for some time. We didn't think that was fair," Christopher Luxon said. "We think we need one system, not two systems... you can argue if you've got a different view on that, but we made a decision that we wanted clarity and we wanted certainty, and that's why we did it the way we did it." Van Velden, the minister who introduced the legislation, told RNZ the changes were not in response to any particular sector or claim that was underway. Brooke van Velden. Photo: RNZ / Samuel Rillstone "This is a policy that I said at the start of my term I was interested in pursuing. It became really clear this year that my Cabinet colleagues wanted me to work on this as quickly as I could. I am a team player and so I did my job," she said. "The ACT Party would love strong regulatory standards that is core to who we are as a party, but I was asked by my Cabinet colleagues to do this and I did it for the government." In her responses to Tuiono, van Velden gave him a list of the formal advice she had received on pay equity from February to April, including reports from Treasury, the Public Service Commission, and the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment. They included papers on possible legislative approaches and key questions, as well as the Cabinet papers. She also confirmed neither she nor her office had communicated with any employer parties or their representatives regarding the changes, and no lobbyists or consultants were consulted. But she said officials did consult other officials in the public service in the development of the changes, including some in their capacity as employers, referring to a Reviewing Policy Settings Cabinet paper. The paper was developed by the Ministry of Business, Innovation, and Employment, the Treasury, and the Public Service Commission. The Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, and the Crown Law Office were consulted on the paper, while the Ministry of Education and Health New Zealand were consulted on the proposals. The paper also explained why van Velden did not make any announcements on the changes until the bill was introduced, saying she was "cognisant" of the risk announcing the changes before the bill could prompt pay equity claims being filed and potentially determined by the Employment Relations Authority under the then-existing Act. Sign up for Ngā Pitopito Kōrero , a daily newsletter curated by our editors and delivered straight to your inbox every weekday.
Forbes
05-06-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Salary Transparency In 2025: Can It Help You Get A Pay Rise?
Just a few years ago, asking about salary early in the hiring process felt risky – even taboo. Fast forward to 2025, and transparency is encouraged, and sometimes even required by law. From EU directives to state-level legislation in the US, salary transparency is reshaping how companies advertise roles and how candidates prepare. But the real question is: Can it actually help you earn more? Here's what's changing – and how to make these changes work in your favour. The EU Pay Transparency Directive, passed in 2023 and now entering implementation across member states, will soon require companies to publish salary ranges for all roles and provide employees with the right to request pay details. While full compliance isn't mandatory until 2026, many European employers are already adapting their systems. Meanwhile, in the United States, several states have passed their own laws. New York, California, Colorado, Washington, and Illinois now require employers to include salary ranges in job postings. Some cities (like NYC) go further, enforcing detailed disclosure rules even for internal roles. According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), 67% of organizations voluntarily include starting pay in job postings – even in states where it's not yet mandatory. Many of the world's most influential employers aren't waiting for legislation. Companies like Meta, Microsoft, Salesforce, Deloitte, and PwC have already introduced global pay banding frameworks, citing a desire to build trust and improve retention. Why? Because transparency doesn't just benefit employees – it helps employers attract talent more efficiently. Payscale research indicates that organisations with transparent compensation practices experience lower employee turnover, highlighting the role of clear pay structures in improving retention. For jobseekers, this means you no longer have to guess what a 'competitive salary' really means. In many cases, it's right there in the job ad. Whether you're applying for a role or already in one, you may now be entitled to ask about salary ranges – and companies are increasingly prepared to answer. In EU countries preparing for the 2026 directive, employers must inform candidates of expected pay ranges during the hiring process – even if not yet required to list them in job ads. In the US, many state laws grant you the right to request this information during interviews. Here's how to ask: 'Can you share the salary range budgeted for this role?''Is this role aligned to a particular pay grade within the organisation?' If you're already employed, it's reasonable to ask your manager or HR contact about the pay band for your role – especially if your organisation is transitioning toward a transparent structure. New transparency laws are reshaping how people negotiate pay in 2025. Knowing the range gives you leverage. But how you use it matters. For candidates, transparency means you can tailor your expectations realistically – and confidently. If a posting lists a £75,000–£90,000 range, and you bring strong experience, it's appropriate to ask for the upper half. If you're in a current role and see similar roles advertised with higher compensation, you have a benchmark. But rather than demand parity immediately, use the information to frame a development conversation. For example: 'I've noticed similar roles are being advertised at a higher range – I'd like to discuss how my performance aligns with that level.' So far, yes – but not automatically. Salary transparency laws have influenced negotiation behaviours, with candidates feeling more empowered to discuss compensation openly, as highlighted in this Quartz article. Meanwhile, Payscale's research indicates that employees who perceive their company's pay practices as transparent are significantly less likely to seek new employment opportunities. Specifically, each incremental increase in perceived pay transparency corresponds to a 30% decrease in the likelihood of an employee seeking a new job. As Caroline Castrillon outlines in her Forbes article, '3 Steps To Negotiate A Higher Salary Before Accepting A Job Offer', conducting thorough market research and preparing for negotiations are key strategies to secure a salary that reflects your value. According to SHRM, promoting transparency in compensation practices can build trust among employees. When combined with preparation and performance, transparency often leads to better pay outcomes. If you're considering a raise conversation, 2025 offers more tools than ever to support you. Start by reviewing job postings at your current company or among competitors to benchmark your salary. Then, request the pay band for your role if it hasn't already been disclosed. Finally, frame your raise request around value, market alignment, and growth potential – not just comparison. Consider this real example: Nina, a project coordinator in Berlin, noticed that comparable roles at other firms were listing higher salary ranges. She gathered job ads, checked her company's pay transparency policy, and requested a meeting. Her manager appreciated her professional approach – and within weeks, her salary was adjusted to reflect her market value. If you're job hunting, look for postings with clear bands – they're a sign of progressive compensation culture. And don't be afraid to bring up compensation early. In most cases, it's not just okay – it's expected. Salary transparency is about more than just knowing what others earn: it's about knowing your worth. In 2025, the information gap is closing, and with it comes opportunity. The law may be driving the change. But it's up to you to make the most of it.
