Latest news with #PayEquity
Forbes
23-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
What The EU Pay Transparency Directive Really Means For Day-To-Day Work
Hayley Bakker is the Head of Customer Journey & Digital Enablement at beqom, which supports pay equity with data-driven software. The EU Pay Transparency Directive, formally adopted in 2023, is a landmark law aiming to ensure that workers of all genders receive equal pay for work of equal value. It applies to EU-based companies with 100 or more employees and focuses on two key areas: pay transparency and pay equity. But this is more than a regulatory shift. It's a cultural one. Provisions like the right to know salary ranges, mandatory gender pay gap reporting and bans on asking about previous salaries are meant to close the gender pay gap. But beyond compliance, what does this mean for day-to-day work, employee-manager conversations and internal pay systems? Here's how these changes impact every level of an organization. 1. Employees Gain Visibility And Empowerment For employees, the most noticeable change is access to information. The directive gives them the right to request average pay levels for their job category, broken down by gender. Employers must publish salary ranges in job postings and be clear about pay progression criteria. This transparency shifts the balance of power and changes how employees approach hiring, promotions and salary discussions. Take Anna, a marketing manager who's spent five years at a tech firm in Madrid. She sees that her company's posted a replacement position, similar to her role. The posting includes a salary range, and when comparing this to her own pay, Anna realizes she's being significantly underpaid. When her next one-on-one with her manager arrives, she confidently raises the issue. This type of conversation might not have happened before. Transparency empowers employees to ask informed questions and expect informed answers. 2. Managers Have A New Level Of Accountability Managers must be ready to address tougher, more-informed compensation questions. Pay conversations can't be vague or take place once a year. Under the directive, managers are now accountable for fairness in pay decisions and must justify compensation using objective factors like role scope, performance and internal bands. Managers must become fluent in pay principles. For example, when Anna asks Daniel, her manager, why her salary is below the midpoint of the posted range, he can't give a generic answer. He needs to have a clear, policy-aligned explanation. Responses like 'That's just what we offered' are no longer sufficient. Companies must train managers to speak factually and consistently about compensation—or risk losing trust and talent. 3. HR Business Partners Are Coaches For Fair Pay HR business partners (HRBPs) play a vital role in turning pay policies into fair, everyday decisions. Part of their responsibility is coaching managers before pay reviews, guiding them through pay policies and helping identify bias in decisions. HRBPs also run pre-review checks to flag pay decisions that don't align with policy. For instance, at the tech firm where Anna and Daniel work, John is the HRBP who conducts department-wide compensation audits ahead of a pay cycle. He works to identify employee pay outliers that need justification or adjustment, and he helps managers like Daniel either explain or correct discrepancies. It's not just about fixing problems. It's about promoting intentional, defendable decision-making and embedding fairness in daily practices. 4. Compensation And Pay Equity Teams Drive Data-Backed Action The directive requires companies with more than 100 employees to report gender pay gaps. If gaps exceed 5%, then companies must conduct joint pay assessments. So, compensation and pay equity teams will be playing a much more visible role in the future. These professionals must develop grading systems, track analytics and guide corrective actions. For example, Lisa is a pay equity lead at the tech firm. She's created dashboards to show unexplained pay differences by gender and job. It's a tool that helps HRBPs and managers quickly spot and resolve inconsistencies. When a manager proposes a raise, they can see how it fits within internal pay equity models, ensuring fairness in real time. In a world where employees can ask, 'Why am I paid this?' having credible, data-backed answers is essential. 5. Leaders Set The Tone For Championing Transparency Executive leadership must actively model transparency and equity. That means setting clear pay equity goals, investing in tools and training across departments and speaking openly about pay structures and criteria. Some companies are already publishing pay equity goals and hosting internal Q&As where leaders explain pay philosophy and criteria. Others are working with consultants to understand their gaps and improve systems. When leaders are visible in these efforts, pay transparency becomes a shared value—not just a legal obligation. Compliance Is Just The Start The EU Pay Transparency Directive takes full effect in June 2026. But the opportunity lies in using it to lead a cultural transformation. Successful organizations won't just post salary ranges. They'll train managers, empower employees and build systems that support fair, consistent and data-driven pay decisions. Transparency isn't about revealing decisions. It's about standing behind them. Is your organization ready? Forbes Human Resources Council is an invitation-only organization for HR executives across all industries. Do I qualify?
Scoop
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Youth MPs Accuse Government Of 'Censoring' Them, Ministry Says Otherwise
The government is rejecting accusations it is censoring Youth MPs, saying the protocols followed are the same as 2022 and the young people get the final say on their speeches. However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes". Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard. The Labour Party has criticised the approach taken after some Youth MPs were asked to remove parts of their speeches, because some of their speech lacked political neutrality by criticising "this government". Changes recommended included the removal of general mentions of the Treaty Principles Bill, funding for Māori and Pasifika, and Pay Equity. Speeches about "youth voice" and "freedom of speech" were also edited. In a written statement, Ministry of Youth Development general manager John Robertson said the same protocol had been followed as was used in 2022, and the feedback provided on the Youth MPs' speeches was "generally focused on supporting them to convey their arguments clearly and effectively, and in keeping with the non-partisan approach of Youth Parliament". "We also advised some Youth MPs that changes were required to their speeches to avoid putting themselves at risk. Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privilege. This means young people could be held liable if the contents of their speech raise concerns around defamation, copyright, privacy, contempt of court, or broadcasting standards. "However, as noted above, the final decision about what they say is made by the Youth MPs." Robertson said the ministry had in some cases told the Youth MPs "it is your decision around what your speech does and does not contain". "From here, it is your choice how you use [our] feedback. You are the one stepping up to speak and we fully respect your right to shape your speech in the way that feels right to you," it said. However, the email RNZ has seen did not include such a statement. The ministry confirmed it had provided feedback to "about half of the 80 young people who will deliver speeches", and that they were shifting from the approach used in 2019 and 2022 of livestreaming the speeches to instead sending the recordings to the participants after the event. This was "due to resourcing constraints... the participants are welcome to share this footage with others, and online", the ministry said. Minister for Youth James Meager said the speeches were not censored. "We do not censor the speeches of Youth MPs. We provide feedback, and in some cases suggest changes for them to consider, but we have been clear to all Youth MPs that they make the final decision about the content of their speech." He provided a written statement, much of which matched the ministry's statement word for word. However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16, a group pushing for a voting age of 16 - saying the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament. "We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said. "We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy." Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored. "We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear based control." Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda". Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech". "It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government." Some of them sent responses to the ministry asking for clarification about the changes. "And what did we get? An automatic copy and pasted reply that is not at all in the principles of what Youth Parliament is," Jones said. "They claim to listen to us, they claim to want to uplift us, they send us an automatic copy and pasted response on the thing we have three minutes to speak about. That's not good enough." He said the experience had encouraged him even further to put himself forward to become an MP. "It honestly fuels that fire within me, and I think for all of us to put it out there and to make our voices heard."
Otago Daily Times
01-07-2025
- Politics
- Otago Daily Times
Youth MPs accuse govt of 'censoring' them
By Russell Palmer and Giles Dexter of RNZ The protocols followed for this year's Youth Parliament are the same as previous years, the Ministry of Youth Development says, after accusations of censorship. However, the email sent to one Youth MP carries the subject line "changes required", and stated the ministry "have had to make some changes". Some of the Youth MPs involved say they will not be suppressed and the issue has fuelled the fire to make their voices heard. The Labour Party has criticised the approach taken after some Youth MPs were asked to remove parts of their speeches, because some of their speech lacked political neutrality by criticising "this government". Changes recommended included the removal of general mentions of the Treaty Principles Bill, funding for Māori and Pasifika, and Pay Equity. Speeches about "youth voice" and "freedom of speech" were also edited. In a written statement, Ministry of Youth Development general manager John Robertson said the same protocol had been followed as was used in 2022, and the feedback provided on the Youth MPs' speeches was "generally focused on supporting them to convey their arguments clearly and effectively, and in keeping with the non-partisan approach of Youth Parliament". "We also advised some Youth MPs that changes were required to their speeches to avoid putting themselves at risk. Youth MPs are not protected by parliamentary privilege. This means young people could be held liable if the contents of their speech raise concerns around defamation, copyright, privacy, contempt of court, or broadcasting standards. "However, as noted above, the final decision about what they say is made by the Youth MPs." Robertson said the ministry had in some cases told the Youth MPs "it is your decision around what your speech does and does not contain". "From here, it is your choice how you use [our] feedback. You are the one stepping up to speak and we fully respect your right to shape your speech in the way that feels right to you." However, the email RNZ has seen did not include such a statement. The ministry confirmed it had provided feedback to "about half of the 80 young people who will deliver speeches", and that they were shifting from the approach used in 2019 and 2022 of livestreaming the speeches to instead sending the recordings to the participants after the event. This was "due to resourcing constraints... the participants are welcome to share this footage with others, and online", the ministry said. Minister for Youth James Meager said the speeches were not censored. "We do not censor the speeches of Youth MPs. We provide feedback, and in some cases suggest changes for them to consider, but we have been clear to all Youth MPs that they make the final decision about the content of their speech." He provided a written statement, much of which matched the ministry's statement word for word. However, the Youth MPs spoke to reporters at Parliament with one - Thomas Brocherie, a spokesperson for Make it 16 (a group pushing for a voting age of 16) - said the approach taken to the speeches was diluting the value of the Youth Parliament. "We have been told to not argue on either side of contentious issues such as the pay equity reforms or the Treaty Principles Bill for the excuse that they are current topics in the current Parliament. This is not just illogical, it is censorship," he said. "We cannot say we value democracy unless we actually show and prove we value democracy. Silencing the stakeholders of the future does not value democracy." Another Youth MP Nate Wilbourne, a spokesperson for Gen Z Aotearoa, said rangatahi were being silenced and censored. "We've been told to soften our language, to drop key parts of our speeches and to avoid criticizing certain ministers or policies. This isn't guidance. This is fear-based control." Brocherie said the emails being titled "changes required" was "not at all a suggestion, that is blatant editing, they want us to change something to suit their purpose, to suit their agenda". Youth MP Lincoln Jones said they were provided with "a PDF of edited changes... delivered to our inbox, and that was the expected requirement, that we speak that speech". "It's honestly like they've gone through with it with a microscope to find any little thing that might be interpreted wrong against, I guess, the current government." Some of them sent responses to the ministry asking for clarification about the changes. "And what did we get? An automatic copy and pasted reply that is not at all in the principles of what Youth Parliament is," Jones said. "They claim to listen to us, they claim to want to uplift us, they send us an automatic copy and pasted response on the thing we have three minutes to speak about. That's not good enough." He said the experience had encouraged him even further to put himself forward to become an MP. "It honestly fuels that fire within me, and I think for all of us to put it out there and to make our voices heard."
Scoop
17-06-2025
- Business
- Scoop
ERA Changes Hurt Workers, Pander To Big Business
The Green Party says proposed changes to the Employment Relations Act announced today by the Government will further undermine workers' rights while pandering to big business. 'This cruel Bill will cut off our most vulnerable workers from the rights that belong to them,' says the Green Party spokesperson for Workplace Relations and Safety, Teanau Tuiono. "Our economy has been built by our workers - supporting them means supporting ourselves. For generations, workers' rights have been hard-won and should be protected as a cornerstone of a people-focused modern economy. 'Today, this Government has put forward a number of dangerous changes to the ERA, including redefining the roles of employees and contractors to allow gig economy companies like Uber to trample over the rights of their workers. 'The removal of automatic union membership on collective agreements will result in lower wages, and putting up barriers to raising personal grievances will entrench power imbalance and harm in our workplaces. 'All of this quite clearly plays directly into the hands of companies looking to cut corners and boost profit margins at the expense of our workers and communities. 'The Coalition has unapologetically pushed its anti-worker agenda this term - including gutting Pay Equity, scrapping fair pay agreements, reinstating 90-day trials, and introducing effective cuts to the minimum wage. 'A Green Government would undo the laundry list of attacks made by the current Government on the rights of workers,' says Teanau Tuiono.
Scoop
15-06-2025
- Politics
- Scoop
Concern Over Signs Govt Will Reduce Sick Leave For Workers
The Green Party is calling on the Prime minister to stand up for workers' rights for once and rule out reducing sick leave entitlements. 'This Government for the wealthy keeps finding new ways of eviscerating workers' rights and tilting power to employers,' says the Green Party spokesperson for Workplace Relations, Teanau Tuiono. 'Our economy is built upon the backs of our workers, so to erode their rights to sick leave is nothing short of an attack on the morale and productivity of our workforce. 'The Government is making a habit of revealing such changes at the start of Winter when seasonal illnesses, flu and Covid are placing many families under strain. 'Women workers in particular will be disproportionately affected by this cruel policy as they tend to take more sick leave because of childcare responsibilities. For the Government to be considering reducing sick leave is another way to attack women workers following its Pay Equity bombshell. 'The fact that the Prime Minister hasn't ruled out halving the number of sick days for part-time workers speaks to a pattern of decision-making of a Government that doesn't listen to, nor care about, workers. 'The Coalition has unapologetically pushed its anti-worker agenda this term - gutting the Pay Equity process, scrapping fair pay agreements, reinstating 90-day trials, and changing the law so that Uber and other gig work platforms can keep their workers from getting their entitlements in already precarious job arrangements. 'More must be done to support our workers. The Green Party campaigned on five weeks of annual leave for everyone so that people have more time to connect with their whānau, communities, and things that matter to them. 'The Green Party will keep fighting for everyone in Aotearoa to have access to strong rights, secure work, and decent pay, to ensure workers can thrive,' says Teanau Tuiono.
