Latest news with #paytransparency
Entrepreneur
3 days ago
- Business
- Entrepreneur
The Job Interview Mistake That Causes Hiring Managers to Ghost
"Any questions for me?" Your answer could make or break an offer. These days, it takes an average of six months for job applicants to get hired for a new role, according to a recent Wall Street Journal report. Given that timeline — and the fact that some job-seekers might put in hundreds of applications before they receive an offer letter — it can pay, literally, to be strategic during the interview process. Many hiring managers will ask interviewees if they have any questions for them at the end of an interview. It's an opportunity for candidates to further express their interest in and qualifications for the role. Related: The Ultimate Guide on How to Prepare for a Job Interview There are a lot of great questions to ask in an interview — and some that might be best avoided, depending on your career goals. A new study from found that although pay transparency is the No. 1 most important thing gig workers look for in job listings, hiring managers will ghost one in 10 candidates who ask about pay during an interview. The lack of transparency around compensation can not only throw a wrench in an applicant's job search but also make it more difficult for employers to find the right talent. Related: 7 Mistakes to Avoid Making During a Job Interview, According to a Business Etiquette Expert One in four gig workers would never apply to jobs without listed pay, and 68% don't trust companies that hide pay information because they believe it means the job pays poorly (74%), has a high turnover rate (49%) or fosters a toxic culture (35%), according to the report. What's more, 20% of workers say that pay transparency in their industry has gotten worse, per SideHustles. Related: Why Do You Want to Work Here? Here's How You Can Ace the Question Every Time Hannah Williams, the Gen Z content creator behind the account Salary Transparent Street, told Entrepreneur that young professionals who want to make sure their salaries are fair should always be prepared to negotiate once they receive an offer — and wait 24 hours before accepting any new role. "Even if you're satisfied with the rate, tell them you need 24 hours to review the offer," Williams said. "This has not only helped me get more money in the final offer if the company is pressured to fill the role, but has also brought me peace of mind in thinking through and making my final decision."
Telegraph
7 days ago
- Business
- Telegraph
My salary is none of Bridget Phillipson's business
How much do you earn? If that question makes you flinch, then you're in good company. I have never had a comfortable conversation with a colleague about pay, and I'm not sure I know anyone who has. British people are apparently seven times more likely to tell a stranger how many sexual partners they've had than what their income is, a University College London survey once declared. So if you're itching for some awkward water-cooler chat this afternoon, just ask your colleagues what they earn – and hey presto, everyone's feeling hotter. The Government is determined to banish this self-consciousness, concerned that our stiff-upper lip attitude benefits some far more than others. It is hard to call out inequality if nobody has any idea what anyone else earns. There are stories of mothers re-entering the workforce only to discover that the people they are managing are taking home far more than them. The Office for Equality and Opportunity, which is led by the Minister for Women and Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, is currently consulting on ways to break this taboo. The most eye-catching idea on the table is to force businesses to tell staff what their colleagues earn. That's not going as far as Norway, where everyone's tax return is fair game, but it would be a big cultural shift and could eventually pave the way for a Norwegian-style system where pay becomes a matter of public record. It sounds like a quick fix, until you seriously think about the implications of opening this Pandora's box. There would be the inevitable office infighting – furious colleagues discovering that the incompetent so-and-so they work with earns far more than they do – followed by some pretty demotivating conversations as staff are told that more experience doesn't necessarily mean more productivity or skill. Next would come an inevitable fudging of numbers by bosses eager to protect those on big incomes. When the BBC first decided to publish the salaries of high earners, the aim was to mark a new era of transparency. However, in reality, any earnings made through the BBC's commercial arm (which is not funded by the licence fee) do not need to be disclosed. TV chat show host, Graham Norton, acknowledged this loophole when he said that the list of mega earners is 'frustrating, because it's so inaccurate'. He added: 'There are people I know who make millions from the BBC who are just not on that list'. Radio host, Simon Mayo, has also dismissed the annual publication of staff salaries as an 'annual turkey shoot'. If things then did evolve into a more Norwegian-style system where all salaries are out in the open, then just think of all that salary snooping. People could end up hunting down the earnings of potential partners, former partners, enemies and tenants. The numbers could be dug out and weaponised by siblings in inheritance battles, landlords eager to push up rents or tech giants harvesting information for targeted adverts. And even if none of that did happen, the simple facts are in front of us – Norway still has a gender pay gap, with men on average earning 13pc more than women. The same problems remain. Everyone deserves their privacy. Although research suggests that we tend to overestimate the number of people who are wealthier than us and underestimate the number who are poorer, there's no way the publishing of everyone's salaries will create a more understanding, equal society. Previous studies have shown that the phenomenon of 'keeping up with the Joneses' is not about the people living in the same street or country as you, but about those in your inner circle – close family, friends and colleagues. People might not care if a stranger in their area knows what salary they're on, but they don't want the person they sit next to at work or their university friend to be able to dig up the figure and bring it up at a dinner party. This came up when American social media marketing site, Buffer, decided to start listing staff names, locations and salaries in a detailed public spreadsheet. In seconds, strangers can scroll from highest to lowest earner in the company, from the chief executive's £224,000-a-year salary to a 'customer advocate's' £61,000 figure (both are US-based). 'Someone felt that if their friends and family knew their salary, it might change the relationship they have with them,' Gascoigne said to the Huffington Post in 2016, before adding that this discomfort proved unfounded. Instead, he said there was a 'dramatic' rise in the number of people applying for jobs. It might have worked well for a start-up, but are our salaries really any of Bridget Phillipson's business? At the moment, nothing is off the table, although the most likely option if the Government ends up doing anything would probably be listing salary ranges in job adverts. That's already law in California and New York, but the verdict on whether these rules have made much impact is mixed, and the last thing British businesses want right now is more red tape. Bosses are already gearing up for the enormous raft of changes coming in the Employment Rights Bill, and won't have much patience for new rules which they deem unnecessary. The next generation of workers might just come to the rescue. According to a survey conducted by recruiter Robert Half, 86pc of Gen Z workers are happy to discuss their salaries compared to 59pc of millennials and 41pc of baby boomers. This point might crop up as the Government seeks evidence before making any decisions.
Telegraph
22-06-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
Labour's obsession with equality will make us all poorer
We've all had that thought: 'Why is that lazy b------ paid more than me? He seems to spend most of his day browsing Amazon and eBay, then dashes home at the earliest possible moment while I toil on way beyond my contracted hours.' Perhaps even more aggravating than the general feeling that one is not being justly remunerated for one's labour is the feeling that someone else is undeservedly being more richly rewarded. These petty resentments may become much worse under proposals that Labour is considering. Taking a break from wrecking our schools and taxing aspirational parents, Education Secretary Bridget Phillipson, wearing her other hat as Minister for Women and Equalities, is directing the Office for Equality and Opportunity to come up with plans to tackle pay discrimination. These could include forcing employers to tell their workers how much their colleagues earn. Pay transparency, or so the argument goes, is the elixir to eliminate unfairness in the workplace. The reality is likely to be rather different. Equal pay for equal work may indeed be a worthy cause, but who is to judge what endeavours are equivalent? Basing pay simply on seniority does not acknowledge the different contributions different employees make. In recent decades, the trend has been in the opposite direction. We have been steadily eroding pay transparency in a raft of professions. While the armed forces, the police and to a lesser extent, the civil service, may still have fairly rigid pay grades, they have been eroded in academia and school teaching. Both still have pay spines which apply broadly, but as people are promoted, this becomes much less true. Academy schools, whose freedoms Phillipson is fast eroding, have much more flexibility as to how to reward exceptional staff – professorial pay is now largely a matter of negotiation. Pay differentials in both teaching and academia have vastly increased as a result. This is not happening due to education providers being malignly unfair, but rather because they feel it necessary to attract and retain the best. With Labour's obsession with equality, Phillipson may well believe it is her duty to ensure fairness in the workplace. But greater transparency is likely to have unintended consequences. In thousands of whispered conversations, complaining about what colleagues are paid is a quintessential British, indeed probably global, office pursuit. Nothing is less conducive to office harmony – and indeed less motivating – than someone's undeserved annual salary leaking out. If so-and-so is receiving X, why am I only getting Y? These plans would institutionalise these exasperations and amplify them to previously unknown levels. The UK is facing a productivity crisis, and it is hard to think of anything better designed to worsen it. It would make workplaces across Britain less contented, more antagonistic environments. Pay transparency would also represent a massive and unprecedented invasion of privacy. In certain jobs, especially those paid from taxpayers' money, it is absolutely right that salaries are made public. It is appropriate that we all know that MPs are on £93,904, a London police sergeant receives between £51,408 and £53,943, or that a lieutenant colonel is paid between £92,520 and £106,955. It is also right that charities need to declare how many of their staff receive over £60,000, and that they have to give pay bands for higher-paid employees, or that floated companies need to declare directors' pay. Donors and shareholders should have access to this information. In all these instances, those applying for these roles are fully aware that their pay will be a matter of public record. But this is not the case with the vast majority of jobs. Our fairness commissars would in fact be bringing into life myriad new unfairnesses. Those of us who have entered into a role on the basis that only ourselves, our employer and HMRC are entitled to know our remuneration, would have that understanding ripped up by diktat. Greater transparency in pay is more likely not to result in a pay bonanza, but rather for employers to be more reluctant to offer raises, in case others then also demand a similar increase. There is a more profound flaw in the demands for openness. They assume that fairness is something that is achievable or indeed desirable. But it is in fact a hollow myth. Is it fair that the median pay of a FTSE 100 chief executive (their pay is of course already public) is 113 times that of UK median pay? Almost certainly not. But then very little is fair. It is not fair that some people are much more intelligent than others; nor is it fair that some are beautiful and others are the opposite; nor is it fair that some are born into carefree luxury and others into abject, miserable poverty. But the cure for solving these unfairnesses – an overbearing state that intrudes into every aspect of our lives – would be a dystopian nightmare. Fairness may be the promised land, but we will never reach it. Let us give up on this chimera and carry on with our lives. We might all end up happier.
The Guardian
17-06-2025
- 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.'
The Independent
17-06-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Now government unit could let you find out how much your colleague is paid
The government is considering new measures to overhaul equality laws and end pay discrimination, potentially requiring businesses to disclose salary bands in job adverts and inform workers of colleagues ' earnings. A new Equal Pay Regulatory Unit may be established with the power to issue fines, change employment contracts, offer advice, and provide mediation to address gender, race, and disability-based pay discrimination. Business groups have expressed concerns that mandatory salary disclosure could hinder their ability to attract and retain staff, while the government has rejected suggestions that such measures would penalise middle-class individuals. Recruitment site Indeed suggests that job seekers would welcome pay transparency, as it helps employees feel valued, identify better opportunities, and promotes a healthier labour market. The Federation of Small Businesses has cautioned that some proposed measures may not be suitable for small businesses, many of which hire through informal networks and lack dedicated HR departments.
