Human Rights Board – Three studies show pitfalls for unequal pay

Asking about last earned wages and grading based on salary negotiations pose major risks of gender pay inequality for employers. This is the conclusion of the Human Rights Board after a series of three studies into the mechanisms behind pay inequality in various employment sectors. Today the Board presents the latest study, on unequal pay in the insurance industry. To bring the issue to the attention of employers, the institute is also launching the Grip on Equal Pay campaign today.

That salaries differ is logical if activities are different. But equal work of equal value must be rewarded equally according to the law. The Human Rights Board sees the upcoming end-of-year talks as the perfect time to reduce the pay inequality between men and women. “Unequal pay remains a persistent problem. It usually happens unconsciously, but it really doesn’t fit in this day and age,” says College President Adriana van Dooijeweert. “Employees are often not even aware of mutual pay differences. In the Netherlands, we don’t talk to each other so easily about what we earn.”

Campaign Grip on Equal Pay
For the Grip on Equal Pay campaign, the College developed a test for employers and HR advisors. Through the campaign website www.mensenrechten.nl/gelijkelonen they can check whether they ever step into the pitfalls of unequal pay. In addition, the Board offers a checklist to help them set up a more neutral remuneration policy.

Prior to the three studies conducted by the Board, only sparse research had been conducted into the extent to which there are unlawful pay differences between men and women within Dutch organizations. Meanwhile, the Board has a good overview of common examples of pitfalls in remuneration policy that mainly turn out to the disadvantage of women. Pitfalls include: asking for the last salary earned when determining the starting salary, scaling based on salary negotiations rather than on relevant work experience, offering labor market supplements to attract (scarce) staff. If an employer bases the salary partly on this, this does not automatically mean that the employer is acting incorrectly or that there is discrimination, but the employer does run a greater risk of doing so.

Almost always to the disadvantage of women
The research report that the Board is presenting today shows the mechanisms behind pay differences between men and women in equivalent positions at four Dutch insurers. This report, entitled “Equal pay assured?”, was recently presented by the Board to the Dutch Association of Insurers.

A total of 9,382 employees work in the five selected job groups: 4,972 men and 4,410 women. In the study conducted by Van DoorneHuiskes and partners, 76 pairs of a man and a woman within the same job group were analyzed. It was established that an incorrect classification in the couples studied almost always ends up to the disadvantage of the woman. Also the grading after mergers or reorganizations, which are the order of the day in the insurance industry, is often not clear and/or not recorded in files. Transitional arrangements, compensation and employment conditions agreements are often not transparent. This creates a risk of unequal pay. Not only between men and women, but also between ‘old’ and ‘new’ employees within the organization.

Third large-scale study in the series
Previously, the Human Rights Board and its predecessor, the Equal Treatment Commission, conducted large-scale pay surveys at general hospitals (2011) and colleges (2016). It was found that in the hospital sector women are twice as likely to be victims of such traps than their male colleagues. In colleges, women were much more likely to be wrongly underpaid, and in general hospitals, salary guarantees were an explanation for the higher average grading of male employees. Although, according to the Board, insurance companies generally operate a transparent remuneration system, it came to light here that in four of the five job groups examined, men are structurally paid more than women for reasons unrelated to the value of the work.