CareerBuilder: Most Candidates Don’t Negotiate Job Offers

CareerBuilder: Most Candidates Don’t Negotiate Job Offers

A new survey from CareerBuilder points to a mismatch between candidates and employers in salary negotiations—namely, that candidates often don’t think there is one:

[The survey] found that the majority of workers (56 percent) do not negotiate for better pay when they are offered a job. Those who avoid it say they don’t attempt it because they don’t feel comfortable asking for more money (51 percent), they are afraid the employer will decide not to hire them (47 percent), or they don’t want to appear greedy (36 percent).

While most job candidates avoid negotiating, the majority of employers are expecting a counteroffer. Fifty-three percent of employers say they are willing to negotiate salaries on initial job offers for entry-level workers, and 52 percent say when they first extend a job offer to an employee, they typically offer a lower salary than they’re willing to pay so there is room to negotiate. But how much money is being left on the table? More than a quarter of employers who offer a lower salary (26 percent) say their initial offer is $5,000 or more less than what they’re willing to offer.

The survey, conducted earlier this year by Harris Poll among 2,300 employers and 3,400 full-time employees, also dug up some demographic data to inform the debate over the role of the “negotiation gap” in gender and other pay gaps. It found that employees over 35 were slightly more likely to negotiate (45 percent) than the younger crowd (42 percent), and that 47 percent of men negotiated as opposed to 42 percent of women. These differences are meaningful, but CareerBuilder’s broader takeaway is that regardless of their demographics, a slight majority of candidates are just not negotiating at all. The exception is in sectors like IT, sales, and financial services, where over 50 percent of employees said they negotiated their salaries.

Read more

5 Things Most Companies Don’t Realize About Pay Equity

5 Things Most Companies Don’t Realize About Pay Equity

Pay equity and pay gaps, especially the gender pay gap, have been drawing greater and greater attention in recent years, both among corporate leaders and in the media. As organizations ramp up their diversity and inclusion strategies, they are feeling a need to close these gaps to demonstrate that the organization is serious about not only hiring for diversity, but also ensuring that compensation is fair for women and minority employees.

However, the coverage of pay gaps in the popular press often misses key details about the problem that compensation leaders need to understand to face this challenge effectively. Here are five things you might not know about pay equity that will make a real difference in your ability to achieve it:

1) Pay Equity Actually Refers to Two Things

Pay equity issues in companies can come from two sources: group-to-group gaps and role-to-role gaps. These terms are often used interchangeably in the media, glossing over an important distinction between gaps among different groups of employees, where pay differences are based on something other than gender or race, and role-to-role gaps, where two employees are paid differently for doing the same job. In the first case, you may have women concentrated in lower-paying roles than men (such as female nurses and male doctors, or male principals and female teachers), which may reflect an unfair distribution of expectations and opportunities, but compensation executives can’t directly and immediately control for those factors (although they can collaborate more broadly to influence them). A role-to-role gender pay gap, on the other hand—male nurses earning more than female nurses—is something compensation leaders can and should address.

Both group-to-group and role-to-role gaps contribute to the pay equity problem as a whole, but it is important to recognize that your compensation strategy alone can’t solve them both.

2) The Problem Is Bigger Than It Looks

In the US, the gender pay gap is often reported at around 20 percent, meaning women earn about 80 cents for every dollar men earn (and women of color earn substantially less). At a large-scale global organization, CEB (now Gartner) research has found, the average gap is even wider: 27 percent. However, that doesn’t all reflect pay discrimination: 9 percent is attributable to choice of occupation; 6 percent to organizational factors like size, industry, or geography; and 5 percent to human capital factors like differences in education and experience.

The gap that remains unexplained is 7.4 percent, and that is the discrepancy that can be ascribed to no other factor than gender. This is the role-to-role gap—and that’s the part that rewards professionals can actually fix. HR owns this gap has an obligation to close it before it becomes a serious problem for the organization.

Read more

California Bill Would Require Large Companies to Report Gender Pay Gaps

California Bill Would Require Large Companies to Report Gender Pay Gaps

Last month, the White House Office of Management and Budget announced that it was putting on hold a rule proposed by the Obama administration in 2016 that would have required organizations with more than 100 employees to submit summary pay data to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission each year showing what employees of each gender, race, and ethnicity earn. This reversal relieves employers of what opponents say are overly burdensome and costly regulations that would do nothing to address pay gaps.

For large employers in California, however, that relief may be short-lived. At the firm’s blog about California employment law, Seyfarth Shaw attorneys point to a piece of legislation that went to Governor Jerry Brown’s desk this week that would “require companies with at least 500 employees to compute differences between the wages of male and female exempt employees and board members located in California and file the report with the California Secretary of State,” which would then publish this information for public view:

If the bill is signed by Gov. Brown, beginning on July 1, 2019, and biennially thereafter, impacted employers will have to collect and compute:

  • The difference between the wages of male and female exempt employees in California using both the mean and median wages in each job classification or title.
  • The difference between the mean and median wages of male board members and female board members located in California.
  • The number of employees used for these determinations.

This information would then be reported to the California SOS by January 1, 2020 (and biennially thereafter) on a form categorized consistent with Labor Code Section 1197.5—the California Fair Pay Act (“FPA”).

The bill, they add, does not establish that a gender wage gap in this information is a violation of the Fair Pay Act, but opponents claim it would not need to, as it “effectively forces employers to hand over to potential plaintiffs all information they might need to file a lawsuit, without any context that would explain permissible differentials.”

Read more

BBC Announces Independent Audit to Tackle Gender Pay Gap

BBC Announces Independent Audit to Tackle Gender Pay Gap

A few months after a public disclosure of high-earner compensation data revealed a significant pay gap between male and female stars at the BBC, the UK’s national broadcaster has announced a series of investigations into its pay practices and gender pay gap. BBC Director General Tony Hall revealed on Wednesday that he had commissioned PwC and the law firm Eversheds Sutherland to conduct an independent equal pay audit of the company, which will also produce an internal report on the gender pay gap and conduct a review of pay and diversity among its on-air talent:

Speaking to staff on Wednesday, Lord Hall said the BBC report on gender pay would cover the whole corporation and be independently audited, adding that he is “determined to close the gap”. … He said [the external audit] would “make sure that, where there are differences in pay, they’re justified”, adding: “If it throws up issues, we’ll deal with them immediately.”

The review of on-air talent will focus on presenters, editors and correspondents in BBC News and radio, he said. “Of course, we’ll be looking at pay – but also representation,” he said. “As I hope you know, we’ve set really ambitious targets – not just on gender, but on diversity more broadly.

In response to Hall, several leading women at the BBC circulated a statement on Twitter under the hashtag #BBCWomen, in which they stressed that the director “must be in no doubt about how serious an issue equal and fair pay is for women across the organisation,” and suggested that the target date he had previously set of 2020 for closing the gender pay gap was not soon enough:

Read more

Brexit Repeal Bill Upholds Workers’ Rights, but Some Changes May Lie Ahead

Brexit Repeal Bill Upholds Workers’ Rights, but Some Changes May Lie Ahead

In a major step toward Brexit, the UK government on Thursday published the “repeal bill” through which it will decouple the UK from the legal, political, and financial institutions of the EU, as well as incorporate those aspects of European law it intends to retain into domestic law. The prospect of a repeal bill had raised concerns that the legal protections UK employees enjoy, some of which are derived from EU policy, might be weakened after Britain leaves the union, but the government has insisted that employee rights will not be discarded.

In keeping with that promise, the Department for Exiting the European Union says regulations derived from the EU’s Working Time Directive and Agency Workers’ Directive will remain in place after Brexit, and that past European Court of Justice rulings pertaining to employee rights will continue to apply in the UK, Jo Faragher reports at Personnel Today:

Rachel Farr, senior lawyer in the employment, pensions and mobility group at law firm Taylor Wessing, said: “The Bill makes it clear that EU-derived UK legislation, such as TUPE 2006, will continue to apply after the exit day, whilst EU Regulations such as the General Data Protection Regulation will also remain in effect in the UK. “This confirms that companies and their HR teams should continue to think about how they will be handling employee data in compliance with the new rules.”

Read more