Key points
- The Albanese government's "Secure Jobs, Better Pay Bill" includes a ban on pay secrecy policies.
- The ban is primarily aimed at reducing gender-based pay differences.
- Studies have shown that greater transparency promotes a decline in the gender pay gap.
Do you work for an organisation that treats pay information like a state secret? Do you know what your co-workers get paid? Can you tell others what you earn?
Well, now you can, following the passing of , which includes
The ban is primarily aimed at reducing - part of a larger suite of reforms that make gender equity a key principle of the Fair Work Act.
But there's also reason to believe it should benefit other disadvantaged workers in both individual and collective pay negotiations.
Less secrecy means greater equality
The gender pay gap in Australia is currently 22.8 per cent. According to federal employment and workplace relations minister Tony Burke, pay secrecy clauses have long been used to conceal gender pay discrepancies.
Banning them will improve transparency and reduce the risk of gender pay discrimination by allowing women to compare their pay with that of their co-workers. Differences can be discussed with their manager without fear of punishment.
International evidence supports Mr Burke's claim. Studies in the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada and Denmark all report a decline in the gender pay gap as a result of legislation to promote pay transparency.
US research shows women’s wages in states prohibiting pay secrecy clauses are 4 to 12 per cent higher (depending on how the data was analysed) than in states that allow secrecy clauses.
In Canada, a pay secrecy law reduced the gender pay gap between men and women by 20-40 per cent.
Various international studies report a decline in the gender pay gap as a result of legislation to promote pay transparency. Source: Getty / Getty Images
It's possible that just ending secrecy clauses is enough to improve outcomes even without people disclosing how much they earn – that the prospect of pay information being shared is enough to focus an organisation on ensuring fair and equitable remuneration.
Secrecy, by contrast, means managers can make decisions they don't have to justify to employees. This heightens the risk of of unconscious bias, favouritism discrimination and stereotyping affecting pay decisions.
What about conflict?
Not everyone wants to share their pay information. Some people are self-conscious about how it will affect their image. Some worry it will affect work relationships.
It may be upsetting for co-workers in a similar role to discover they are paid less than you. It is even more upsetting to find out you're paid less than them.
Employers argue that pay secrecy is needed to minimise conflict between employees. This is based on the "jealousy hypothesis”, which says employees reduce their work effort when they find out they are paid less than a colleague.
But such claims are overstated. In fact, employees are more likely to view restrictions on sharing pay information with suspicion, as something driven by managerial self-interest, not the best interest of the employees.
This is borne out by research showing pay secrecy leads workers to underestimate supervisors' pay but overestimate co-workers' pay.
Most employees deserve to be given more credit. The research shows they understand and accept pay differences that can be explained and justified according to work contribution and performance.
Furthermore, studies report that greater pay transparency is associated with higher employee performance and job satisfaction.
Where to now?
While the ban on secrecy clauses is primarily aimed at reducing the gender pay gap, it could deliver positive pay outcomes for other disadvantaged employees as well.
It's a fundamental principle of economics that sharing of information contributes to more efficient markets. Removing pay secrecy therefore contributes to a more efficient labour market.
Bargaining freely with full information, employees are able to assess their employment options and make better-informed choices. The decisions of individuals encourage organisations to ensure they have fair and equitable pay systems.
This should lead to greater fairness for all.
