Back to top
Editor's blog

Mind the gap

9 Apr 18

Do the Gender Pay Gap Regulations provide enough useful information to justify their approach?

As Britain’s large employers disclose their pay statistics under the Gender Pay Gap Regulations, the Law Society of Scotland has just reported a median gap of 21% in favour of men. Across the board, figures have ranged from 80% in favour of men to those employers – about 14%, apparently – who have a pay gap in favour of women.

Opinion has been divided as to the value of the exercise. If it has brought to light cases that would found an equal pay claim, or where men have been paid much larger bonuses without real justification, the regulations will have served some purpose. There are also those who argue that the whole profile of the issue has been raised, giving women greater confidence to challenge their own situation if they feel poorly treated. It may also bring a renewed focus on the respective caring roles of the genders and the level of support that should be provided.

But the figures can also be very misleading. The biggest issue is that the crude percentages are frequently read as a measure of discriminatory treatment. Yet if more women than men happen to be working part time, no allowance is made for this; likewise if gender equality (by numbers) has not yet reached the higher levels of an organisation, something which is now the subject of separate and increasingly active monitoring. There is not even a comparison of like-for-like jobs or qualifications. (For an interesting critique of the regulations, see for example our blog of the month on p 8.)

Gender pay gap reporting could play a much more meaningful role. By focusing more on true comparisons it would expose more effectively the remaining cases of real discrimination, while highlighting the disadvantages in career progression faced by women who take the greater burden of family responsibilities – the annual Journal employment survey of the profession, which we report on each December, has turned up some interesting data.

This year the Society will run the successor to its 2013 Profile of the Profession survey, the results from which have steered much of its equality and diversity work over the years since. It is to be hoped that the methodology, and the analysis, will enable a more accurate picture to be drawn of where we are and where action is needed than the Gender Pay Gap Regulations seem likely to produce.


Have your say

Blog archive

9 Apr 18

Mind the gap

Do the Gender Pay Gap Regulations provide enough useful information to justify their approach?

12 Mar 18

Case to be made

If the independent legal aid review could not find evidence to support a general rise in fees, what should the response be?

9 Feb 18

Crunch time

The independent reports due in the next few months will be an indication of how the profession is seen from outside

9 Jan 18

Hold tight for 2018

Get set for another rollercoaster ride through the year

4 Dec 17

Trends and revelations

From the Journal employment survey: sexual harassment must be taken seriously

9 Nov 17

Mergers and markets

After the Maclays-Dentons merger, what now for the independent Scottish legal firm?

9 Oct 17

For the greater good

The profession should support those who attempt to improve the lot of the most vulnerable

11 Sep 17

Brexit and the legal order

Government recognition of the need to continue civil judicial cooperation with EU countries after Brexit is welcome, but how can it exclude the involvement of the CJEU?

7 Aug 17

Taking access to justice seriously

The House of Lords decision on employment tribunal fees elevates this constitutional principle

10 Jul 17

Advance of the courts

There is momentum behind civil procedure reform, and practitioners need to be alert to have their say

12 Jun 17

Defend our rights

Don't sacrifice rights to combat terrorism; welcome to Edinburgh for the UK Supreme Court

8 May 17

Review time

Patience will be needed as regards the outcome of the new review of legal services regulation, but there is much for the profession to concern itself with meantime