Fresh in the wake of the BBC Gender Pay Gap announcement (and the associated fall-out), the Financial Times finds itself under the media spotlight with talk of a possible journalist strike.
However, the headlines do not necessarily provide the story of how and why this has come about and what lessons can be learned.
The Financial Times had targeted 2022 as the year by which they would have reached equality in the workplace (interestingly behind the BBC who announced 2020 as their target year), but it is not the target date which has come under fire. It is firstly the perception that managers have ‘not been taking this matter seriously enough’, in the words of FT’s trade union leaders, and secondly the decision to not disclose the salaries or total remuneration of the Editor or CEO, which works against the Financial Times’ promise to increase transparency. The combined issues have caused uproar within the FT and its Union.
From the Union’s statement, it would seem it is not the 13% gap that is the issue (though potentially a catalyst as this has increased year on year), it is the problem of the FT not feeling like it is committed or decisive enough in its approach to address the Gender Pay Gap.
For other companies currently undertaking the Gender Pay Gap analysis and associated disclosures mandated by the government there is much to learn from the issues facing the Financial Times.
Firstly, and arguably most importantly, a company cannot expect to make promises to its employees and not act on these with pace and purpose. A key part of any unwritten Employee-Employer contract is that you will do what you say and in this case, this promise feels like it has been broken. Once companies begin to publish their figures, there will also be an expectation that the ‘What now?’ question is answered within the necessary narrative. For companies that do identify a Gender Pay Gap, their employees will expect that there are targets and milestones against which the company can (and will) be held accountable.
Secondly, transparency is not something which can be achieved in half measures. Once a company makes a promise of transparency, employees do not expect this to be caveated with ‘in most areas on most occasions’. They will, and reasonably so, expect that this will mean certain disclosures are made even if, in the case with the FT as a private company, these are not legally required. Quite simply, transparency can’t, by definition, be opaque.
As further companies release their figures and further fall-outs undoubtedly occur, the wider population will become wise to the different demands and expectations of the UK’s workforce. The Financial Times’ issue does highlight a new workplace phenomenon which all companies should prepare themselves for, one where employees hold their own company to account for both promises made and promises broken.
For advice and support with your gender pay reporting, call 020 3457 0894.
