Equality Watchdog Wants Salary History Questions Banned

Your daily brief on leadership and business

Britain's equality watchdog wants employers banned from asking job applicants what they were paid before or what pay they expect. The Equality and Human Rights Commission (EHRC) says the ban would stop existing pay discrimination from following workers into new jobs.

It wants the government to go further than its planned reforms, which would require pay information in job advertisements. In the EHRC's view, offers based on previous earnings can entrench inequality, especially for people who have long been underpaid.

EHRC chairwoman Mary-Ann Stephenson told The Times that the current equal pay system is too complicated and hard for workers to navigate. She said: "Publishing salaries in job adverts is a positive step. But employers should not be allowed to ask about candidates' salary history or expectations, which can result in existing inequalities being carried into a new role."

The consultation behind it

The government opened a consultation in July on changes to the equal pay framework in England, Scotland and Wales. Ministers have proposed that employers publish pay information in job adverts, or give it in writing before interviews when no advert is placed.

The consultation also looks at a statutory pay questionnaire. Employees could use it to ask about possible discrimination before starting legal action. The EHRC wants employers to be legally required to answer, and believes the questionnaire could settle disputes earlier and cut the need for long, costly tribunal cases.

The government is also weighing an Equal Pay Regulation and Enforcement Unit. The EHRC argues it is the right body to host it, given its expertise in equality law, but warns that it would need more funding.

Figures reported by The Times show more than 10,000 equal pay claims reach employment tribunals each year on average, and some disputes take over a decade. The consultation itself admits the system has become complex and costly for employers and employees alike.

What the evidence says

A Fawcett Society survey found that 58 percent of women and 54 percent of men felt that questions about their previous earnings had led to lower pay offers.

Kim Wright, a legal director in the employment team at the law firm Birketts, told HRreview that someone who has been underpaid risks carrying that disadvantage from job to job if talks start from their current salary. "What someone was paid by a previous employer should not determine what they are worth to the next one," she said. She pointed to US states that have already introduced similar bans. A 2024 study in The Journal of Economic Inequality found that employers there were more likely to advertise pay after the restrictions, and that people changing jobs earned more. Pay rose 6.2 percent for women and 5.8 percent for non-white workers compared with similar workers in states without bans. The study found no sign of adverse employer reactions in the short term.

Wright accepted that not everyone would gain. A candidate who is already well paid may now use that salary as leverage, and a ban would take that away. "A level playing field does not necessarily mean everyone gets paid more," she said. "It means an employer looks at the job, the skills and experience needed and what the individual brings and decides what that is worth." She added that employers could use the restrictions to rethink how they set salaries, giving more weight to the responsibilities of the role and the skills and experience it needs than to an applicant's previous pay.

Source: HRreview