On January 6, the Payments Transparency Act finally comes into force completely. It requires employers, under certain conditions, to provide information about the salaries of colleagues, and is hailed by many as a "law for more pay equity", but who exactly can benefit from the law and what we need to do to be precise Is "EntTranspG" really a step towards more equal rights? Or is the law in the end a mere formality for which a few well-paid politicians pat on the back?

To find out, we talked to blogger and lawyer Nina Straßner. Employment law is their specialty - it can give us a reliable assessment of how the new law will affect our working environment.

F Mag: Ms Straßner, how do I act as an employee when I ask for information about the salary of my colleagues?

?Concrete? Unfortunately, this new legal claim is a stumbling block, which almost runs through the law. At least at the present time, because we still have no jurisdiction and because the law offers many points of conflict.

Already to whom you have to direct the request for information in the company depends on how the employer is organized. However, the employer is required to ensure that his employees know how to proceed.

Incidentally, the Ministry of Family Affairs has put a template online, which is great.

What would be the rough way I would have to go as a worker?

Is there a works council, one asks there in writing and must also name the activities that you consider to be equal or comparable with your own. The works council then requests the necessary information from the boss, and in many cases the first disputes will be at this point because of the extent of the information or the comparison groups are not accepted.

Anyone who is not a lawyer here, actually has no desire now.

If there is no works council, the employer is directly responsible and may need to coordinate with contracting parties on responsibilities. The employer must give his answer in writing within three months and the criteria that he has for the "comparability"? has laid open. Anyone who is not a lawyer here, actually has no desire now.

What exactly does the information tell me if I got it?

Good that you are not? have asked. That's not very concrete. Nobody can know with this law what Mr. Meier or Mrs. Schultze earn at the desk opposite. One learns only what comparable employees of the other sex on average extrapolate to a full-time job.

In addition, a maximum of two "allowances", which are paid on salaries, may be requested. Considering the fact that most of the music is playing here, the limit is? Two? in my view counterproductive.

Nina Straßner is a specialist lawyer for employment law, business mediator and author of the book? No children are no solution either. She writes a regular column in the ChroniquesDuVasteMonde MOM and offers women and mothers about her platform as? Juramama? since this year special online coaching and concrete legal advice, for everything that moves them around their rights in the workplace.

© Nina Straßner / Private

What does "comparable" actually mean?

This point has been one of the classic sore points since the implementation of the AGG [General Equal Treatment Act] a few years ago, which causes uncertainty.

The employer naturally will not consider another employee comparable, the claimant too many or completely different. Lawmakers can hardly formulate any criteria because every job is different. But there are a few rules of thumb and they are also in the law.

One already suspects the fairground for trouble. On both sides.

?Equal? is an activity when you perform a similar or identical job in different jobs.

?Equivalent? It is more of an overall view of factors such as the actual work on the ground, the necessary training needed or the working conditions under which work is being done. Labor or performance-related differences may also be used to justify inequality.

One already suspects the fairground for trouble. On both sides.

What can I do with the information that my employer now has to give me?

If the employer does not recognize his mistake or wants to recognize it and does not rectify it by himself, what he actually has to do immediately, as evidenced by the law: Start a fight. Another sore point.As easy as it is to start a quarrel with your partner at home, it is so hard and hard to do that in the workplace and sue the employer on the basis of the law.

It takes a tremendous amount of initiative and courage from the workers.

In my opinion, this is one of the biggest weaknesses of the law. It takes a tremendous amount of initiative and courage from the workers.

If they even work in a big enough business, there are many gaps and loopholes from request to enforcement. In addition, a labor court procedure always costs the employee money, even if one wins and is not legally insured. That already prevents many from asserting their rights, even if they are clearly discriminated against.

Do I have to fear further disadvantages if I request the information and, if necessary, take action against pay equity?

The question arises for anyone who suits an employer or even just "annoying" because he wants to have information and thus does more work for the boss. Nobody wants to be a troublemaker. But not being pulled over the table either. The legislator has recognized the problem in the fee transparency law and explicitly written in the law and it, nice old-school, "measure prohibition? called.

Anyone who requests information or who testifies as a witness or supports someone in this must not be disadvantaged. This clause gives lawyers the opportunity to sue on this basis or the works councils to act.

The law needs a lot of fighting with too little outcome.

How to prove such disadvantages and the relationship to the fee information in individual cases, is another matter and is again a fight for themselves. I repeat: the law needs a lot of fighting with too little outcome.

I only have a fixed-term contract - is not it much more likely that it will not be renewed if I cause such problems to my employer?

Unfortunately, I do not find this concern unjustified. Of course that would not be allowed to extend for these reasons, but who comes behind it and can also prove it to the court. Temporary contracts without a reason are, in my view, a legalized possibility of discrimination, which is used so often in practice, since one's out of breath. Reasons do not have to be specified, the contract ends simply. In pregnancy, in illness and also in "right-perception", if that annoys the boss.

Temporary contracts without a reason are, in my view, a legalized possibility of discrimination, which is used so often in practice, since one's out of breath.

That is why the nonfunded allowances after 15 years also finally abolished, if you really serious with women and acquisitions. The so-called time limits? According to the TzBfG, it can be upheld for me, they are more than enough for a flexible labor market.

What loopholes are there for employers? Can he refuse my information?

There are always a lot of loopholes in practice, but he must not refuse the information. He has to comment. Written. Also on the comparability and the criteria applied. These statements are then judicially verifiable and that is an advance. If he does not say anything, an "unequal treatment" is suspected? But then it has to be called in, you only win more easily.

And this is where the ears are ringing: you have to be in the saddle to be able to trust or afford everything. Women - and especially young women and men - are just not, and the law should help them.

What can I do if I work in a smaller business with fewer than 200 employees?

The biggest nuisance is this 200-employee limit. It was not intended in the original draft and has, in my view, eroded the whole law. Businesses of this size already have structures that avoid a great deal of discrimination, because of other laws and guidelines.

A lot is happening in smaller companies. 50 employees are not enough. For them there is no claim from the EntgTranspG. They have to go through the AGG and he has not worked for the last few years.

In your opinion, what are the chances that the law will actually help to close the gender pay gap?

You mean this ominous gender pay gap, which actually does not exist? is because you are not forced into "women's jobs"? to work or to have children or all just a matter of? negotiating skills? or? statistical interpretation? is?

This law is well meant and very important, but unfortunately not as well implemented, as it was once thought.

I have been seeing the different employment contracts for ten years. I see daily how women and men are paid, how fixed-term contracts are used on them, or why they are terminated or denied allowances because they are for? Part-time? are not provided. The gap is there and she is tall and I see her every day.

From a lawyer's point of view, therefore, I am grateful for everything that brings clarity and, when advising employers or employees, puts me in a position to be able to make clear statements. This law is well meant and very important, but unfortunately not as well implemented, as it was once thought.

The Moral Economy: Why Good Incentives are No Substitute for Good Citizens (May 2024).