Pay in 2019: measuring differences and recognising work of equal value

A timetable prepared for 2020

Parliament adopted the amendment on 14 December 2018. The 21 August 2019 decision set commencement in July 2020 and initial analyses by June 2021 for employers with at least 100 workers. It would be wrong to describe all businesses as already inspected in 2019.

The report distinguished employer analysis, independent verification and information. This seeks to reveal how pay is organised across one workplace. A timetable is nevertheless not an accomplished correction.

The procedural threshold differs from the right itself. Equal pay for equal work or work of equal value does not begin only at a particular company size. The special analysis obligation implements a broader principle across public and private employment.

Low pay differs from small monthly income

An FSO publication in July 2019 described 2016: 473,700 people held low-paid jobs, roughly two thirds women. Observation and publication years must remain separate.

The threshold was below CHF4,335 gross monthly, standardised to a 40-hour week. Not every small payment resulting from part-time hours therefore indicates a low pay rate. People and full-time-equivalent posts are different counts too.

Standardisation clarifies pay levels but does not resolve every income problem. An adequate rate may yield insufficient income with few hours; more hours do not make an inadequate rate fair. Remuneration and access to chosen hours need connected but distinct indicators.

An aggregate gap is not an individual case

Comparing all women’s and men’s pay reveals a distribution influenced by sectors, functions, qualifications and hierarchy. Means and medians describe it differently. The median divides observations in half; the mean responds to all amounts, especially high ones.

An overall gap does not directly calculate individual back-pay entitlements. Structural explanations do not make it irrelevant either. Access to promotion, job classification and the value assigned to occupations can themselves require scrutiny.

The question must be specified. A national distribution, an employer’s internal differences and a particular legal dispute are different levels. Moving between them without further evidence turns an indicator into proof it does not provide.

Formal verification does not certify every payslip

The 2019 report explicitly describes verification as formal. It checks deadlines, evidence of a scientific and legally compliant method, and inclusion of workers, pay components and data. It does not substantively judge every equal-pay situation.

That remains useful. Missing bonuses, excluded groups or inconsistent job descriptions can distort results. Documentation must explain what was actually compared. Independence matters too: checking one’s own work would weaken confidence.

Information for workers must be intelligible. A favourable model result cannot prevent questions about individual situations. A concerning result calls for examination of pay and organisation, rather than merely seeking a more flattering statistical presentation.

Transparency can explain rules without publicly exposing every individual payslip. It should make clear which skill, constraint or responsibility is rewarded, then examine whether comparable criteria are applied comparably. Collective discussion gains something concrete to examine while retaining attention to personal situations. Data can then help people understand work rather than rank individuals abstractly. This supports both the justification of relevant differences and scrutiny of criteria routinely used even when their relationship to the tasks actually performed remains unclear to the people concerned.

Justifying relevant differences

Equal value does not erase qualifications or responsibility. It requires differences to be identifiable, consistent and defensible. Classification, progression and bonus criteria need visibility, including scrutiny of less recognised tasks in heavily feminised occupations.

The PCP’s 2026 conclusion is transparency workers can use. Statistics, collective representation and access to legal rights complement each other. Measurement should help correct organisation and pay while stating the observation year, comparison scope and actual reach of verification precisely.