Kenji Costa· Head of Reward, Calibre Software
Asked in Pay Equity & Transparency ·
Semiconductor equipment company, about 2,000 employees in the Netherlands and Germany. We pay a market supplement of between 8% and 20% on roughly 260 roles, mainly process engineering and embedded software. Those roles are 84% male.
If I include a flag for supplement-eligible role, the adjusted gap is 1.6%. Without it, 4.9%. The supplements were set from survey data and I can evidence them, but the list of eligible roles has grown by negotiation over five years and I doubt every entry would stand up.
How do others treat premiums: as a legitimate control, as part of pay to be explained, or something in between?
3 helpful · 1 agree · 2 replies · 57 views · 4 following
Maya ChenWWP
Compensation Manager, Halcyon Financial Group
Something in between. We control for the premium only for roles where current survey data still supports it, and we re-test the list every year. Last review removed 40 of 190 roles because the market differential had closed. Those people kept the money as a frozen personal allowance, but the roles came out of the control, and the adjusted gap went up by 0.7 points. That felt like the honest number.
Head of Reward, Cardinal Insurance
We model it differently: the supplement is excluded from the dependent variable and analysed on its own. So one analysis asks whether base pay is equal for equal work, and a second asks whether access to the supplement and its size differ by gender among people in eligible roles. The second found women in eligible roles receiving on average 2.3 points less supplement, which the combined model had hidden completely.
