Resources · Myths & facts

“We're covered by our collective agreement.”

The most common reason organisations wait. Here is why it rarely holds — and six more myths worth dropping.

Five counter-points

A collective agreement is a good starting point. It is not, on its own, proof of equal pay for work of equal value.

Fact 1

The four criteria are not separated

Collective pay scales rarely weigh skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions separately, as Art. 4 (4) expects.

Fact 2

The privilege for collective agreements is open

§ 4 (5) EntgTranspG presumes collectively agreed pay is adequate. Whether collectively agreed pay keeps a privilege is open. The government commission could not agree on privileges or a presumption of adequacy for employers bound by collective agreements; the final law decides.

Fact 3

Variable pay stays invisible

Bonuses, allowances and benefits sit outside the scale — but count as pay under Art. 3.

Fact 4

Scales are too rigid

Scales change only at negotiation rounds. New roles and market shifts wait years for a fit.

Fact 5

Broad pay groups bundle unlike jobs

One group can hold very different jobs, which hinders like-for-like comparison.

What to do

Evaluate on top of the agreement

Keep the agreement, add an analytical job evaluation to show equal value inside and across groups. The Commission's FAQ confirms that employers covered by collective agreements are within the Directive's scope.

German law: § 4 (5) EntgTranspG

As of 25 September 2026 · Status may change

The status of the presumption of adequacy depends on the final German transposition act. Check the Germany status page before relying on it.

Further myths

Myth

“The market pays this job more, so the gap is justified.”

Fact: market rates reflect what employers have always paid, including the undervaluation of work done mainly by women. The Directive measures value by skills, effort, responsibility and working conditions (Art. 4). The Commission's services advise treating market conditions with caution (preliminary views, not an official position); a shortage justifies a difference only as far as the employer proves it, in proportion (Enderby, C-127/92), with the burden of proof on the employer (Art. 18). What to do: build the pay line from job value; use market data only to check the level or to inspire a few evidence-based structures.

Myth

“If each job family gets its own category, the gap goes away.”

Fact: categories are defined by the value of work. Jobs of equal value belong in the same category and pay range. A split by family label removes the gap from the report, not from the organisation – employees can still compare themselves with any work of equal value. What to do: one category per grade; let differences show and justify them.

Myth

“We differentiate in the bonus, so base pay is fine.”

Fact: variable pay is part of pay (Art. 3). A gap in the bonus is a pay gap.

Myth

“We'll wait for the German law.”

Fact: what is still open are the details of transposition, not the foundations. Data, groups of equal work and clear responsibilities take months and are needed under any version of the law; courts may already read existing law in line with the Directive.

Myth

“Length of service is always neutral.”

Fact: not when parental leave and part-time slow it down. Seniority must be justified where it disadvantages one sex (Cadman, C-17/05).

Myth

“We need the most sophisticated model to comply.”

Fact: the Directive doesn't reward the most complex model – it rewards the one you have under control.

Illustrative case · bonus

Women at specialist level received lower bonuses than men, and performance ratings did not explain the difference. The cause: target bonuses were set at manager discretion, without written criteria. The fix: written, objective criteria for setting target bonuses.

The three tests for progression rules