Pay transparency in Bermuda has moved well past the idea stage. Jason Hayward, the Minister of Economy and Labour, first announced the Government’s policy proposal at a press conference on April 13, with a six-week consultation window that closed on May 31.

Last month I attended the minister’s town hall at St Paul AME Centennial Hall, where the ministry set out its case in detail, with valuable contributions from Stacey-Lee Williams, of Citizens Uprooting Racism in Bermuda, and Lisa Reed, of the Human Rights Commission.

The direction of travel is now clear enough that employers should not wait for the legislation to be enacted before they start preparing.

Why this is happening

The Government’s goal is straightforward: close unjustified pay gaps and build confidence in Bermuda’s labour market for workers and employers alike. The case rests on data, not sentiment.

Department of Statistics figures presented by the minister show Bermudians recording the lowest median annual income in 2024 at $68,256, below every non-Bermudian category.

The racial picture is starker still. Median annual income in 2024 was $99,420 for White workers, $66,041 for Black workers and $57,689 for those recording mixed or other races.

Pay secrecy makes disparities of this kind hard to see and harder to challenge, which is precisely the problem the proposal sets out to address.

What is changing

Bermuda already prohibits discriminatory pay under the Human Rights Act 1981, with complaints handled through the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. That protection is reactive. It depends on an individual filing a complaint after harm has occurred, then proving the harm was discriminatory. This is a high and difficult bar.

The proposed legislation shifts the model from reactive to preventative, asking employers to build transparency into pay practices before a dispute ever arises.

For employers, that will mean five core requirements: a written pay transparency and equity policy, pay decisions based on objective criteria such as role, responsibility, qualifications and experience, an employee right to request the salary range for their own role, an end to asking applicants about salary history, and salary ranges stated in every job advertisement.

Bermuda is not moving in isolation. The European Union’s Pay Transparency Directive came into force for member states this June, requiring salary disclosure before the interview stage and banning questions about a candidate’s pay history, almost exactly the model Bermuda is now proposing.

Several Canadian provinces and Australia have introduced comparable measures. Employers that form part of international groups should expect Bermuda’s rules to land close to what those larger jurisdictions have already adopted.

How it will be enforced

The ministry has been clear that it does not intend to build a new bureaucracy. Enforcement would run through the existing labour inspector framework already familiar to Bermuda employers.

Inspectors will verify that policies exist and are disclosed, investigate complaints about denied pay information or non-compliance, guide employers toward meeting their obligations, then escalate serious or repeated breaches to the Tribunal, with penalties where obligations are not met.

The ministry also signalled support will be put in place for employers as the rules take shape, including guides, templates and specific help for smaller businesses.

The question of equal value

There is a harder question beneath all of this that the proposal has not yet answered. Pay fairness will not turn on comparing identical jobs. It rests on the principle of equal pay for work of equal value, which means weighing roles that look nothing alike and deciding whether they carry comparable skill, effort, responsibility and working conditions. That is a specialised discipline, contestable even among trained human resources practitioners.

It is not clear as yet how these value assessments will be carried out, or against what framework. It is equally unclear how labour inspectors, who are not HR practitioners, will be trained to make or test such judgments consistently. How value is judged and who is trained to judge it will matter as much as the rules themselves.

The honest trade-offs

To its credit, the ministry did not present this as cost-free. Transparency helps workers see whether their pay is fair, lets applicants know ranges before they apply and helps employers spot gaps sooner. It also carries risks that need managing: pay compression as ranges become visible, morale concerns where real differences are poorly explained and retention pressure for scarce skills.

None of these is a reason to resist the change. Each is a reason to prepare for it deliberately rather than scramble once it lands.

What employers should do now

The legislation is not final and is likely some months away, whether as a stand-alone act or an amendment to the Employment Act 2000. That gap is the opportunity.

Review your pay bands and ask whether differences between similar roles can be explained on objective grounds today. Start writing salary ranges into job advertisements before it is mandatory.

Remove salary history questions from your interviews as a deliberate, trained change. Draft your written policy now.

This remains a live conversation. If you did not attend the town hall, the consultation paper is still available at forum.gov.bm, where you can submit feedback directly. Legislation of this scope is shaped most by those who engage early and say something specific, not by those who wait to react after it is written.

• Kelly Francis is founder and managing director of Performance Solutions Ltd (www.psolutions.bm). She advises boards, business owners and leadership teams on the people decisions that shape organisational performance. Kelly can be reached at 441-232-5270 or kelly_francis@psolutions.bm