The Number

"The role is budgeted at eighty-five. But Lena's current salary is probably around seventy. If we offer seventy-five, she'd take it. That's a nice bump for her. Why would we start at eighty-five?"

You "James, we can't ask about her current salary."

James "I didn't ask. She mentioned it. Anyway — do we have to give her a range? Can't we just say 'competitive'?"

James wants to lowball. The Directive says you must share the range — but Germany hasn't transposed it yet. The CEO told the leadership team last month: "We comply when we have to, not before. I don't want to set precedents."

But there's a bigger problem. If you share the band, every current Senior Engineer will find out within a week. Berlin's engineering scene is small. Salary bands travel. And you already know there's a 22% gap between Maria Santos and Tobias Richter at the same level.

What do you tell James to send Lena?

"Send her the range. €78,000 to €92,000, based on our job evaluation framework for L5 engineers."

James "Ninety-two? You just handed her the top of the band. She'll push for ninety and we'll end up paying more than we need to."

You "Maybe. But Article 5 says the range must be based on objective, gender-neutral criteria. That's our L5 band. If we invent a lower range to anchor her, and she finds out — and she will — we've got a discrimination claim before she's finished onboarding."

Silence. Then: "Fine. But if she comes in at ninety-two, that's on your budget, not mine."

By Thursday, three engineers on the team Slack have mentioned "the L5 band." By Friday, Maria Santos has opened the compensation file.

"Send her €75,000 to €85,000. It's a range. It gives her something to work with."

James "That I can live with. Seventy-five is where I'd want to bring her in anyway."

You know the internal band goes up to €92,000. You've shared a range — but not the real one. Is it based on "objective, gender-neutral criteria"? Or is it based on James's desire to negotiate?

"I'll tell her the package is competitive. Standard stuff."

The next morning:

Lena doesn't say no. But she doesn't say yes. James calls, frustrated: "She's going to Datadog." You've lost a week. And the next candidate will ask the same question.

"Thank you for seeing me, Nadine. I'll be direct."

She opens a folder. Inside: her last three performance reviews, her contract, and a printout of Article 6 of the Directive.

"Three weeks ago, at Tobias's birthday dinner, someone mentioned salary figures. I now know that Tobias Richter earns €92,000. I earn €75,300. Same title. Same level. He was hired six months after me."

"Under Article 6, I have the right to request the average pay levels, broken down by sex, for workers doing the same work."

She places a signed letter on the table.

"I saved this company one point two million euros. Tobias didn't. I have four years here. He has three and a half. His last review was 'Meets Expectations.' Mine was 'Exceeds.'

Explain the twenty-two percent to me."

Maria has invoked Article 6. The Directive gives you two months. But Maria is sitting across from you with the numbers. The question isn't whether you'll provide the data. It's what you say right now.

"Maria, I've received your request under Article 6. It's formal and valid. I'll confirm receipt in writing today."

"I won't try to explain the gap today because I don't have the full picture. What I can tell you is that what you've described is concerning. I'll provide the gender breakdown within thirty days."

Maria "The Directive says two months."

You "I know. I'd rather move faster."

Maria "I appreciate that. But Nadine — I've spoken to a lawyer. If the data shows what I think it shows, I'll be pursuing full remediation under Article 16. Back pay, interest, the full scope."

She stands. "I don't want to leave this company. I want this company to be the kind of place that fixes this."

"Maria, you're right. The gap is indefensible. I'm going to raise your salary to €92,000 effective next month. You'll get it in writing by Friday."

A pause. Maria looks at you carefully.

Maria "And the four years of back pay?"

You "Let me work on that separately."

Maria "Nadine, I appreciate the gesture. But I didn't come with an Article 6 request so you could fix my number and move on. I want to know how many other women in this company are sitting where I was yesterday — earning twenty percent less and not knowing it."

"Fixing one salary isn't compliance. It's containment. Under Article 9, a gap over 5% triggers a joint pay assessment — not an individual raise. You know that."

She's not angry. She's disappointed — which is worse. "I'll accept the raise. But my Article 6 request stands. I want the data."

"Maria, this is the first formal Article 6 request we've received. I want to handle it correctly. I need to consult Legal. Can I come back to you by Monday?"

Maria "A week is fine. But Nadine — I've already waited four years without knowing why I earn twenty-two percent less than a colleague who was hired after me and rated below me."

"A week is patience. More than a week is not."

She leaves the Article 6 printout on the table. "Keep it. I have copies."

Philippe has run the numbers.

Philippe "If we level everyone up, it is €1.2 million annually. That is 2.5 percent of revenue."

"If we adjust only the individuals with formal complaints — Maria today, perhaps two or three more — the cost is €180,000. Six times less."

"I know which number the board will prefer. And I know which number you are about to tell me is legally insufficient."

You "For Maria alone, four years of back pay on a €16,700 annual gap is approximately €67,000. Plus interest. Plus a tribunal if she escalates. How many more Marias are there?"

Philippe Long pause. "Present your options at the board meeting on Friday."

There's a knock. Katrin Bauer, Works Council Chair, lets herself in. She has a law degree from Humboldt and she's been reading the Directive longer than anyone in the building.

Katrin "I heard there's a board discussion about pay structures. I'm here to remind you that under Article 9, any joint pay assessment must be conducted in cooperation with workers' representatives. That is not a suggestion. It is an obligation."

Philippe Under his breath: "Of course she knows."

Katrin "I also know that the Betriebsrat has co-determination rights on pay structures under the Betriebsverfassungsgesetz. Whatever you present to the board, we need to be in the room. Not after. Not 'consulted.' In the room."

Philippe wants individual fixes — €180,000. Katrin demands a joint pay assessment under Article 9 — the full €1.2M exposure. The CEO is in the room. He'll back whoever makes the stronger case.

"The full review will cost €1.2 million, phased over eighteen months. But here's what it buys us: compliance with Articles 7 and 9 before the reporting deadline. A defensible position if anyone files under Article 16. And a story we can tell investors."

Philippe "I don't like the number. But I like the alternative less. Phase it."

Katrin "The Works Council will participate in the job evaluation. We'll need the raw data."

You "Agreed."

"Two tracks. Track one: immediate remediation for Maria and documented cases — €180,000. Track two: build pay band infrastructure over Q2–Q3. Full levelling-up next compensation cycle."

Katrin "And the Works Council's role?"

You "I'd like to consult with you on the framework."

Katrin "'Consult.' Not 'partner.' Article 9 says 'in cooperation with workers' representatives.' I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. For now."

"This is the right approach. We handle the cases that surface. We don't go looking for problems."

Narrator Katrin finds out by Thursday. Not from you — from a Works Council member in Finance who noticed Maria's salary adjustment in the next payroll run.

The quiet fix lasted nine days.