How to talk to an employee who earns less than a new hire

Where pay gaps between new and experienced staff come from

For years a company raises long-serving employees’ pay in small steps, and then, when candidates are scarce, it has to offer higher rates to new people. That is how you end up with a highly experienced person earning less than a new hire. This is one possible mechanism, not a justification for every difference. Other explanations include different qualifications, scope of duties, on-call work, a premium for a rare skill or negotiations conducted at different times. The problem arises when the manager can’t give any objective criterion and hides behind confidentiality. Research reviewed by Zoë Cullen shows that pay transparency has complex effects: it can reduce gaps, but it can also increase comparisons between colleagues and change the way people negotiate. That doesn’t mean keeping employees in the dark is a good solution. It means a company should have transparent rules before the dispute erupts by the coffee machine.

Why news of a new colleague’s salary hits so hard

The employee may feel that their loyalty and knowledge of the company no longer count for anything. Often they are really asking two questions: “Is my work worth less?” and “Are the rules the same for everyone?” The answer “everyone negotiates for themselves” can sound like an admission that the company rewards nothing but bargaining power. A meta-analysis by Colquitt and colleagues indicates that a sense of fair treatment is shaped by the outcome and the procedure as well as by how people are treated and how information is communicated. So the tension can’t be resolved by a pleasant tone alone. The manager should take the question seriously, while not assuming that the employee knows a colleague’s full pay package. Even if the figure isn’t accurate, the uncertainty itself shows that the criteria need explaining. It’s a good idea to start with the impact the situation is having on the person, without assigning blame on the basis of rumour.

Check whether the jobs being compared really are comparable

It isn’t enough to put two job titles side by side. You need to compare the qualifications required, the responsibility, the effort, the conditions and the tasks actually performed, as well as every element of pay. One person may do more on-call shifts, another may hold a specialist certification or carry different safety responsibilities. Differences may be justified, but it should be possible to demonstrate them – not dream them up after a complaint. The Polish Labour Code (Kodeks pracy) provides for the right to equal pay for equal work or work of equal value. Assessing a specific case requires facts; a difference in amounts does not in itself establish a breach of the law. The manager should involve HR or whoever is responsible for the pay system and check the documents, rather than deliver a legal verdict from memory. What matters most to the employee is knowing that the comparison will be made according to open criteria, without gossip about a colleague’s private contract.

The first two minutes can set the tone for the whole conversation

The employee says: “The new guy got more than me, even though I’m the one training him.” The knee-jerk response, “Other people’s pay is none of your business,” usually makes things worse. A better opening is: “I understand why you’re asking about the rules. I won’t discuss another person’s details. What I will do is review your pay, the scope of your work and the criteria applied to this role.” Don’t confirm or deny a figure you haven’t checked. And don’t promise a rise before you have made the comparison. Then ask: “Which of your duties and achievements do you feel aren’t reflected in your pay?” That way you are talking about specific work, not about the new colleague’s character. Avoid saying “he negotiated better” or “you should have come to me sooner”, because those lines shift responsibility for the system onto the employee. If the issue affects many people, say plainly that the analysis may require a wider review of the rules, not just one individual conversation.

If you can’t raise the pay yourself, don’t break off contact

A manager often can’t approve a pay rise on their own. That doesn’t release them from seeing the matter through to a decision. They should establish who makes the decision, what document needs to be prepared and when an answer will be given. For example: “By Friday we’ll compare the role profiles with HR. Next week I’ll put a recommendation to the director. I’ll come back to you on Wednesday, even if the decision hasn’t been made yet.” If the analysis reveals an unjustified difference, you need a plan to correct it and a named person responsible. If the difference is justified, explain the work-related criteria without disclosing your colleague’s personal data. Don’t try to replace a decision about money with praise for loyalty. “You’re very important to us”, combined with no action whatsoever, can come across as dismissive. Reliable information about when and how the decision will be made matters more than unverified reassurances.

Transparent rules are not the same as publishing colleagues’ salaries

A team can know the pay ranges, the promotion criteria, the bonus rules and how to appeal against an assessment without having access to every individual contract. These are two different things. Explain the reasons why rates may differ and who ensures consistency. If rules are missing or applied selectively, they need to be changed – rather than training managers in ever slicker justifications. Check especially carefully that the criteria don’t lead to unequal treatment on the basis of protected characteristics. An amendment to Polish employment law in force from 5 November 2026 strengthens employers’ obligations to prevent discrimination and other abuses. That doesn’t mean every pay gap is automatically discrimination. For an organisation, the best preparation for difficult conversations is a documented, understandable and consistently applied way of making pay decisions.

When an experienced employee earns less than a new hire, it isn’t enough to defend the decision by pointing to “market realities”. You need to check whether the work is comparable, what the objective criteria are and whether the difference is justified. The conversation should protect other people’s data, but it mustn’t hide how decisions are made. If the system needs correcting, empathy alone won’t do the job.

How Empatyzer helps you explain pay differences

A manager can describe a specific situation to Em without sharing anyone else’s pay data: a long-serving employee says they feel unfairly treated and expects an answer today, while the decision lies with HR and the director. Em will help you prepare the first two minutes of the conversation, questions about the scope of duties and an honest statement that the matter needs to be checked. You can also rehearse a scenario in which the employee reacts angrily because they have already heard many empty promises. Em will help you keep the conversation focused on facts, deadlines and criteria. If your organisation has data on people’s communication styles, you can choose a better way of explaining things – without changing the pay rules themselves. After the conversation, come back to Em and prepare your follow-up: what was established, what was checked, who will make the decision and when the employee will hear it. This makes the conversation with the employee more concrete, while the company can review and correct its pay rules in parallel.