Iceland Just Made It Illegal To Pay Men More Than Women

One European country just made it illegal to pay men more than women.

Thanks to a new law, Icelandic firms that employ more than 25 people must obtain a government certificate demonstrating pay equality, under new rules that came into effect on Jan. 1.

Those who fail to prove pay equality will face penalties, including fines, according to the Mirror.

The law was announced on International Women's Day 2017 – which took place on March 8 - as part of the Nordic country's drive to eradicate the gender pay gap by 2022.

The UK, by comparison, had a gender pay gap of about 20% in 2017. In the US, women employed in similar jobs reportedly earn 76 cents less than men.

Iceland, which has a population of around 323,000 people, has been ranked the best in the world for gender equality by the World Economic Forum for nine years in a row. We imagine this law will help them defend their No. 1 position.



Dagny Osk Aradottir Pind, of the Icelandic Women's Rights Association, explained to Al Jazeera: "The legislation is basically a mechanism that companies and organizations ... evaluate every job that's being done, and then they get a certification after they confirm the process if they are paying men and women equally."

"It's a mechanism to ensure women and men are being paid equally."

Pind noted that Iceland has had legislation insisting men and women be paid equally for decades, but still the pay gap has persisted.

"We have had legislation saying that pay should be equal for men and women for decades now but we still have a pay gap," she added.

"I think that now people are starting to realize that this is a systematic problem that we have to tackle with new methods,” Pind said.

"Women have been talking about this for decades and I really feel that we have managed to raise awareness, and we have managed to get to the point that people realize that the legislation we have had in place is not working, and we need to do something more."

We imagine the hard-working small business owners who must now contend with one more onerous regulation will wholeheartedly agree.



NiggaPleeze Golden Showers Thu, 01/04/2018 - 04:05 Permalink

The ((Global Bolshevik Revolution)) is marching ahead non-stop.

What they will not tell you is while the mares and stallions are required by law to get "equal pay", the more-equal-than-other ((pigs)) at the table make vast fortunes off doing nothing - but scheming the Bolshevik Revolution.

And yeah, Trump works for those ((pigs)).

In reply to by Golden Showers

Griffin ACP Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:15 Permalink

In Iceland the parents get 3 months each, and then there are 3 months they can split between them any way they want themselves.

The total amount of leave is 9 months.

It is very common that the mother takes 6 months and the father takes 3 because the men are usually paid more for their work than women, so it has been more practical to split the leave that way.


In reply to by ACP

Griffin Tarkus Thu, 01/04/2018 - 11:24 Permalink

Communism no longer exists in Iceland, the most leftist political party are the Social democrats who got 12,1 percent in the last elections.

In the elections before that they got 5,7 percent, only barely surviving the 5 percent threshold of death.


The current govt coalition consist of Left green, who are a left/middle party, the Progressive party who is right/middle and the Independent party who is a right party.…

In reply to by Tarkus

Tarkus Griffin Thu, 01/04/2018 - 12:05 Permalink

I have now become aware that there has actually been an official communist party in Iceland in the 70's. And for that I appreciate the details provided.

I have to say though that my reply was more a commentary on the mindset that permeates the group of people that generally push for equality at any cost. As if 'diminishing returns' do not exist. As if more red tape would somehow improve the people's average station in life. As if relinquishing or outright punishing initiative and ambition would somehow lead to breakthroughs.

It's more a commentary on this perennial belief that somehow, if we would just give the state this one more prerogative, if we would just surrender just one more freedom, if we would allow it to create and enforce one more regulation, utopia would surely be achieved.

In reply to by Griffin

Tarkus Griffin Thu, 01/04/2018 - 14:16 Permalink

I do not doubt the intention, I doubt the reasoning, the solution and the implementation.

I think it wouldn't take much effort for us to reach the conclusion that attempting to coerce, convince, entice or generally influence one of the greatest behemoths of man's creation (hyperbole, i know), the state, to actually bring about a net positive change to those it rules over is really 'hard' (if not impossible, at least improbable). More often than not the state's implementations are shortsighted, naive, corrupt(able), over-generalising, ass-backwards or plain-old dumb.

Also, I am curios (I will assume you are vastly more familiar with Iceland than I am, if not, apologies):

- do you have data on hand about the phenomenon in Iceland? (from the little I have looked over 'studies' from other countries the conclusions drawn from the data usually seem to be the result of a 'flawed' mechanic)

- do you know what the certificate stipulates? (i.e. is it the inflammatory 'illegal to pay women more than men' or the 'illegal to pay one gender more than the other'; is it based on average salary; how many points of measurement must there be to calculate an average that is deemed correct; what happens if only one person of that profession is hired within the company; what are the tables for the professions used; does it take into consideration experience, performance, skills (including the skill to negotiate or 'sell yourself'), benefits; does it certify that the difference in pay is 0% or within an interval e.g. [-2%, 2%])

- do you know what the magnitude of the penalties are for not adhering to this new standard?


I usually find that when the state attempts to legislate in absolutes or to balance a knife on it's edge it fails miserably at it's intended purpose. At least they imposed this on companies with more than 25 employees.

As an anecdote: The leader of a department of software QA I used to interact with hired at one point a female junior tester that had less analytical skills than another junior male tester. They were hired at about 2 months difference. She asked for bigger pay when hired and the department lead talked her up to HR because she had a nice rack. :)

In reply to by Griffin

George Bush League ACP Thu, 01/04/2018 - 08:17 Permalink

"If Icelandic men had any cojones." No, they would rollback women's rights to circa 1905. Women in general have no sense of logic, reason or fair play, it's all about emotions, feelings and equal outcomes. The silver lining, these Feminists (Drama Queens) are going to loose their rights either way by western men (preferably) or Islam.

Sweden, the Feminist/Cuck double standard rape capital of Europe. The look on a Swedish Feminist’s Face (who let these assholes into the country in the first place) as Mohammad, Achmed and Jamil are gang raping her, “Priceless” LOL Your Honour Judge it was a "sexual emergency"

MGTOW is the only answer, men just walk the fuck away "The Juice is not Worth the Squeeze", go Gault.

Take The Red Pill and Keep Your Pimp Hand Strong!

In reply to by ACP

bloofer George Bush League Thu, 01/04/2018 - 08:34 Permalink

Meh. Men went their own way--abandoning their families and abdicating their responsibilities--decades ago. Or, at the very least, they abdicated as breadwinners, expecting women to take responsibility as breadwinners, as well as wives, mothers, and homemakers. Most men expect women to "bring home the bacon and fry it up in the pan." A logical, rational woman who believes in fair play will kick such a guy to the curb. At which point I suppose the best way to save face is to pretend to be MGTOW.

In reply to by George Bush League

George Bush League bloofer Thu, 01/04/2018 - 08:43 Permalink

Meh. You are either a Feminist, Cuck or White Knight, your shaming language is pointless, give your head a shake. If men have all the responsibility then they MUST have all the traditional authority in the family which they do not. The state has taken it away, why the fuck would a man take on all the responsibility only to be divorced raped in the future?

"expecting women to take responsibility as breadwinners", they wanted equal rights, now have at it ladies. Sorry, I forgot those equal rights are selective, only when it benefits the women.


Remember it is always men's fault. /sarc


In reply to by bloofer

bloofer George Bush League Thu, 01/04/2018 - 12:36 Permalink

The traditional male breadwinner never had all the responsibility in the home. He had approximately half the responsibility. The wife's traditional responsibilities were child-bearing, child-rearing, and homemaking. Often (depending on many factors) the husband's job was considerably less demanding than the wife's.

In saying the traditional breadwinner male had all the responsibility, you're undervaluing--or failing to value at all--the traditional female role. That is, you're not valuing your own children's lives, and would presumably prefer them to be raised and educated by day-care providers and government schools. You are not valuing the clean sheets you sleep on, the clean clothes you put on in the morning, the healthy home-cooked meals, the freedom from shopping and a few hundred other errands and chores.

The stay-at-home wives I know do all this, plus growing a garden, canning, milking, and most of the care of the livestock. One of them is also a very capable auto mechanic and keeps the family cars, truck, and lawnmowers running, and does most of the carpentry and all the plumbing.

The traditional wife has at least half of the responsibility in the home, and should enjoy at least half of the authority.

If you want a wife who will be breadwinner, homemaker, child-bearer, child-care provider, etc., there is a strong possibility that she will soon begin to ask herself what she needs you for.

In reply to by George Bush League

George Bush League bloofer Thu, 01/04/2018 - 13:58 Permalink

Disingenuous straw man argument, you just keep drinking the kool-aid and let me know how it works out for you. Men will stick to facts and observable reality, not emotions, feelings, and equal bullshit outcomes. The west is fucked thanks to "shit testing" Feminism, declining birth rates et al. Some of us enlightened ex North Americans (in Patagonia) will just sit back eat popcorn and watch the shit show. LOL

Suggest you watch some Terrence Popp on YouTube, all is not lost it's never too late to learn.

In reply to by bloofer

PT NiggaPleeze Thu, 01/04/2018 - 05:38 Permalink

Can someone please show me one of these employment contracts that stipulate that men get paid more than women?  That shit has been illegal for a VERY long time now and yet still the "studies" assert otherwise.  Are there any men out there getting paid more than what their contract states?  I don't think so.

How long has it been now???  And yet still they are crying unfair.  The laws have already been put in place.  Can anyone show me where they are not being enforced?

In reply to by NiggaPleeze

MsCreant Thu, 01/04/2018 - 02:48 Permalink


In the US, women employed in similar jobs reportedly earn 76 cents less than men.


Earns 76 cents for every dollar a man earns? 

Earns 24 cents for every dollar a man earns?



Laowei Gweilo Badsamm Thu, 01/04/2018 - 03:56 Permalink

tbh, the studies are pretty flawed and greatly normalize the samples to overly simplified characteristics of sex and tenure, usually. and group together normalized similar job titles that, when you look at just men, exhibit a lot of salary variance that highlight the jobs are not always all that similar.

what they highlight more are that men usually have more responsibility, performance, their performance or contributions are valued and generate higher returns more, etc. male managers take on much greater roles; male programmers are given leadership more often; male actors generate higher box office returns; male bankers receive bigger performance-based bonuses. there's an argument there about socio-economic equity, but much of the actual 'salary inequality' is misleading and is not comparing men and women of the exact same levels of leadership, responsibility, and performance.

woman may get those small opportunities less cuz DONT RESPEK WAMEN or something, who knows. but their lower salaries are not really cuz they have vaginas. it's cuz they just aren't doing the _exact_ same jobs.

interesting fact: Asian-American women in tech and finance get paid almost the same as Asian-American men (using the same methodology of most of the popular articles on this). Asian-American women are also far more likely to pursue leadership positions of finance and tech.

maybe it's not gender inequality and more just white female managers or programmers are not actually doing the same 'roles' as men, because when you look at Asian-American women who are much more likely to pursue those leadership rules, much of the gap disappears.


In reply to by Badsamm

dchang0 Steve40th396 Thu, 01/04/2018 - 07:18 Permalink

There's more to it than that.

Plenty of research has shown that men put in, on average, more hours than women. This matters when compensation is in the form of an annual salary: if an employer pays a man $80,000/year and he puts in 60 hours per week but a woman only puts in 40 hours and gets the same pay, the employer is losing out and so is the man.

Also, there is the cost of career brevity. Many women who have a career first and then have their first child opt to end their careers to stay home and raise the child. Their employer would have invested training time and/or dollars in those women and would lose that value when the women quit. The same training dollars spent on a man who stays with the company past the birth of his first child would produce a better return on investment.

In reply to by Steve40th396

Jeffersonian Liberal MsCreant Thu, 01/04/2018 - 11:21 Permalink

You know that's a BS stat, right?

When you factor in actual hours worked every year (men work far more hours typically) and when you don't factor together men that have been in a position for 15+ years with women who have been in for less than 5 years, the real difference is about .04 per hour.

That's the small thanks that men get for picking up all the slack when women are in the office, out of the office, rushing out, taking time off to do something else, then coming back when they decide to.

Yes, men are the beasts of burden and take the piles of crap and as a little thank-you, they receive a pitiful .04 cents an hour more than women.

In reply to by MsCreant

honestann Thu, 01/04/2018 - 03:01 Permalink

!!!!!  Excellent Law  !!!!!

The smart way to run a company is to have no employees.

There's no reason that everyone you need can't be an independent contractor.



Question:  Is the law "equal pay for equal work"?  If so, that's excellent too.  Find a way to quantify "work", then pay for each unit of work done, with specific standards for quality required.


PS:  If and when women contractors earn less because they produce less... or lower quality, then no problem.  And if and when men contractors earn less because they produce less... or lower quality, then no problem.


In so many ways people should find ways to avoid government laws.  Frankly, the "contractor" approach has been available and effective for decades.  But for some reason, most humans are too blind and stupid to consider anything unconventional.

Manipuflation honestann Thu, 01/04/2018 - 03:22 Permalink

I like women that are strong.  And if that woman can fly an airplane it is even better.  Riding a Harley is even more awesome.  I taught my wife to ride but I didn't do the plane thing because I don't have a plane.  I have flown a Cessna 152 but that is nothing special.  It is fun to fly but I need to get that license too and then have to pay for a hanger. 

I want a ride in P-51 D Mustang.  Just once.  With a Merlin.

In reply to by honestann

Oliver Jones honestann Thu, 01/04/2018 - 04:58 Permalink

In the UK, they took that approach even further - they call it zero-hours contracting, and for employers, it's been a runaway success. Total flexibility, and if you don't like someone, you don't even have to fire them - you just don't give them any hours.

Of course, that works fine until mass abuse finds a new government in charge, that creates even more laws that are difficult to circumvent, bypass or ignore. Look at the political situation in the UK, and you can see that Marxism is about to get a huge leg up. When that happens, all bets are off ... but that's one reason I left the UK more than 13 years ago.

In reply to by honestann