Why can't Bangladesh have one framework for valuing work?

Bangladesh has answered one question: how much the government should pay its employees. The harder question remains: how should the country determine whether a job is fairly paid compared with a similar private-sector job?

The approval of the National Pay Scale 2026 brings this question into sharper focus. The new structure retains 20 grades, with basic pay ranging from Tk20,000 at Grade 20 to Tk156,000 at Grade 1. Many wonder why it took more than a decade to replace the 2015 structure, as the new scale's implementation suddenly imposes a substantial additional annual expenditure of Tk105,580 crore on the government. In a country of nearly 180 million people, the new pay scale will benefit about 2.4 million serving employees, more than 925,000 retirees, and other eligible beneficiaries.

The debate will therefore focus on whether government employees deserve the increases and whether the government can afford them. These are valid questions. However, another problem remains: Bangladesh lacks a general framework for assessing the value of work across its economy.

A government officer, corporate executive, factory manager, technology professional, or development-sector employee may have similar qualifications, experience, and responsibilities. Yet no common national standard exists to judge whether their pay is broadly comparable. This does not mean they should receive the same salary.

Imposing a single salary scale on every employer would be impractical. Different industries have different economics. A technology company may pay a premium for a scarce skill. A bank may have a different cost structure than a manufacturer. A small business cannot pay what a multinational can. Employers should retain the freedom to reward skills, performance, and results.

What Bangladesh could consider instead is a National Pay and Job Framework.

The idea is simple: create a common method to evaluate a job's level and value while allowing employers to set actual compensation.

The first part would be a national job architecture. Instead of relying on titles like "Senior Executive", "Manager" or "Vice President" — which can mean different things across organisations — jobs could be classified by factors such as education, experience, technical expertise, decision-making authority, financial responsibility, people management, and complexity and risk.

A national level for a position should be determined by the nature of the work it involves rather than by its title or the company that employs it.

The second part would set out indicative compensation ranges for those levels. These would not be mandatory salaries but would serve as reference points for both employers and employees.

For instance, a certain national level might have a reference compensation range of Tk80,000 to Tk130,000. One organisation could offer Tk90,000, another Tk120,000, and a third might pay more if the job requires a scarce skill. The market would then determine the actual labour price.

The third part would be a more transparent approach to annual pay adjustments. Rather than prescribing the same annual increment for everyone, the framework could encourage employers to consider inflation, productivity, organisational performance, and individual performance.

This idea also appears internationally, though no large economy offers a single salary scale for employees across both the public and private sectors.

Australia provides the most relevant example. Its "modern awards" set minimum pay and employment conditions for particular industries and occupations. Employees covered by an award are grouped by the duties, qualifications, experience, and responsibilities of their work, and by their classification, which determines the minimum rate that applies to them. Although employers may pay more, enterprise agreements can provide alternative arrangements.

The United Kingdom also offers a useful lesson: its equal-pay scheme considers not only identical or similar jobs but also those of "equal value." When assessing jobs, the evaluation may consider factors such as skill, responsibility, effort, and working conditions — therefore, two jobs that appear entirely different may be regarded as comparable in value.

Canada goes even further in applying the job-evaluation principle. The federal Pay Equity Act identifies four factors used to assess the value of work: skill, effort, responsibility, and working conditions.

Bangladesh does not need to copy any of these systems, but they make an important point: standardising how work is evaluated does not require standardising everyone's salary. This might also change how we compare public and private employment.

A government employee's compensation may include a pension, allowances, housing, medical benefits, and greater job security. A private-sector employee may receive bonuses, provident-fund contributions, gratuity, insurance, stock benefits, or other incentives. Comparing only basic salary can therefore be misleading.

A national framework should make it easier to compare total compensation, not just the amount shown on a monthly payslip.

There are economic reasons for this. Greater transparency would help workers understand their market position and make better career decisions. It could boost labour mobility by making it easier to compare jobs across sectors. It would help employers identify cases where they underpay or overpay for certain positions. For policymakers, it would provide a clearer view of wage changes across the formal economy.

The proposal would not solve Bangladesh's broader wage problem. Much of the workforce remains outside formal employment, where contracts, job categories, and benefits are often unclear. A national framework would be most useful in formal employment. Meanwhile, minimum- and living-wage policies and labour protections continue to help workers at the lower end of the income scale.

There is also a constitutional question. Bangladesh's Constitution calls for a just and egalitarian society and acknowledges the right to a reasonable wage based on the quantity and quality of work; at the same time, it clearly recognises private ownership. A framework that protects workers while allowing private employers to compete for talent is not inherently a move towards state control.

Equal pay for all is neither practical nor desirable. Instead, the focus should be on fair rules for valuing work.

A surgeon and a schoolteacher need not earn the same. A software engineer and a government administrator need not earn the same. A bank executive and a factory manager need not earn the same. But there should be a reasonable explanation for the difference in their compensation.

The true aim of a national framework is to make differences more open and justifiable rather than trying to eliminate them.

The discussion around the National Pay Scale 2026 should prompt a broader question: can Bangladesh create a labour market in which the value of work is more clearly recognised, regardless of who signs the pay cheque?

Bangladesh does not need one salary scale for everyone. It needs a credible way to understand why different work is paid differently — and when that difference is justified.

Shafiq R Bhuiyan is a storyteller who examines the intersection of social progress, effective communication, cultural development, and corporate social responsibility while sharing insights to inspire change. 

Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Business Standard.