Summit Credit Union CEO Kim Sponem Calls for Systemic Change on Equal Pay Day: Addressing Retirement Inequality for Women

March 26, 2026

Differences in pay and opportunity can compound over time, affecting women’s long-term financial security and retirement outcomes.

MADISON, Wis., March 26, 2026 — Equal Pay Day marks the point in the year when women’s earnings catch up to what men earned the year before. While the date is symbolic, Summit Credit Union notes that its implications extend far beyond annual pay comparisons. Summit Credit Union CEO Kim Sponem highlights how pay disparities impact women’s retirement security, urging employers to adopt equitable compensation practices.

Equal Pay Day Is About More Than Today’s Paycheck

Most people assume that poverty in retirement comes down to poor choices—failing to save enough, spending too much or not planning early. While those can contribute to financial insecurity in a significant way, it is not a factor for everyone. It can be used as just a comforting story, because it suggests that financial insecurity is avoidable if you just do everything right.

But for millions of women, that’s not how it works.

Retirement insecurity isn’t about a lack of discipline or effort. It’s about how careers unfold over decades—and how early decisions around pay, promotion and opportunity shape outcomes far down the road.

Equal Pay Day is a symbolic date that marks how far into the new year women must work to earn what men earned the year before. This year, it lands on March 26, and even further out for women of color. But the implications go far beyond a single date on the calendar.

Roots of Retirement Inequality

Over a 40-year career, the average woman earns over a half-million dollars less than her male counterpart. That difference doesn’t just affect take-home pay today. Lower lifetime earnings mean smaller retirement balances, lower employer matches, and reduced Social Security benefits later on, meaning gaps continue even in retirement. And for women of color, the gaps are much larger.

The result: Women are far more likely to experience poverty in retirement. In one national survey, 59% of women and 81% of low-income women said they don’t earn enough to save for retirement . data show that half of women ages 55 to 66 have no personal retirement savings.

If you are a leader or employer, this matters. Because the conditions we create at work play a major role in whether hard work actually translates into long-term financial security.

The Power of Pay Practices

What’s striking is how small these differences often are at the beginning.

A starting salary that’s just a few thousand dollars lower. A slower first promotion. A missed opportunity early on. But raises, bonuses and retirement contributions are all calculated as a percentage of pay. What feels modest in year one compounds year after year. By the time retirement is in sight, the disparity has grown and there’s very little room left to catch up.

For years, we’ve told women they need to negotiate more aggressively. While negotiation skills matter, research shows women who negotiate often face social and professional backlash that men do not. They’re more likely to be labeled “difficult” or “demanding” for the same behavior. Framing negotiation as the solution places responsibility on individuals while leaving the underlying system unchanged.

The real issue isn’t who negotiates better—it’s that negotiation itself introduces unnecessary variability into starting pay. When compensation depends on who asks, inequities are embedded from day one. A more equitable approach is to remove negotiation as a variable altogether and base starting pay on the role, scope and market. Ending the practice of asking candidates about prior salary accomplishes the same goal. Anchoring today’s pay to past compensation often carries forward earlier disparities, unintentionally widening gaps over time.

Equal pay within roles is essential—but access to higher-paying roles matters just as much. Women remain underrepresented in senior positions where base pay, bonuses and retirement benefits are strongest. According to McKinsey’s Women in the Workplace research , for every 100 men promoted to manager, only 93 women are promoted—and just 74 women of color. When advancement slows early, lifetime earnings slow with it.

Another critical inflection point is caregiving. Women who step away from the workforce to care for children or aging parents often return at lower pay or in reduced roles—effectively resetting years of progress. That reset can permanently alter earning trajectories and retirement savings. Men generally do not experience the same long-term penalty.

Time spent caregiving should pause a career—not penalize it. Reentry pay should reflect the role and the current market, not outdated compensation. Prior experience should remain fully credited. Advancement opportunities should remain open. And caregiving leave should be normalized for everyone, not treated as a career detour.

What Leaders Can Do to Close the Gap

Leaders don’t control every factor that affects retirement security. But we do control hiring practices, advancement pathways and compensation policies. Eliminating negotiated starting salaries, ending salary history questions, tracking pay equity data, and monitoring representation in leadership are all practical steps within reach of every organization.

Closing the gender pay gap isn’t only about fairness. It strengthens families, communities, and the broader economy. When hard work has a fair chance of paying off over a lifetime, retirement security becomes more attainable for the women who have earned it.

Equal Pay Day is not just a reminder of how far we still have to go—it’s a test of leadership. The choices organizations make today will determine whether decades of effort translate into lasting security tomorrow.