Czech labour market 2027: Where will we find employees, how will we pay them and what will the law allow?

Two employees have the same job title but different salaries. Could you explain why? The answer may reveal different levels of responsibility or past decisions that no longer reflect the work being done today. These were the kinds of practical questions we explored during SYNERGIE’s panel discussion in Prague. We connected pay with recruitment, the availability of essential skills and the rules governing working relationships.

On 21 October, we discussed what lies ahead for employers with JUDr. Jiří Vaňásek, Director General of the Employment Section at the Czech Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs; Michal Macko, Managing Director of the French-Czech Chamber of Commerce; and Jakub Málek, Managing Partner at PEYTON legal. Dominika Kopčáková and Jakub Sedláček also joined the panel on behalf of SYNERGIE.

The discussion brought together experience in employment policymaking, international business decisions, employment law and day-to-day recruitment. Participants could put their questions to specialists who understand both employers’ needs and the reasons behind the way the system operates.

The same job title does not necessarily mean the same work

Pay transparency often draws attention to salary comparisons. Jakub Málek highlighted a step that must come first: understanding what work we are actually comparing.

Two people may hold the same position, but one leads a team and carries greater responsibility. Alternatively, both may perform comparable work, yet their salaries differ because they joined at different times and negotiated under different conditions.

Neither the job title nor the salary figure alone explains these circumstances.

Málek therefore emphasised the importance of job architecture: mapping and organising roles according to the content, demands and value of the work. This provides the foundation for a meaningful assessment of remuneration, including benefits.

Can the company explain differences using criteria it applies consistently? This is a question for HR and for managers who decide on starting salaries, bonuses and pay increases.

A practical starting point is to examine one group of roles: compare the work actually performed, the responsibilities involved and the pay criteria. The findings may show where job descriptions need clarification and where remuneration itself needs review. Without shared criteria, every new offer to a candidate can introduce another exception.

Redundancies will not resolve a skills shortage

News of redundancies can create the impression that employers will have more candidates to choose from. For an individual company, however, that may not be the case.

Michal Macko described the pressure to automate and the shift towards higher-value activities. Jiří Vaňásek emphasised the need for retraining linked to genuine employer demand. A crucial connection runs through both perspectives: the work disappearing may not require the same skills as the work being created.

New technology can reduce some activities while creating demand for people who can configure it, maintain it or assess its performance.

Employers therefore benefit from defining future work precisely. A need for a “technical employee” is too broad to guide effective training. Specific knowledge of equipment, processes or fault resolution gives learning a clear direction.

The same approach is worth applying within the company. Which employees already have a suitable foundation for the new work, and how much preparation do they need? The answer can influence how many people the business needs to recruit externally in the first place.

Labour costs do not reveal the price of lost know-how

Michal Macko also shared the experience of a French aerospace company that brought production back from Romania to Prague. He highlighted the importance of Czech employees’ technical expertise.

The example raised a question about what companies include when comparing operating costs. Wages and energy costs are relatively straightforward to quantify. Team experience, the ability to maintain quality or the expertise to resolve an unusual problem are harder to capture in a single budget line.

Replacing headcount does not necessarily restore the same production capability.

When planning succession or expanding a team, it is therefore worth knowing which knowledge has been shared and which still rests with one individual. Its full value may only become apparent when it is no longer available.

A permit is one stage. Employers need to plan the entire journey to starting work

Discussing international recruitment, Dominika Kopčáková explained the work involved in selection, skills assessment and preparing for employees’ arrival. Jiří Vaňásek added the state’s perspective on security screening before entry into Czechia.

For a company that needs to fill shifts, waiting creates an operational obstacle. At the same time, the state assesses the conditions for the worker’s entry. The discussion revealed considerations that can easily be overlooked when simply comparing processing times across countries.

For planning purposes, one distinction is essential: the time needed to obtain a permit is not the timeline for the entire recruitment process.

Before an application is submitted, candidates must be selected, their skills assessed and documentation prepared. Once the permit is issued, travel arrangements and training follow.

Employers therefore need to plan around the point when a person will be ready to perform the required work. The date of an administrative decision alone is not enough for capacity planning.

Does the contract reflect how the working relationship actually operates?

On external contractors, Jakub Málek highlighted the importance of how the relationship works in practice. A formally drafted contract does not, on its own, explain day-to-day arrangements.

The discussion covered factors such as how work is assigned, how a contractor is integrated into the company’s structure and how they represent themselves externally. Each relationship must be assessed in its full context; no single factor provides a definitive legal conclusion on its own.

It is also important to track how the relationship develops. Someone may begin on a clearly defined project and gradually become involved in the team’s routine operations, while the documents remain unchanged.

Reviewing the legal arrangement therefore also requires a conversation with the manager who oversees the relationship every day. They can explain who assigns tasks, how the work is organised and what has changed since the relationship began.

Which assumptions are worth checking today?

The same job title does not necessarily mean comparable work. More applicants do not necessarily bring the required skills. Lower wage costs may not offset lost expertise. And documents may not describe what happens in day-to-day operations.

These gaps between expectations and reality connected the themes of the Prague panel.

For a business, the best starting point can be specific: examine roles with unclear pay criteria, knowledge held by just one person or a working relationship that has changed since the contract was signed.

These are areas where a problem can exist long before an employee’s departure, a question about pay or an inspection brings it to light.