Legislature(2001 - 2002)
02/13/2001 03:35 PM Senate STA
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
SB 65-PAY EQUITY FOR STATE EMPLOYEES
SENATOR DONLEY said that SB 65 would require the State of Alaska to
conduct a gender equity study regarding state employee
compensation. Although compensation studies have been done, there
has never been an analysis of whether women or men are being
discriminated against because of gender. Female state employees are
generally paid less than male state employees but it isn't known
whether this is due to discrimination or whether the jobs they
perform are valued less in the work market.
In looking at the experiences of other states on this issue there
are two basic scenarios. In the first, the states are proactive in
performing gender equity studies. If discrimination is found the
state corrects the problem. In the second situation, the state does
nothing until a discrimination lawsuit is filed. The proactive
approach is economical in the long term because litigation is so
costly.
Number 1588
The legislature will work with the Department of Administration to
try to keep the study costs to a minimum but it is important, from
a government management point of view, that the study go forward.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions for Senator Donley.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he thought that a study was done five to
seven years ago and he wanted to know why it would differ from this
one.
SENATOR DONLEY said that past compensation studies haven't been
true gender equity studies. They haven't done an analysis of
whether the particular job classification is paid less because it
is dominated by a particular gender. Gender equity studies look at
job classifications that are dominated by one gender and then
determine whether or not that is how the compensation for that job
was established as opposed to the true value of the work performed.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions.
SENATOR DAVIS asked for a list of the states that already conducted
gender equity studies. She also wanted to know if there are many
states that had made corrections.
SENATOR DONLEY said he would provide the list to the committee.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said there was information in the packet
stating that the National Committee on Pay Equity had identified 20
states as having fair pay/pay equity for state employees.
SENATOR DAVIS said she had read that and wondered if SB 65 would do
anything differently. She too thought there had been a study done
some years ago.
SENATOR PHILLIPS said he had been trying to get a copy of the
previous study and would share the information once it was in his
possession.
Number 1809
SENATOR DAVIS agreed with the need for such a study but wondered
about the timeline.
SENATOR DONLEY said they were trying to give the Department of
Administration time to develop a system for doing the study so that
was why the study results wouldn't be presented to the legislature
until 2003.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT noted the arrival of Senator Halford.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT felt that the $750,000 fiscal note was
speculative at this point. He wondered whether the department would
locate computer programs that could be used and examine programs
developed by other states and then return to the legislature with a
more complete cost estimate for the study.
SENATOR DONLEY said progress was being made to reduce costs from
the original estimate and he wanted to continue to work with the
Department of Administration to find the most economical approach
possible.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions and there were none.
Number 1978
MR. STEWART, personnel manager for the Department of
Administration, Division of Personnel, said that although the state
has conducted many market evaluation salary studies, a gender
equity study has not been done. The Pete Marwick study, dealing
with job classifications, was done about three years ago.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he thought Senator Phillips might have
been referring to a salary study and although that provides
information about job categories it doesn't answer the question
about whether similar job categories might have different pay
scales because one of those jobs is dominated by one gender while
the other is not.
MR. STEWART said that the department is supportive of the effort to
develop a study.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked if there is concern about litigation.
MR. STEWART said he doesn't share that concern. There are checks
and balances in the system and there hasn't been a large increase
in grievance complaints indicating problems that haven't been
identified. While there isn't a pressing problem, the system can
always benefit from a reevaluation.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked what became of the Pete Marwick
classification study and how much it cost.
MR. STEWART didn't believe anything was done with it; the cost was
about $225,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said he believes the cost was $250,000 for that
study and the beginning of the Education Study. It could provide
useful information but it didn't answer the questions addressed by
SB 65.
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked if that study pointed to certain trends,
such as a gender gap.
MR. STEWART said the Pete Marwick study didn't discuss gender gap.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT wondered whether it might be advantageous to
reexamine the data to look for trends that weren't the focus of
that study.
MR. STEWART didn't think so.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that when software use is a possibility
and other states' programs are considered, the fiscal note figures
seem speculative.
MR. STEWART said the FY02 $50,000 figure was the amount anticipated
for commissioning an independent review of possible bias problems.
The $750,000 is an estimate of what a full study would cost. This
was put in FY03 in case something was found during the review
period.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said according to Senator Donley, the
anticipated costs have been adjusted down but he wanted to know
what the starting figures were.
MR. STEWART said they started with seven zeros. Senator Donley's
office was helpful in directing them to existing models such as the
one from Minnesota. They have developed a software system to
repeatedly test job classes but their classification system is very
different from Alaska's so it's not useable unless all state
positions are reclassified.
The fiscal note is an average of rough estimates that ranged from
$1.5 million to $500,000 to do a complete "job class by job
classing position-by-position study".
SENATOR PHILLIPS asked whether the Department of Administration
(DOA) was better able to do this type of study than the Department
of Labor (DOL) and is "the study just for the classification of
state government or employment period."
MR. STEWART said that DOL has labor economists and can talk about
trends and analysis while DOA has the experts on the state's
classification system for state employment.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that although DOA would be contracting the
study out, it deals with job classifications and would therefore
manage the contract.
TAPE 01-5, Side B
Number 2356
SENATOR THERRIAULT said that he was somewhat concerned about the
second year of funding because although they aren't making an
appropriation with the fiscal note, the legislature is giving an
indication of what the agency can expect for funding.
He asked if there were any questions. There were none so he asked
Caren Robinson forward to testify on behalf of the Alaska Women's
Lobby.
MS. KAREN ROBINSON, Alaska Women's Lobby, said she agreed with
Senator Donley, that this study is "the right, fair and smart thing
to do." The Alaska Women's Lobby is hopeful that this legislation
will pass and pleased that the Administration is willing to work
with the legislature.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for questions and other testimony and
there was no response.
He said there were no amendments and no committee substitutes. He
turned his attention to the fiscal note and asked Senator Donley if
he would prefer dealing with DOA for the second funding year.
SENATOR DONLEY said that his understanding of the fiscal note was
that $50,000 was allocated for the preliminary assessment. If the
assessment indicated problems, then funding would have to be found
for a full study. He thinks the assessment figure is reasonable.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said that if the full study is needed, it will
need to be worked into the next operating budget.
SENATOR DONLEY said that's true. If there are indications that a
full study is needed, an assessment will need to be done to
determine the size of the problem.
SENATOR HALFORD said that although the amount in the fiscal note is
not binding, he would be more comfortable if it was $500,000 rather
than $750,000.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT agreed and said it is his preference to change
the amount from $750,000 to $500,000 since the estimate was in that
range.
SENATOR PEARCE said that if the initial assessment indicated that a
full study is necessary she thought the data would ultimately be
more useful if a market study was done at the same time as the
gender study.
SENATOR DONLEY said he would continue to work with DOA to identify
the correct parameters of the initial study because he agrees with
Senator Pearce; the marketplace situation also needs to be
examined.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT asked for the will of the committee.
SENATOR PEARCE made a motion to move SB 65 and the $500,000 fiscal
note move from committee with individual recommendations. There
were no objections.
CHAIRMAN THERRIAULT said SB 65 with the modified fiscal note would
be moved.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|