Legislature(2001 - 2002)
05/02/2001 01:59 PM House FIN
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 65(FIN)
"An Act requiring a study regarding equal pay for equal
work of certain state employees."
JOMO STEWART, STAFF, SENATOR DONLEY testified in support of
the legislation on behalf of the sponsor. He noted that the
legislation would provide for a pay equity study. He
observed that there is evidence that there is pay disparity
between men and women working in state government and in the
state. A 1997 study showed that women were paid 35 percent
less than men. Women in state government made 73 percent of
what men were making. Women in local government made
approximately 76 - 77 percent of a man's salary. It is the
sponsor's intent that the study examines the question of
equal pay for equal work among state employees. He
emphasized that the focus should be on equal pay for same
work, which is defined in the same manner as equal pay for
comparable work: The principle requires equal compensation
for jobs that require substantially the same skills, effort
and responsibility and are performed under similar working
conditions. A pay equity study will help determine if and
where inequities exist and provide an opportunity to comply
with state and federal law. Assuring that state pay
practices are not influenced by gender is good public policy
and will promote fairness in the workplace. Voluntary pay
equity is more cost effective than a court ordered pay
equity adjustment. Discrimination suits tend to be very
costly.
Mr. Stewart compared pay equity issues in Washington and
Minnesota. Washington State failed to act on the inequities
found in their pay. Minnesota phased in equity adjustments
through legislation and arbitration. It cost approximately
$41 million dollars in the state of Minnesota over four
years. Washington state litigation costs were approximately
$106 million dollars.
Mr. Stewart observed that a study in the February 1999 issue
of Alaska Economic Trends entitled The Gender Gap in Earning
observed the difference between pay scales but did not
determine the cause of the inequities.
Representative Hudson questioned if the courts are requiring
action. Mr. Stewart did not know of any court order.
Representative Foster observed that minorities receive
inferior jobs and pay, especially minority women.
Mr. Stewart acknowledged inequity in pay to minorities. He
explained that the legislation would pertain to state
employees.
Representative John Davies MOVED to ADOPT a conceptual
amendment to include minorities in the study.
Mr. Stewart observed that the House State Affairs Committee
decided not to take up the issue in the current legislation
since it would raise the fiscal cost.
Representative John Davies argued that the greatest fiscal
cost would be the collection of data. He stressed that the
fiscal impact of the incremental analysis to determine if it
applies to minorities would be relatively small. He
maintained that it would be relatively simply to add
minority status [to the legislation].
DEB DAVIDSON, STAFF, SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, referenced the
discussion on the addition of race to the legislation in the
House State Affairs Committee. The study under the bill
would look at job classifications and identify those that
have a pay disparity to determine why the disparity exists.
A larger study would need to be completed if a difference is
not determined.
SENATOR DAVE DONLEY, SPONSOR provided information on the
legislation. He asserted that multiple variables would make
the study more complex. He noted that studies in 24 other
states were limited to gender. The statutory sections
referenced in the legislation address gender not race. The
decision was made in the House State Affairs Committee to
not include race. The intent is to address the issue in the
most economic manner.
DAVE STEWARD, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, explained that the fiscal note is based on
sampling job classifications. The inclusion of race would
require an expansion of the sample collection, which might
impact the fiscal note.
Representative John Davies asked what sampling would entail.
Mr. Steward explained that job classifications would be
reviewed for gender base. The state's job classification
system assigns pay rates based on the kind of work that is
done. Race or gender is not considered. Descriptions of work
and minimum qualifications required would be sampled from a
variety of the job families that the state classifies.
There are no parameters to look at whether population
density of race and gender mixtures influences the rate of
pay. The gender base population is fairly even around the
state but race based population is not.
Senator Donley asserted that the addition of minority status
would complicate the study. He noted that research for the
legislation was based on gender studies in other states.
Representative Hudson agreed with the prime sponsor. He
acknowledged that it would require a far more expansive
study. He observed that a gender base study would be
straightforward.
Representative John Davies pointed out that it may be
necessary to correct for age and minority status to
understand the gender issue. He questioned if the study
could be done adequately on the limited basis.
Senator Donley noted that contact with contractors for other
state, which have compiled similar studies helped the
Department of Administration to develop their fiscal note.
He commended work by the Department of Administration in
minimizing the costs on the fiscal note.
Representative Croft agreed that expansion would affect the
fiscal note.
Senator Donley spoke against expanding the scope of the
legislation. He stressed that expansion [of the bill to
include race] would require a great amount of work and
research.
Representative Foster spoke in support of the study and
expressed his hope that "we are able to do something with
the study.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion to include race.
IN FAVOR: Foster, Croft, Davies
OPPOSED: Harris, Hudson, Lancaster, Moses, Bunde, Williams
Co-Chair Mulder and Representative Whitaker were absent from
the vote.
The MOTION FAILED (3-6).
Representative Davies expressed his support of the
legislation.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSSB 65(FIN) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal note. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSSB 65(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with previously published fiscal impact
note by the Senate Rules Committee for Department of
Administration.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|