Legislature(1993 - 1994)
02/10/1994 03:00 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
Number 204
HB 145 - PAY EQUITY BASED ON VALUE OF WORK
DIANE LINDBECK, staff, Rep. Fran Ulmer, Prime Sponsor of HB
145, testified that HB 145 has been before the legislature
before. She stated that it basically provides a mechanism
for providing pay equity for public employees. Ms. Lindbeck
stated that when a job class is dominated by primarily one
gender, they are not comparably paid.
MS. LINDBECK stated that in Alaska as well as the rest of
the nation women on average are paid less than men for
comparable work. These wage disparities exist not just
between individuals but between job classes.
MS. LINDBECK concluded by saying that passage HB 145 would
set the standard for pay equity.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked what the difference was between pay
equity and comparable worth.
Number 250
KEVIN RITCHIE, Director, Division of Personnel/EEO,
Department of Administration, testified that the system
proposed in HB 145 classifies each job on the same list of
factors. Taking a certain number of job factors; i.e.,
number of people supervised, consequence of error in
judgement for example; you rank each job, equating pay, with
how they rank on the same set of factors. This is a more
objective way of setting pay than the state uses right now.
MR. RITCHIE believed the words comparable worth versus pay
equity are the same thing.
Number 275
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked about a study commissioned years ago
to do the basic groundwork on how are existing system
compared with providing equitable pay for all state workers.
Number 284
MR. RITCHIE explained that the Department of Administration
proposes to revise the Alaska Quantitative Evaluation System
done in 1986, bringing it up to date and implementing it.
Number 291
REP. PORTER asked if the fiscal note provided is for the
purpose stated above.
Number 295
MR. RITCHIE responded yes. He added that the Department
strongly recommends that the committee consider the
substitute provided that would accomplish the same end
through a different vehicle.
Number 325
DEBORAH TAYLOR testified via teleconference in support of
HB 145. Ms. Taylor gave as an example of pay inequity the
male dominated grant coordinator position at a range 18
versus the female dominated eligibility technician in the
Division of Public assistance at a range 13. She said this
bill needs to be passed out of committee to lift the morale
of those employees who are not receiving fair pay for
comparable work.
Number 356
RICHARD SEWARD, Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA),
testified via teleconference in support of HB 145. Mr.
Seward stated that the ASEA is a national leader on pay
equity. Mr. Seward added that they have done studies in
this area in Alaska and have found that a majority of jobs
are segregated by sex. He noted that 48% of all state jobs
had 70% or more men, while 24% of all job classes had 70% or
more women. Of the 13,542 employees surveyed, 55% were men
and 45% were women, but 39% of all state employees are now
working in male dominated job classes and 32% of all
employees are in female dominated job classes. He stated
there is a pay difference between the male and female
dominated job classes. Mr. Seward advised that a female
earns 75 cents to the dollar earned by men.
MR. SEWARD related to the committee that his study showed
that if no academic requirements are found in the minimum
qualifications for a job, the woman will earn 72 cents to
the dollar earned by the man. If high school is required,
the woman will earn 87 cents to the man's dollar. If a
technical degree is required, the woman earns 71 cents to
the man's dollar. With a college degree, the woman earns 87
cents to the man's dollar.
MR. SEWARD stated that ASEA strongly opposes the
administration's proposal for two reasons: 1) it does away
with collective bargaining, and 2) it will not benefit the
women on the state payroll now.
Number 415
CHAIRMAN HUDSON commented, if Mr. Seward had a plan that
would show how to implement a pay equity plan without
increasing the budget, please send it.
Number 420
MR. SEWARD replied that he would be glad to forward to the
committee the experience gathered from other states.
Number 439
REP. PORTER asked Mr. Seward what the gender split in ASEA's
membership was.
Number 441
MR. SEWARD responded that within the general membership
there was between 52 to 55% female.
Number 455
REP. WILLIAMS asked, when the study was done, did it compare
the same types of jobs?
Number 460
MR. SEWARD explained that the study looked at all job
classes that required a college degree for someone to get on
the list to be hired into that job and then it compared the
pay of all the jobs classes requiring a college degree. It
was then divided up into those job classes where there was
70% or more of the employees who were women compared to
those classes where 70% or more of the employees were men.
The only common characteristic was that each had to have a
college degree to be hired; then the study compared the pay.
Number 470
REP. MACKIE asked if they were the same jobs. For instance,
two people working side-by-side doing the exact same thing,
with the male making more then the female.
Number 486
MR. SEWARD stated that if a job class is primarily filled by
women, then the pay range is likely to be less then a
similar job class filled primarily be men.
MR. SEWARD used the example of nurse practitioner largely
filled by women versus physician assistants largely filled
by men. They generally do the same thing day by day, but
the physician assistants make more money.
REP. PORTER asked why the union allowed the wage disparities
to happen in the first place.
Number 514
MR. SEWARD responded that his predecessor took it to court
and the Supreme Court ruled that everyone in the same job
class had to be paid the same. The law of the land is not
comparable worth and the court couldn't do anything to help
the women. So the union came to the legislature for help.
Number 522
REP. PORTER asked if the union is or will be negotiating
with the state on the positions that the union feels are
underpaid.
Number 527
MR. SEWARD said the state is refusing to bargain on these
proposals. He added that the state does not have to bargain
on which job classes they pay what pay ranges; they only
have to bargain on the dollar amount given to the ranges.
Number 550
THERESA ANDERSON testified via teleconference in support of
HB 145. She said many men and women who are the sole
support of their families need pay equity.
MS. ANDERSON stated that the wage gap between men and women
was even narrower in 1955 then it was in 1984. This gap
will never close until pay equity is the law. The state
budget should not be balanced on the backs of the females of
the state or the males who are in the job classes dominated
by females.
MS. ANDERSON noted that employers set wages using factors of
which market value of supply and demand is only one. Other
factors include internal equity, pay progression methods and
comparative structure. The external market does not exist
independently, it is created by wage setting decisions by
employers with constraints placed on it by existing laws.
She noted that, despite decreases in the supply of clerical
workers and nurses in 1985, wages did not increase
automatically for these jobs.
TAPE 94-10, SIDE B
Number 001
MS. ANDERSON said the state continues to deny or explain
away the differences between the wages between men and
women, ignoring study after study. The state finally
proposes that women switch jobs if they want more pay.
MS. ANDERSON concluded by saying that pay equity has been
studied in the past but not implemented. She suggested that
the state doesn't need more studies, but needs to apply
sound compensation principals to men's jobs as well as
women's.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON asked if Ms. Anderson knew of any models the
legislature could look at to help them in their
deliberation.
MS. ANDERSON stated that she was not advocating lowering the
male dominated wages; it is illegal, but there are states,
such as Minnesota, that have implemented pay equity and have
been very successful. She added that the information is
readily available.
Number 075
REP. ULMER stated that HB 145 is modeled on the Minnesota
law. She added that federal law states that you cannot
implement wage equity on the backs of someone else.
Number 117
REP. PORTER asked if there is a federal law on comparable
worth.
Number 120
REP. ULMER responded that there is a federal law and they
requested the states to pass and implement their own.
Number 125
REP. PORTER asked Rep. Ulmer is she was aware of any suits
brought in the states that challenged the situation that a
generally similar qualification requirement in one class
versus another class that has a pay equity problem is
unconstitutional.
REP. ULMER responded that the State of Washington went
through lengthy litigation regarding this issue.
Number 134
DWYTE HUTCHINSON testified via teleconference in support of
HB 145. He stated that he is in a very dominated field; he
feels that the responsibilities and technical work he is
required to do is well beyond the level of pay he is at now.
Number 155
BARBARA BINKER testified via teleconference that this issue
is plain and simple one of fairness to everyone. Ms. Binker
supported HB 145. She said women don't want back pay, they
just want to be treated fairly. Ms. Binker stated she wants
to see her daughter be able to choose a career and make a
comfortable living at it.
Number 183
KATHY DIETRICH testified via teleconference that she is in
support of HB 145. She stated that the administration's
proposal is more then just a change in the vehicle, it's a
substantive change. She explained that, currently, if your
job class is determined to be improperly classed, then those
in the job class would move to the new range, but they would
take their present step with them to the new range. The
administration's proposal would eliminate that.
MS. DIETRICH stated that it is past the time when women are
going out to work for curtain money. Most of the women in
the work force today are doing it out of necessity. But
this is not a women's issue, she said, it is an issue of
fairness for both men and women.
MS. DIETRICH expressed frustration at the thought of more
studies being done. She said, let's stop studying the issue
and implement pay equity.
Number 270
REP. MACKIE expressed support for this issue but admitted
that at times it is confusing and he did not want his line
of questions to be misconstrued to mean he was against the
bill.
Number 300
MARLENE RICE testified via teleconference in support of HB
145. She stated that she was frustrated with having to show
persons that make double and triple what she makes how to
work the computer. She has applied for jobs in the upper
ranges only to come in second to a man. Ms. Rice stated she
wanted to know how come her sons, who just graduated high
school, are making what she does after four years on the
job.
Number 333
CAREN ROBINSON, League of Women Voters, testified in support
of HB 145. She stated that in 1963 President John F.
Kennedy signed into law the equal pay act guaranteeing women
equal pay for equal work. Now, 31 years later, women are
still 30% behind men in earnings.
MS. ROBINSON stated that female dominated jobs are
undervalued. She added that this bias has to stop, and she
believes it's time to stop studying it and do something
about it.
MS. ROBINSON added that the state may find some savings in
some aid programs if it would pay women fairly for the work
that they do.
Number 385
SHERRIE GOLL, Alaska Women's Lobby, testified in support of
HB 145. She stated that Margaret Mead, the noted
anthropologist, has said that there was a pervasive social
bias against the value of women's work and that it occurs in
almost all human cultures. In Ms. Mead's work she found
many villages in which the women fish and the men weave, and
what was similar in these villages was that the work done by
women was less valued.
MS. GOLL stated that the discrimination against women goes
back to 1865 when the federal government bought its first
typewriter. Female clerks were paid $600.00 per year and
male clerks $1200.00 per year.
MS. GOLL added that in the old days the reason given for the
inequality was that the men were the bread winners, but as
we know now, we have many families headed by women.
MS. GOLL concluded by saying that the administration's
proposal is basically the way the earlier bill was killed
because it eliminates collective bargaining.
REP. PORTER asked what the basic differences were between
the original bill and the administration's proposal.
MR. RITCHIE answered that the vehicle was essentially the
same. The proposal is not a method of creating equity
between the sexes only or identifying some jobs and raising
them, it's basically a fundamental change in the entire
classification system.
MR. RITCHIE stated that one difference is that the study
will be implemented under the administration's proposal. He
believes that a partial implementation is detrimental to the
issue. Lastly, the administration's proposal has a meet and
confer type of relationship with the union rather then
negotiating.
Number 500
REP. ULMER stated that the CS eliminates the ability of the
union to bargain and would eliminate the ability to get any
pay increases as a result of the pay equity determination.
Number 503
REP. PORTER summed up what he believes the differences to
be. He said both approaches do a study and reach the same
results; HB 145 would allow the study to be used in actual
labor negotiations, as opposed to the administration's
approach to meet and confer with the union, but the results
of the study would be implemented in any event.
Number 520
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated he felt the committee had a good
grasp of this issue. He added that this issue seemed to be
boiling down to the financing of the implementation and not
any disagreement of the concept of the fairness issue.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON gave a brief history of his dealings with
job classifications and their pay ranges.
CHAIRMAN HUDSON stated that the question is, how do we
determine what the new classes aught to be, what will be the
cost, and how will we implement it?
Number 565
REP. MACKIE moved HB 145 with individual recommendations and
a zero fiscal note. No objections were heard; it was so
ordered.
TAPE 94-11, SIDE A
Number 001
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|