Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/28/2021 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR19 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB146 | |
| Occupational Safety and Health Review Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HJR 19 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 146-DISCLOSURE OF WAGE INFORMATION
5:01:38 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 146, "An Act relating to disclosure of
information regarding employee compensation by employers,
employees, and applicants for employment; establishing the fund
for protection of compensation disclosure rights; and providing
for an effective date." [Before the committee, adopted as the
working document during the 4/23/21 House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting, was the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 146, Version 32-LS0513\B, Wayne, 4/19/21
("Version B").]
5:02:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER, as prime sponsor of HB 146, addressed
several concerns with the proposed legislation that were brought
up during the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
meeting on April 23, 2021. She referenced a document [included
in the committee packet] that included a table of states with
similar legislation, population, policy description, and fiscal
impact. She expressed that HB 146 is important because, when
the economic impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic are being
addressed, people are entering into or returning to the
workforce after a prolonged absence; those people, she said, are
likely to experience something called "wage scarring," which is
a well-documented issue in which someone returns to the
workforce at a depressed rate of pay after a prolonged period of
unemployment. This depressed rate of pay, she said, is then
used to inform future salary offers; an initial depressed rate
of pay can follow a worker for decades, regardless of his/her
performance in the workplace and in spite of any future larger
economic recovery. She said that after the "Great Recession" of
2007-2009 the average decrease in inflation-adjusted weekly
earnings was 17.5 percent, and only one in four displaced
workers got back to their original earnings within five years.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER said that national unemployment hit 10
percent during the Great Recession; Alaska's unemployment rate
over the past year was 12 percent, with some regions
experiencing over 20 percent unemployment. The hardest-hit
occupations, with employment reductions of between 25 and 35
percent, she said, were the industries of mining and logging,
oil and gas, and leisure and hospitality. She encouraged the
committee to consider not only those returning to the workforce
after a period of unemployment but also new high school or
vocational school graduates who are just entering the workforce
and are more likely to be offered a depressed rate of pay and
will, under current law, be more likely to be penalized forward
into their careers. She stated that HB 146, with its provisions
to protect pay history privacy, pay transparency, and pay
posting, would help reduce the impacts of wage scarring by
ensuring that workers get to be on the same road to recovery as
businesses. She stressed that the proposed legislation would
not require businesses to offer salaries they can't afford, but
that it would give workers the opportunity for economic recovery
alongside their employers.
5:08:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN characterized the text of HB 146 as
requiring the employer to disclose salaries but said that in the
next subsection it says that nothing requires the employee to
make the same disclosure. He said that the language "outs" the
employee's pay range by default.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER responded that the language says "range of
salaries" but does not say that specific wage information would
be required.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN commented that the language would still
force the disclosure of salaries.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER replied, "That is correct, it's a
component of the bill."
5:10:34 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that employers are not currently
required to disclose information, but employees are often put
into situations in which they feel they have no choice but to
disclose their salary history in order to be considered for a
position. She said this proposed legislation is designed to
create more transparency, as well as protection, for the
applicant.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER said, "It creates a sense of balance."
5:11:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY said, "I'm not quite catching the
balance." He characterized the proposed legislation as putting
more burden on the employer and opined that the process of
searching for an employee is "equitable" to both employer and
potential employee. He then expressed concerns with having the
state involved in a business's hiring practices and mentioned
the possibility of meritless complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER responded that, with respect to a
complaint, the language of HB 146 "very narrowly" defines what
complaints could be covered. If the complaint is that the pay
range is not posted, she said, the employer may correct the
posting and without being fined. If the complaint is that an
employer asked an applicant for a salary history, then the
employer could be fined. She stressed that the language does
not open the door for complaints stemming from an applicant
being unsatisfied with the salary range they were offered. She
said the language of the proposed legislation gives the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD) the
authority to decide how complaints would be handled. She then
addressed Representative McCarty's comment regarding balance and
said:
I would argue that the way it is now, the scales are
definitely tipped on the side of the employer. They
are aware of the pay range. They are aware of how
much higher they might be willing to go and what
flexibility they have. They, right now, can ask about
past pay history and use that information to inform
how they're going to treat a suite of applicants and
decide ... what the size of the offer is, to whom.
Those are some pretty significant imbalances from my
perspective.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER said that the term is "information
asymmetry" and said the proposed legislation is intended to
bring symmetry, allowing both parties to have a productive
conversation.
5:16:02 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS commented that the Young Women's Christian
Association (YWCA) began an equal pay initiative in 2014 aimed
at addressing the pay gap. He said that the wage scarring issue
is pernicious for women, and that minor differences in pay
beginning at a young age contribute to a large aggregate pay
gap. He said there was a large group of businesses that
voluntarily implemented the pay transparency measures as
described in HB 146 and as a result, he said, it became clear
that the provisions in the proposed legislation would make a
significant difference in addressing the pay gap. He discussed
issues of unconscious gender bias such as occupational sorting
and women being forced out of the workforce due to the lack of
available child care.
5:18:25 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that the committee will hear from DLWD
about the gender pay gap.
5:18:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ opened public testimony on HB 146, Version B.
5:18:54 PM
KIM HAYS, Political Director, American Federation of Labor -
Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), testified in
support of HB 146. She stated the AFL-CIO's support for
measures that protect Alaska's workers, including protection
from practices that discriminate against them in the workplace.
She said the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 already
includes a statute prohibiting employers from retaliating
against employees who share compensation information with their
colleagues, but employers have repeatedly violated the law with
no consequences. She stated support for the provision
prohibiting employers from requiring salary history, noting that
when individuals are required to provide such information but
not provided the salary range for the position for which they
are applying, their earning potential is harmed. She noted that
this is particularly true for women and said that, according to
a 2020 study by Boston University School of Law, such provisions
enacted in other states have resulted in 8 percent higher pay
for women and 13 percent higher pay for African-American job
candidates.
MS. HAYS stated that requiring employers to include compensation
ranges on job postings saves employers the time of interviewing
candidates who wouldn't be interested in the compensation
package and saves potential employees time by focusing their
resources on looking for jobs that offer the wages they need to
support themselves. She said that the Society for Human
Resource Managers recognizes the gender pay gap and, in 2020,
published support for wage transparency, saying that it
"virtually eliminates the gender pay gap."
5:21:20 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ, after ascertaining that no one else wished
to testify, closed public testimony on HB 146, Version B.
5:21:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 146,
Version B, labeled 32-LS0513\B.1, Wayne, 4/27/21, which read as
follows:
Page 1, line 2:
Delete ", employees,"
Page 2, line 8:
Delete "Employee"
Page 2, lines 14 - 16:
Delete all material.
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "(2)"
Page 2, line 18:
Delete "; or"
Insert "."
Page 2, lines 19 - 20:
Delete all material.
Page 2, lines 22 - 24:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
Page 2, line 25:
Delete "employee or"
Page 2, line 26:
Delete "employee or"
Page 2, line 29:
Delete "(2)"
Insert "(1)"
Page 2, line 30:
Delete "employee or"
Page 3, lines 7 - 8:
Delete "exercising a right under AS 23.10.700 -
23.10.740 or"
5:21:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE objected.
5:21:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON stated his support for the proposed
legislation but said that he couldn't justify a $316,000 fiscal
note to his constituents.
5:22:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked Representative Nelson to describe
the changes that would be made by Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON explained that Amendment 1 would "remove
the reporting structure of the aspect." He said the deleted
lines would be ones that reference employees reporting
infractions to DLWD. He said that the reporting structure is
the reason for the fiscal note.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said, "Just to clarify, you've removed the
enforcement mechanisms in the bill?"
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied, "I removed what was going to
cause an additional three employees to be added."
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER expressed her appreciation for the effort
to reduce the fiscal note but said that Amendment 1, by deleting
lines 14-16 on page 2, would remove the language saying that an
employer may not prohibit an employee from discussing his/her
compensation with others. She pointed out that it would also
remove the prohibition about asking about previous compensation.
She said, "It essentially removes the gist of the bill."
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON referred to a line in the sponsor
statement that read, "Federal law already requires that workers
are free to discuss salary information with one another, and HB
146 incorporates this protection into state statute." He said
he was just trying to reduce the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER responded, "I do appreciate the effort."
5:24:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS shared that the enforcement section of DLWD is
already understaffed due to laws already in statute. He
suggested passing HB 146 and fighting for additional resources
in next year's budget. He said that the proposed legislation
could be passed with zero enforcement cost; enforcement would be
slower, he said, but having the expectation for employers would
still be of benefit.
5:25:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Mr. Dunham how many Wage and Hour
Administration enforcement employees are currently on staff.
5:25:57 PM
JOE DUNHAM, Chief Investigator, Wage and Hour Administration,
Division of Labor Standards and Safety, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, responded that there are currently 12
employees.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked Mr. Dunham to clarify whether he is
proposing increasing the Wage and Hour Administration
enforcement staff by 25 percent.
MR. DUNHAM replied, "Correct. Three people for the first year."
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that the number of new employees
seems disproportionate to the amount of workload expected in the
first year.
5:26:45 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representative Nelson voted in
favor of Amendment 1 to HB 146. Representatives Spohnholz,
Fields, Snyder, Schrage, McCarty, and Kaufman voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 failed to be adopted by a vote of 1-6.
5:28:15 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to report CSHB 146, Version 32-LS0513\B,
Wayne, 4/19/21, out of committee with individual recommendations
and the accompanying fiscal notes.
5:28:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON objected.
5:28:35 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Fields, Spohnholz,
Snyder, and Schrage voted in favor of moving CSHB 146, Version
32-LS0513\B, Wayne, 4/19/21, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Representatives Nelson, Kaufman, and McCarty voted against it.
Therefore, CSHB 146(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-3.