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.