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