SENATE BILL NO. 65 "An Act requiring a study to determine if gender is a determinant in state employee compensation." [Note: A committee substitute was distributed to the Committee. The two-page committee substitute inadvertently included the first page of 22-LS0060\J and the second page of 22-LS0060\L. All references to the version "J" committee substitute during the hearing pertain to this J/L combination. A copy of this is on file.] This was the second hearing for this bill in the Senate Finance Committee. Co-Chair Donley, sponsor of the bill, spoke to a proposed committee substitute that develops additional background information to clarify that the intent of the legislation is to ensure that the state is in compliance with current federal and state laws requiring equal pay for equal work. Co-Chair Donley called members' attention to a memorandum from his office detailing the requirements of the study. He noted this includes defining the differences between equal pay for same work, equal pay for comparable work, and equal pay for equal work. He also referenced a section analysis for the committee substitute. [Copies on file.] Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption of CS SB 65, 22-LS0060\J, 3\5\01 [See note above.] It was adopted without objection. Co-Chair Donley continued addressing the committee substitute. He described the difference between equal pay for equal work and equal pay for comparable work. He defined this as making sure that identical jobs as well as jobs that are substantially equal in terms of composite skill, effort, responsibility, work conditions and other material aspects, are paid equally and not paid different amounts based upon domination by a particular gender. Co-Chair Donley stressed that Alaska has a superior classification method compared to most states, and that he believed no significant discrimination would be found. However, he emphasized that until a study is done, no one could be absolutely sure. He noted earlier litigation over nursing classifications, which he said have been addressed and the need to ensure there are no other instances. He understood the concerns raised at the previous hearing regarding how complicated a comparable work-study could be. In recognition of this, he said he endeavored to clarify the study to ensure the study addresses equal pay for equal work rather than comparable work. Co-Chair Kelly stated that the nurses versus physician assistants issue is a good example of equal work and asked Co-Chair Donley to elaborate. Co-Chair Donley detailed that the Human Rights Commission found that the classification of nurses was gender dominated by females and the classification of physician assistants was gender dominated by males, but that both were performing the same work and should have been paid equally. However, he pointed out that the physician assistants were paid more than the nurses. He continued that the Commission's findings were appealed up to the Supreme Court and that the court found that there were some duties performed by the physician assistants that were different from those performed by the nurses. Therefore, the court determined that there was no improper discrimination under the equal pay for equal work laws. Co-Chair Donley stated that as a result of this case, adjustments have been made to eliminate the perceived problem. He gave a hypothetical example of two employees doing the same job, but one is classified as a janitor and the other as a maintenance technician, and receives higher pay. In this instance, he said, if most of the janitors are women and most of the maintenance technicians are men, the equal pay for equal work rules are violated. Senator Olson clarified that the nurses in question were actually nurse practitioners. Co-Chair Donley was unsure, noting that the case was handled ten years prior and was resolved by the Supreme Court, which found in favor of the state. He spoke to his knowledge of the nursing profession, citing that his mother was a nurse. However, he maintained that he found the different classifications of nursing confusing because of the different educational requirements for each classification. Senator Leman appreciated Co-Chair Donley's efforts to clarify the issue. Senator Leman stated he had been concerned that attempting to determine the worth of a worker, "against the marketplace" was unwise. However, he stated that he has always supported equal pay for equal work. He requested the bill be held in Committee to allow him to further "tighten" the language. AT EASE 10:15 AM / 10:20 AM Amendment #1: This amendment makes a title change to the committee substitute as follows. Page 1, lines 1 and 2: Delete: An Act requiring a study to determine if gender is a determinant in state employee compensation. Insert: An Act requiring a study regarding equal pay for equal work. Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption. Senator Hoffman asked if the intent is to continue to limit the study to state employees. Co-Chair Donley replied that is the intent, noting that language within the bill provides such. Senator Hoffman pointed out that the title would leave open the possibility to expand the study while the House of Representatives considered the bill. Co-Chair Donley AMENDED his motion as follows. Page 1, lines 1 and 2: Delete: An Act requiring a study to determine if gender is a determinant in state employee compensation. Insert: An Act requiring a study regarding equal pay for equal work for certain state employees. The amendment was ADOPTED without objection. Amendment #2: This amendment inserts, "in compliance with equal pay for equal work laws" following "employees" on page 2, line 11 of the committee substitute. The amended language reads as follows. GENDER PAY EQUITY SURVEY. The Department of Administration shall conduct a study to determine whether gender is a determinant in setting compensation for state employees in compliance with equal pay for equal work laws… [See above note regarding the committee substitute. This change impacts language contained in the "L" version, page two of which was distributed along with page one of version "J". This combination is referred to in Committee action as version "J".] Co-Chair Donley moved for adoption. AT EASE 10:23 AM / 10:24 AM The amendment was adopted without objection. Co-Chair Donley offered a motion to report from Committee, CS SB 65, 1-LS0060\J, as amended with accompanying Department of Administration, Centralized Administrative Services BRU fiscal note for $50,000. [See above note.] There was no objection and the bill MOVED from Committee.