BILL ANALYSIS                                                                                                                                                                                                    

                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  1

          Date of Hearing:  May 13, 2015


                                 Jimmy Gomez, Chair

          1017 (Campos) - As Amended April 16, 2015

          |Policy       |Rules                          |Vote:|10 - 0       |
          |Committee:   |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |Labor and Employment           |     |5 - 2        |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |
          |             |                               |     |             |

          Urgency:  No  State Mandated Local Program:  YesReimbursable:   


          This bill prohibits an employer from publishing or listing an  
          advertisement to recruit candidates for hire without including  
          the minimum rate of pay, including overtime. Specifically, this  


                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  2


          1)Prohibits an employer from paying wages for a position less  
            than what were advertised.

          2)Prohibits an employer from seeking salary history information,  
            including compensation and benefits, from an applicant for  
            employment for an interview or as a condition of employment.

          3)Prohibits an employer from releasing the salary history of any  
            current or former employee to any prospective employer without  
            written authorization from the current or former employee.

          FISCAL EFFECT:

          No direct state impact as the bill does not mandate enforcement  
          by the Labor Commissioner nor provide for a civil penalty for  
          employers who violate provisions of this bill.


          1)Purpose. According to research from the Institute for Women's  
            Policy Research (IWPR), in 2013, female full-time workers made  
            only 78 cents for every dollar earned by men, a gender wage  
            gap of 22 percent.  According to a report by the National  
            Partnership for Women & Families, women in California earn 84  
            cents for each dollar earned by men (as of October 2014).   
            California has one of the largest wage gaps for African  
            American and Hispanic women, who make just 64 and 44 cents,  
            respectively, for every $1 a white male makes.  In 2011, the  
            Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce  
            found that college-educated women working full time earn  
            $650,000 less than their male peers do over the course of a  


                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  3

            This bill is sponsored by the California Employment Lawyers  
            Association and the American Association of University Women  
            (AAUW), who state that the slow rate of progress on  
            eliminating gender pay inequality is due, at least in part, to  
            allowing employers to preserve historical inequities. Policies  
            that peg current salary to prior pay, by default, they state,  
            ignore that the prior salary earned by a male job applicant  
            may itself be the product of sex discrimination or may reflect  
            the residual effects of the traditionally enhanced value  
            attached to the kind of work usually performed by men.   

            Employers already are prohibited from asking certain questions  
            from job applicants, such as marital status, religion or  
            medical history.  This kind of information is simply not  
            relevant and could allow employers to discriminate. The  
            sponsors contend that, similarly, pay history is only relevant  
            to the extent it allows employers to determine how low they  
            can drive the bargain. They argue that if we truly want to  
            eliminate the vestiges of pay discrimination, then we cannot  
            allow salary decisions across the job market to be built upon  
            a history of unfair pay.  They contend that it's time we put  
            an end to this prejudicial hiring practice and give women a  
            better chance to negotiate a fair deal.

          2)Opposition.  The California Chamber of Commerce and several  
            employers oppose this bill based on concerns that eliminating  
            an employer's ability to adjust the minimum rate of pay once  
            posted in an advertisement will limit an employer's  
            flexibility to offer an employee a position who may not meet  
            all of the qualifications of the job. Further, they state,  
            employers determine the appropriate wage and salary to pay an  
            applicant based upon various factors, including skill,  
            education, prior experience, as well as the funding available  
            for the job.  Setting forth an artificial minimum rate of pay  
            for a job position will not change this employer  
            determination.  The opposition also states California has  
            numerous protections in place to encourage equitable pay for  


                                                                    AB 1017

                                                                    Page  4

            equitable work.  Specifically, Labor Code Section 232 already  
            precludes an employer from preventing an employee from  
            disclosing his or her wages.  Labor Code Section 1197.5  
            mandates an employer provide equal wages for equal work.  The  
            Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) precludes any  
            discrimination in the workplace based upon various protected  
            classifications, including gender.  

          Analysis Prepared by:Misty Feusahrens / APPR. / (916)