BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1017
Page 1
Date of Hearing: May 13, 2015
ASSEMBLY COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
Jimmy Gomez, Chair
AB
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:
No
SUMMARY:
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
bill
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.
COMMENTS:
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
lifetime.
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)
319-2081