BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1017
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1017 (Campos)
As Amended April 16, 2015
Majority vote
-------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes |Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Labor |5-2 |Roger Hernández, |Harper, Patterson |
| | |Chu, Low, McCarty, | |
| | |Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+------+--------------------+----------------------|
|Appropriations |11-5 |Gomez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonta, Calderon, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Eggman, |Wagner |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Rendon, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of employee salary history
information, as specified, and enacts other requirements.
Specifically, this bill:
AB 1017
Page 2
1)Provides that an employer shall not publish or list an
advertisement to recruit candidates for hire without including
the minimum rate of pay, including overtime, as specified.
2)Prohibits an employer from paying wages for a position less than
what were advertised.
3)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.
4)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: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, this bill has no direct state impact as this bill does
not mandate enforcement by the Labor Commissioner nor provide for
a civil penalty for employers who violate the provisions of this
bill.
COMMENTS: This bill is sponsored by the California Employment
Lawyers Association and the American Association of University
Women (AAUW), who argue that our slow rate of progress on
eliminating gender pay inequality is due at least in part because
we have allowed employers to preserve historical inequities.
According to the sponsors, because changing jobs is often the best
opportunity women have to increase their pay we need to make sure
they are not penalized by prior salaries that may well have been
discriminatory. They state that policies that peg current salary
to prior pay by default, 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.
AB 1017
Page 3
A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of
Commerce, opposes this bill and states 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. In addition, they contend that, despite the
assumption that employers have accurate wage information on what
the current market is for all potential job positions, they often
do not. By requesting salary information, employers can adjust
any unrealistic expectations or salary ranges to match the current
market rate for the advertised job position. This has worked to
the benefit of the applicant/employee. Opponents argue that
current protections exist in law to address pay disparity and that
this bill merely created additional avenues of litigation.
Analysis Prepared by:
Ben Ebbink / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN: 0000371