BILL ANALYSIS Ó
AB 1676
Page 1
ASSEMBLY THIRD READING
AB
1676 (Campos and Gonzalez)
As Amended May 31, 2016
Majority vote
------------------------------------------------------------------
|Committee |Votes|Ayes |Noes |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Labor |4-2 |Roger Hernández, Chu, |Patterson, Linder |
| | |McCarty, Thurmond | |
| | | | |
|----------------+-----+----------------------+--------------------|
|Appropriations |13-6 |Gonzalez, Bloom, |Bigelow, Chang, |
| | |Bonilla, Bonta, |Gallagher, Jones, |
| | |Calderon, Eggman, |Obernolte, Wagner |
| | |Eduardo Garcia, | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | |Roger Hernández, | |
| | |Holden, Quirk, | |
| | |Santiago, Weber, Wood | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Prohibits the use of employee salary history
information, as specified, and enacts other requirements.
AB 1676
Page 2
Specifically, this bill:
1)Prohibits an employer, including state and local government
employers, from seeking salary history information, including
compensation and benefits, about an applicant for employment
either personally or through an agent.
2)Requires an employer, except state and local government
employers, upon reasonable request, to provide the pay scale
for a position to an applicant for employment.
3)Provides that a violation of this bill's provisions would not
be subject to the misdemeanor provision.
EXISTING LAW:
1)Prohibits an employer from paying an employee at wage rates
less than the rates paid to employees of the opposite sex in
the same establishment for equal work on jobs the performance
of which requires equal skill, effort, and responsibility, and
which are performed under similar working conditions.
2)Establishes exceptions to this prohibition where the payment
is made pursuant to a seniority system, a merit system, a
system which measures earnings by quantity or quality of
production, or a differential based on any bona fide factor
other than sex.
3)Makes it a misdemeanor for an employer or other person acting
either individually or as an officer, agent, or employee of
another person to pay or cause to be paid to any employee a
wage less than the rate paid to an employee of the opposite
AB 1676
Page 3
sex as required by these provisions, or who reduces the wages
of any employee in order to comply with these provisions.
FISCAL EFFECT: According to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee, ongoing administrative costs, in the range of
$100,000 to $400,000 (Labor Enforcement and Compliance Fund),
for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) to
enforce provisions of this bill. Costs will depend on the
number of claims filed with DLSE to investigate complaints.
COMMENTS: The author argues that, 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. The impact of prior salaries
is particularly concerning in certain industries and across
racial lines.
By removing past salary history from the hiring determination
and requiring employers to be more transparent, this bill will
help ensure that employers will not be able to use a history of
low pay as justification for continuing to underpay women.
According to the author, it's time we put an end to this
prejudicial hiring practice and give women a better chance to
negotiate a fair deal.
Similarly, supporters of this bill argue that, "by creating a
less biased structure for negotiating pay during the hiring
process, this bill will be a proactive way to help empower women
to negotiate a fair salary and hopefully get us closer to
achieving pay equity in California."
A coalition of employers, including the California Chamber of
Commerce, opposes this measure. They state that basing
compensation solely on an applicant's prior salary is already a
AB 1676
Page 4
questionable business practice. Opponents also argue that Labor
Code Section 1197.5 requires an employer to provide equal pay
for substantially similar work, which Senator Jackson
strengthened last year through SB 358 (Jackson), Chapter 546,
Statutes of 2015, which was signed into law. Senator Jackson,
numerous media outlets and various articles have referenced SB
358 as the "toughest equal pay law in the nation." SB 358 went
into effect on January 1, 2016. Adequate time has not been
given to assess how implementation of SB 358 is faring.
Opponents also argue that this bill will be subject to increased
litigation because a simple inquiry into an applicant's salary
history or prior compensation when there is no ultimate harm to
the applicant/employee would create an opportunity for
litigation.
AB 1017 (Campos) from 2015 was substantially similar to this
bill. AB 1017 was vetoed by Governor Brown.
Analysis Prepared by:
Taylor Jackson / L. & E. / (916) 319-2091 FN:
0003091