Message-ID: <33335628.1075848232640.JavaMail.evans@thyme> Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2001 09:01:00 -0800 (PST) From: felecia.acevedo@enron.com To: steven.kean@enron.com, richard.shapiro@enron.com, paul.kaufman@enron.com, steve.montovano@enron.com, janine.migden@enron.com, jean.ryall@enron.com, linda.robertson@enron.com Subject: Paycheck Fairness Act Cc: andrea.yowman@enron.com, sharon.butcher@enron.com, michelle.cash@enron.com, sandra.lighthill@enron.com Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Bcc: andrea.yowman@enron.com, sharon.butcher@enron.com, michelle.cash@enron.com, sandra.lighthill@enron.com X-From: Felecia Acevedo X-To: Steven J Kean, Richard Shapiro, Paul Kaufman, Steve Montovano, Janine Migden, Jean Ryall, Linda Robertson X-cc: Andrea Yowman, Sharon Butcher, Michelle Cash, Sandra Lighthill X-bcc: X-Folder: \Steven_Kean_June2001_5\Notes Folders\Ofccp audit X-Origin: KEAN-S X-FileName: skean.nsf Per Steve Kean's request, I am forwarding (through office mail) to each of you some information that I have on comparable worth which is what the proposed Paycheck Fairness Act introduced in both the Senate (S.77) and the House (H.R. 781) is all about. I have also noticed another act introduced in the Senate (S.8) entitled "Enhancing Economic Security for America's Working Families Act" that has buried in it the same wording as the Paycheck Fairness Act. I don't know how this happens--I'm sure it is intended! S.8 also requests a minimum wage increase and something on family care but it didn't show when I printed the document. S.77, H.R. 781 and S.8 can be located at http://thomas.loc.gov/. Enter the bill number without the periods (i.e. "S7" , "HR781", "S8") and click Search. To the best of my knowledge and drawing from all I have read, the Paycheck Fairness Act is responding to the supposed wage gap between the sexes. There has been much press over the last few years about the huge gap that exists in pay between men and women. The government through the EEOC and the OFCCP use this gap to further justify why they exist - to stamp out discrimination These agencies would like for us to believe that the gap is the result of discrimination and ignore other factors such as hours of work, experience and tenure, years and type of education, interrupted careers (especially for women during their childbearing years), and industry and occupation--all of which differ considerably between men and women. The government tells us that women earn on an average 25 percent less than their male counterparts but I have read research where once all the factors are looked at there is only about 6 percent gap that can not be explained. I will send you the article supporting this. The are two sections that concern me the most in S.77 and H.R. 781--Sec. 8-Collection of Pay information by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission-- which states "Section 709 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (43 U.S.C. 2000e-8) is amended by adding at the end the following: (f) (1) Not later than 18 months after the date of enactment of this subsection, the Commission shall-- (A) complete a survey of the data that is currently available to the Federal Government relating to employee pay information for use in the enforcement of Federal laws prohibiting pay discrimination and,in consultation with other relevant Federal agencies, identify additional data collections that will enhance the enforcement of such laws; and (B) based on the results of the survey and consultations under subparagraph (A), make rules to provide for the collection of pay information from employers as described by the sex, race, and national origin of employees. I'm sure the "other relevant Federal Agencies" will include the OFCCP who we know have been using the comparable worth methodology (the "Dubray" method) to force Federal Contractors into making large salary adjustments for women and minorities in their Glass Ceiling Audits (even though there is no legal basis to analyze compensation this way). Many companies have given in to their strong arm tactics and paid obscene amounts in back pay and equity pay just to get the OFCCP to go away. We are one of the few companies that have refused to agree with them which has resulted in our 1997 Glass Ceiling Audit being turned over to the Department of Labor's Solicitors Office. Also, in Sec. 3-Enhanced Enforcement of Equal Pay Requirements, the Secretary of Labor can establish voluntary guidelines to rate different jobs based on criteria such as educational requirements, skill requirements, independence, working conditions, and responsibility. Market considerations are not identified as criteria that the Secretary may consider or include. Moreover, the Secretary would have the authority to issue regulations to implement the guidelines. Employers would be encouraged to compare the wages paid to similarly rated jobs and identify pay disparities between those occupations dominated by women and those dominated by men. This would require Enron to implement a compensation system to accurately monitor the "value" we place on different jobs. This would be an administrative nightmare. The Society for Human Resources Management (SHRM) has published some "Talking Points" about the Paycheck Fairness Act as below. SHRM strongly supports the Equal Pay Act and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII) that prohibit gender-based wage discrimination. However, SHRM opposes S. 77 and H.R. 781, the Paycheck Fairness Act, which would expand remedies under the Equal Pay Act of 1963 to include unlimited punitive and compensatory damages. The Paycheck Fairness Act is designed to advance the concept of comparable worth through DOL rulemaking. Comparable worth-related legislation advances the notion of the government, rather than the private market, ultimately determining wages. S. 77 and H.R. 781 would lead to unnecessary litigation and backlogs in the courts. Congress rejected the theory of comparable worth during the Equal Pay Act debate. Moreover, federal courts have rejected comparable worth as a legal theory under the Equal Pay Act. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act already provides significant remedies for sex discrimination in employment, including any claim that equal pay is being denied based on gender. These remedies include punitive and compensatory damages (plus lost back pay and jury trials) capped at between $50,000 through $300,000, depending on the size of the employer. Congress squarely rejected the concept of unlimited damages for employment discrimination. Compensation programs should be designed to ensure fair treatment of all employees, but should be determined by the market and employer needs, not by the dictates of government or special interest groups. Because of the complexity of administering, the difficulty of enforcing and the inefficiency of regulating private-sector compensation practices, SHRM strongly opposes any efforts to legislate or regulate comparable worth or "pay equity." SHRM encourages organizations of all sizes to regularly perform compensation or job evaluation audits to ensure such systems do not discriminate based on gender. Comparable worth requirements set by the government would force employers to increase pay for many different jobs and occupations while freezing pay for others, irrespective of business needs and labor market conditions. If I have missed anything or you need further information or clarification, please do not hesitate to contact me. I will keep a watch out in the HR publications I read and forward on any new information. I am interested in what kind of support this proposed law is getting and if it looks like it will make it this go around or not! As an HR practitioner I have utilized SHRM's Government Affairs web-site to email Sen. Hutchison and Sen. Gramm urging them to oppose the proposed legislation. If you want a copy of this let me know. Thanks! Felecia Acevedo ext. 3-9815