Laserfiche WebLink
411 <br /> the pattern of compensation would look like if pay equity <br /> raises shown in the reports were implemented. If the <br /> overall pattern of compensation was equivalent for male and <br /> female job classes, the jurisdiction was considered in <br /> compliance. The results showed 59% in compliance, 29% out <br /> of compliance, and 12% requiring additional data. Counties <br /> and schools showed high rates of compliance while only 40% <br /> of the cities were in compliance. Of 12 cities indicating <br /> that implementation was complete, only 5 were considered in <br /> compliance. <br /> Based on this study, a bill has been prepared that would <br /> change the definition of 'Equitable compensation <br /> relationship' to mean that 'the pattern of compensation for <br /> female-dominated classes is equivalent to the pattern of <br /> compensation for male-dominated classes of comparable work <br /> value' as determined under section 471.994. <br /> In addition the bill provides for a detailed report by <br /> January 31, 1992, a process for consultation if a unit is <br /> out of compliance, and an appeal from the penalty provision <br /> through the administrative procedures act. The penalty <br /> provision is modified to allow withholding HACA if the unit <br /> receives no LGA or $100 per day if the unit receives <br /> neither. The bill does not change the target implementation <br /> date of December 31, 1991. <br /> Politically this bill or something very similar has an <br /> excellent chance of passing. Several Senators, in hearings <br /> held this past month, indicated their very strong belief <br /> that the definition of equitable compensation should be <br /> modified to reference 'female dominated' classes as compared <br /> to 'male dominated' classes of employees. This being an <br /> election year may impact the votes strongly, since no one <br /> wants to be on record as seemingly voting against equality <br /> for women in pay. <br /> At this time the AMM is in opposition to the bill. However, <br /> stubborn and continued total opposition carries some risk. <br /> If the bill were to pass there are a few amendments that are <br /> badly needed. For instance, there is no explicit <br /> recognition for deviation based on arbitration, market, or <br /> other nongender related reasons. There is no advisory body <br /> or administrative procedure to guard against arbitrary <br /> actions by DOER short of a full blown contested case <br /> hearing. If through consultation DOER does determine that a . <br /> unit has a legitimate reason for a differential, the penalty <br /> is waived but the unit is still adjudged guilty of non <br /> compliance. Finally, this establishes a new set of rules <br /> which will both cost money and take time. There needs to be <br /> a levy limit exception and should be a time extension for a <br /> • <br /> -3- <br />