Laserfiche WebLink
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 />-3- <br />