In case you missed it, earlier this year the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) announced proposed revisions to the EEO-1 report to collect pay information.
The EEOC justifies this rule because it believes pay discrimination remains a persistent problem.
While the proposal has not been finalized, it would require employers with 100 or more employees to add pay data and hours worked by sex, race and ethnicity in each of the EEO-1 job categories.
As of March 2016, 633 credit unions reported having at least 100 full-time and part-time employees.
Currently, covered employers provide information regarding the racial, ethnic, and sex makeup of their workforces on the EEO-1 report, including information regarding job categories.
Under the proposal, for each of the EEO-1 job categories, the proposed EEO-1 would add 12 pay bands. For each job category, employers would tabulate and report the number of employees whose W-2 earnings for the prior 12 months fell within each pay band by their ethnicity, race and sex as well as their hours worked.
The EEOC selected total W-2 earnings as the measure of pay because it believes this measure will maximize the usefulness of the EEO-1 pay data while minimizing the burden on employers to collect and report it. According to the agency, its goal was to identify a measure of compensation that encompasses as much employer-paid income earned by individuals as possible.
The agency believes that this information will assist employers in evaluating their pay practices to prevent pay discrimination
Also, this pay data will be used to assess complaints of discrimination, focus agency investigations, and identify existing pay disparities that may warrant further examination.
However, Robin Shea of the law firm of Constangy, Brooks, Smith & Prophete raised 5 reasons why she is opposed to the this proposal, including it is based on dubious science, it will result in a lot of baseless charges against employers, and it will involve an excessive amount of busy work.
Read the EEOC press release.
No comments:
Post a Comment