Skip to main content

Senator Kamala Harris Unveils Aggressive Equal Pay Proposal


A week ago, Democratic Senator Kamala Harris announced her proposal to eliminate the gender pay gap by proposing an aggressive equal pay policy.  Under the proposal, companies would face a 1% profit fine for every 1% wage gap that they allowed to exist.  Senator Harris predicts that nearly $180 million would be collected in fines within the first decade of this proposal being put into place.  As well, employers would be banned “from implementing policies that perpetuate the pay gap” including forced arbitration agreements for pay discrimination complaints.

For employers (with more than 100 employees) to avoid paying these fines, they would be required to achieve a new type of “equal pay certification” every two years under a new federal program regulated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.  Notably, Senator Harris would place the burden on employers to prove they are not discriminating, as opposed to the burden currently being on employees to prove their individual cases of discrimination.  To say this burden shifting would be a monumental change is an understatement.  With the burden currently being on employees to prove discrimination, it can often amount to a long drawn out and expensive process (something many employees cannot afford.)  Should this proposal from Senator Harris go into effect and the burden shift, employers would immediately be at a severe disadvantage.

And what would happen with the money collected in fines?  That money would be put toward supporting paid family and medical leave, a policy proposal popular with many Democrats around the country.

Now at this point, many readers are likely wondering what happens next, now that Senator Harris has announced this proposal.  For starters, Senator Harris is running for President in 2020.  She has announced she would implement this proposal via executive action (should she be elected President), without the help of Congress.  However, as many scholars have pointed out, the fines that would be imposed on employers are in essence a tax...something that only Congress can impose.  (With that being said, it has been clarified that Senator Harris would only use executive action as to federal contractors.)  If Senator Harris were elected President and sought to have Congress pass legislation which mirrored this proposal, that would present a more interesting situation.  Would Congress play ball?  Perhaps.  That would in essence come down to which political party controlled Congress.  Something tells me if Republicans had majority control of either the House of Senate, they would likely resist supporting any legislation.  On the other hand, if Democrats were in control, employers would likely better get ready for sweeping changes.



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more