Complying with California’s New Pay Transparency Law

Connect with Kevin Plankett:

Connect with Garry Straker:

Connect with Ashley Hoffman:

Related Resources:

• What is Pay Transparency
• 5 Things to Know About Salary Transparency
• Employee Benefits Every Employer Should Offer
• Reduce Employee Turnover
• Presenting a Compelling Compensation Package
• Episode 6 – Compensation Beyond Cash
• Episode 8 – DE&I: Where We Are vs. Where We Want to Be, and How to Get There

SPEAKERS

Ashley Hoffman, Kevin Plunkett, Garry Straker

Kevin Plunkett  00:08
The state of California weighs in on pay transparency with new legislation, which takes effect this January.

Garry Straker  00:15
You know, I think a lot of organizations were maybe hoping that this thing was going to go away, we'll never see the light of day. Unfortunately, that didn't happen.

Ashley Hoffman  00:23
Well, we of course, want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to help close the wage gap.

Kevin Plunkett  00:29
Like other states, California is now requiring salary ranges to be appended to job postings.

Garry Straker  00:35
I think the compliance piece of at least on a job posting is a fairly low hurdle.

Ashley Hoffman  00:40
Obviously, minimum wage up to $5 million is not a reasonable range, right?

Kevin Plunkett  00:45
We can debate the merits of including job ranges in another podcast. California, unlike other states, has chosen to include contractors and it's legislation. And not everyone is happy about that.

Garry Straker  00:59
You know, the intentions are well founded, although the you know, the actual bills may be somewhat misguided in terms of potential impact.

Ashley Hoffman  01:07
Bringing in contractors for very specific work that's being done. You're often times you know, kind of signing a contract with the company you don't actually know or have any say over what the workers pay is.

Kevin Plunkett  01:20
And the reporting requirements. Although well intentioned, that has its own challenges.

Garry Straker  01:25
There was a big concern that the EEO one job categories were just too broad to be meaningful.

Ashley Hoffman  01:30
How accurate really are those numbers have a reflection, especially when you have a category like professionals, which in for example, like a hospital could include certain medical staff, as well as like HR.

Kevin Plunkett  01:44
Lots of cooks in this California kitchen trying to dish out a solution.

Garry Straker  01:49
Let's face it, when it comes to pay, everybody has an opinion.

Kevin Plunkett  01:53
We're going to give you our opinions on California's new pay law, and its potential impact on your business. Right here, right now. Welcome to the get pay right podcast. I'm your host, Kevin Plunkett. Do you do business in California, if you do listen up, because we're going to tackle the new California pay transparency law, SB 1162. That goes into effect January 1. So we're going to tell you what you need to know. But as with everything else in California, these days, it's a little complicated. Here's the easy part. The law requires employers to post compensation ranges alongside job postings. This mimics other regions of the country like California and New York City State of Washington to name a few. But here's the twist. It's not just employees, but contract labor as well. So companies that hire lots of 1099, like tech firms and Uber and Lyft. And staffing firms, or firms that hire a lot of seasonal labor must now comply. And there are new expanded pay data reporting requirements over and above what's in place today, aimed at identifying gender and race based pay disparities. But you're not my West Coast friends. I have a great group of guests to help us make sense of it all. So let me introduce Ashley Hoffmann from the California Chamber and Garry stricker from salary.com. So Ashley, I know you do advocacy, advocacy work for the California Chamber and you run a podcast as well. Why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?

Ashley Hoffman  03:40
Yeah, thank you so much, Kevin, for having me today. My name is Ashley Hoffman. I'm a policy advocate at the California Chamber of Commerce. I handle Labor and Employment Policy, primarily. And yes, I am a frequent guest on our podcast, which is called the workplace where we go over new laws, you know, tips for employers and our members, or, you know, sometimes we'll answer questions that we've received from members and about how to comply with certain California labor law.

Kevin Plunkett  04:10
Right. Well, we're very excited to have you here. Thanks for making some time. And, Garry, I know you've been you've been on the show once before, why don't you give us a brief bio?

Garry Straker  04:19
Yeah, it's always nice to be back. My name is Gareth striker, and I'm a vice president of compensation consultant here at Salary.com. And my focus is really providing advisory consulting services to our clients to help them get paid right. And I've had the opportunity to work throughout the country. And certainly, since September 27, when this bill was signed into law, the phone's been ringing off the hook from California employees who are concerned about the implications. So great to be here and to talk about this a little further.

Kevin Plunkett  04:48
Alright, so our goal is to shed a little light on some of the complexities here and the new law and see if we can break things down to a more manageable level for you all. Ashley, California has a history with pay transparency legislation. And in fact, SB 1162 isn't the first law of its kind. There are existing laws on the books. Can you walk us through a little bit of the history here and highlight what is different about this new legislation?

Ashley Hoffman  05:16
Sure, as you mentioned, Kevin, you know, California has been exploring ways to close the pay gap for a number of years. For example, you know, California implemented a law a number of years ago saying that you could not rely on prior salary to set a new salary, that if an applicant had gone through a first round interview, you know, they had the right to then request what the salary range would be for the position. Also, in 2020, you know, when there was some kind of federal discussion about, you know, kind of rolling back some of the EEO one reporting on pay data on the federal level, you know, California passed SB 973, which required employers to supply to the Department of Fair Employment and Housing now the Civil Rights Division, an annual report that, you know, broke employees down into different job categories, and race and gender categories, and and say, you know, the number of folks that fell into different different salary ranges. So this is definitely something that California has been, you know, concerned about for a number of years, I think, you know, with SB 1162, you know, the sponsors were the plaintiffs employment attorneys, as well, significantly, as well as the equal rights advocates that kind of wanted to continue to talk about, you know, the wage gap. And, you know, the two sections of the bill, only one of which is now Now currently, in the final bill, were really a kind of a mirroring of some of the laws, we were seeing the other states, as you mentioned, you know, about disclosure of salary ranges, just directly on job postings, so that everyone can see them, there has also been a section of the bill copying of Colorado Law, where if you had an open position, or even truly, if you were just going to change someone's title, you actually had to provide notice to your entire company before you could move forward with that. And then additionally, you know, there were some changes that were sought to be made to the pay data reports, including, you know, a separate report for contractors, which is in the final version of the bill, as well as a provision that we had a lot of concern about, which would be posting all of those pay data reports just openly online. So I think there was a lot that they were trying to do in the bill. You know, and I think a lot of that, I mean, at the time, there wasn't, you know, the DfE H hadn't even finished analyzing the first round pay data reports, because they weren't due for 2021. So they're, you know, I think they were going off some some national data about the wage gap. But it was interesting, because at the time that the DfE H actually hadn't, you know, review the 2021 reports, when the bill was introduced.

Kevin Plunkett  07:50
The inclusion of contract workers really adds a layer of complexity. I mean, how hard will compliance be for organizations that employ a lot of 1099-S.

Ashley Hoffman  08:00
Yeah, you know, a lot of our members did have concerns about that portion, you know, it's essentially asking you to, to have your labor contractor that you're hiring from, right supply you all that information, you know, for example, workers are not actually required to supply information about their race, gender, or ethnicity. The FAQ is the California has issued says that if someone does not provide that information, you essentially have to guess based on your observation, which is something you know that the clients employer, especially maybe if the person no longer works for them, by the time the reports do, maybe they're not really able to do or they're relying on the labor contractor to do that part. Also, some concerns, you know, labor contractors often will supply workers to multiple sites, especially in like an agriculture industry. So there's concern, you know, are they going in? Because you have to do hours breakdown? Is the labor contractor going to actually accurately do that? You know, and could you be on the hook if the labor contractor is not supplying complete or accurate information? Or is it looking like to the Civil Rights department, right, that you that your numbers are going to look maybe different than they actually are, if you haven't been given accurate information. And then finally, you know, a lot of the clients employers don't set the pay, right, but their names are going to be on these reports. And so that's, I know, a big concern from a lot of our members about this portion of the bill.

Kevin Plunkett  09:25
The folks that are submitting or putting their names on the reports, obviously, you know, especially at these larger organizations, have you know, may not have direct influence on setting those pay ranges. Talk to me a little bit about how some of that friction may may present itself.

Ashley Hoffman  09:39
Yeah, so, you know, as you said, a lot of you know, our members are saying hey, when we you know, have contractors come in maybe if you're like life sciences company, you're bringing in contractors for very specific work that's being done. You're often times you know, kind of signing a contract with the company you don't actually know or have any say over what the workers Hey, is, yeah, you are now having to report them with your name on it right and send that over to the department. And the department, you know, is supposed to use these reports to identify any potential violations of the Equal Pay Act or the Fair Employment and Housing Act. And all of a sudden, maybe you're getting wrapped up right, in some sort of investigation or litigation, when you actually really don't have any role in that. And that's why especially, you know, the original provision in the bill about publishing these reports was so concerning, because employers felt like my name is going to be out there in the public with numbers that I have nothing to do with really.

Kevin Plunkett  10:41
Garry, we've seen this, you know, the pay transparency law passed before? You know, obviously, with Colorado that's been in place for a little bit in New York City, just just put it in, I think it's effective in about a month from now. What have you heard? or what have you seen as far as challenges with being able to comply with with that particular provision?

Garry Straker  11:04
Yeah, you know, a lot of the calls that I have been taking from California employers really are around, what is the scale, this should actually be sharing it proactively in job postings. And I think for a lot of organizations, you know, pay transparency makes them a little nervous, particularly if they haven't had a lot of structure and discipline around their compensation practices and policies. And, you know, certainly I think that the posting requirements, pretty straightforward, you have to provide a wage range in any externally facing job posting, the language in the bill says that the pay scale means the salary or hourly wage range that the employer reasonably expects to pay for the position. And, you know, and this is similar to what we've seen in other states is that there appears to be some latitude in terms of what that may mean, in terms of reasonably expects to pay, I've had a lot of calls from organizations have been asking, well, we would reasonably expect to hire at a particular range within maybe, you know, maybe there's a minimum and a maximum of the hiring range, which may actually be different than the overall pay rate for a particular role. You know, it's not uncommon to have pay structures that have pay grades with ranges that, that maybe have a broader spread. But within that range, that may be sort of a control point in terms of what the hiring target may be. So I think there's been a lot of conversation and discussion about what is going to be necessary in terms of that posting, and my read of it, my interpretation of it, that there does seem to be some degree of latitude. In talking to the clients and prospects, one of the things I communicated to them is that you still need to be able to recruit and effectively retain employee ease as a result of this legislation. And so you have to be careful about making sure that whatever scale you decide to post externally, that hopefully it's consistent with the way you're paying people internally, because that's going to raise a lot of questions if you don't, but it also needs to be sufficient in order to attract the kind of talent and and quality candidates that you need for your organization to be successful. So my my sense of this is that I think the compliance piece of it, at least on a job posting is a fairly low hurdle. But there's, I think, some other considerations as it relates to that internal equity concern, and, you know, the external competitiveness issue in order to be able to attract and retain the talent that you need to be successful.

Kevin Plunkett  13:43
Ashley, what do you what are you hearing from employers in around just the posting of pay ranges? You know, what kind of challenges if you guys heard from the chamber?

Ashley Hoffman  13:51
You know, we had some concerns, I think, from smaller businesses, you know, in their ability, you know, if they have to now put a salary range on a job posting, you know, does that limit their ability to to compete with a bigger business, right, that can put maybe a higher salary range on a job posting, especially at a time when a lot of our members are still really struggling to hire and maintain a workforce?

Garry Straker  14:13
Yeah, and maybe I would build on that. Actually, I think one of the things that I heard is that boy, we don't have a lot of time to prepare. So now there's a relatively short window in order to basically do the necessary housekeeping to make sure that come January one when you have to start posting wage ranges, that you aren't going to create, you know, a lot of questions and, and second guessing and, you know, concerns amongst your existing workforce around the wages that you are disclosing those external postings. One of the big issues we've seen recently and certainly over the last 12 months, the labor market dynamics have put a lot of pressure on organizations and we know that many organizations have had to deal with salary compression, they've had to increase hiring rates for new hires that are at in some cases above. goes for existing employees. And that's just a function of the highly competitive labor market and some industries and sectors, it's just been, it's really been unprecedented. And we know that people who change their jobs, there's generally seeing much higher wage growth than people who stay in their jobs. So if you have a situation where you have sound inversion or salary compression within your current pay program, you have to think about how you're going to deal with that. And maybe you have to deal with that over time. But in the in the area of more transparency, more disclosure, you're probably going to have to make sure that you've addressed and dealt with maybe some of those salary compression issues.

Ashley Hoffman  15:39
I think those are all excellent points. And something you said reminded me of another concern, we heard, you know, the laws a little vague as to whether these this requirement is only for folks that you plan to have work actually in California, I think it's Colorado, and correct me if I'm mistaken, that specifically says that right, if the work is to be performed there, and California does not have that language. So we're not sure yet how the labor agency will interpret that.

Garry Straker  16:04
Yeah, that's true and other states, and there was some guidance from Washington State recently that did say that even remote employees reporting into a Washington state organization would still be covered under this provision. So you know, and I think that's one of the challenges is that as more states introduced these new laws, they are maybe have slightly different nuances and language to those that legislation. And from a compliance perspective, it does make it difficult, I think, you know, certainly, if you're competing in a national labor market or a regional labor market, you need to think about whether or not you want to disclose wage ranges and all of those job postings, regardless of whether or not it's required by law. And certainly, we've seen some pretty large employers who have been moving towards greater wage transparency in an effort to make sure that their pay practices are kind of consistent with our diversity and inclusion goals. You know, we know that's a strategic priority for so many organizations. But I think a lot of employers that I talked to aspire to be more transparent. But they also recognize that before we can get to the point where we're comfortable with the level of transparency, we need, we need to do a lot of housekeeping to make sure that we have, I'm going to use the term correct the sins of the past or resolve some of those inner pay issues or practices that maybe haven't had the same sort of discipline and structure around them and make sure that you're not creating, you know, these concerns, particularly around internal equity. And I think that that seems to be obviously one of the attend to this bill is to resolve in a pay equity condition issues and resolve the gender and racial pay gaps that have persisted for many years.

Kevin Plunkett  17:48
Actually, there's another element of this right, outside of just the pay transparency piece, there's a whole pay data and reporting element requirement, which significantly increases the pressure on these organizations from previous legislation, if you want to kind of walk us through what was what was in place before and what is now in place? That would be helpful.

Ashley Hoffman  18:11
Sure. So some of the key Oh, sorry, I'll go back again to SB 973. You know, and 2020, which instituted this original requirement, you know, the payday restructure is largely going to be the same for the records. Um, a few key differences is that you now must include a column of mean and median wage for every breakdown of race and gender for each of the job categories. Also, previously, if you did not submit an E A one report federally, you did not have to comply with this. So that included for example, staffing agencies, as you referenced before, that has been changed to staffing agencies are now required to submit these reports. Some, you know, one question we've gotten a lot from our members is previously you had to submit kind of a consolidated report, and then also, you know, have reports by establishment and, and that's been changed now. So that it's just a report covering each establishment. So it's a little unclear how the department is going to want you to actually break that down. As you can imagine, if they're having you submit 100 Different excels, you know, that that could be very burdensome on their end. So we're trying to gain clarity from them exactly how they're going to want that to be done. Of course, the contractor of separate contractor requirements, as you we mentioned, if you hire 100, or more contractors, from labor contractors, you must now submit separate reports and you must identify the names of the labor contractors that you use. And then again, yes, there were fines, you know, previously, the department could, you know, go after, of course, an employer who did not comply, but there are now specific fines associated with that.

Garry Straker  19:56
I was just going to build on that actually, and I find it interesting that the reporting of the pay gap, even though it's not going to be publicly disclosed is still a requirement. And it's not clear if that information, my understanding is that it's going to be aggregated in some way. And that, that aggregated information will be available to the public. Is that the case? Ashley?

Ashley Hoffman  20:20
Yeah, as you mentioned, you know, originally, all of these reports individually by company name would have been published, and that piece was removed. But the mean, median pay, as you mentioned, was kept and the department is allowed to publish aggregate data they did. So for the reports that were submitted in 2021. So I would expect probably to see an aggregate, you know, data number based on the mean, median wage. But you know, again, some of our concerns about having this publicly posted by company is, you know, how accurate really are those numbers have a reflection, especially when you have a category like professionals, which in for example, like a hospital could include certain medical staff, as well as like, HR or elite or senior legal person, you know, but yeah, yeah, you are correct, I would expect probably to see some aggregate data based on the the mean, median, wages that will be reported on these new reports.

Garry Straker  21:14
So go ahead.

Kevin Plunkett  21:16
I was gonna so to what level of granularity? I mean, assuming there's an added level or two, maybe a granularity that's required in this reporting today. You know, can you bucket jobs by, you know, like jobs into certain categories import there? Or do you have to go down to like, the job title level?

Ashley Hoffman  21:39
So my understanding is, it will still be based on the the categories that are listed. So like, professionals, I think, technician, I'm trying to cover all those. Yeah. Professionals.

Kevin Plunkett  21:49
Professionals, technicians, sales workers, administrative support. Yeah, workers, laborers.

Ashley Hoffman  21:57
Yeah, you know, is interesting, at the time this bill was going through the legislature, I believe it was in July, you know, nationally, they did an independent kind of report, looking at the federal reporting, and it did point out, you know, some of these categories are probably a little bit outdated. They're a little bit too broad. You know, they're, they're not really telling an accurate story. So it'll be interesting to see if California, you know, takes that and, and tries to make some changes to these reports moving forward. We're not sure.

Garry Straker  22:29
Yeah, actually, that's interesting. I did, I did see that report. And I think one of the main takeaways from that is that there was a big concern that the EEO-1 job categories were just too broad to be meaningful.

Kevin Plunkett  22:39
So there are some penalties, right, if somebody does not file annually, correct, which, you know, can add up significantly. I think it's, you know, anywhere between 100 to 10,000, depending on on the circumstance or what's going on. So how much how much oversight or leniency, I guess, I should say, will there be and the administration of these laws?

Ashley Hoffman  23:04
You know, we is, you know, with because we have 14,000? Members, right, and we are obviously, our main goal is compliance, you know, we partnered with the Department, with the initial rounds of reporting, to try and really ensure there was high compliance and, and really tried to disseminate a note to our members, you know, the guidance from the department, we did a joint webinar with them on it. I know, I believe the Department was pretty happy with the compliance rate, you know, the initial round of reporting, of course, you know, there is language in there that these are discretionary penalties are not mandatory, it just says a court may impose. So, you know, my guess would be that the department and the court, right, is it if you're probably at a point where you're at a court, right, and the department as reached out to you, and is not able to get you to comply, you know, then that if I'm a court, I'm probably imposing some sort of penalty, but there is why leniency as far as how much and of course, I think, you know, the department likely will will try and get complaints, you know, before trying to take an employer to court, of course, but I, you know, like, our efforts, your efforts, you know, to try and increase compliance, I think a lot of organizations are really going to be trying to help their members to make sure that compliance is not an issue.

Garry Straker  24:19
Actually, is there any public disclosure of non compliant organizations that will be divulged?

Ashley Hoffman  24:27
Um, not that I can recall. In the bill, I admit I may be wrong, but I can recall in the bill, you know.

Kevin Plunkett  24:36
The fact that it's discretionary and that it's not absolute, I think that probably, lets a few people have a larger sigh of relief. And I imagine the the compliance or the oversight would follow whatever structure is already in place. There's not I don't think there's nothing new that has to get created as far as handling the over sight, correct?

Ashley Hoffman  25:01
That's my understanding. Yes. Okay.

Garry Straker  25:04
Kevin, another issue that I have frequently come up in the conversations I've been having is just around the communications components, internal communications of what you're going to be disclosing. And what does that mean, in terms of being able to manage or control the narrative consistently across an organization, especially for those organizations that are decentralized, you know, things can get distorted fairly quickly, unless the facts are known. And I think you need a little bit of clarity in terms of helping not only your hiring managers, but your employees, help them understand what the intent is, and what your pay practices and policies are. Because if you don't control that narrative, if you don't deliver that messaging, they will just make up their own reality. And that's not a good place to be, because often, that's just based on misperceptions, misinformation and distortions. And that can be problematic in our workforce.

Kevin Plunkett  25:58
So actually, what is the what's the end game? Right? Is there, you know, kind of specific milestones that that this legislation is trying to achieve? And, you know, is there a time plan for when to have it? You know, when to reach those milestones?

Ashley Hoffman  26:16
Good question. You know, the author has been very clear, Senator Lamone, you know, that she is interested in continuing to pursue this issue of closing the pay gap. I mean, of course, right? You know, this, this issue will exist until it's closed. And, and, of course, there's a so many factors that really go into that, you know, not just what a company is choosing to pay, but oftentimes access to education and resources that start, you know, years before you're entering the workforce. So I think this is an issue that California will continue to watch, you know, you know, something we tried to emphasize, during when this bill is going through was, you know, we made a big change just in 2020, with reports just starting in 2021, you know, should we maybe give some time, you know, to see what that looks like, you know, as Garry mentioned, you know, having employers kind of look at themselves in the mirror and look at their pay and give them time to adjust or taking into account. You know, the fact that a lot of people have had to increase wages, to try and attract, you know, new labor, as we're facing a workplace shortage. So it'll be very interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. And, you know, when, if the legislature and I'm sure they will, at some point, you know, chooses to try and enact more legislation on this issue. But yeah, as far as now, you know, reading the tea leaves, I'm not sure you know, exactly when that will be.

Kevin Plunkett  27:37
So this question, I'm going to ask each of you, you know, if you had to advise a friend or somebody that's running an organization in California, you know, what are your top pieces of advice that you'd give that individual to, to how to how to be compliant with this with this lash, let's start with you.

Ashley Hoffman  27:59
I think number one is definitely be on the lookout for the guidance from both the Civil Rights department and the labor commissioner, you know, especially the Civil Rights department, when it comes to the pay data reporting, they issued extensive FAQ examples of how to do this, they had webinars, you want to make sure you're looking out for all of those resources to make sure that you are doing this correctly. I would also, you know, read the bill carefully. If you have questions, you know, you can consult someone like a Cal Chamber salary.com, a, you know, legal counsel, and making sure you're giving yourself as much time as possible to, you know, review your job posting and for your data reports. And making sure you're getting this right.

Garry Straker  28:43
Garry. Yeah, I mean, I think it's two things that come to mind consistency and communications. And, you know, just coming back to pay practices and policies, we know that sometimes organizations will deviate from documented or policies related to pay. And, and that's generally not a good thing that can land you in hot water, you need to be able to rein that in and make sure that there is some structure and discipline around your, your pay practices consistent with your policies and your you know, the culture of your organization. So reviewing those pay practices and making sure that there's some structure and discipline and consistency around those is really important. And as I mentioned earlier, earlier, you have to sort of communicate and I think it's going to be important for hiring managers and others, stakeholders within your organization to gain a better understanding of pay practices and policies and what the intent is of the organization in terms of what they're trying to achieve. And I think if you if you can be proactive in terms of managing the messaging and making sure that the messages are understood and consistently delivered, I think that that's going to be an important issue to make sure that these new disclosure requirements, these news transparency provisions don't create a mutiny within an organization.

Kevin Plunkett  30:05
Do we want to prophesize on either some unintended consequences from this legislation, either positive or negative?

Ashley Hoffman  30:13
I mean, I think I, you know, kind of listed just some of the concerns, I think that our members have, and just, you know, in a larger sense, well, we, of course, want to make sure that we are doing everything possible to help close the wage gap. Just to make sure that along the way, it doesn't mean that employers are going to be open to, you know, private litigation based on misleading data, things like that, you know, that was really our biggest concern with the public disclosure piece was we felt like this was handing a plaintiff's attorney, you know, kind of a roadmap to come in and say, Oh, look at your numbers. And, and as we've discussed, and as that report found, you know, that these reports are not actually that accurate at capturing the modern workforce, they're not capturing bonafide factors for differences in pay, and wanting to make sure that, you know, we are working to close the wage gap, but we're not making, you know, opportunities, I think, for fruitless litigation along the way.

Garry Straker  31:13
Yeah. And, Kevin, I think one of the things that I'm concerned about is making sure that this legislation doesn't reduce the time to hire, you know, the time from an applicant apply so gently time you actually get them in the door. You know, advocates of our advocates of this law have argued that pay transparency will make the recruiting process more efficient. And there may be a lot of truth in that. And I don't know that we've seen any empirical studies or data yet to, you know, conclude that that may, in fact, be the case. And I'm sure those studies will be done. And maybe we'll see that over time. But I am concerned that my organization's ability to be able to be flexible and nimble and respond expeditiously in this current labor market environment to bring candidates in. If that gets hindered, I think that that's a potential downside.

Kevin Plunkett  32:03
Ashley is, or Garry, one of the to you? Is there a, I think there was a phrase in there that the salary range must be reasonable. Right, there's some sort of, do they sort of define what reasonable is like percentage or based off of other data? Is there some sort of Mana, you know, some sort of way to kind of validate reasonableness?

Ashley Hoffman  32:30
No, you know, there's not any, you know, some of our members had, I believe, actually requested, you know, that that reasonableness language in there, just because before it just said, the salary range, and our members were concerned, that was a little too strict, and that was almost more vague. And I can't recall this as based maybe on a different states language. But we wanted to, I think the way we were thinking of it was like, kind of like a defensible range, right? Obviously, minimum wage up to $5 million, is not a reasonable range, right. But you know, if the company could come forward and say, look, like we have people making about here, based on maybe some changes that are happening, you'd be you know, we'd be willing to go up to x, or, or maybe we have budget cuts right now. So we have to go down to why, you know, that that's kind of how we were envisioning it working. But no, there's unfortunately, rarely in law, a magic, you know, definition of reasonable. And then kind of the same goes here.

Kevin Plunkett  33:26
Final Thoughts on on this legislation? You know, sort of a last word, what have you, if either of you've got something in particular you want to share that we haven't discussed or a particular comment? Let me know.

Garry Straker  33:41
Well, I expect to see this type of legislation continue to be rolled out in other states throughout the country. And the New York Governor has a similar bill awaiting signature now, and I think this train has left the station. And I think that there may be a domino effect. We'll see this these this type of legislation introduced elsewhere. But I think, you know, getting beyond just what's, what's happening. From a compliance and legal perspective, I do think organizations need to think about the advantages of pay transparency and turn this around and not have it be a negative thing for your organization. And hopefully, you can you can use this to your advantage and some of the conversations I've been having with clients who have been asking, Well, you know, we've got paid data, but it doesn't seem to reflect the reality in the marketplace. And if they've been based in Colorado, what I've said to them as well, all you need to do is go look at your competitors job postings and have a sense of what they're paying and and that may be gave you may give you some insight into, you know, what you need to do to be competitive in the marketplace. So, I think that there's, you know, probably pros and cons to this legislation, but I'm thinking a lot of organizations if they're proactive, they can use it to their advantage.

Ashley Hoffman  34:59
You So I think I'll say, you know, of course, we expect future legislation on this issue to come up. And I think our hope is that, you know, it's something that the, you know, whoever ends up writing that legislation is willing to kind of talk to the business community about not only implementation, but just also, you know, what, what data are we putting out there? You know, how is that, like, How accurate is it, you know, what's really like, the best way to kind of capture what we are trying to capture, I think that report, you know, that we've talked about several times will be very helpful in that sense. And that it can kind of be a very thoughtful process, you know, that has all stakeholders involved. And sometimes in California, you know, these bills get dropped, and then we have a couple months to try and, you know, tweak them. And so hopefully, you know, especially after this bill, and I know, we had a great relationship, you know, with the author's office and some of the sponsors, you know, that this is a conversation that we can all continue together.

Kevin Plunkett  35:56
Well, that's all the time we have today. Thank you, Ashley, Garry, for joining us. Really, really great insights, really appreciate it. And hopefully, some inspiration for you all. I mean, pay gaps have existed for a long time and won't be erased overnight. But by taking some action today, we can begin to close. Thank you all for listening. Appreciate your time. The get pay right podcast is produced by Kevin Plunkett, Julie Murphy and Megan Nadeau. If there are topics you'd like to hear about, let us know at get pay right at Salary.com. A big thank you to our sound engineer Jay sheen of Garrett audio. Thank you all for listening and make the time to get pay right.