Paycheck Fairness Act
Floor Speech
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I include in the Record a letter from the National Federation of Independent Businesses opposing H.R. 7. NFIB, Washington, DC, March 24, 2021. Hon. Bobby Scott, Chairman, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Virginia Foxx, Ranking Member, Committee on Education and Labor, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Foxx: On behalf of NFIB, the nation's leading small business advocacy organization, I write in opposition to H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act. This legislation will add significant burdens to small businesses and potentially expose them to frivolous lawsuits.
NFIB and its members believe in equal pay for equal work. However, NFIB does not believe that this legislation is the solution. H.R. 7 will make legitimate business-related pay differences difficult to defend in court, invite frivolous lawsuits against small business owners by allowing unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in equal pay lawsuits, and significantly increase small business paperwork burdens.
This legislation would make it nearly impossible for a small employer to defend against claims where an ``alternative employment practice'' exists and could serve the same business purpose without producing a wage differential. Even if an employer were to demonstrate that a legitimate factor such as education, training, or experience accounted for a wage differential, an employee could claim that an ``alternative employment practice'' existed and that the employer refused to adopt such a practice. For example, an employee of a small, local hardware store would be able to sue an employer for refusing to adopt a business practice that a much larger company uses to address wage discrepancies. Forcing one-size-fits-all legislation on small, independent businesses puts them at a significant disadvantage relative to their larger competitors. A small business may have legitimate reasons for not adopting the practices of a large business. However, if an employee can prove that the independent business refused to adopt the ``alternative employment practice'' of a large competitor, the small business automatically loses the suit.
This legislation also prohibits an employer from asking a prospective employee about wage history and prohibits an employer from relying on wage history in determining wages. These prohibitions create a very difficult situation for small business owners. A person's written resume is only one aspect of the application process; a person's salary history is another essential part of gauging professional growth and development. If the needs of a prospective employee and the wants of a business do not match, the prospective employee and the business should be able to discern this sooner rather than later to avoid wasting each party's time and energy. By eliminating salary history, the hiring process becomes less precise and more difficult for small employers.
This bill also puts significant paperwork burdens on small business owners. It requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations providing for the collection of employers' compensation data. Most small business owners do not have a human resources department or a full-time staff member in charge of reporting and compliance. NFIB members find unreasonable government regulations to be their sixth biggest problem and federal paperwork to be their 15th biggest problem when ranking their top 75 problems and priorities.
NFIB strongly opposes H.R. 7, the Paycheck Fairness Act, urges the committee to oppose the legislation in its current form. Sincerely, Kevin Kuhlman, Vice President, Federal Government Relations.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to introduce this as a small business owner myself. The NFIB letter says: H.R. 7 will add significant burdens to small businesses and potentially expose them to frivolous lawsuits. In addition, the bill will make legitimate business-related pay differences difficult to defend in court, invite frivolous lawsuits against small business owners by allowing unlimited compensatory and punitive damages in equal pay lawsuits, and significantly increase small business paperwork burdens.
Moreover, the NFIB letter says that H.R. 7 will make it nearly impossible for a small employer to defend against claims where an alternative employment practice exists and could serve the same business purpose without producing the wage differential.
The letter also highlights the significant paperwork burdens H.R. 7 would place on small businesses who do not have a human resources department, a full-time staff member in charge, or attorneys for reporting and compliance.
Mr. Speaker, having been a small business owner and supported by the small business owners, and during the pandemic when it is so necessary for us to get our small businesses up and operating, I urge my colleagues to take these views of small business owners into consideration before they vote on H.R. 7.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Mrs. MILLER-MEEKS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Madam Speaker, equal work deserves equal pay, and we owe it to women to constructively engage on addressing pay disparities in the workplace and put forward real solutions. Unfortunately, Democrats have put forth a bill that prioritizes lawsuits and government regulation over women's economic empowerment and advancement.
H.R. 7 would require employers to make intrusive data disclosures that would add compliance costs exceeding $600 million per year while posing serious threats to workers' privacy and their paychecks.
On top of these onerous new requirements, H.R. 7 will force America's businesses to prepare for an onslaught of frivolous lawsuits, which now will be open to unlimited compensatory and limited damages.
Forty percent of small businesses are run by women, and H.R. 7 would make it harder for these women business owners to succeed.
This issue is too important to leave to partisan solutions. Our amendment, the Wage Equity Act, offers a stark contrast to the approach laid out in H.R. 7. We look to innovation in the States to find bipartisan policy that is supported by both Republicans and Democrats and signed by Republican Governors--proof that equal pay for equal work is not a partisan issue.
The Wage Equity Act supports the empowerment of women in today's economy. America's businesses--particularly our small businesses--seek to do right by their employees. In recognition of this, the Wage Equity Act creates a voluntary pay analysis system to encourage the good-faith efforts of employers to self-identify and correct any wage disparities, should they exist, creating an environment of consistent self- reflection.
We believe every American should be able to negotiate employment based upon their qualifications and merit for the position, and that a victim of wage discrimination should not have this discrimination follow them to their next job and compound through the rest of their career.
This is why this amendment protects the employee's right to not disclose their salary history during the job interview process unless they wish to do so voluntarily. At the same time, we cannot erode the necessary negotiations that take place in a job interview.
The Wage Equity Act protects the ability for an employee and their prospective employer to have a pay expectation conversation, an important part of any negotiation.
Our amendment protects employees' ability to discuss compensation with their colleagues while giving employers the ability to set reasonable limitations on the time, location, and manner of this activity to protect employees from harassment.
Furthermore, the Wage Equity Act seeks to put women on equal footing as men as they start their careers with a grant program targeted towards women in college and career tech programs to provide negotiation skills education.
Lastly, our amendment directs the GAO to study the manager's gap to give us a clearer sense of the impact new parents leaving the workforce have on an employee's future earning and opportunity potential.
These are commonsense proposals that are supported by both Democrats and Republicans alike. I encourage my colleagues to reject partisan Government overreach and to support practical, bipartisan solutions that improve the existing law of the land--equal pay for equal work--by voting for the Stefanik amendment.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Source