Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears competing views on wage‑transparency bill requiring salary ranges in job postings
Summary
Supporters told the House Committee on Labor and Workplace Standards that House Bill 2746 would close wage gaps and help job seekers by requiring employers to publish good‑faith salary ranges; business groups and trade associations warned the measure would burden small employers and raised enforcement and constitutionality concerns. The committee
Lawmakers and stakeholders debated House Bill 2746 on March 3, a proposal that would require employers and employment agencies to include good‑faith salary ranges in job postings and allow civil penalties for violations, with initial enforcement discretion for education.
Representative Travis Nelson (House District 44) and Senate Majority Leader Casey Chama presented the bill and a dash‑1 amendment that removes a private right of action, authorizes the Bureau of Labor and Industries (BOLI) to issue educational letters for first violations and retains a structured penalty system for subsequent violations, with a maximum of $10,000 for related violations within a year. The dash‑1 also exempts the Oregon Employment Department from the definition of employment agency to account for interstate job exchange functions.
Supporters including Senator Chama, Representative Nelson, Intersectional Group researcher Jo Fang, the National Women’s Law Center (Vasu Reddy) and several individuals argued pay‑range disclosure narrows gender and racial pay gaps, saves recruitment time and aligns Oregon with other states that have passed similar laws. “Pay transparency prevents wage theft,” testified Astrid Kurniawan, who described discovering a pay disparity in her workplace only after seeing a posting in another state.
Opponents — including the National Federation of Independent Business (Anthony Smith), Oregon Business & Industry (Paloma Sparks) and NFIB members — said the bill would impose recordkeeping burdens and civil‑penalty exposure on small employers that lack dedicated human resources staff. OBI and NFIB warned that one‑size‑fits‑all rules do not account for small‑business hiring realities and urged caution; OBI said Washington State exemptions for very small businesses have reduced compliance burdens there.
Committee members pressed witnesses on specifics: how employers handle candidates whose expected pay exceeds a posted range, how to prevent overly broad ranges, and how the proposal interacts with Oregon’s existing pay‑equity laws. Witnesses and the sponsor said employers may pay outside a posted range but must post a range “set in good faith,” and that breadth of a posted range can factor into a good‑faith determination. The dash‑1’s educational first‑violation approach was highlighted as a compromise.
The committee closed the public hearing on HB 2746 but carried the hearing over to Wednesday for an invited question‑and‑answer session with BOLI and technical staff; committee members said the Wednesday session will not be open public testimony but will be an invited Q&A to clarify enforcement and technical details. No committee vote was taken March 3.
Why it matters: Supporters framed the bill as a proactive complement to Oregon’s pay‑equity statutes that could reduce wage disparities and improve hiring efficiency; business groups cautioned about compliance costs, enforcement mechanics and unintended consequences for small employers.
Next steps: Committee staff scheduled an invited follow‑up Q&A with BOLI and Oregon Employment Department before the committee proceeds to legislative action.
