Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pay Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances bill requiring wage ranges and benefit descriptions in job postings
Summary
The Labor and Public Employees Committee advanced House Bill 6517, which would require employers to include wages or wage ranges and a general description of benefits in public and internal job postings and to disclose wage ranges on request.
The Labor and Public Employees Committee moved House Bill 6517 to the floor after extensive discussion about pay transparency and employer flexibility.
Under the bill (LCO referenced in the hearing), employers would have to provide job applicants and employees with the wage range for a position upon request and list a position’s wage or wage range and a general description of benefits in public and internal job advertisements. The statute defines “benefits” to include health insurance, retirement benefits, fringe benefits, paid leave and “any other compensation” to be offered with the position.
Proponents said posting a range reduces informational asymmetry in hiring and helps close the gender pay gap. Representative Hughes said listing pay ranges “is really important to closing the gender wage gap.” Supporters urged that posting ranges helps applicants avoid wasted time and improves transparency.
Opponents argued the requirement could reduce employer flexibility and hinder bargaining. Representative Canino said employers already must provide wage information on request and that a public posting requirement would “tip their hand” and could remove options such as training-in-place pay arrangements. Opponents also raised concerns about exposing proprietary benefit packages to competitors and creating additional compliance costs for employers.
Committee discussion also focused on a phrase change in the statute from “comparable positions” to “equivalent positions,” and members asked for clarity on how equivalency would be adjudicated. The chair said the change to “sets in good faith” language and other edits were intended for clarity.
Action: The committee moved to JFS House Bill 6517; the motion was made and seconded and the clerk later reported votes would be held open pending members participating in other meetings.
The bill would apply to positions performed within the state or where the duties are performed outside the state but the employee reports to a supervisor, office or worksite located in Connecticut. The committee recorded the motion and debate; votes on several items were held open at the close of the meeting.
