Name: The New Rules of Pay: Equity & Transparency Live AMA
Uploaded: 2026-10-20T18:00:46.094Z
Duration: 30 min 36 s
Description: The New Rules of Pay: Equity & Transparency Live AMA

Transcript for "The New Rules of Pay: Equity & Transparency Live AMA": Hello. Hello. Alright. Hi. Welcome to today's Mineral Elite AMA, the new rules of pay, equity, and transparency. I'm Sloan Petijohn. Pay equity and transparency requirements are changing quickly, and employers are undergoing pressure to make fair, consistent, and compliant compensation decisions. Today, Kara Govro, principal HR and legal analyst at Mitra Tech, will help us understand what these changes mean for employers. Just a quick note before we begin, CARES responses are intended as general guidance and not legal advice for your specific situation. For advice tailored to your organization, please consult your own legal counsel. So Mineral Elite, Mitri Tech's HR compliance platform provides this kind of expert HR and compliance support every day. Today, you're getting a live look at that expertise. This session runs on your questions. So if you submitted one during registration, we'll do our best to get to it. If not, please drop your questions in the chat now. And, Kara, let's get into it. Alright. So to get started today, we are going to talk about why pay equity and pay transparency are at issue right now, more so than ever. Then I will get to your questions, whether you submitted them ahead of time or whether you put them in the chat, right now. And, then we'll have a couple takeaways and an exit poll. So we'll keep this simple. So first things first, why are we talking about this now? Why is it important now? We've had a federal pay equity law for, I don't know, sixty years, a very long time, and we've had state pay transparency laws, many for almost as long. And then we've had a lot of second wave state pay equity laws, coming over the last decade. But I am here to say that all of that is way more important now because we're getting these layers of pay transparency laws. So that's where states are are making rules that say you have to post the pay range for a job, with the job ad. And that might sound straightforward enough, but what it's doing is creating this transparency. And with transparency comes the revelation of pay equity issues. Aside from, you know, grumpy employees and and morale issues, this will be a source of uncovering pay equity problems. And then those laws that have been sort of out there but underutilized, will become more and more relevant. So, my first point here, publishing salary ranges can bring existing pay differences to light. How, why? Well, if you're posting a range for, you know, a sales associate three and it's $5,000 more than you're paying any of your current sales associate threes, one of them is probably gonna see it. They're gonna talk to the others about it, and they're going to know that you are now paying more for that role. They might also engage in conversations with sales associate twos or sales associate fours and say, how much are you guys making? Are you making more or less than what they're advertising for? Suddenly, everyone is sharing how much money they make. Now you can't just say no sharing how much money you make. The National Labor Relations Act, which is a federal law that's been around for more eighty years ish. Ninety? Anyway, long time. The... There's a federal law, and then there's also a lot of state laws that say everybody gets to talk about their wages. So we can't just shut that down. We can't have a rule that says no talking about how much money you make. That's not the focus of today's conversation, but it's one of the soapboxes that I've been on for a very, very long time. So we can't just do that. That's not the easy fix. The the the fix is complicated and time consuming, and it's to make sure that we are, in fact, paying equitably, that we have internal salary that we feel are defensible and that we could explain to someone when they asked because all of this will generate questions. So we wanna know why people are paid, how much they're paid. We want to have an explanation for that, preferably well documented so that even a manager who was asked the question, could potentially answer it. Really depends on your managers. In some environments, you're not gonna trust your managers to answer questions like that, and you're gonna say direct everyone to HR with pay questions. But there might be situations, you know, where your managers could tackle some of those questions, but they need to understand the reasoning and your pay structure and your pay philosophy and all that jazz. So those are really my my key points here. I will go ahead and launch into your questions now. So we had some really good ones submitted ahead of time, and I'm gonna take them basically in order. I I do... I did not reorganize these by topic, but they're kinda all over the place, so I think we'll we'll we'll be okay. Alright. So the first question, would it be discriminatory to get certain benefits to some employees and exclude others? For example, a school fee benefit given only to those with their own biological children in school when that benefit is so significant that it results in material salary inequities to employees in the same grade? Absolutely. That would be discriminatory. That would be a huge pay equity problem. If you're giving a couple thousand dollars a year of school fees to people who have kids and not people who don't have kids, that is a pay equity problem. What's interesting is whether you can find a protected class within there. So let's say we were giving those benefits to three particular employees who all happen to be women. And then in that same department, there were men doing similar work who were not getting that benefit because they didn't have children in school. Then we would have a, a a pay a pay equity problem based on sex, which is what the federal law is about and what quite a few of the state laws are about. They're really only looking at sex. So is it a problematic pay difference that's gonna make people really unhappy and simply isn't fair? Yes. But to bring one of these legal claims, we do have to be able to identify a protected class where one person on one side of it is getting more money and the... A person on the other side of it is getting less money. So you have... If you had a mix of men and women getting the benefit and a mix of men and women not getting the benefit, we wouldn't have, a pay equity claim there unless it also aligned with some other coincidental protected class. Like, all of the people getting the benefit were, Christian, and all of the people not getting the benefit, just coincidentally because they didn't have children, were Muslim. That that would be a problem as well. But if we can't find a protected class in there, then we don't necessarily have this kind of of pay equity legal claim. It is worth noting that there are a number of states that have broader protections than just sex. So it might be sex, race, religion. There are only a couple states that do pretty much all of their protected classes, and that would be like Oregon and New Jersey. But a number of them do now branch out into race as well, so you'd wanna be considering that. Alright. Someone asked, can you provide any updates on state pay transparency requirements, specifically any updates that stand out or differ from standard pay transparency requirements. So the good news is that these laws are, as they're being passed, are pretty darn consistent. I know that New York and Illinois, I believe, both... There might be one other as well. Both require that if you're advertising for a job that reports to New York or reports to Illinois, that you then have to post the pay range for that job. So even if the job was in, like, Iowa, but you knew it was... That individual was going to report into New York, you'd have to post the pay range for that job. So that's that's a particularly unique requirement. There are also now, I think, three states that require that you tell an employee who asks what their range is, what their range is. So, that would be California, Maine, and I I think Colorado. Maine's a new one, where on top of having to post the range in the job ad, it says, if an employee comes to you and says, what's my pay range? You have to tell them what their pay range is. So if you don't have internal ranges in those states and you get asked that question, you're really gonna be on the spot. Now it doesn't have a timeline for those. It doesn't say you have to tell them within thirty seconds or forty eight hours. But my feeling is if you can't answer them within, I don't know, a week, then... And they know about the law, they might start considering turning you in. Really depends. Maybe just telling them the the truth, which is we don't have pay ranges established, that might cut it. But particularly in those states, I would be thinking hard about setting up those internal pay ranges so you are prepared to answer that question and not run afoul of that law. So that that was a new one, Maine, with that disclosure requirement that was interesting. But like I said, for the most part, these laws are are pretty simple, and they mostly follow a template, which is basically you have to post the pay range, for the job in the job ad. It needs to be the range that you expect to pay for this position when it's filled. And then I would say maybe half of them require that you also, speak to benefits that will be offered with the job. And that doesn't need to be super drilled down and detailed. But if it's, you know, health benefits and dental and a four zero one k, you say that. You don't have to say the dollar value, but we want to, at least at a high level, describe the benefits that are provided. Okay. So I'm gonna sort of relate it to that, skip to best practices for multistate employers. And, I have this on my on my takeaways as well. But, basically, if you're in multiple states, you're hiring in multiple states, the easiest thing to do is to just post pay ranges everywhere. And I have been asking this question in webinars for several years now. I've been giving a pay equity presentation for a decade at this point, but it's gotten it's gotten to be a hotter and hotter topic. It was just a pet project back when I started doing this ten years ago. Started giving this presentation, but now now it's hot. So... Oh my gosh. Easiest thing to do is to just post the ranges everywhere, and and not try to pick apart what you have to post in each state. If you really don't want to post them everywhere, then then you're going to have to understand the laws and be very careful, figuring out which which laws you need to apply to... Which laws you need to follow, which laws, apply in which locations. Sorry. I lost track of my train of thought a minute ago. Where I was going with that was I've been giving a webinar on this topic for a very long time, and I've been pulling people. Are you posting pay ranges? Yes, but only where we have to. Yes. Everywhere, even if we don't have to. No. Not at all. And more and more and more, employers are saying, yes. We're posting everywhere, even if we don't have to. Like, that is actually becoming the overwhelming winner when I give that poll. So if you're not posting pay ranges everywhere, you are going to fall behind, and that is something applicants are really, starting to expect to see with job ads. There's a lot of data that shows you get more applicants if you post how much you're gonna pay. So there's really no reason not to at this point, at least if you're needing that pipeline of applicants and candidates. It it can be hard. It can create, you know, issues, morale issues. It does require ironing some things out. But at the end of the day, like, this this train is going. It's on the tracks. People are jumping on, and, you probably wanna be on that too. Alright. Next question. We have levels for some positions, but not all. Would you recommend establishing career levels and pay ranges for every position so employees have a clear path for growth and something to work toward. So I feel like you've answered your own question there. Yes. Ranges and levels, for just about any job is going to be a good idea so employees can see the the trajectory of their growth and where they could go and what they're working toward. I mean, just like you said, you you you put the words in my mouth, in your own mouth. You know, some jobs are going to be so unique that it doesn't make sense to have levels. Although even if you only have one individual in that role, they might want to see, oh, if I do this, I will I will be in that next level. You might feel a little boxed in if that employee doesn't progress in the way you expected them to. So, I will say it's it's probably less important for a very unique role to have those levels because it's probably more likely that it will change over time. But, certainly, if you have, you know, multiple employees doing one type of role, having different levels, having different ranges, can be really helpful for a lot of reasons, honestly. So, yeah, I I would encourage that. Okay. So here was a very, we got a couple very specific examples that that that are both great questions. So someone says, my company sent two offers that were about 10% higher than they should have been without consulting HR about salary research. If our current employees who have been around for a while find out, if they find out, we're in trouble. This is, like, a whole topic for me. Is it ever appropriate to go back and make a reduced offer saying we made a mistake based on equity? Can we inform the candidate not to expect a raise for a year or two because of a mistake was made in their favor? What would you do? Ignore it and hope it sorts itself out. Hope nobody finds out. Both of the things you suggested are viable options. So either going back to that candidate, especially if they haven't accepted your offer yet, and say, we are so sorry, but that number was not doable. We have a a structured compensation system. We are very committed to equity, and we had we had an error in our process. Something was not checked. I don't know if you'd... You probably don't wanna throw their new manager under the bus just yet by saying that manager didn't check with us, but, you know, figure a way to say it nicely, and not make anyone sound too bad. But, basically, the the process wasn't followed quite right, and you need to adjust that offer. If it's... If they've already accepted the offer, and and you you just don't feel good about that, then, yes, you could, basically tell them that they're not gonna get raises for a year or two because there was an error in their favor. Now granted, if if there's another employee who's already in the role who talks to the new employee and they discuss how much the new employee is making, and the new employee says to them, yeah. They told me there was an error in my favor to the tune of 5 or $10,000, but I won't be getting a raise for the next couple of years. You haven't... That older employee who's been there for a while is now loaded up with basically evidence that you knew that you were overpaying the new employee, and that it was an error in their favor and that you chose not to fix it. And so they are... They're fundamentally going to be overpaid for the next couple of years, which means that other employee is basically underpaid for the next couple of years. Now, again, we have to be able to find that protected class in order for this to become a legal claim. Is it still a huge problem for morale? Yes. But if you're in a state that only covers, sex when we're talking about pay equity, and the new employees who are paid too much are women, and the employees who are already enrolled are also women, then you don't have a pay equity claim there. Other problems? Probably, yes, but not this particular thing. I just wanna make sure that that's clear. We... That is a very key element of of pay equity claims is that there is a protected class involved. Now the next question... Okay. Actually, before I get there, you said what would I do? If it was before the offer was accepted, I would definitely adjust the offer. I would say we screwed up. So sorry. Let's make that right. It... That's the least risky thing to do. Now there is there is a different kind of risk. If you made that offer that was too high, the employee accepted it, and then quit their job. Like, they already had a job and they quit it to take your offer that was too high. Now if you try to take that money away and change the rules, basically, you're in breach of contract. It's it's a whole different kind of legal claim, but it is problematic. So, but I would try to fix it up front if if at all possible. If that's not possible, then the second best is to say you're not gonna be getting a raise for a little while. Here's why. Very sorry again, but, like, we're trying to do an equity thing here, and that's important to us. Alright. The next question was also very specific. So I work in an organization as a director. I started last year. The leadership includes four directors, an administrator, an assistant administrator. I... And I'm assuming this... And, yeah, this person is a director. I make 25 to 30,000 less than the lowest paid person at my level. I have lots of experience, a master's degree, a professional certification. My education experience matches or exceeds my peers. I am the only woman, and I'm in my mid forties. I'm wondering how I can determine if this is intentional or discriminatory and how to address the discrepancy outside of advocating, educating, and proving my value. So there's a lot to unpack in there. Certainly, if there are four directors and you're the only woman and you're paid way less than all the rest of them, that sure looks like the start of a pay equity or, a title seven discrimination claim. However, to prove that, you need to show that you are doing either comparable work or substantially similar work or substantially equal work. It'll depend on what state you're in and what laws apply. So if only the federal standard applied, maybe your state had its own equal pay law, but it it used the federal standard, that requires that the work be substantially equal. And so those claims have historically been very hard to bring because it's hard to prove that two jobs are substantially equal. However, if you are in a state with a broader interpretation, like, let's say, Oregon, they say it needs to be work of comparable character. If you can show that your work is of comparable character to the men who are all getting paid $30 more than you, that looks like the the start of a claim. And, you know, what's interesting here... And I really like this question because you brought up intentional and discriminatory. So for a title seven discrimination claim, we do have to have intention. It needs to be because you were a woman that you are paid less. For the federal equal pay act and all the state equal pay acts... Well, maybe not all, but almost all, certainly all the new state equal pay acts. You don't need intentionality. You don't need motive. Basically, the fact that you are pay... Paid differently, that's it. That... That's what's required. You know, you need to prove all these other things, but you don't need to prove that it was intentional. So, you know, what's your recourse? I mean, yes. Advocating for yourself, educating, proving your value. That all sounds great. I don't know how far that's gonna get you. I don't generally recommend just, like, threatening your current lawyer with a lawsuit, but, you know, sometimes maybe that's what needs to happen. I would certainly present them with the relevant laws and say, hey. Look. I think I'm doing work of comparable character or whatever the rule is in your state, And I happen to be a woman. You all happen to be men. So can you talk to me about how this is fair? I mean, it... It's hard to find a a diplomatic path forward on that one. But whether it's intentional or not, there is a problem there if if your work is substantially similar or of comparable character or whatever the rule is, when compared with your male colleagues. Alright. What is a reliable way to make sure our firm is keeping up with competitive salary ranges for our employees in the area? You know, there's there's no secret sauce here, really. Basically, watch the market, or get a salary report or use AI to make you a salary report. So, like, literally just have LinkedIn or or whatever, you know, thing you use send you daily updates on how much certain jobs are being paid. Really just, like, ask... You can set it up to send you jobs that match certain criteria, and then you'll see how much they're being paid. You can also get salary reports. So Mineral Elite, you will actually get three free salary reports from salary.com. After that, they're paid. That's one way to figure it out, and then you can also use AI. So I actually tried AI in preparation to... Of answering this question. And, I asked it two different ways. I just asked it straight up, like, what's the going rate for an administrative assistant in Portland, Oregon? And it gave me an answer that was based on a salary competitor tool. Like, it... I don't know if it was salary.com or or competitor, but they had come up with a particular number. And so then I tried again and said, you know, what's the going rate for this job without using information from that that, that organization. And they came up with a different number that was actually, like, at least 10% different, almost 20% different. So you can sort of use AI that way, but do sort of challenge it to give you different sets of results to make sure you're you're getting good results out of it. Don't just take the first answer it gives you. Alright. I think I got through the submitted questions that were on topic. Let me see what we've got in the q and a over here. Alright. We're a small company, and everyone wears multiple hats. How do we come up with ranges for those employees? Well, one way to start to find out ranges... Figure out your ranges is to look at what you pay them now. Right? You pay them an amount that you thought was fair, so start there. And particularly if you have a group of people who do similar roles, again, start there. How much do you pay those people now? And then and then build your ranges from there. That's really gonna be the best way to do it. And if you don't think what you're paying right now is fair, you can go out onto the Internet and and and find out, what is fair and and try to base your ranges on that. But if it turns out you need to be paying everyone more, and that's not realistic, then then we don't wanna build ranges that aren't realistic. So, you know, they're... It's a valid... It really depends on your compensation philosophy. Are you trying to meet the market? Are you trying to lag the market because you can't afford better and you've got nice perks? Are you trying to offer the most money, available to to really draw people in? So you gotta think about your philosophy, what you're currently paying people, and and what the market tells you. Alright. Regarding posting pay ranges in all states, should the pay ranges be the same across states for the same role, or do companies vary pay ranges by state even for the same role? So, this is a great question that gets asked every time, and it really depends on what your company wants to do. I think we are gonna pop a poll up right now while I keep talking about this one. So that would be called... At least one of the names for this would be geo pay. So you're paying based on geographic location, and it might be, based on cost of living, or it might be based on cost of labor, or it might be your own secret equation. But if you do plan to pay differently based on geographic location, you should say so in your job ads. So, you know, if you hire all over the country and you do GOPay, and as a result, the pay range for a job is 80,000 to 160,000, that's a really wide range. And you want people to know where they're going to fall in it based on where they live. So, I worked for a company that did three three sets, a, b, and c. A was the highest cost of labor. C was the lowest cost of labor, and we would list the ranges in each job ad. If you were in a, you'll get this, b will be in this range, c will be in this range. If you just have a really wide open range, you should know that applicants will always put themselves at the top of the range. Peep... People just do that. They think they're accept... The exception. They think they deserve the most, so they will imagine themselves at the high end of any range, which is why we wanna keep those ranges fairly narrow and reasonable. And if there's a big differentiator like geographic location, we want to make sure we're pointing that out as well. Alright. So that poll is next to the chat button if you haven't caught it yet. I'm gonna see if there's one more question I can squeeze in here. There's a really fast one. Alright. No. There's not a fast one. So I will wrap it up and make sure that you can all get out of here on time. Thank you so much for joining us today. I hope this was helpful. And, oh, am I turning it over so you can say that we have another one of these next month? Yes. So, Kara, thank you for walking us through some of the toughest questions employers are facing around pay equity and transparency. And thank you to everyone who joined us and submitted questions today. We host a new conversation each month as a part of our Mineral Elite Live AMA series. Our next session will focus on workplace harassment and takes place on November 12. So the registration link is in the chat, so be sure to save a spot. And then before you go, please take a moment, to complete the exit poll. And then we appreciate you joining us today, and I hope to to see you at the next one. Alright.