The Paycheck Fairness Act is a bill for trial lawyers, not a bill for working women. But you don’t have to take our word for it. Read what others are saying about the bill:
HR Policy Association:
As written, the bill would penalize legitimate, nondiscriminatory pay decisions; impose an unworkable burden of proof on employers that even The Washington Post has said “potentially invites too much intrusion and interference with core business decisions”; and add to the confusing labyrinth of state and local pay history laws.
National Federation of Independent Businesses:
[H.R. 7] requires the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to issue regulations providing for 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 report unreasonable government regulations as their second most important small business problem.
Freedom Works:
Once again, the left has chosen to play identity politics to convince women that they are on their side. What masquerades as a gender-equality bill is in fact just a giveaway to trial lawyers that will kill jobs, harm women’s (and men’s) ability to find and negotiate employment best suited for them, and do nothing to increase gender equality in the workplace.
Society for Human Resource Management:
In this competitive labor market, employers are retaining their employees by compensating them through base pay, combined with merit pay or pay for performance that ties wage increases to performance and mastery of the job. Under H.R.7, these legitimate pay practices would be prohibited.
While we agree that salary history should not be a factor in setting compensation, employers should have the ability to discuss salary expectations with prospective employees. Salary expectations help employers establish value of the position to the organization as well as competitiveness of the market.
National Taxpayers Union:
Though well-intended, H.R. 7 would not resolve lingering issues of pay discrimination, particularly when safeguards are already available under the Equal Pay and Fair Labor Standards Acts. Instead, under H.R. 7, women could be perceived as a legal liability, ultimately reducing employment opportunities. Rather than impose new regulations that increase the cost of doing business and kill jobs, Congress should remove barriers that limit prosperity for both men and women.
Coalition Letter of Opposition:
[U]nder H.R. 7, a court could find pay discrimination when the differences in pay are based on professional experience, education, shift differentials or hazardous work, as well as pay differentials based on local labor market rates or an organization’s profitability.
National Retail Federation:
H.R. 7 would also establish unlimited punitive and compensatory damages under the Equal Pay Act and significantly expand regulatory burdens on employers by requiring the submission of new disaggregated data to the EEOC on pay, hiring, promotion, and termination. Finally, the bill would place restrictions on the hiring process and greatly impede employees’ ability to negotiate higher pay either before being hired or during employment.
Americans for Tax Reform & Center for Worker Freedom:
Unfortunately, this bill would actually likely harm the women the Democrats are claiming to help. If signed into law, the legislation would likely lead to less flexible work schedules for women, fewer incentives for those who work hard and lower pay for all.
College and University Professional Association for Human Resources:
The Paycheck Fairness Act includes provisions that could impose liability on institutions with pay differentials that are not based on gender, but stem from differences in local labor markets, academic disciplines, department budgets and other practices that allow colleges and universities to compete with the for-profit industry.
National Association of Manufacturers:
Manufacturers are firmly committed to equal employment opportunity and equal pay for equal work. To that end, the NAM supports vigorous enforcement of existing anti-discrimination laws. As employers, we are dedicated to fairness in hiring, compensation, and job advancement for all employees. Unfortunately, this legislation would do little to prevent or discourage unlawful discrimination.
U.S. Chamber of Commerce:
This bill would also modify existing rules concerning collective actions, making it easier for plaintiffs’ attorneys to mount class action suits by reducing the criteria necessary for employees to join a class. While a potential boon to the trial bar, these changes are likely to result in more frivolous litigation rather than appropriate enforcement against actual gender-based pay discrimination.
Democrats want working women to sue the boss.
Republicans want working women to be the boss.
