Is the Legislature adhering to the spirit of California’s new pay transparency law?

It didn’t take long for 2022’s SB 1162 to go from a victory for California workers to something frustrating for them.

Known as the Pay Transparency for Pay Equity Act, the bill, authored by Sen. Monique Limón, D-Santa Barbara, requires employers to add pay ranges to their job posting.

After Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the legislation into law in September 2022, Limón touted it as a “a big moment for California workers, especially women and people of color who have long been impacted by systemic inequities that have left them earning far less than their colleagues.”

“Data is a powerful tool,” First Partner Jennifer Siebel Newsom said in the same press release. “By requiring California employers to collect more substantial pay data we will continue to create more opportunity for women and people of color who are disproportionately underpaid, overworked, and barred from professional and economic opportunity.”

Four months later, Yahoo! Finance Senior Columnist Kerry Hannon pointed out the new law has a major “shortcoming”: it allows “preposterously wide pay ranges, often covering more than a six-figure span.”

“For instance,” Hannon wrote, “the base pay range for a database engineer at Apple in Cupertino, Calif, is listed between $130,000 and $242,000. At Tesla, a business analyst position in Palo Alto, Calif., offers $68,000 to $234,000 — a range of $166,000.

“Even more mind-blowing, the range for a software engineer at Netflix in Los Gatos, Calif., is typically $90,000 to $900,000, according to the company’s website, a difference of $810,000.”

In March, CalMatters’ Grace Gedye quoted Paola Laverde, a public information officer for the Department of Industrial Relations, as saying that there’s “no limit” on how wide businesses can make the pay ranges in their job postings.

In other words, employers have a loophole they can exploit to make a mockery of SB 1162’s intent.

But private employers are not the only ones posting sometimes absurdly wide salary ranges – state employers are doing it as well. Even legislators who voted for the bill are posting jobs with gaping salary ranges.

But private employers are not the only ones posting sometimes absurdly wide salary ranges – state employers are doing it as well.

Looking just at the Senate Daybook email from October 2, Capitol Weekly found the following job postings:

• The Judicial Council‘s Budget Services office was seeking a fiscal supervisor. The salary range was listed as “$7,789-$11,683/mo.”
• The Joint Committee on Climate Changes Polices was seeking a chief consultant for the Assembly. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the classification of Chief Consultant is $9,694 – $23,090, monthly. The successful candidate’s salary range for this position is anticipated to be between $9,694 and $14,000.”
• The Assembly Business and Professions Committee was seeking a committee consultant. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the classification of Associate Consultant is $3,932 – $10,011 per month. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $6,000 – $9,000 per month, commensurate with experience.”

Also in the Daybook were several postings for openings in the offices of several lawmakers who voted for SB 1162.

• Assemblyman Christopher Ward, D-San Diego, was seeking an experienced senior assistant. The post said, “Salary range for Senior Assistant: $61,140-$145,668. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $61,140-$70,000, annually.”
• Assemblyman Brian Maienschein, D-San Diego, was seeking a legislative director. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the classification of Legislative Director I is $56,616 to $132,132 annually (subject to change based on experience). The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be between $56,616 and $70,000 annually (subject to change based on experience).”
• Dave Cortese, D-San Jose, was looking for a legislative aide in his Capitol office. The posting said, “Salary Range: $4,416 – $8,406.”
• Assemblyman Jesse Gabriel, D-Encino, was looking for a chief of staff and a field representative. The posting for the chief of staff said the salary range was “$8,308 – $20,221 monthly.” The posting for the field representative said, “The Assembly salary range for this position is $3,932 – $10,011 monthly. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $3,932 – $4,166 monthly, commensurate with experience.”
• Assemblywoman Tasha Boerner, D-Encinitas, was looking for a communications director. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the job classification used for this position is $61,140 – $145,668 annually. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $61,140 – $85,000 annually, commensurate with experience.”
• Assemblywoman Lisa Calderon, D-Whittier, was seeking a senior field representative. The post said, “The assembly salary range for a Senior Field Representative: $61,140 – $145,668, annually. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $61,140 – $84,000, annually.”
• Assemblywoman Akilah Weber, D-San Diego, was seeking a full-time scheduler. The post said, “The Assembly offers a comprehensive benefits package. The Assembly salary range for the classification of Scheduler is $51,912- $105,936, annually. The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be established between $51,912 – $80,000, annually (but subject to change based on experience).”
• Assemblywoman Lori Wilson, D-Suisun City, was seeking a senior field representative. The post said, “Salary range for the classification of Senior Field Representative is $5,095 – $12,139 monthly.”
• Assemblywoman Mia Bonta, D-Oakland, was looking for a full-time scheduler for her district office. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the classification of Scheduler is $43,572 – $79,452 annually.”
• Assemblyman Isaac Bryan, D-Los Angeles, was seeking a full-time executive secretary. The post said, “The Assembly salary range for the classification of Executive Secretary is $49,020 to $87,540 annually (subject to change based on experience). The successful candidate’s salary for this position is anticipated to be between $49,020 and $55,000 annually (subject to change based on experience).”
• Ben Allen, D-Redondo Beach, was seeking a legislative aide for Capitol team. The post said, “Salary range is $4108-$7826 per month (seniority and significant experience is required to reach the higher end of the salary range).”

On the Senate side, the job postings are run through the Secretary of the Senate.

“The reason for the wide range in the pay scale is based on the experience of an applicant,” Secretary of the Senate Erika Contreras said in a statement to Capitol Weekly. “Applicants with little or no experience being at the lower range of the pay scale and applicants with many years of experience are eligible for the higher end of the pay scale.”

On the Assembly side, job postings go through HR staff in the Assembly Rules Committee.

“The Assembly’s job listings align with all laws, and provide additional transparency and understanding to candidates so they can best navigate career opportunities,” the Committee said in a statement to Capitol Weekly. “They include a broader salary range, which represents possibility for growth, and also a narrower one, which clarifies the expected starting salary. They were reviewed by counsel and determined not in conflict with Senate Bill 1162.”

Limón, the author of SB 1162, the legislation that requires pay ranges to be listed in job openings, said the wide ranges are not only frustrating for potential employees but also are not in the spirit of the law.

“It’s extremely disappointing for the employee to see such a large range,” she said. “The employee feels misled.”

However, Limón said she believes many employers – including the Legislature – are posting wide pay ranges because they’re still learning how to implement the law. The senator said she’s confident that, with time, many employers will correct themselves and adjust their practices to follow not only the letter of the law, but its spirit as well.

In fact, she said stories like this one will help spur employers to make changes.

“Some of this,” Limón said, “takes time.”

But the senator also noted that members of the California Legislative Women’s Caucus are not done with the issue of pay equity and they will continue to monitor the implementation of SB 1162, looking to see if, perhaps, there’s patterns to which companies or industries that consistently post wide pay ranges.

“It’s extremely disappointing for the employee to see such a large range,” she said. “The employee feels misled.”

“Pay transparency is not a one-and-done” issue, Limón said.

Former state lawmaker Hannah-Beth Jackson, long-known as an advocate for pay equity, agreed that the wide pay ranges don’t honor the spirit of SB 1162, but added that she too believes there’s a “learning curve” for employers.

“The truth is that change doesn’t happen overnight,” Jackson said. “But you got to keep leaning on them,” she added.

Perhaps, but that begs the question of exactly what message it sends to the private sector when lawmakers appear to be less than willing to adhere to the spirit of the very law they themselves voted for.

“You think there would be a deep understanding of the importance of modeling good behavior by abiding by the very law they felt was important enough to pass,” says Jennifer Rubin, who counsels clients regarding wage and hour compliance out of the San Diego office of the multi-national Mintz law firm.

If lawmakers needed more time to figure out how to implement the law correctly on day one, she says, they should have delayed the law taking effect for a year or two to give all employers – public and private – to better prepare to meet both the spirit and letter of the statute.

California is one of eight states with a salary range transparency law, joining Colorado, Maryland, Connecticut, Nevada, Rhode Island, Washington and New York. At least a dozen more introduced similar measures this year. Whether any of these measures ultimately help close the gender pay gap is yet to be determined. But Rubin believes they could likely be a boon to all workers.

“I think these laws actually benefit all employees,” she says. “For anybody looking to negotiate compensation, these laws level the field for anybody willing to do the research. And that benefit is gender agnostic.”