[US] Government wants to ban salary history questions from interviews

In an effort to close discriminatory pay gaps, America’s largest employer - the federal government - wants to ban salary history questions from its own job interview process, Axios reports.

Scholars and gender equity advocates have long made the argument that relying on a job applicant's current salary to determine their salary offer can perpetuate unfair pay practices and effectively tie some candidates to lower wages throughout their careers.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management reportedly oversees 2.2 million federal employees across the country. It released a proposed regulation on May 10 that would prohibit federal agencies from using a job candidate’s current or past salary to determine pay in most federal jobs, as Axios previously reported.

21 states already either outright ban salary history questions or regulate them to some extent and the passage of this proposed regulation could lead to further change as standards for the federal workforce often end up influencing how the private sector operates.

The proposal originates from a 2021 Biden Administration executive order on expanding diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal workforce.

Salary bands for federal workers are already clearly set out; applicants know the pay range for any given job and there is a clear structure around promotions and wage increases.

However, hiring managers do have the discretion to raise initial salary offers based on an applicant's qualifications and, currently, managers can use salary history - among other things - to make the case for higher pay.

Once the question has been banned, managers will still be able to make their case based on criteria like experience and skills, Rob Shriver - the deputy director of OPM - reportedly told Axios.

The new regulations would apply to the majority of full-time nonseasonal federal roles (about 1.5 million jobs) with some exclusions.

On average, women in the US earn around 17 per cent less than men and the number has remained consistent for years. Because pay for federal workers is more transparent than in the private sector, the gender gap for federal workers is narrower; women are now paid about 6 per cent less than men on average.

Gaps between people of colour and white men are wider: Black men earn 15.6 per cent less than white men, on average, in federal roles, according to OPM data. Black women earn 15.2 per cent less than white men.

The new rule does not tackle some of the biggest drivers of the federal workforce's pay gap; job selection. Women reportedly lean toward lower-paying occupations and there are fewer women in higher-paying roles.

Regulators, however, remain optimistic. "What we think this will do is root out some of the historical pay inequities that are more prevalent outside of federal government," Mr Shriver told Axios. “We don't want to be bringing those into the federal government."

The proposal will now have to go through a 30-day public comment period before being finalised.

Source: Axios

(Links and quotes via original reporting)

In an effort to close discriminatory pay gaps, America’s largest employer - the federal government - wants to ban salary history questions from its own job interview process, Axios reports.

Scholars and gender equity advocates have long made the argument that relying on a job applicant's current salary to determine their salary offer can perpetuate unfair pay practices and effectively tie some candidates to lower wages throughout their careers.

The U.S. Office of Personnel Management reportedly oversees 2.2 million federal employees across the country. It released a proposed regulation on May 10 that would prohibit federal agencies from using a job candidate’s current or past salary to determine pay in most federal jobs, as Axios previously reported.

21 states already either outright ban salary history questions or regulate them to some extent and the passage of this proposed regulation could lead to further change as standards for the federal workforce often end up influencing how the private sector operates.

The proposal originates from a 2021 Biden Administration executive order on expanding diversity, equity and inclusion in the federal workforce.

Salary bands for federal workers are already clearly set out; applicants know the pay range for any given job and there is a clear structure around promotions and wage increases.

However, hiring managers do have the discretion to raise initial salary offers based on an applicant's qualifications and, currently, managers can use salary history - among other things - to make the case for higher pay.

Once the question has been banned, managers will still be able to make their case based on criteria like experience and skills, Rob Shriver - the deputy director of OPM - reportedly told Axios.

The new regulations would apply to the majority of full-time nonseasonal federal roles (about 1.5 million jobs) with some exclusions.

On average, women in the US earn around 17 per cent less than men and the number has remained consistent for years. Because pay for federal workers is more transparent than in the private sector, the gender gap for federal workers is narrower; women are now paid about 6 per cent less than men on average.

Gaps between people of colour and white men are wider: Black men earn 15.6 per cent less than white men, on average, in federal roles, according to OPM data. Black women earn 15.2 per cent less than white men.

The new rule does not tackle some of the biggest drivers of the federal workforce's pay gap; job selection. Women reportedly lean toward lower-paying occupations and there are fewer women in higher-paying roles.

Regulators, however, remain optimistic. "What we think this will do is root out some of the historical pay inequities that are more prevalent outside of federal government," Mr Shriver told Axios. “We don't want to be bringing those into the federal government."

The proposal will now have to go through a 30-day public comment period before being finalised.

Source: Axios

(Links and quotes via original reporting)