May 11 -- The Office of Personnel Management is proposing revisions to the criteria for making salary determinations based on salary history to advance pay equity in the General Schedule pay system, Prevailing Rate Systems, Administrative Appeals Judge pay system, and Administrative Law Judge pay system. Comments must be received on or before June 12, 2023.
For the purpose of this proposed notice, “salary history” refers to the salary a job candidate is currently receiving (i.e., their existing salary) or the salary the candidate has been paid in a previous job (i.e., prior salary). In the hiring practices of some employers, when an individual applies to a job and is being considered for employment, the employer may ask questions about the individual's salary history (if not otherwise prohibited from doing so). These questions may be raised when the candidate's salary is being negotiated. For example, the employer may make a tentative job offer to the individual that includes the salary for the position and the individual rejects the initial job offer stating that the salary is too low and shares information on their salary history to negotiate higher compensation. Or the employer could ask the job candidate questions to determine what salary to include in the initial job offer. Another scenario is that a job candidate may voluntarily provide their salary history without being asked before a job or salary offer is made by the employer, which the employer may then use to determine the initial job or salary offer. Such salary negotiation practices using a job candidate's salary history are currently allowed under the Federal Government's GS pay system, Prevailing Rate Systems, AAJ pay system, and ALJ pay system.
However, setting pay based on an individual's salary history may maintain or exacerbate pay inequity a job candidate experienced in their current or previous employment. Nationally, women earn less than men, on average, and this pay gap varies by race and ethnicity. Data is available on the Department of Labor Women's Bureau website. As will be discussed later in this Supplementary Information, gender and race/ethnicity pay gaps also exist in the Federal Government's civil service, though such gaps are typically smaller than in the private sector.
The Federal Government's civilian personnel management systems are required to adhere to a set of merit system principles established in law at 5 U.S.C. 2301. Included in the merit system principles that apply to the Federal Government's civil service systems are the following:
-- 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(2)—“All employees and applicants for employment should receive fair and equitable treatment in all aspects of personnel management without regard to political affiliation, race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or handicapping condition, and with proper regard for their privacy and constitutional rights.”
-- 5 U.S.C. 2301(b)(3)—“Equal pay should be provided for work of equal value, with appropriate consideration of both national and local rates paid by employers in the private sector, and appropriate incentives and recognition should be provided for excellence in performance.”
The Federal Government strives to be a model employer, one that values diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA). OPM is proposing these regulations to advance pay equity in pay setting for Federal employees. For individuals receiving their first appointment as a civilian employee of the Federal Government, agencies would not be able to set pay based on salary history, which could vary between equally qualified candidates. Agencies would be able to consider a competing job offer, but only within limitations specified in the regulations. Agencies would also be required to have policies regarding setting pay based on a previous Federal salary for employees who have previous civilian service in the Federal Government. . . .
OPM requests comments on the implementation and impacts of this proposed rule. Such information will be useful for better understanding the effect of these regulations on pay-setting by Federal agencies. The type of information in which OPM is interested includes, but is not limited to, the following:
-- What data should the Federal Government consider when measuring the effects of greater pay equity achieved through a salary history ban, including effects on Federal worker turnover?
-- As OPM continues to work with agencies to analyze and refine data in this issue area, what factors should OPM consider for positions of high occupational segregation (wherein women and men often tend to work in different occupations, and the occupations that are predominantly held by women pay less and are valued less, compared to those predominantly held by men at the same level of skill or education)?
-- Is there any research we should consider regarding what impact structured pay systems have on pay equity, and what impact pay policies that allow organizations to set pay above the minimum rate of the rate range for new employees based on specified criteria have on pay equity?
-- As explained in the Regulatory Alternatives section, OPM determined that it should prohibit Federal agencies from relying on prior salary history even if the candidate voluntarily provides it. What are the advantages and disadvantages to this position, and what are possible justifications for allowing an exception to the prior salary history prohibition? What information, if any, exists on whether such an exception would be consistent with the goals of this regulation?
-- What information should agencies provide to applicants or candidates on the pay-setting flexibilities that they use to set starting salaries above the minimum rate of the rate range? At what stage in the hiring process should agencies provide this information?
-- Is there any research or evidence on the best way to inform applicants or candidates regarding the pay-setting flexibilities employers use to set starting salaries? For example, should this information be included in a job opportunity announcement? Should employers post their policies on their websites?
-- Is there any additional social science research or other evidence OPM should consider that suggests that limiting reliance on salary history (1) advances equity and/or has other workplace benefits or (2) has resulted in specific workforce or workplace costs?
-- Are there additional ways that the Federal Government can be a model employer with respect to pay equity?
FRN:
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/2023-09564