2007 House Bill 4625 (Mandate “comparable worth” pay )

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Joan Bauer (D) on April 19, 2007, to prohibit paying a person a wage or salary that is less than an amount established under an interpretation of “comparable worth” devised by a proposed commission composed of various special interests and advocacy groups, making doing so a civil rights law violation. The bill would prohibit different levels of compensation for work of “comparable value,” meaning a “comparable composite skill, responsibility, effort, education or training, and working conditions.” The bill does not specify how different kinds of work (as opposed to different people doing the same work) would be compared with regard to these various criteria.
- Referred to the House Labor Committee on April 19, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on May 8, 2007, without amendment and with the recommendation that the bill pass.
- Amendment offered by Rep. Arlan Meekhof (R) on April 22, 2008, to prohibit employers from offering or providing fringe benefits (such as health insurance) to the same-sex partner of an employee. The amendment failed in the House by voice vote on April 22, 2008.
Passed in the House (59 to 48) on April 22, 2008. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on April 23, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Commerce & Tourism Committee on April 23, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

1) "no vote explanation" [by Admin003 on April 27, 2008]
Rep. Knollenberg, having reserved the right to explain his protest against the passage House Bills Nos. 4625 and 4626, made the following statement:

“Mr. Speaker and members of the House:

I am voting no on HB4625 and HB4626 because it will create more government intrusion and provide greater regulatory headaches for Michigan businesses. This legislative package creates another government commission to interfere with the private sector.”

Reply

Line

2) Unenforcible Mandate [by Mike Hignite on May 3, 2007]
This is an absolutely unenforcible bill. "Comparable" is undefined, and undefinable. Unless I am screwing the same nut on the same fender on the same shift in a factory, I don't see how you can possibly compare jobs.

Too much variation in tasks, conditions, required education, necessary training, combined with unique individual skills, experience and abilities makes enforcing this law impossible.

Do we want courts tied up with tort cases arguing whether or not one tax accountant doing many 1040s is comparable to another tax accountant doing fewer 1120s? Both need similar education, similar training, but one may be more important to any particular firm than the other. Can't really compare across industries or other firms that way. This detail of wage surveys is not available (and not helpful if it were available). Now you get a judge to decide how a business owner should value various skills because of the judges' incredible knowledge exceeding that of the business owner himself?

How about comparable worth in legislators? Speaker of the House isn't really different enough from any other elected bozo. Why should they get additional perks? Based on number of laws passed? Number of times voting? Number of times voting on the winning side? Is the Ways and Means committee the same difficulty as the tourism committee?

You cannot mandate "equality" since you don't even know what you are trying to base "equal" on.
Reply

Line

3) 2007 House Bill 4625 (Mandate “comparable worth” pay ) [by admin on January 1, 2001]
Introduced in the House on April 19, 2007, to prohibit paying a person a wage or salary that is less than an amount established under an interpretation of “comparable worth” devised by a proposed commission composed of various special interests and advocacy groups, making doing so a civil rights law violation. The bill would prohibit different levels of compensation for work of “comparable value,” meaning a “comparable composite skill, responsibility, effort, education or training, and working conditions.” The bill does not specify how different kinds of work (as opposed to different people doing the same work) would be compared with regard to these various criteria

The vote was 59 in favor, 48 opposed and 3 not voting

(House Roll Call 311 at House Journal 36)

Click here to view bill details.
Reply

Line

View Full Conversation