Introduction
On February 1, the EEOC proposed to revise the annual EEO-1 report to require reporting of compensation data, a copy of which is here (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-02-01/pdf/2016-01544.pdf). A copy of the proposed, multi-page form (“Component 2” as referenced in the Notice) is here (http://www.eeoc.gov/employers/eeo1survey/2016_new_survey_2.cfm). NILG will file a comment prior to the April 1 deadline. Your input, via the survey below, is critical to this process.
Background
The proposed EEO-1 revisions would require all employers with 100 or more employees to report the total number of employees by race and gender who had W-2 earnings falling into each of 12 pay bands within each of the 10 existing EEO-1 Categories. W-2 earnings would be reported for the 12-month period prior to the EEO-1 workforce snapshot date, not calendar year W-2 earnings. Also required will be the total number of hours worked in the 12-month period by each race and gender group in each pay band within each EEO-1 Category. Employers will also provide their NAICS industry code. No other pay factor data would to explain pay disparities. The pay data report requirement would go into effect in July 2017.
In summary, the proposal raises questions on which we would like your input regarding:
· Utility: Will the pay data allow EEOC to achieve the stated goal of reliably identifying for further investigation employers with race/gender pay disparities indicative of discrimination? And, has EEOC provided enough information to make that decision?
In 2012, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, “Collecting Compensation Data from Employers,” addressing EEOC/OFCCP’s plan to collect pay data (“NAS Report”). A summary of the Report is available here (http://www.nap.edu/). The Report made a number of recommendations. One of the issues NILG may want to address is whether EEOC has adequately addressed the NAS Report concerns.
· Burden: Has the EEOC accurately measured the burden on employers and is the burden too great as compared to the utility of the data to EEOC and OFCCP?
The proposed EEO-1 form would contain 3,660 cells, which is a 1,933% increase in data collection. For many employers, reporting may be complicated because the required W-2 data reside in a different system than HRIS data, and will need to be merged.
Background
The proposed EEO-1 revisions would require all employers with 100 or more employees to report the total number of employees by race and gender who had W-2 earnings falling into each of 12 pay bands within each of the 10 existing EEO-1 Categories. W-2 earnings would be reported for the 12-month period prior to the EEO-1 workforce snapshot date, not calendar year W-2 earnings. Also required will be the total number of hours worked in the 12-month period by each race and gender group in each pay band within each EEO-1 Category. Employers will also provide their NAICS industry code. No other pay factor data would to explain pay disparities. The pay data report requirement would go into effect in July 2017.
In summary, the proposal raises questions on which we would like your input regarding:
· Utility: Will the pay data allow EEOC to achieve the stated goal of reliably identifying for further investigation employers with race/gender pay disparities indicative of discrimination? And, has EEOC provided enough information to make that decision?
In 2012, the National Academy of Sciences issued a report, “Collecting Compensation Data from Employers,” addressing EEOC/OFCCP’s plan to collect pay data (“NAS Report”). A summary of the Report is available here (http://www.nap.edu/). The Report made a number of recommendations. One of the issues NILG may want to address is whether EEOC has adequately addressed the NAS Report concerns.
· Burden: Has the EEOC accurately measured the burden on employers and is the burden too great as compared to the utility of the data to EEOC and OFCCP?
The proposed EEO-1 form would contain 3,660 cells, which is a 1,933% increase in data collection. For many employers, reporting may be complicated because the required W-2 data reside in a different system than HRIS data, and will need to be merged.
EEOC historically has estimated the burden on employers as 3.4 hours per EEO-1 establishment report. The EEOC asserts that, due to electronic filing of reports and HRIS data systems, employers can develop any number of establishment reports in the same time that it could develop one report in the past. Thus, EEOC now estimates the burden as 3.4 hours per employer, regardless of the number of establishment reports the employer must file. EEOC further estimates eight hours of initial programming time per employer to set up the new queries necessary to compile the pay data and hours worked for reporting.
· Data Confidentiality and Security: Has EEOC adequately addressed data confidentiality and security concerns and can those concerns be addressed while preserving the value of the data?
· Data Confidentiality and Security: Has EEOC adequately addressed data confidentiality and security concerns and can those concerns be addressed while preserving the value of the data?