Q&A
Discussion of CCHR's stance on Intro 984 (Pay equity data reporting bill)
0:41:53
·
3 min
Council Member Cabán and Deputy Commissioner Ward discuss the NYC Commission on Human Rights' position on Intro 984, which aims to collect pay equity data from employers. Ward expresses support for the bill's intent but raises concerns about implementation.
- CCHR lacks expertise for statistical analysis and auditing capacity required by the bill
- Concerns about data collection across all protected categories, some of which employees may not want to share
- Questions about the scope of data and number of employers affected by the bill
Tiffany Cabán
0:41:53
Thank you very much, Chair.
0:41:55
I appreciate the accommodation.
0:41:57
Thank you all for being here.
0:42:00
I guess I'll start with some of the most basics.
0:42:02
Since you support the intent of the bill, as as you're, stated in your testimony, do you commit to working with the council and getting that intent implemented into law?
JoAnn Kamuf Ward
0:42:12
I think I'm gonna speak for CCHR.
0:42:14
There's a number of agencies named in this bill in particular.
0:42:19
Always, we we are committed to working with counsel to achieve the objectives.
0:42:23
I think this bill has a lot of moving parts, and I'm happy to talk through some of the concerns so we can, we can talk about what those are.
0:42:31
Because I think some of the areas, that we're thinking about is the the expertise to do effectively the type of analysis that is required under under this bill.
0:42:43
And so happy to to talk through those with you.
Tiffany Cabán
0:42:46
Yeah.
0:42:46
Let's, I mean, in the testimony again, you said that, there were some policy and operational concerns.
0:42:50
Can you elaborate on what those policy and operational concerns are?
JoAnn Kamuf Ward
0:42:53
Yeah.
0:42:54
And, sure, again, I'm gonna, speak from from the perspective of some CHR, and and recognize that the law department and some of the other named agencies are also continuing to work to work through the bill.
0:43:05
I think there's a kind of threshold question for us because none of us have this information about what data is, what the scope of the data itself would be.
0:43:17
I think we don't have, at our agency at least, but I don't think many agencies have a full grasp of how many employers will fall into the category that that, is within, 9 980 4, so there's a there's a a data sourcing question.
0:43:35
I think, secondly, from our perspective at CCHR, we don't have the expertise to do statistical analysis of of data.
0:43:45
I know there's other agencies that are that are named as well, but our mandate, as we've talked about, comes into play when there's, instances of, individualized discrimination related to the human rights law.
0:43:58
We don't have auditing capacity, or the in house expertise to
Rita C. Joseph
0:44:02
make recommendations, again, I
JoAnn Kamuf Ward
0:44:02
I think across the very important, but very diverse set of, areas in this bill, which are pay, retention rates, and, and employment statistics.
0:44:15
I think one thing this is the 3rd 3rd piece that I'll point out.
0:44:19
It relates to the the actual protected categories in our law.
0:44:22
I think the the data that is, in our read that is asked for across protected categories.
0:44:30
Some of that information, employees do not wanna share with their employers.
0:44:34
Right?
0:44:34
There are things like religion.
0:44:36
There are things like sexual orientation that are protected categories in our law that a lot of employers don't collect.
0:44:43
And even if they were collecting it, I don't know that it would be accurate to base a study a study upon.
0:44:48
So, I think you mentioned, gender.
0:44:51
You mentioned 3 categories in your opening remarks.
0:44:54
I think the way we've read the bill, it's much more extensive than that.
0:44:57
So, I'd want to think about what does that mean for, for employees.
