Evaluation of Compensation Data Collected Through the EEO-1 Form (2023) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
3 Utility of Current Concepts and Alternatives
3 Utility of Current Concepts and Alternatives
Pages 79-106
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 79... ...
Established automated occupational coding programs, such as those used by BLS, are available to convert job titles into SOC codes. In the panel's view, EEOC should measure occupation using SOC codes rather than its job categories.
|
From page 80... ...
The Component 2 instrument's measure of race/ethnicity is insufficient to compare similarly situated employees, such as Hispanic employees by race. It also does not correspond with the federal standard.
|
From page 81... ...
In 2019 and 2020, pay data (Component 2) were collected for reporting years 2017 and 2018.
|
From page 82... ...
Hence, Box 1 cannot be used to identify disparities in compensation in these excluded components. This poses a challenge for EEOC when using Component 2 data to compare compensation among similarly situated employees in initial charge investigations, to review employers for systemic patterns of disparity, and for purposes of employer self-assessment.
|
From page 83... ...
The OEWS measure of pay was recommended by the 2013 National Research Council report (at the time OEWS was referred to as Occupational Employment Statistics, or OES; National Research Council, 2013)
|
From page 84... ...
The Component 2 data collection mixes this approach: it defines compensation as W-2 Box 1 and collects that information using OES pay bands. BLS pay bands are changed periodically to adjust for inflation; e.g., see BLS, 2021b.
|
From page 85... ...
A further investigation of the potential concerns with pay bands will be presented in subsequent chapters. Individual-level pay data: an alternative format of pay-data collection involves asking employers to submit individual-level pay data, which are more precise than pay bands and capture the full range of pay variability.
|
From page 86... ...
NOTE: Excludes firms that reported more than 1.4 million employees (i.e., larger than the largest employer) ; establishments that reported only employee count data and not pay data (i.e., Type 6 reports)
|
From page 87... ...
; establishments that reported only employee count data and not pay data (i.e., Type 6 reports) ; and missing cell values for employee sex, race/ethnicity, occupation, and pay data (i.e., "99" codes)
|
From page 88... ...
Since larger establishments often submitted data that effectively amounted to individual-level pay data, while smaller establishments were viewed as facing the greatest burden if the OEWS pay-data collection were converted from pay bands to individual-level data, the feasibility study focused on establishments with fewer than 50 employees. Initial results indicated that nearly all of these smaller-sized employers could provide exact pay rates for their employees and clearly understood what the form was asking for, while they were roughly evenly split on whether they preferred to submit individual-level pay data or ranges (Kaplan et al., 2019)
|
From page 89... ...
. The Component 2 data collection is directed to the larger firms that BLS found often submit individual-level pay data by choice, so transitioning to the collection of individual-level data may reduce burden for most employers, particularly if employers are also given the option of reporting using pay bands.
|
From page 90... ...
Even at a broad level, the Component 2 instrument's job categories cannot be correctly mapped to SOC occupations, limiting comparison to other federal datasets. Therefore, the panel's primary question was whether EEOC's aggregated broad job categories are useful for identifying pay differences -- either for initial charge investigation, review for systemic patterns of disparity, or employer self-assessment.
|
From page 91... ...
or broad job categories such as those used in the Component 2 data collection. Using job titles in combination with other data, such as industry categories, can support highly accurate occupational coding systems.
|
From page 92... ...
. In principle, if autocoding of job titles were employed for EEOC pay data, BLS OEWS staff could possibly apply their autocoding tool to EEOC data (once stripped of identifiers by EEOC, as appropriate)
|
From page 93... ...
The programming method used by OEWS takes into account NAICS code and related characteristics when assigning SOC codes to reported job titles (Fincher, personal communication, December 1, 2021)
|
From page 94... ...
Therefore, these estimates are imperfect reflections of hours worked by exempt employees, and any derivative calculations regarding average hourly wages using these numbers are essentially estimates of estimates. Reporting format: the matrix used in the Component 2 instrument to collect hours-worked data was a separate matrix from that used to collect pay-band data.
|
From page 95... ...
California Department of Fair Employment and Housing, 2020, Version 1.1, p.
|
From page 96... ...
Findings In its 2020 Bostock vs. Clayton County decision, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII.
|
From page 97... ...
Failing that, when EEOC receives reports of sex discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation, Component 2 sex-disparity data cannot be used as an initial screen. In contrast, the CA DFEH pay-data collection added a non-binary gender category for the collection of compensation data.
|
From page 98... ...
Accordingly, given its potential to address pay inequities faced by LGBTQIA+ persons, to assist the maturation of research on collecting sexual orientation and gender identity data, and to contribute to the increasing collection of these data by federal agencies, EEOC should develop and test its instruments to allow for reporting employees' sexual orientation and gender identities. However, the panel recognizes that these data may not be available in human resource systems for reporting purposes and that asking employees to self-report on sexual orientation and gender identity raises important privacy concerns.
|
From page 99... ...
. Specifically, the instrument collected race as American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or African American, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and White.
|
From page 100... ...
As described in Chapter 1, Title VII prohibits a wide range of discriminatory employment practices based on sex (including gender identity, and sexual orientation) , as well as race and color.
|
From page 101... ...
Additional Measures of Individual Characteristics Pay differences can be attributable to bona fide seniority, merit, incentive systems, or additional factors other than protected status. Indeed, the panel was informed by employer stakeholders during open panel meetings that employer self-assessments of pay differences often take into account employee education, performance ratings, changes in work duties, assignments, location, and work experience (Fortney, 2021; Clements et al., 2021)
|
From page 102... ...
CONCLUSION 3-2: Use of pay bands in the 2017–2018 Component 2 data collection provides information that is less useful than that pro vided by individual-level pay data. Using established, improved meth ods, other federal agencies have demonstrated that individual-level pay data can substantially reduce respondent burden, increase precision in estimating pay gaps, and protect confidentiality.
|
From page 103... ...
CONCLUSION 3-8: EEOC's current approach for aggregate pay and hours-worked data severely limits the utility of the data collected, un necessarily increases employer burden, and complicates the collection of additional key information. Collecting data from employers at the level of individual workers may be less burdensome than the current approach and would markedly increase the utility of pay data.
|
From page 104... ...
This standard offers solutions for reporting race/ethnicity data in a combined format. RECOMMENDATION 3-6: EEOC should work with other federal agencies to develop and test ways to measure employees' sex, gender identity, and sexual orientation in a manner appropriate for EEOC data collections.
|
From page 105... ...
RECOMMENDATION 3-11: EEOC should work with employer groups and federal data-collection agencies to explore ways to col lect individual-level data, such as education, job experience, and ten ure, which will support detailed pay-disparity analyses and employer self-assessments.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.