||A) Commission Membership. The Governor appointed
the following members (See Appendix A) for the noted positions:
Business Representatives: Phyllis M. Burlage, Chairperson,
and Ellen H. Levi
2) Labor Representatives: Evelyn McCarter and Vincent
3) Organizational Representatives: Glendora Hughes,
Esq. and L. Tracy Brown, Esq.
4) Higher Education Representatives: George Georgiou,
Ph.D.; George LaNoue, Ph.D.; and Gena Proulx, Ph.D.
Commission Meeting Schedule. The Commission
held its first meeting on
December 8, 2005 in Baltimore, Maryland and agreed
to meet monthly on the third Wednesday of the month.
Meeting dates were: January 18, February 15, March
15, April 19, May 17, June 21, July 19, August 23,
and September 20, 2006.
C) Commission Charge. The Commission was charged with studying:
||1) "The extent of wage disparities, both in the public
and private sectors, between men and women and between
minorities and nonminorities;
2) Those factors which cause, or which tend to cause,
the disparities, including segregation between
women and men and between minorities and nonminorities
across and within occupations, payment of lower
wages for work in female-dominated occupations,
child-rearing responsibilities, the number of
women who are heads of households, education,
hours worked, and years on the job;
3) The consequences of the disparities on the economy
and families affected; and
4) Actions that are likely to lead to the elimination
and prevention of the disparities."
||D) Commission Process. The Commission relied on
a number of different techniques to obtain information
for this report. As a starting point, a comprehensive
literature search was conducted. Two papers looking
at the national picture, which summarized the data
on gender-based and race-based wage disparities,
were prepared by Commission Staff. The papers are
appended to this report (Appendix B and C) and information
from them is used in the report. Although national
data and literature searches provided an interesting
perspective, the Commission agreed that it was critical
to have Maryland-specific data on which to base
its report and recommendations.
The Commission was fortunate to receive an offer of
assistance from the Institute for Women's Policy
Research (IWPR). On behalf of the Commission,
IWPR conducted a study using the U.S. Census Bureau's
American Community Survey Public Use Microdata
Files (ACS PUMS), which captures employment-related
information both for the previous year and for
the week before the survey fielding date and a
complete battery of demographic information. Three
years of data, from 2002 to 2004, were pooled
to get a large enough sample for the analysis.
The IWPR study is appended to this report (Appendix
D) and data from it are used in the report. It
should be noted that in this report when wages
are discussed, hourly wages are generally the
focus; when earnings are discussed, the focus
is on annual earnings.
In addition, the Commission looked at Equal Pay and
Maryland Human Relations Commission Complaints.
Reports prepared by the Maryland Human Relations
Commission Counsel's Office are attached (Appendix
E and F) and excerpted in this report.
In its review of Maryland data, the Commission believes
that there is a great need to gather relevant
data from public and private employers to capture
an accurate picture of if and why diverse groups
of Maryland employees are not being paid equally.
The Commission also found a severe lack of data
specifically applicable to Maryland employers
and employees as it relates to the Equal Pay Act.
If Maryland wants State-based statistics to compare
itself nationally, it needs to create a data base
and institute a better data collection methodology
for obtaining this information. Attempts to obtain
Maryland-specific wage disparity data from federal
agencies such as the Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) and the Department of Labor
(DOL) did not yield the type of information needed.
Commission staff conducted research into Pay Equity Best
Practices on an international, national and local
level and looked at data on the economic impact
of the wage gap. In addition, a number of interest
and advocacy groups were contacted and provided
the opportunity to provide input to the Commission.
The materials submitted were considered by Commission
members in formulation of the report. A list of
the organizations from which materials were reviewed
is Appendix G. At its last three meetings, the
Commission considered and discussed possible recommendations
and report content.