NJBIA is urging a few key changes in new pay transparency regulations proposed by the state Department of Labor and Workforce Development.

In comments submitted to the department late last week, NJBIA Chief Government Affairs Officer Christopher Emigholz said certain conditions in the proposed rules may exceed statute and decrease employer flexibility as it relates to job postings.

“NJBIA and our members remain fully committed to transparency, fairness, internal mobility and robust hiring in New Jersey,” Emigholz wrote.

“We believe the statute’s goals can be achieved without placing undue administrative or operational burdens on employers — and without risking unintended negative consequences for job creation, speed of hiring, or internal promotion flexibility.”

NJDOL’s proposed requirements for the public notification of promotions, new jobs and transfer opportunities were posted on Sept. 15, following a new pay transparency law signed by Gov. Phil Murphy earlier this year.

One major concern for the business community is the regulation that states for each job opportunity an employer advertises externally or internally, the employer must include a range of hourly rate or annual pay that is no more than 60% of the minimum pay or salary.

As an example, an employer posting a pay range between $20 an hour and $34 an hour would be in violation of the rule. So too would an employer advertising a salary between $100,000 and $165,000.

This comes after NJBIA and others in the business community specifically and successfully lobbied to have no such requirement with the pay or salary range as part of the new law.

Emigholz said with a 60% provision, some employers will be forced to post narrower ranges than they would otherwise, limiting flexibility to adjust offers based on a candidate’s experience, skills, or market conditions.

He said it could also lead to internal tensions or culture issues when current internal pay or future salary movements fall outside the posted range.

“We understand not allowing a nonsensical range of $1 to $500,000, for example, but these proposed rules would prohibit a range of $100,000 to $165,000 which could be reasonable depending on experience and does not seem too broad to be meaningless,” Emigholz wrote.

“A broader range may also be necessary for postings that include broader geographic areas with higher and lower wages.

“We suggest that the Department either remove the 60% cap or, at minimum, revise it to a ‘default guideline’ rather than an absolute requirement. This would better align with employer realities while still promoting transparency,” Emigholz wrote.

Other NJBIA recommendations to NJDOL for its pay transparency regulations include:

• Retaining employer flexibility and making clear that the rules supplement, not expand, the statute
• Amending a promotion notice rule with an “or” so that electronic notifications without a physical notice is permitted
• Preserving flexible description of benefits rather than prescriptive lists
• Including safe‐harbor language for technical/third‐party posting errors
• Restricting regulations to only New Jersey jobs
• Continuing to preserve and highlight the small business exemption and job-board hyperlink flexibility.

To see Emigholz’s full comment letter to NJDOL, click here.