Legislature(2019 - 2020)BARNES 124
02/19/2020 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB91 | |
| SB106 | |
| HB113 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 106 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 113 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 113-MILITARY FAMILY EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE
3:46:11 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 113, "An Act relating to employment
preferences for spouses and children of veterans, disabled
veterans, former prisoners of war, members of the national
guard, and deceased service members."
3:46:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON JACKSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, introduced HB 113. She paraphrased from the
sponsor statement provided in the committee packet, which read
in its entirety as follows [original punctuation provided]:
The purpose of House Bill 113 is to extend current
hiring preferences to military spouses and dependent
children in the State of Alaska and the private
sector.
Military families fall into two categories: Blue Star
or Gold Star Families. Blue Star families are military
spouses and dependents of active service members and
veterans. Gold Star families are spouses and children
of a deceased service members who died while in active
duty.
A recent report from the Department of Defense found
that a quarter of military spouses are unemployed or
underemployed. There are several efforts being done in
all 50 states, but Alaska is one of the few states
that do not extend employment preferences to military
spouses. There are roughly 151,881 military spouses
and dependents in Alaska according to the Alaska
Department of Military & Veteran Affairs.
This is a small but significant way to honor our
service members and their families, who are making a
sacrifice to serve their country, yet often fall
between the cracks while doing so.
3:49:43 PM
ELIJAH VERHAGEN, Staff, Representative Sharon Jackson, Alaska
State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation, entitled
"House Bill 113," on behalf of Representative Jackson, prime
sponsor. He directed attention to slide 3, titled, "What,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB113 Will extend current state hiring preferences to
military spouses and dependents. It will also extend
liability protections to the private sector to include
spouses and dependents.
3:50:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked what it means to "extend liability
protections to the private sector."
MR. VERHAGEN directed attention to page 2, line 12, of HB 113,
and said, "this is legally putting in statute that in the
private sector, an employer may hire a military spouse solely
because they are a military spouse. Whereas currently, that is
not in statute." He asked if that answered Representative
Hannan's question.
3:52:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN said not quite.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the slide says, "extend
liability protections," and asked what that means.
3:52:38 PM
MS. VERHAGEN said "currently, if someone were to choose to hire
- because it's not in statute - a military spouse instead of
someone else who's equally qualified, I believe that they would
be able to be sued and this is giving them - they are free from
this liability because now it's written in statute that they may
give a hiring preference to military spouse."
3:53:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN contended that a private sector business
employer can hire who they want. She said, for example,
coastguard kids are frequently the first round of hires for
seasonal businesses because of their accountability to military
structure, adding that she never perceived there was any legal
liability associated with that.
3:54:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON stated that, "private businesses are
private - we are not here to tell them what they can or can't
do, but this will be extended to them to at least give a
military spouse the interview."
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ said perhaps the language in the presentation is
confusing.
3:56:38 PM
MR. VERHAGEN resumed his presentation on slide 4 and explained
that military spouses are among the highest unemployed and
underemployed group in the United States, despite their
education or experience. He cited a poll of over 4,000 military
spouses that found 40 percent have a college degree.
Additionally, upwards of 60 percent have "some college"
experience compared to 29 percent of spouses in the civilian
sector. He further noted that 9 out of 10 military spouses are
women. Mr. Verhagen went on to paraphrase slide 5, titled "Top
3 Challenges," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
? Unemployment The number of unemployed military
spouses averages at more than 40%.
? Underemployment Low pay. Research shows that
military spouses with a college degree earn 40% less
than their counterparts. A study from Syracuse
University found that 90% of female spouses of active-
duty members reported they were underemployed
? Frequent moves Spouses and dependents move
constantly, resulting in employment gaps, lack of
networking
3:59:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN sought to clarify whether 29 percent of
civilian spouses have a degree or 29 percent of civilian spouses
have a degree and are currently unemployed.
3:59:19 PM
MR. VERHAGEN clarified that "29.9" percent have a college
degree.
REPRESENTATIVE RASMUSSEN asked for the source of that data.
MR. VERHAGEN directed attention to Figure 1 on page 2 of a
document provided in the committee packet, entitled "Military
Spouses in the Labor Market."
4:00:15 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ noted that it's an uncomfortable statistic
because it's not clear who the civilian, noninstitutionalized
population is.
4:00:55 PM
MR. VERHAGEN responded by reading the following paragraph from
the document [original punctuation provided]:
According to the ACS survey, working age military
spouses are predominantly female (92 percent), and
they are young. Although the average American adult of
working age is 41 years old, working age military
spouses are 33 years old, on average. 2 Military
spouses are also more educated than other civilian,
non-institutionalized Americans of working age,
suggesting that losing their contributions to the
labor market is particularly detrimental for the
American economy (Figure 1). While approximately 30
percent of the U.S. working age population has a
college degree, approximately 40 percent of military
spouses in this age range do.
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ clarified that "this is the civilian,
noninstitutionalized population of United States workers."
MR. VERHAGEN answered yes.
4:02:10 PM
MR. VERHAGEN concluded his presentation on slide 6, reporting
that 24 states have instituted a hiring preference for military
spouses. He turned attention to the sectional analysis, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. AS 18.80.200(c)
This section does not prohibit a private employer from
having hiring preferences for persons described in
Section 2 of this bill.
Section 2. AS 23.88.010
This section repeals and reenacts the current statute
by adding definitions removed from Section 1 for
clarity. This section does not prohibit a private
employer from having hiring preferences to active-
military, veterans and families. This section adds
language to include spouses and dependent children of
deceased service members to the list.
Section 3. AS 39.25.150(19)
This section amends the State Personnel Act to
reference definitions as stated in Section 4 for
consistency.
Section 4. AS 39.25.159(a)
This section amends the employment preference for
veterans or former prisoners of war by adding new
language to include families of an active-duty service
member, veteran, or former prisoner of war.
This section clarifies the type of preference given
the hiring process and whether the applicant is
disabled or not.
Subsection (B) is removed for consistency
Section 5. AS 39.25.159(d)
This section clarifies that a person may receive an
employment preference under only one of the categories
described in sections 3 and 4. A person may use the
preference without limitation when being considered
for a position for which persons who are not currently
state employees are being considered. If the
recruitment for a position is limited to state
employees, preference under (a) or (c) of this section
may not be counted.
This section adds language to include spouses or
dependent children for consistency with other
sections.
Section 6 AS 39.25.159 (e)
This section clarifies that this bill does not involve
interpreting amendments of a collective bargaining
agreement and makes a reference to subsection (a) of
Section 4.
Section 7 AS 39.25.159(f)
This section defines a dependent child.
Section 8 AS 39.25.159(c)
This section removes language that has been included
in Section 4 of this bill.
4:05:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if the hiring preference for either
the spouse or the dependent child has a time limit.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said the limit for the dependent child is
age 19 or age 23 if he or she is attending college.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if there is a time limit for the
spouse.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON replied the spouse receives the benefit
until he or she remarries.
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether it could be a lifetime
benefit.
REPRESENTATIVE JACKSON said yes, for the working years of the
spouse's life.
4:07:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STORY asked if there is information on how the
program is working in the 24 states that provide veterans'
preferences to spouses.
4:10:15 PM
VERDIE BOWEN, Director of Veterans Affairs, Office of Veterans
Affairs, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs, stated that
in Maryland, [military] spouses and children have been able to
gain employment much faster now that the benefits have been
implemented.
4:11:04 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if there are any states that have limited
the length of the benefit for widows.
4:11:48 PM
MR. BOWEN answered no, adding that most states do not sunset the
gold star clause. Under the gold star clause, DIC [Dependency
and Indemnity Compensation] payments are provided until the
spouse remarries. He noted that most states use that as their
reference point. He reiterated that if the spouse remarries, he
or she loses access to the gold star benefit.
4:12:35 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked if Mr. Bowen would like to provide any
additional testimony.
4:12:41 PM
MR. BOWEN said he would like to see this bill passed because it
does "several things" for family members. He noted that Alaska
has over 43,000 active-duty National Guard Reserve Component
family members within the state that are supporting 22,000
active duty members. He stated that the primary way to reduce
stress is to help them gain access to gainful employment, which
will help reduce other factors that could happen within their
housing units.
4:15:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN questioned whether a family whose member
dies by suicide is still considered a gold star family.
4:16:15 PM
MR. BOWEN replied that gold star is usually provided to people
that die in a combat zone. He said if an individual took his or
her life in a combat zone or was injured in a combat zone then
the gold star identification would not apply.
4:16:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HANNAN asked if there's a limit on the life
insurance policy that's paid to a family if the death is caused
by suicide.
MR. BOWEN answered no. He explained that the exact amount of
the life insurance is paid to the family regardless of whether
the death was caused by suicide.
4:19:11 PM
MEGAN JAMES, Alaska Coalition for Veterans & Military Families,
stated that many military spouses and dependent children come to
the Alaska Coalition for Veterans & Military Families for
assistance in looking for professions. She added that they work
longest with the military spouses because of their varied
working backgrounds due to continued sacrifice of their own
career for that of the service members. She noted that varied
work histories and gaps in employment don't look like the best
hires on paper to some employers. She said HB 113 would
essentially even the playing field for military spouses and gold
star families. Furthermore, she pointed out that if military
families are gainfully employed and spouses are happily working
at the duty location, the service members are more likely to be
mission ready, to reenlist, and their home is likelier to be
resilient and thriving without the worry of financial
implications that come from having a spouse without work while
they're gone. She shared a personal anecdote of her own
experience with this matter. She noted that this bill is not
offering the promise of a job, but it allows them to have a
better chance against other qualified candidates as they are
going through the employment process.
4:22:05 PM
CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 113 was held over.