Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB32 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB182 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 32 | ||
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 98
"An Act relating to the compensation of certain public
officials, officers, and employees not covered by
collective bargaining agreements; and providing for an
effective date."
MIKE TIBBLES, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, OFFICE OF THE
COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, explained that
HB 98 matches the statutory schedule for the partially
exempt/exempt employees in the legislative executive and
judicial branches, to the salary schedules recently
negotiated with the supervisory unit. He describe the two-
tier approach that is required to update salary schedules
for state employees. One is through the collective
bargaining process, the second tier for partially
exempt/exempt employees. Because there are two different
approaches, the salary schedules have drifted apart.
Currently they are 5 percent off, and will increase to 9
percent at the end of the recently negotiated contracts.
Mr. Tibbles expressed three concerns. The pay system
requires payment based on "like pay for like work", which
will not meet statutory obligation. He referred to a chart
on page 3 of the packet "Comparison of Statutory, Judicial
and Supervisory Salary Schedules" (copy on file.) The other
two concerns regard upward career progression and
recruitment. He recommended that the legislature adopt the
statutory schedule.
4:16:16 PM
In response to a question from Co-Chair Meyer, Mr. Tibbles
replied that it is common practice to submit legislation to
track the two salary schedules. They are not always
approved in the same year and so there is sometimes catch
up, like there is this year.
In response to a question from Representative Holm, Mr.
Tibbles explained the difference between steps A through
step F.
In response to a question from Representative Kelly, Mr.
Tibbles reiterated the current and projected salary schedule
gap.
4:17:51 PM
Representative Croft asked for the total cost for the next
five years. Mr. Tibbles describe each of the three fiscal
notes. Representative Croft questioned the "free ride" of
organizations that have not negotiated. Mr. Tibbles
responded that the salary schedule applies to individuals
that are exempt from collective bargaining and it meets
statutory obligation. He pointed out problems if parity is
not followed.
4:20:37 PM
Representative Hawker observed that the legislature has
imposed upon itself a 23.5 percent reduction in per diem
pay. He questioned what happened to cost reduction.
MILA COSGROVE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL,
ADMINISTRATION underscored the parity issue of the bill.
She addressed Representative Croft's concern about equity
and negotiation issues. She spoke of an obligation to
insure "like pay for like work", and a duty to treat
management level and "rank and file" fairly.
Representative Kelly asked which comes closest to a
competitive scale. Ms. Cosgrove reported that the state of
Alaska does not have a market driven pay system.
Representative Kelly noted that equal pay for equal work is
not relevant today. He asked how competitiveness is sensed.
4:24:11 PM
Ms. Cosgrove replied that the executive branch is hemmed in
by statute. She explained that the pay is not competitive
with the private sector. She agreed that steps need to be
taken to adjust pay scales. There is an impact on
recruitment. Representative Kelly suggested that the
department should be aware of the market condition in order
to get to a competitive measurement. He stressed another
reason to stay competitive.
4:26:50 PM
CHRIS CHRISTENSEN, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF THE
ADMINISTRATIVE DIRECTOR, ALASKA COURT SYSTEM, shared the
background of the court system. He related statistics
surrounding court employees. He discussed high turnover
rates and talked about cost-of-living adjustments resulting
in employees joining a union. He related the history of
judges' salaries in Alaska, including a comparison of the
average annual increases for judges nationally and locally.
Judges do not get annual longevity increases. He spoke of
rural judge differentials. HB 98 would bring salary
adjustments equal to salaries approved by the legislature
for APEA members last year. The bill sends a message to
employees that the legislature does value them as much as
union employees.
4:33:03 PM
He referred to Representative Croft's question about non-
union employees stating that often non-monetary compensation
in union contracts is not matched.
4:37:27 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze recalled that there has been an effort to
match employees' salaries. He noted that judges have an
honorary position.
Mr. Christensen responded that going from number 49 to
number 47 does not seem to be much of an increase. He
contrasted private sector lawyers with public sector lawyers
and judicial pay raises.
4:38:05 PM
PAM VARNI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS AGENCY,
testified in support of HB 98, for equity reasons. She
recalled the history of the executive and judicial salary
schedules. She described the difference between the
partially exempt and CPIU salary increases as 26.68 percent.
She shared statistics from various states regarding salary
increases. The per diem rate has gone down for legislators,
which is set by Department of Defense.
4:40:44 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked on who's behalf Ms. Varni is
testifying. She replied on the behalf of the agency
employees. Legislative council would also support this.
4:41:48 PM
Representative Hawker observed that the bill puts him in a
very uncomfortable position. Dealing with costs of
retirement plans is a big issue. Alaska's retirement plan
is very generous. He suggested "do no harm until we figure
out how to solve the problem." He debated the other side
of the argument. He stated his opposition to the radical
changes proposed to the PERS and TRS plans. He suggested
that granting a wage increase is hypocritical on his part.
He stated that his concern is not with equity and fairness
to employees.
4:45:27 PM
Co-Chair Meyer suggested proposing a hiring freeze until
PERS and TRS is decided. He emphasized that current
employees need to be treated fairly. He spoke in favor of
passing HB 98.
Vice-Chair Stoltze agreed with Representative Hawker
Representative Holm also agreed with Representative Hawker.
He quoted the high pay level of 28 E. He voiced concern
about COLA, vacation pay, and other compensations. He
requested more information about those costs.
4:47:50 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that union employees have already
received their wages. This bill will bring non-union
employees up to the same level.
4:49:03 PM
Ms. Cosgrove spoke of collective bargaining.
ART CHANCE, DIRECT, LABOR RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF
ADMINISTRATION, shared information about the executive
branch related to leave, pay, geographical differentials,
and merit steps, all established in statute.
4:51:56 PM
Representative Foster spoke in support of the legislation.
He concluded that denial of the legislation would result in
greater unionization.
Mr. Chance stated that the only employees that could not
collectively bargain are elected and appointed officials.
He noted that he is currently seeking to eliminate labor
relations staff from the current bargaining unit.
4:54:20 PM
Co-Chair Chenault referred to Section 6, salaries for
University of Alaska, and questioned why they are being
treated differently.
Ms. Cosgrove noted that the university pay structure is
completely different from the other branches. Mr. Chance
added that many of their salaries are established through
collective bargaining.
4:55:52 PM
Representative Kelly spoke in support of the legislation.
He observed that public pay has slipped, the legislation
thth
would only raise judges from 49 to 47[place in regards to
pay nationally], and there is a threat of underemployment.
He stressed that the PERS and TRS issue is separate. He
concluded that employees would be lost or organized if this
legislation is not adopted.
4:59:30 PM
Co-Chair Meyer pointed out that it is not an union or non-
union issue, but one of fairness and equality.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 98 (STA) out of
Committee with the accompanying fiscal notes. There being
NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
CSHB 98 (STA) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three fiscal impact notes: #1 GOV,
#2 LEG, and a new CRT note.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|