Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/29/1998 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 319 - EMPLOYEES: NO EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY Number 1343 CHAIRMAN GREEN announced the committee would address HB 319, "An Act relating to an employee's expectation of privacy in employer premises." REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG, prime sponsor of HB 319, explained the committee has been provided with Version B, Cramer, 4/27/98. He said he presents the committee substitute for the consideration of the committee. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he had missed some of the prior discussion regarding the bill. He referred to the prior version and said, "There was an exception in the prior one exempting us. Is that out?" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated it is still in the bill on page 2, line 16. He noted it is there so that the presiding officer can't snooping in your files. Number 1460 REPRESENTATIVE CON BUNDE moved that the proposed committee substitute be adopted. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there was an objection to the adopted of CSHB 319, Version B. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected for the purpose of knowing what it does. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said on page 1, lines 5 and 6, the words "between an employer and a employee of an employer" was added. He referred to line 11 and said he believes the committee adopted the wording "not hinder or obstruct". The word "from" was included on line 12. It would then read, "The employee may not hinder or obstruct the employer from access..." Representative Rokeberg explained the major changes begin on page 1, line 15. It would read, "This section does not waive and employee's expectation of privacy with respect to (1) a personal telephone call; (2) premises or equipment, including a computer and computer information, owned by the employee but used in the employee's employment for the employer even if the equipment is connected to the employer's equipment or service for the equipment is supplied by the employer." He said you could bring your own computer in and plug it in to the data line and they still can't eavesdrop on you. Representative Rokeberg stated he believes this wording meets the concerns the committee had voiced. Representative Rokeberg said, "Also, a personal telephone call - this one is a little bit problematic for myself, but this is what the committee wished. I'm not sure what a personal telephone call is, it's a personal telephone call." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that he believes the testimony received by committee staff regarding the level of law, in terms of privacy in this state, was correct. Staff provided him with the Neighbors v. Ludkey (ph.) case and said it indicates that is the case, in terms of the private sector of the state, there should be no expectation or right of privacy other than what's provided by case law. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, (c)(1), line 8, "'elected official' means the governor, the lieutenant governor, a member of the legislature, a justice or judge, or a person elected to municipal office;", which includes school board members as seen in the memorandum of April 27. He said "employee" is defined to mean, "a person employed by an employer and includes (i) a permanent, seasonal, probationary, or temporary employee whether employed full-time or part-time; (ii) an independent contractor and an employee of an independent contractor retained by the employer; (B) does not include an elected official;". He stated those are the additions made in the committee substitute. Representative Rokeberg said at this time he would not object to a personal telephone call. Number 1657 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he would not interpret the wording to mean that an employee, anywhere, is entitled to make personal phone calls. If an employer has a policy against personal phone calls, that would supersede. If the person, short of that, has personal phone calls or even makes one against the policy, it should be private. It doesn't mean you can't get fired for having personal phone calls. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "Representative Porter makes the point that I tried to make with an amendment that said, 'absent a specific written agreement should be contrary, an employee has an expectation of privacy.' That expressly drawn up policy precluded personal phone calls -- is the type of agreement that an employee enters into when they sign on. What this whole bill does is turn that notion upside down saying that you can't make a personal phone call ever unless the employer says it's okay." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the objection is maintained to adopt Version B. Number 1748 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT withdrew his objection. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if the condition had been that the employer had to specifically say, "You have no expectation of privacy for whatever reasons and whatever instances," the default position is the expectation of privacy. The bill flips the default around saying, "You have no expectation of privacy," meaning that the only time you can expect privacy on the premises is when the employer grants it to you. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks it is exactly the opposite. The bill says, "This section does not waive an employee's expectation of privacy with respect to a person phone call." It doesn't say anything else about personal phone calls. He said this should not be used to indicate that personal phone calls are allowed or not allowed by employer policy. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "And I agree with that, but it's the exception that we carved out with this line. Now if, for example, you're having a personal conversation with somebody, you have no expectation of privacy in that personal conversation because this bill says you have no expectation of privacy on the premises, and we haven't carved out an exception for that conversation." Representative Berkowitz said if he and Chairman Green were having a conversation, and are working for somebody, there is no expectation of privacy in that conversation because there isn't an exception in the bill that covers the conversation. Number 1873 REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said because the bill specifically says that you have an expectation of privacy in phone calls, and because it doesn't specifically mention any other situation, the expectation of privacy doesn't go anywhere else because it is only delineated in one area. He asked if that is correct. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES said that is correct. CHAIRMAN GREEN said that the committee is talking about phone calls and with a phone call you have that right of privacy. He said he doesn't quite follow the fact that you don't have it. The section doesn't waive that expectation of privacy. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained there is case law on what a legitimate expectation of privacy is and isn't and the environment, et cetera, comes into play. He said you couldn't write a statute to take all that in. Number 2055 MR. JARDELL said he believes there should be an understanding of the distinction between the constitutional right and the policy right that our courts have interpreted in the right to privacy. The courts have found there is no constitutional right to privacy in a private matter, citizen on citizen.. Only when there is government action is there a constitutional right to privacy. They look to a policy reasoning behind rights to privacy. He noted the case law dealt mostly with drug testing in nongovernmental businesses and how far they can go to drug test an individual that is working with them. The court went through a long process of setting out that this is a policy call and not a constitutional call, which places a great deal of emphasis on what the committee decides and what eventually passes the legislature. Mr. Jardell explained he believes the point of the legislation was to set out a basic policy statement that when you're within an employer's premises you do not have an expectation of privacy. He noted that is the employer's premises and it is the premises where you do the work. If you're there doing work, you have no expectation of privacy in an office or anything else that's being provided to you at work station. CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "What about closed doors?" MR. JARDELL said, "Again, without this legislation, the courts would go through a, 'Would a reasonable person have an expectation of privacy?' Depending on the specific facts around that, the court may go one way or another. For instance, if you had an employer who told people, 'Look I'm listening, I'm going to be coming around and I'm going to be listening in on doors to make sure you're working,' you may not have an expectation of privacy there whereas if you were in a private sector, you're a legislator, and you conduct a lot meetings closed door, you may have a little more of an expectation of privacy than some other situation. But it is a case-by-case specific. Where are facts of the circumstances?" Number 2182 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he agrees with what Mr. Jardell said right up to the point where he said that you shouldn't have any expectation of privacy on somebody else's business premise. He stated that he disagrees. Representative Porter suggested under "the expectation of privacy" he would suggest that the committee add "a personal oral conversation where a rational expectation of privacy exists." He stated he doesn't think anybody would expect, unless they were specifically put on notice, that the entire business premise in which you work is bugged and somebody is listening to everything, but it certainly is totally technologically feasible and probably happens. To the extent that we have a right to privacy in our constitution, he believes it is only appropriate that should be recognized statutorily. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out that they are trying to recognize various different areas where employees have reasonable expectations of privacy in the workplace. He said he believes there are areas in a workplace where is there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. Representative Croft said, "A telephone call makes sense to me, your own computer makes sense to me, a purse that you stick in the file cabinet of the employer makes sense to me and the conversation makes sense to me. That's why the bill doesn't makes sense to me. I mean I think we should say, instead, the opposite. An employee has a reasonable expectation in the workplace under certain situations and we can't identify them all, but rather than saying they don't we keep coming up with specific defensible where they do." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to constitutional provisions and said they normally only act to limit the government's power. He explained that our constitutional privacy provision says, "The legislature shall implement this provision." He said we have a reasonable expectation of privacy and it's the legislature's job to protect it, not violate it even with exceptions. Representative Croft said he doesn't see that all the different amendments will solve the problem. Number 2363 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the idea is to balance legitimate requirements of an employer to operate a business. He referred to the individual rights of employees and said they are in a subordinate position as an employee. If they don't like that, they should go start their own business. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES stated she agrees with Representative Porter. She said, "Having worked in a large corporation for ten years and knowing what can happen when employees have the right to privacy of everything they do and say or not is certainly critical for employers also having been done for small employers for 30 years, I understand that need. When you are on the employer's premise and you're being paid for you services, we need to be sure that what you're doing is worth paying. And I don't necessarily mean to bring this amendment in because it's not a part of our discussion, but an area or compartment used to store an employee's personal belongings -- we live in an age now where people's personal belongings can be disruptive to the business. There are all different kinds of things that people can do like talking to one another, or whatever, should not necessarily be presumed to be private. If they're having a private personal conversation with a family member or somebody on the telephone..." TAPE 98-76, SIDE B Number 0001 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES continued, "...there are obligations that (indisc.) to them and to say that they can do things under the guise of privacy while they're on the paycheck, I disagree with. And I like this bill, and I think it should be that they shouldn't have the presumption of privacy when they're on the employer's premises doing the employer's work. If they want privacy, they could go off of the premises and have it there." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ explained that the university grounds would be university premises, so there would be no expectation of privacy anywhere in the university. He said you could argue that state lands are state premises, so state employees on state lands have no expectation of privacy. Representative Berkowitz explained that if you can't have an expectation of privacy in academic setting, that's is disruptive to the sort of academic freedom of people. He referred to having closed caucuses and said they are closed so that we can be free with what we're doing. We want to ensure our privacy isn't infringed. Representative Berkowitz referred to he proposed amendment and said Section 22 of the constitution says, "The right of people to privacy is recognized and shall not be infringed." He stated that there are residual personal privacy rights that everyone has. He said he doesn't think the employer should the ability to reach into the employee's privacy. Representative Berkowitz said all he is suggesting is that the employee's right to privacy should only be infringed when the employer tells them, "Don't send personal mail, don't make personal phone calls except during lunch hour, you can have your door closed but I might be listening in." Number 0169 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER stated he would offer Amendment 1. On page 2, add a new "(2)", and then renumber. The section would say, "a personal oral conversation or where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT referred to the wording, "personal oral conversation" and "personal telephone call," and indicated he isn't sure how that would be implemented. He said, "They get to bug my phone, but when they hear me talking personally they have ring off? I mean they get to record my calls but then they have a duty to erase the ones they listened to deemed to be kind of personal as opposed to business." He stated he would removal "personal." Number 0301 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he has an objection to the word "oral" in the proposed amendment as he has done a little bit of work with the deaf and hard of hearing community. CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "I suppose we should cover that since this is more than just those of us who have hearing." He asked Representative Berkowitz if he is offering that as a friendly amendment. Number 0327 MR. JARDELL explained that if "oral" is taken out, it could be interpreted to include e-mail as conversation - electronic conversations. Mr. Jardell noted his previous comments were strictly based on his understanding of the bill and he wasn't advocating one policy or another. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES referred to Representative Berkowitz bringing up the university campus and asked about dormitories. She said she believes employers have a right to expect their people, who are working today, to not be doing a lot of private things that could disrupt the employer. Employees shouldn't have the expectation that anybody overhearing them say something that has a negative effect is okay and they wouldn't be able to use the right to privacy as a defense. However, it seems that there are times and places where mostly what you're doing are personal things in which you should be able to expect privacy such as in a university dormitory. CHAIRMAN GREEN pointed out it says, "reasonable expectations." Number 0430 JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came before the committee. She referred to Representative James' concern and said the bill deals with employees and not students. She stated the bill was amended in the House Labor and Commerce Committee so that residential housing units would not be covered. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE asked why the bill didn't just say, "an expectation or reasonable expectation of privacy exists except where written agreements are entered into by the employer and the employee." MS. SEITZ explained the drafter of the bill was approached with the concept that they wanted the employer and employee to sign an agreement and this was how the drafter felt it could best be put into language. She said she thinks that Representative Rokeberg wants the employees to know that they don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy except in certain circumstances. She said they are approaching more from an employer's aspect, but are still giving the employees some protection because they can have a written agreement that delineates parameters. Number 0512 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to Representative Bunde's concern and said, "In addition ... to the who is the boss and who is the employee consideration, in a state that has an individual right to privacy undefined in its constitution, if you get into these areas and approach it from that perspective, you would be surprised what you could end up with in terms of individual rights." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to removing the word "oral" and said he would not see it as a friendly amendment. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES asked Representative Porter to read his amendment again. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said under the wording "(1) a personal telephone call;", add a new "(2)" and renumber. He said the new "(2)" would read "a personal oral conversation where a reasonable expectation of privacy exists." REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ suggested the wording read, "oral or sign language conversation...." CHAIRMAN GREEN said it's conversation whether it's oral or sign. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said, "By the very nature of sign language, unless you're in a room by yourself, you do not have an expectation of privacy when you think that there may be someone who can read it. It isn't an audible transmission." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT pointed out you could have sign language conversations where you're doing it in the palm of the hand or whatever. So you can whisper in sign language, but it's not easy to do. There can be a conversation in sign language where reasonable expectation of privacy would exist. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he wouldn't consider adding the wording, "or sign language" as a friendly amendment to his amendment. Number 0633 MR. JARDELL suggested saying, "a personal conversation" and then put an exclusionary clause in that says, "not to include electronic conversations." CHAIRMAN GREEN stated a telephone is an electronic conversation. He asked Representative Porter if he wishes to pursue Mr. Jardell's wording. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER responded in the negative. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if there is objection to Amendment 1, item "(2)". REPRESENTATIVE CROFT objected. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Representatives Bunde, James, Porter and Green voted in favor of adopting the amendment. Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Rokeberg voted against the amendment. Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4 to 3. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ moved Amendment 2 which would include the wording, "or sign language" after the word "oral" in Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES objected. Number 0722 REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that what was done by adding (1) and the new (2) is codify an area of the law that is very clear. Where the law may be on sign language, as a language, or demonstrative gestures, is an area of the law he doesn't think we want to jump into. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that he does know that the American sign language (ASL) is a recognized language. He noted there is another, but he can't remember the name. If the committee includes ASL then those who advocate the other language will want it included. Representative Bunde said he thinks it would cover most people if the wording, "ASL sign language" were to be included, which is taught in schools. He stated that you can get a degree in ASL at the University of Alaska - Anchorage. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Bunde if that is a friendly amendment to Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said, "We've said oral conversation that would include English, Spanish, Yupik, Yupiit, Yup'ik. There are different types of sign language, there's French, there is English, there is American. Sign language is just a means of communication for people who are not communicating orally." Representative Berkowitz said another point is he would think the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the equal protection clause would compel the committee to make some kind of accommodation. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Berkowitz if he considers the suggestion by Representative Bunde a friendly amendment. Number 0836 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said he considers it an extended hand, it come part of the way but not fully. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE explained that somebody who uses ASL can also converse in French. He pointed out that ASL is a style as much as a vocabulary. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if the concept of sign language would cover the issue even though it may not be a specific kind. Somebody must be able to understand it otherwise you don't have communication. REPRESENTATIVE PORTER indicated he would think about "ASL," but the term "sign language" gets back to an example of himself and Representative Croft talking in a corner and one of them decides to put up three fingers to indicate something. That is communication with sign. He asked where it begins and stops. Number 0899 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "I would like to know if this includes disallowing or making it legal of steeling of baseball signs. That's what it would do." He said he objects to the amendment. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if you were playing ball in a company yard, you don't have any expectation of privacy in those signs. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE made a motion to amend Amendment 2 to add the term "ASL." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said that "ASL" would be a substitute for "sign language." CHAIRMAN GREEN asked if it would say "or ASL." REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE said where it says "or sign language," say "or American sign language." CHAIRMAN GREEN clarified that the amendment to the amendment would include the word "American" in front of "sign language." He stated the objection is maintained. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on the amendment to Amendment 2. Representatives Berkowitz, Rokeberg, Porter, Green and James voted against the amendment to the amendment. Representatives Bunde and Croft voted in favor the amendment to the amendment. So the amendment to Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 5 to 2. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated there was an objection to the adoption of Amendment 2. He requested a roll call vote. Representatives Bunde, James, Porter, Rokeberg and Green voted against the adoption of Amendment 2. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft, voted in favor of Amendment. Amendment 2 failed to be adopted by a vote of 5 to 2. Number 1078 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT offered Amendment 3 which read: Page 2, line 6, following "employer": Insert "; or (3) an area or compartment used to store and employee's personal belongings" REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said you either agree that I have the right to go back and look through Roxanne's's purse or you don't. He named the amendment the "purse amendment." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the amendment doesn't say "purse." It says in a compartment or area and that's why the provisional contracts are in the bill. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said it the area used to store personal belongings such as the locker you give them or the purse they have in the file cabinet. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said a purse is not business (indisc.). You have an expectation of privacy. Number 1137 CHAIRMAN GREEN informed the committee members the problem he has with the amendment is it would preclude any random searching for drugs. He indicated he believes that has been upheld. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he thinks that random searching for drugs could not be allowed under the amendment unless there is some reason. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE stated that it probably would be in an employer's best interest to say that, as a policy, we will do random drug inspections in personal lockers. He referred to Representative Croft's amendment and said there is a question as to whether the employer would be able to do that or not. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said he doesn't think they could do a random search under the amendment. He said, "They could do a individualized reason to..." REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said it has been established that they have an expectation of privacy in this area. It doesn't say, "except" unless it's taken away by (indisc.) the employer. REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said, "Even recognize reasonable expectations of privacy, once you get there it ain't 100 percent even then. I mean you can then -- that's the first part of it. Is there a reason then to infringe upon it? So you can have justifiable reasons too. If you don't have any reasonable expectation of privacy, there is no protections at all. It's just public. Even with a reasonable expectation of privacy, there's no protections at all, it's just public. Even with a reasonable expectation of privacy, ... there are then legitimate reasons to infringe it." Number 1259 CHAIRMAN GREEN asked Representative Rokeberg if he still maintains his objection to Amendment 3. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded in the affirmative. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote. Representatives Rokeberg, Porter, James, Bunde and Green voted against the amendment. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of the amendment. Amendment 3 failed to be adopted by a vote of 5 to 3. Number 1296 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT stated the sponsor's representative has stated that it is not supposed to be residential. He said he has seen some business premises, off-site locations, where you're sleeping in bunk beds. He suggested including a conceptual amendment that says, "non-residential" wherever it is appropriate. It addresses Representative James' dormitory concern and a number of other situations. REPRESENTATIVE BUNDE referred to the construction of the pipeline and said he thinks the company has a right to search rooms for contraband. He said he thinks the amendment would preclude that. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "As part of the record I'm (indisc.) memorandum from Terry Cramer, legislative counsel, on March 24th, indicating (indisc.--mumbling) privacy even to housing supplied to an employee by an employer. As I discussed with Jan on the telephone this unintended extension of the bill to a person's living quarters (indisc.--mumbling) against a constitutional challenge based on an individuals right of privacy. Amendment A.3 clarifies that the bill applies only to business premises in this amendment (indisc.) the bill is so limited in scope. We talked about this in the original draft of the bill. This is only on business premises (indisc.) of this bill does not apply to those areas used for residential use or domicile (indisc.)." REPRESENTATIVE CROFT said there should be no objection to the amendment. He said he is trying to clarify that it is in the record. Not everybody goes back to the words said in the committee meetings. CHAIRMAN GREEN indicated that on the North Slope, they do random searches and have the right. He noted that it may be by contract or an agreement. The amendment, he believes, would preclude that. Number 1472 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he doesn't want to hinder any of the existing policies, contracts or agreements that are in place. That is why the bill specifically provides for contractual agreements. The purpose of the legislation is to make sure companies have policies in place. There are certain circumstances where they will want to be able to have access to those (indisc.). REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ how it will work at sea on a ship. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he thinks the same answer would apply to a vessel. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked about a vessel being licensed with the state of Alaska. He said if it is at high-sea, is it considered within the state. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote on Amendment 4. Representatives Bunde, James, Rokeberg and Green voted against the amendment. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted in favor of the amendment. So Amendment 4 was failed to be adopted by a vote of 4 to 2. Number 1693 REPRESENTATIVE CROFT indicated he had another amendment. He said, "In a specific written agreement they have no privacy. I just -- a conceptual amendment that there will be some notice to the employee of what things they can or intend to bug ... we're going to randomly search your locker, we monitor phone calls or we don't. Whatever it is that they're doing in this area they tell them. One page, if they're doing a lot of it more. I wouldn't think it would be a big burden on small employers. But to say if we're going to be infringing on some of these areas, we search your hard disk once every month for stuff. Don't have to tell them what it is, you may not even have to tell them once every month but tell them..." CHAIRMAN GREEN said, "...you're subject to it." REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he strongly objects as he believes in paperwork reduction. He doesn't believe in adding more burdens or giving notice for doing something you have a common law right to do now. Number 1765 REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ said if there is a common law right, it seems that the common law expectation of privacy would be taken away. If something is being taken away from people, they should at least be told about it. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said you could develop any number of scenarios and make that argument one way or another. If you start requiring notification for activities which are currently being done and upset the course of commerce by adding additional hurdles, it just becomes an additional expense. Representative Rokeberg stated the bill is intended to protect the privacy rights of employees in a large part. He said he doesn't believe there needs to be anymore hurdles. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ stated it is a very (indisc.) way to protect employee privacy rights - to take away their expectation of privacy. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he objects to Representative Berkowitz's statement. That is not what the intent of the bill is. CHAIRMAN GREEN requested a roll call vote on the adoption of Representative Croft's conceptual amendment. Representatives Bunde, James and Rokeberg voted against the adoption of the amendment. Representatives Berkowitz, Croft and Green voted in support of the amendment. The amendment failed to be adopted by a vote of 3 to 3. Number 1899 REPRESENTATIVE JAMES made a motion to move HB 319, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and with the attached fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE BERKOWITZ objected. He said he thinks this is a very peculiar way for the legislature to implement the people's right to privacy. He stated he understands that businesses need to have ability to monitor their employees -- the preferable way for them to articulate exactly what it is they're going to do and specify where the employee's expectation of privacy is diminished. Representative Berkowitz explained the bill turns his notion of privacy on its head. It says that he doesn't have privacy unless someone gives it to him. REPRESENTATIVE JAMES explained she believes the legislation is an excellent way to give employers the control over the people who are in their employ, while still allowing them to maintain the expectation of privacy on the issues that really matter. The legislation is a good way to address that. CHAIRMAN GREEN asked for a roll call vote. Representative Rokeberg, James, Bunde and Green voted in favor of moving the bill. Representatives Berkowitz and Croft voted against moving the bill. So CSHB 319(JUD) moved out of the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|