Legislature(2007 - 2008)
03/14/2008 03:04 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB391 | |
| SB101 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 391-STATE CONSTRUCT'N PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT 3:04:29 PM CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 391, "An Act relating to project labor agreements."[Before the committee is the committee substitute for (CS) HB 391, Version 25-LS1493\C, Wayne, 2/26/08.] 3:04:39 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER made a motion to adopt Amendment 1, labeled 25-LS1493\C.1, Wayne, 3/10/08, which read: Page 2, following line 9: Insert a new subsection to read: "(c) An employer or labor representative who participates in or administers a fringe benefits program that is available for selection by an employee under (b) of this section shall provide to the employee a written description of the fringe benefits program within seven days after a request by the employee." Reletter the following subsection accordingly. Page 2, line 28, following "agreement;": Insert "an employer or labor representative who administers a fringe benefits program that is available for selection by an employee under this paragraph shall provide the employee with a written description of the fringe benefits program within seven days after a request by the employee;" 3:04:52 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected for purposes of discussion. 3:05:00 PM REPRESENTATIVE MIKE KELLY, Alaska State Legislature, asked his staff to present Amendment 1. 3:05:16 PM DEREK MILLER, Staff to Representative Mike Kelly, Alaska State Legislature summarized Amendment 1. He stated that Amendment 1 would require an employer to provide a written description of the fringe benefit package at the request of the employee to ensure full disclosure and to allow the employee to make an informed decision. He noted that the language is in proposed SB 276. Amendment 1 satisfies concerns that were raised in the other body on the companion bill. Thus, the sponsor would like to offer Amendment 1 to HB 391 for members' consideration. 3:06:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH made a motion to adopt a Conceptual Amendment to Amendment 1, as follows: On page 1, line 13 Delete, "a written description of the fringe benefits program" Insert, "all pertinent information" REPRESENTATIVE BUCH explained that many of these jobs include all kinds of information. He said he agreed that the information should be given to the employee within 7 days, but items such as material safety data sheets, federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) information, wage options, retirement options, and specific information relating to the job should be made available within 7 days. 3:07:32 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected to the amendment to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY opined that the amendment to Amendment 1 was too broad. "There is never an end to all pertinent information," he said. He offered that it could refer to the fringe benefits package. He expressed opposition to adopting the amendment to Amendment 1. 3:08:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his own experience in working on construction jobs with chemicals present. He opined that by the time the employees requested and obtained the information, that portion of the job was completed. The employees were not aware of the conditions pertinent to the specific chemicals. He expressed concern for the employee's health and safety. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY maintained his objection to the amendment to Amendment 1. He related his own experiences with safety data sheets and opined that falls under current federal law, including the OSHA requirements. He noted that Amendment 1 assumes that all of the federal requirements will be adhered to, as well as state requirements. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH acknowledged that information is available on site in a book form. However, he opined that the employee does not have time to do a thorough review and it's important to provide the information to them for their review. 3:11:45 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN inquired as to the specific information that would be included in the amendment to Amendment 1. He related his understanding of the intent of Amendment 1 is that the sponsor would like employees to obtain the necessary information pertaining to the fringe benefits package. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH answered that pertinent information would be whatever the employee ascertains is important and requests such that he/she should be able to obtain a copy within 7 days. If the supervisor or employer determined the requested information is not available or does not apply, then the employee's request would be denied. In further response to Representative Neuman, Representative Buch explained pertinent would be whatever is germane to the job. CHAIR OLSON offered that the amendment to Amendment 1 is narrow in scope and is limited to information on employment benefits package, not safety requirements. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY pointed out that the information Representative Buch is referring to is information that is for all union and non union employees. The information in question is for employers to provide and is competitive such that the employee would need the information to make an analysis of the benefits package, he noted. 3:15:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER reminded members that the information that is pertinent to the health and safety for employees is covered under current state and federal law. She opined that Amendment 1 speaks to information specific to the fringe benefits package. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN maintained his objection. 3:17:15 PM The committee took an at-ease from 3:17 p.m. to 3:18 p.m. 3:18:15 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH reiterated the amendment to Amendment 1. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO expressed concern with "all pertinent information" and inquired as to what it would entail. 3:19:21 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representative Buch voted in favor of the amendment to Amendment 1. Representatives Gatto, Ramras, Gardner, Neuman, and Olson voted against it. Therefore, the amendment to Amendment 1 failed by a vote of 1-5. 3:19:55 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER related her understanding that a written description of the fringe benefits package would include items such as the fringe benefits, the cost to the employee, the vesting period, and other information necessary for the employee to make an informed comparison of the benefits package. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed. CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 391. 3:21:05 PM CHAIR OLSON asked if there were any objections to adopting Amendment 1. There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted. 3:21:50 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related that employers generally provide a wage, insurance, and often some type of retirement plan. However, the employer is the one to select what wage and benefits that the company will offer. An "at will" employee must abide by the conditions of employment. Employees in a non bargaining unit never have a choice in the wage or benefits package, he opined. He inquired as to whether the sponsor could provide clarification. CHAIR OLSON related his own experiences, in which he accepted the wage and benefit packages offered to him, except for the period of time when he owned his own company. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY agreed with Representative Buch that employers select the package offered to employees. However, he highlighted that the requirement for a project labor agreement (PLA) was placed in the AGIA, but specifically omitted the language for collective bargaining since nationwide 82 percent of the work force fall under non bargaining employers. He noted that in Alaska the rate of union employees is higher, ranging from 25 to 27 percent union. This bill recognizes the PLA, but attempts to address the 75 percent of employees who are non union who may wish to work on the pipeline. Under the bill, the non union employee would select the fringe benefits package offered, which would consist of the union or non union fringe benefits package. 3:29:11 PM REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that under the PLA, the employee can select his /her benefits package, and that the unions don't object to this concept. 3:32:04 PM REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the word "fringe" which is used in Amendment 1, previously adopted. He inquired as to whether "fringe" is a defined term. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY offered that Wikipedia defines "fringe benefits" as benefits that include but are not limited to group insurance - health, dental, life, etc. -, income protection, retirement benefits, daycare, tuition reimbursement, sick leave, vacation. He said he did not think it is probably not important to define "fringe" since most of us would understand what fringe benefits means. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH explained that when an employee negotiates for a job, the components are for wages and benefits. He offered that in addition to the wages, the fringe benefits refers to the whole package. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO argued that he has never heard fringe benefits to include wages. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH answered that in negotiations employers generally talk about packages, one year it might refer to wages, another year it may apply to benefits. He opined that referring to fringe benefits is a fairly standard practice so he said he understands why "fringe" is included in the language. 3:38:00 PM CHAIR OLSON inquired as to whether deleting "fringe" would change HB 391 materially. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY acknowledged that he has heard benefits referred to in both ways. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to adopt Conceptual Amendment to delete, the word "fringe" from HB 391. 3:38:41 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER inquired as to whether adding "employment" instead of "fringe" benefits would clarify the matter. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY offered his belief that the terms, fringe benefits, employment benefits, and benefits in addition to wages are all within the jargon. While the term could be defined, he said he did not believe that it needs to be defined. He reiterated that the record would reflect the discussion. He maintained that the terms fringe benefits, employment benefits, or benefits in addition to wages are what the bill means. 3:39:31 PM CHAIR OLSON asked if there were any objection to adopting Conceptual Amendment 2. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN objected. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related that he has never worked on a job and been denied his wages earned, but that fringe benefits are benefits in addition to the wages. A benefits package could be any extra benefit, which is different than just a benefit, he opined. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related that he received in addition to the wage, the use of a one bedroom apartment which he would consider a "fringe benefit." He related that in camps, food and tents could also be considered fringe benefits. REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN maintained his objection. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO posed a scenario in which a group of employees is treated to pretzels and potato chips. He opined that would entail a fringe benefit. He opined that a benefit is something bargained for, but that a fringe benefit is something extra and clearly means something different. 3:43:40 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Ramras, Gardner, Gatto, and Olson voted in favor of Conceptual Amendment 2. Representatives Buch and Neuman voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 passed by a vote of 4-2. 3:44:49 PM REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to page 2, line 15, "qualified residents" and inquired as to whether this would be constitutional since the contractor might be a Canadian company, such as the TransCanada Pipeline, LTD. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO concurred with Representative Buch's concern. REPRESENTATIVE KELLY opined that this may already be addressed in AGIA. He further noted his belief that the language recognizes this concern. He agreed to take the matter to the bill drafter to check the constitutionality prior to HB 391 moving on to the next committee of referral. 3:47:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER objected. The committee took an at-ease from 3:47 p.m. to 3:48 p.m. 3:48:08 PM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER removed her objection. REPRESENTATIVE GATTO made a motion to report CSHB 391, Version 25-LS1493\C, Wayne, 2/26/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and forthcoming fiscal notes. REPRESENTATIVE BUCH objected. 3:48:46 PM A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Gardner, Neuman, Gatto, Ramras, and Olson voted in favor of moving CSHB 391, Version 25-LS1493\C, Wayne, 2/26/08, as amended, out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes and forthcoming fiscal notes. Representative Buch voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 391(L&C) was reported out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 5- 1.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|