Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/04/2002 03:20 PM House MLV
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 327-STATE EMPLOYEES CALLED TO MILITARY DUTY CHAIR CHENAULT announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 327, "An Act relating to state employees who are called to active duty as reserve or auxiliary members of the armed forces of the United States; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by request of the governor.] Number 2186 DAVE STEWART, Personnel Manager, Division of Personnel, Department of Administration, informed members that HB 327 allows Alaska to offer a supplemental wage-and-benefit structure to state employees called to active military duty. The federal [Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA)] allows certain benefits, both in job security and wage-and-benefit security, for employees called to active service by the President of the United States; however, that protection doesn't exist for state employees activated by a call of the governor. Hence this legislation allows the governor to issue an administrative order declaring an emergency of a particular nature and invoking the [provisions] in HB 327 that allow state agencies to supplement military income to the level of state income in order to prevent hardship on employees called to active service and their dependents. It also allows continuation of benefits and the same protection as under federal activation, he told members. Number 2303 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI surmised that there is no particular time period associated with the call to active duty, and posed a situation in which a person is only on active duty for 60 days. MR. STEWART answered that as the bill is written, it is just "active duty". He added, "The presumption would be, in the administrative order that activated a contingent of workers, there would be the specification of duration." He said for most of the lengthier periods of activation, it is believed that those would be at the federal level; thus federal legislation would kick in for absences up to five years under USERRA. However, HB 327 is nonspecific regarding length because the nature of the emergencies that would call upon this activation authority are believed to have a duration of two or three months; those include fire, flood, or catastrophic damage. Number 2399 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI brought attention to the zero fiscal note and asked how the state would accommodate paying both the person called to active duty and that person's temporary replacement. MR. STEWART answered that the zero fiscal note presumes fairly limited use of this administrative authority. Noting that someone from the chair's office had requested information subsequent to preparation of the fiscal note, Mr. Stewart said those figures are being pulled together and that he could provide ballpark figures. With respect to the zero fiscal note, he indicated the department is just now looking at the number of people activated since [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, on the East Coast], and surmised that the fiscal note might be amended as the bill moves through the process. MR. STEWART, in further response, said 220-225 employees possibly may be activated into the national guard; of those, 30 are currently activated and an additional 23 have been called to some period of active duty since September 11, 2001, some for as little as one day. Number 2509 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reported receipt of an e-mail from someone who appears to be in the active military, rather than in the reserves; it references the Municipality of Anchorage and the state as providers of benefits and compensation. She asked whether there is anything going on with the municipality, or whether this e-mail doesn't cite the facts correctly. MR. STEWART offered his understanding that the Municipality of Anchorage doesn't offer a plan extending benefits. He said that at one point, when this legislation was first introduced, it was thought it could apply broadly "to public service in Alaska." He said the idea behind the legislation was that the State of Alaska would be a demonstration to set the pace for other public employers. However, the administrative-order authority wouldn't affect municipalities or other public employers. Number 2575 REPRESENTATIVE GREEN asked whether any areas of government have both union and non-union personnel who could be activated by order of the governor. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN referred to Section 2, the applicability section of the bill, and observed that it says until a collective bargaining agreement expires, people would only be covered by this Act [if that agreement is modified to accept the provisions of this Act]. He expressed concern about that happening for people who [work side by side]. MR. STEWART answered that it most likely would occur with an appointed supervisory or managerial employee working with unionized staff. He said he hadn't had personal conversations with representatives of collective bargaining over that, but that it would be difficult for him to foresee a situation in which there wouldn't be agreement with regard to some modification of the contract. Number 2660 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT noted that Section 3 makes the Act retroactive to September 11, 2001. He asked how many state employees have been "swept into this arena" because of the events of September 11. MR. STEWART replied that when the bill was introduced, twenty- two employees had been activated; one potentially was affected by the legislation, and others were earning more in the military than from state employment. Since then, thirty to thirty-five more have been activated for some period of time. "Not many," he concluded, highlighting the difficulty with the fiscal note. Number 2754 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI read aloud from the e-mail she'd mentioned previously: Why should the guard receive special privileges and coverage when they're called to active duty? These people are paid to be in the guard, and still have regular jobs with benefits. They're well aware that they will be paid the same pay and benefits as the active-duty service personnel if they are needed during times of crisis. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI requested that Mr. Stewart respond. She also asked, when public employees in the reserves have been called up, whether [the state historically] has done anything for them in terms of compensation. Number 2801 MR. STEWART replied that in the past, [the state] did nothing, although statute and regulation allow payment of up to five days of "supplemented wage pay" for state employees activated by the governor's authority. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether that is under emergency orders. MR. STEWART affirmed that. He said for employees who are federally activated for training purposes, collective bargaining and regulation allow about 16.5 days a year of paid time off for dealing with that. He added, "Those are the only two provisions for wage or benefit supplementation in any event of activation." MR. STEWART informed members that there were a couple of things considered in conceiving this legislation. During the events surrounding September 11, 2001, people were activated nationwide and put into situations that hadn't occurred in the national guard setting previously. He indicated a number of states immediately passed legislation such that for periods of a year, six months, or even thirty days, wage supplementation for their employees would be set in place. He told members: We believed, in acting as an employer, that this was a good first step to take. The scope of the legislation is intended to allow this to be broadened to active- duty military personnel activated by the President if the governor so activates that administrative process. So the two-pronged answer is: we wanted to do it because we're an employer and it was a good employer thing to do, but the legislation is also set up so that if we wanted to include all active-duty military personnel, it could be done in the context of the administrative order. Number 2912 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI mentioned conversations in committee with Major General Oates regarding the evolving structure in the military and the heightened role of the guard in the state, who are doing a lot more now and having a lot more asked of them. She suggested that there could be situations when guard members are called up for long periods of time, which she indicated could cost the state a lot, even though it is worth it. TAPE 02-19, SIDE B Number 2976 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether [this bill] is fairly comparable to what other states have adopted. MR. STEWART replied yes, indicating he could provide a list of states and their related legislation. In reply to a question from Chair Chenault, he said roughly 13 states have enacted legislation "over and above their normal military training time"; he mentioned 22 days for national guard service or training. He went on to say 2 states already had comprehensive military-leave statutes beyond the scope of Alaska's. Number 2896 DEBRA GERRISH, noting that she is the wife of an Army officer in the national guard, informed members that she'd done research and had some real concerns. She explained that when someone is called up for military service, dependents aren't covered [for medical insurance] unless the orders are for 180 days or more; for example, some families currently lack coverage although [the military family member] was called up the previous October. Ms. Gerrish stressed the importance of medical coverage, including coverage for preexisting conditions, which she said the military insurance doesn't like to cover. She said she'd been told that Juneau residents are lucky because there is a medical clinic, whereas people who live in Haines, Petersburg, and Wrangell have no clinic to turn to. MS. GERRISH requested that if committee members feel uncomfortable about the pay in the bill, they perhaps divide it in half. She said the health insurance is what the families really need. Because her husband is an officer, she indicated her family can survive financially with less money, but pointed out that a family headed by a private or sergeant won't be in the same boat, since it costs a lot to live in Alaska. Therefore, families need the military pay to be equal to what they earn at the state level, if possible, but barring that, must have the health insurance. MS. GERRISH provided the name of the national guard health insurance person, Michelle (ph) Schuller of Anchorage, phone number (907) 428-6483. She cited the example of her own daughter as someone who has asthma attacks. She asked members to think seriously about the bill and consider the families, and again emphasized that people who were called up in October are having a hard time making ends meet. Number 2689 MS. GERRISH, in response to questions from Representative Murkowski and Chair Chenault, said it's only if the military orders say 180 days or more that [dependents] get any health insurance at all. "We get zero as it stands now," she added. The soldiers become covered as soon as they're called up, but dependent coverage is based on how long the soldier is called up for. If the person is a state employee with medical coverage, that coverage ends on the last day of the month during which the person is called up. When someone goes on military duty, his/her job is saved, but the person no longer is considered a state employee. Number 2542 MS. GERRISH, addressing questions about coverage for preexisting conditions, specified that she was talking about CHAMPUS [Civilian Health and Medical Program Uniformed Service], the military insurance. If her husband is called up for 180 days or more, the family goes to military insurance, which doesn't cover her daughter's asthma or Ms. Gerrish's epilepsy. She noted that her husband right now is learning how to handle hazardous materials because of the terrorist attacks [of September 11]; citing this four-day training as an example of extra days people are required to put in, she said her husband is covered because the time is within the 16.5-day limit discussed earlier, which is already in place in Alaska. It is when the duty goes past that amount [that coverage becomes a problem]. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI thanked Ms. Gerrish for providing real- life examples that illustrate the bill. Number 2367 MR. STEWART, in response to a question from Representative Hayes, explained that an employee who leaves state service and becomes unpaid by the state - whether "separated" from state service or not - is covered by medical insurance for that entire [calendar] month; a person may be in leave-without-pay status on the first day of the month, however, so that no health insurance contribution is made. He noted that COBRA [Comprehensive Omnibus Budget Reform Act] insurance may be purchased in order to continue coverage, but there is no provision for paying the COBRA premium, an expensive item for families who have state coverage. He told members: But there's certainly the liberal use of paid leave for putting people in pay status on lengthy military leave on the first day of the month, so that those premiums are made or, as ... the bill would provide under certain circumstances, the actual payment of ... the employer's [portion] of the premium throughout the period of service. MR. STEWART, in response to questions from Chair Chenault, said there is an option [to pay] the employee's portion, too, in order to continue that person's current coverage. Number 2262 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that page 1 gives discretion to determine whether people will receive some or all of their state benefits. She asked how that would work. MR. STEWART specified that the intent of the legislation is that the decision would be at the gubernatorial level through an administrative order. The flexibility is to decide whether to order health insurance, retirement, health insurance and retirement, or just wages. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI highlighted Ms. Gerrish's suggestion that, above all, there should be health benefits. MR. STEWART, in response to questions from Chair Chenault, said the administrative order would be issued for a specific incident and [the decision about what benefits to provide] would be per incident, covering the group of employees called. Number 2157 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI pointed out the problem mentioned by Ms. Gerrish: an officer's family can get buy on an officer's salary, but really needs the health benefits because of preexisting conditions, for example, whereas a private's family may need the wages even more. Representative Murkowski said she'd like to see some flexibility, but didn't know whether such flexibility could be worked into it. REPRESENTATIVE GREEN suggested it would be dicey for the same call-up and expressed concern about prejudicial use. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI mentioned doing it through regulation. CHAIR CHENAULT surmised that it would have to be done by group, rather than individually. Number 2082 MR. STEWART clarified that this is intended to supplement the wages of people who would make less while on military duty; for that reason, a person who isn't earning less won't be dealt with [under the bill]. It is for those who would be worse off. Number 2057 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES surmised that the fiscal note is indeterminate and asked about cost estimates. MR. STEWART reported that the first fiscal note [calculation] was $400 for one individual, but that he'd be embarrassed to submit a fiscal note for that amount. Saying there's almost an "incident variation" that depends upon who has been called up and the duration, he invited dialogue to deal with concerns about duration before this bill moves to another committee. Number 2004 REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked what is shown by a handout [a side-by-side comparison of the various states, dated 12/10/01] provided by Mr. Stewart. [The three columns were headed: "Military pay augmentation"; "Health Coverage continuation, non- COBRA"; and "Other Arrangements?"] MR. STEWART replied that the question asked of the states' "personnel people" who responded was, "What do you have in place in addition to the training leave that's commonly negotiated?" The survey went out two weeks after September 11 [2001], he noted, and there was no subsequent follow-up. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI, still discussing the side-by-side comparison, asked whether there should be something in Alaska's blank columns, since the state allows for leave with pay for the 16-day period. MR. STEWART said everybody has that; it was "grandparented in" through collective bargaining. He'd have put something [in the columns for Alaska] if something else were in place, he noted. Number 1910 MS. GERRISH informed members that her family had figured out they could manage to live [on the officer's salary] but couldn't pay COBRA as well. She suggested imagining how it would be for [the family of] a private or sergeant. REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted that the side-by-side comparison shows that many states have a reference to COBRA. She asked whether that means that states are picking up the COBRA costs. MR. STEWART said no. He clarified that "COBRA only" on the handout refers to the federal requirement that employee benefits be continued, but it is at the employee's expense. CHAIR CHENAULT asked whether anyone else wished to testify; there was no response. Number 1796 REPRESENTATIVE KOTT moved to report HB 327 out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying indeterminate fiscal note. There being no objection, HB 327 was reported from the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|