Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
03/19/2015 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB6 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 6 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 6-EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE FOR VETS & SPOUSES
1:05:19 PM
CHAIR HERRON announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 6, "An Act relating to a voluntary preference for
veterans and for spouses and domestic partners of veterans by
private employers."
1:05:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS) for HB 6, labeled 29-LS0042\N, Wayne, 3/19/15,
as the working draft.
1:05:38 PM
CHAIR HERRON objected for discussion purposes.
1:05:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK, speaking as the sponsor of HB 6, explained
that Version N removes ["spouses and domestic partners"] from
the bill because their inclusion would be a violation of the
[Civil Rights Act of 1964].
1:06:44 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, added that Version N expands the definition of
veteran to include members of the Alaska National Guard (AKNG).
1:07:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to the intent of the bill
and paraphrased from the following sponsor statement [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 6 removes barriers to employment for
veterans. According to a 2012 survey of veterans from
all eras, 64% of respondents said they had a difficult
transition from military service to civilian life,
attributed largely to employment challenges. As of
June 2014, nearly 600,000 veterans were unemployed.
The jobless rate for post- 9/11 veterans was 6.4%,
with young male veterans experiencing a jobless rate
of more than 12%. During 2013, Alaska saw over 2,000
military personnel separate from service and return
home and the Department of Defense has stated they
expect this number to rise in coming years. Many
states are making great strides to improve veteran
employment by removing professional licensing barriers
and crediting military education and experience.
However, employment ultimately depends on employers
providing workforce opportunities. Although forty
states and the District of Columbia award preference
to veterans who are being considered for hire to a
public position, private employers are prohibited from
establishing comparable business hiring policies.
House Bill 6 would allow an optional veteran hiring
preference for private employers by taking advantage
of an option available under the Civil Rights Act of
1964. To date, twelve states have adopted similar
legislation and is supported by the United States
Department of Defense.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK spoke of the "Helmets to Hardhats" program
which is a federal program that allows veteran preference for
applications into training programs. The program has found that
former military personnel have many qualities for employment,
for example, they are ready to learn and work hard in the
construction industry, are responsible, and have a great
attitude. Representative Tuck said HB 6 is an expansion of
optional veteran hiring preference for private employers.
1:11:22 PM
CHAIR HERRON asked what advantage HB 6 provides to a private
employer.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that a private employer would not
be in violation of the [Civil Rights Act] when hiring a veteran
over another applicant.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned what law makes it illegal to
hire a veteran over another applicant.
MS. KLOSTER explained that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 prohibits veteran preference by private employers unless
the language within HB 6 is enacted. Currently, instituting a
hiring preference for veterans could lead to a lawsuit against
private employers.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX inquired as to why the aforementioned
training programs are not illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said federal training programs differ from
an employer hiring an employee; an employer who wants to hire an
apprentice cannot use veteran preference.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX questioned whether ["spouse"] was removed
from the bill because although it is not a problem in federal
law, to give a preference to a military spouse is illegal under
current Alaska state law.
MS. KLOSTER said correct. Although four states included spouses
in their legislation, the [Alaska State Commission for Human
Rights] prohibits discrimination based on marital status;
therefore, Legislative Legal Services (LLS) has advised that the
original language in the bill held the potential to violate
Alaska law.
1:14:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked whether the [Alaska State Commission
for Human Rights] has written regulations.
MS. KLOSTER said yes. Alaska Statute [Title 18 Chapter 80]
prohibits discrimination based on marital status.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether LLS had provided a
written opinion in this regard.
MS. KLOSTER said no; however, LLS drafted the proposed committee
substitute.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES asked whether Alaska was one of the forty
states that allow veteran preference for public employees.
MS. KLOSTER said yes, and clarified that information in the
sponsor statement was incorrect; in fact, all 50 states allow
veteran preference for public employees.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES pointed out [in Version N, on page 1, line
15] the use of the word "may" directed at private employers, and
asked whether legislation directed to public employers uses
"may" or "shall."
1:16:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK was unsure. He noted the intent of the bill
was to provide an employer with a choice without violating the
[Civil Rights Act].
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG expressed his understanding that the
purpose of the bill is to comply with federal law, and without
HB 6, the state is in violation of federal law.
MS. KLOSTER answered no. At this time, under the Civil Rights
Act, [Title VII, section 11], each state can pass a law allowing
veteran hiring preference. She confirmed that if private
businesses hire based on veteran preference, they would be in
violation; however, there is enabling federal legislation that
allows HB 6.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested that since this law has been
adopted in all 50 states, the federal law should be changed.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK observed that changing federal law was
beyond the legislature's control.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG suggested a resolution may be in order.
1:18:10 PM
CHAIR HERRON opened public testimony on HB 6 and removed his
objection. There being no further objection, Version N was
before the committee.
1:18:43 PM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional Liaison, Office of the Deputy Assistant
Secretary of Defense for Military Community and Family Policy,
U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), said he is a retired U.S. Air
Force officer and DoD's regional liaison for Alaska. He said
his office has learned that many private sector employers would
like to hire veterans because of their skills, work ethic, and
reliability, but they are reluctant to do so in fear of being
sued under the Civil Rights Act, Title VII. He opined that
private sector employers are best suited to choose their
employees, and since the public sector has accepted veteran
preference hiring practices in all 50 states, HB 6 would allow
the private sector to equitably compete for the talents of
returning veterans. Mr. San Souci recalled that the National
Conference of State Legislators (NCSL) Military and Veterans
Affairs Task Force has advocated for private sector protection.
He relayed that data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, U.S.
Department of Labor, reported in February 2015, the unemployment
rate for veterans aged 18-24 years was 18.7 percent versus 11.6
percent for non-veterans, and for veterans aged 25-44 years, the
unemployment rate was 7.4 percent versus 5.7 percent for non-
veterans. For the near future, there will be more highly-
trained veterans coming to Alaska to return to civilian life,
and he urged that the committee move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX understood that there are certain
categories or groups that employers cannot discriminate against;
for example, it is illegal to not hire someone based on race,
religion, or marital status. However, she questioned whether it
is illegal to give a preference to someone because one likes
their looks. She remarked:
So I guess I'm wondering, whether or not, if under our
current law, whether if somebody just wants to hire a
veteran whether that really is, is illegal.
1:24:23 PM
MR. SAN SOUCI stated that if a private sector company wants to
hire veterans, and has a preference policy, "it can run counter
to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964." In fact, the
U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission interpreted many
veteran preference processes to have disparate impacts on women
and other groups. Thus, NCLS and DoD have embraced this
legislation so private sector employers can voluntarily have a
preference policy in alignment with state law.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked for the relevant statute.
MR. SAN SOUCI cited Title VII, section 11, of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG recommended that this problem be
brought to the attention of the Committee on Suggested State
Legislation, The Council of State Governments.
MR. SAN SOUCI said the first state to address this issue was
Washington, followed by Arkansas, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon,
South Carolina, and Virginia.
1:28:33 PM
RUSSELL BALL, Owner, ACD Solutions, said ACD Solutions is a
statewide IT service provider. The company's veteran employees
have been found to be some of its top employees because of their
skills, work ethics, and other qualities which are beneficial to
small businesses. Currently, ACD Solutions is unable to include
a veteran preference hiring process through its advertising or
recruitment materials. Mr. Ball said HB 6 would allow his
company to communicate its veteran preference and accomplish two
goals: to show an appreciation for the service of veterans and
allow employers to attract desired employees, and to support
veterans' transitions from military service to civilian life and
work.
[Additional written public testimony was included in the
committee packet.]
1:31:47 PM
CHAIR HERRON, after ascertaining that no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 6.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK directed attention to AS 39.25.159
Employment Preference For Veterans and Former Prisoners of War.
He paraphrased language in [subsection (a)] of the statute as
follows:
What they use the term "shall" for is when scoring and
assessing an applicant, that they shall score 5
percent preference, 5 percent of their score,
additionally, for those who are veterans, and 10
percent for those who happen to be prisoners of war in
the past. So it doesn't say you shall hire them, but
it does say you shall give them a preference score in
those two conditions.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK concluded, pointing out that his training
organization grants veterans with electrical experience direct-
entry into the program, and grants an interview for all others
with military experience. He restated the many qualities of a
military background, and opined that HB 6 would provide benefits
to private employers. Finally, he said, "As Americans, we like
to take care of those who take care of us, and why not do
something for those that sacrificed so much for our behalf?"
CHAIR HERRON posed the situation in which a private employer has
two candidates of equal qualifications - one who is a veteran
and one who is not - and asked whether HB 6 requires the
employer to hire the veteran.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said no, it does not.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined the bill would also protect
employers from being sued for discrimination.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that is correct.
1:36:36 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the
Commissioner/Adjutant General, in response to Chair Herron,
confirmed by nodding his head that the Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs had no position on the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HUGHES expressed her support for preference for
veterans in hiring which may contribute to veterans'
productivity and fulfillment.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether the sponsor was aware of
any related lawsuits, or of the possible need for a
retroactivity clause.
MS. KLOSTER said she asked this question of representatives from
DoD and NCSL, and was not informed of any past or pending
lawsuits. She agreed to notify the committee in this regard.
1:39:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSHB 6, Version 29-
LS0042\N, Wayne, 3/19/15, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal notes. There
being no objection, CSHB 6(MLV) was reported out of the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB6 Supporting Documents-DoD Vet Hire Protect.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Supporting Documents-Letter Dept of Defense.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Supporting Documents-NCSL Report.Giving Veterans Hiring Preference..pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Supporting Documents-Report on Veterans Employment Challenges.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Supporting Documents-DoD Best Practices Report.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 - Supporting Document - Veteran Hiring Protection Facts.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Fiscal Note - DOLWD 3.13.15.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Sectional Analysis.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 Fiscal Note - OOG HRC 3.13.15.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |
| HB6 - CS Version N - Legislation.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
|
| HB6 - Supporting Document - Letter Dixie Banner.pdf |
HMLV 3/19/2015 1:00:00 PM |
HB 6 |