Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/14/2017 03:00 PM House STATE 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 | |
HB91 | |
HB3 | |
Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+= | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
+ | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 3-NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS 3:40:25 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the employment rights of employees in the state who are members of the National Guard of another state, territory, or district of the United States." [Before the committee was committee substitute (CS) for HB 3 (MLV).] 3:40:58 PM REPRESENTATIVE TUCK presented HB 3, as prime sponsor. He relayed that HB 3 would allow for employment rights of employees of the state who are members of the National Guard of another state, territory, or district of the United States. He paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement, which read [original punctuation provided]: House Bill 3 seeks to correct a deficiency in employment protections for Alaskans who are serving in the National Guard. This is a nationwide effort to ensure those who serve their nation for all 50 states when called to duty - regardless of their service location - will have reemployment rights to their Alaskan civilian job after completing the various critical duties when called by a governor for state active duty. The National Guard is a hybrid state-federal entity. While National Guard members are subject to federal call to duty by the President of the United States, they can also be called up for state active duty by the Governor to respond to state emergencies such as fires, tornadoes and floods. The federal law Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of the Army or Air National Guard when they are called away from their civilian jobs for federal service. However, USERRA does not apply when a National Guard member must leave their job for state active duty. If National Guard members are to have reemployment rights after state active duty, it must be through state law. Alaska currently has a law that applies to employment protections to the public and private employees. However, it is explicitly limited to members of the Alaska Army or Air National Guard. There are several Alaskan residents who serve in the National Guard of another state. These Alaskans currently do not have the reemployment protections for their employment. By passing House Bill 3, we will extend the employment protections to Alaskans who are serving in any National Guard. The Department of Defense has identified this legislation as a key quality of life issue and is actively seeking to make this policy change across the nation. So far, 28 other states have passed similar legislation and 3 other states are taking it up this session. 3:43:22 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for an explanation as to why an Alaskan would be serving in another state's National Guard and not Alaska's. He also asked how many people would be impacted by HB 3. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that there are many Alaskan workers, who live and raise families in Alaska, but are members of the National Guard in other states. He asserted that if those guard members are called back to the state in which they serve, then HB 3 would enable them to resume their employment in Alaska upon return, like a Guard member who was called to serve oversees by the President of the United States. 3:44:38 PM KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of HB 3, relayed that recent data from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) identified 33 individuals in Alaska who serve in the National Guard in 19 other states. She conceded that this number is the result of self-reporting, and there may be more. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for clarification on how this situation occurs. He asked if someone, who served in the National Guard of another state and moved to Alaska, would have the opportunity to transfer his/her National Guard affiliation to Alaska. MS. KLOSTER responded that there is a process for transferring to another state's National Guard, and some members are called back to the original state of service before the process is complete. 3:46:27 PM ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military & Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), cited reasons why members of the National Guard would be living in one state and performing guard duty in another. He explained that often the civilian professional personal life of a guard member "gets out of sync" with his/her military career. He relayed that this situation occurs most often with students, military spouses, and those with civilian careers requiring frequent work out of state. He stated that for professional reasons, guard members go out of state to get training and experience that cannot be obtained in Alaska. He added that this situation also occurs due to the time it takes to get into the Alaska National Guard (ANG). He contended that when he moved to Alaska, getting into ANG was an 11-month process. He mentioned that guard members leave the state for professional development. An Alaska guard member may start his/her career Outside in a position not available in Alaska, which would make him/her far more valuable to ANG upon return. MR. DOEHL related three personal examples in which his military career was out of sync with his personal life. After graduating from college, he moved to another state for a job while continuing to "drill" in his original state. After getting off active duty and finishing law school, he continued to affiliate with the [Army] Reserve in the Midwest while living in Washington, D.C., to finish command tour of the unit and transition for two years. When he moved to Alaska and was in the process of transferring to ANG, he continued to travel to Newport News, Virginia, to command a unit and maintain pilot proficiency. MR. DOEHL noted the money spent by the United States training him as a military pilot, which was "well into six figures." He also noted the money saved because he maintained his pilot proficiency in another state while he was in the process of joining the Alaska Air National Guard (AK ANG). He offered that "cross-state affiliation" may be common Outside, where one can drive across three states in an hour; however, for the guard member living in Alaska, the time, distance, and cost factors of an Outside National Guard affiliation highly incentivizes finding a path into ANG. He emphasized that DMVA supports HB 3 because it would be conducive to developing a professional militia in Alaska; it would allow a continuity of service for those Alaskans whose life plans require them to move Outside for a period; and it also would incentivize new Alaskans to remain engaged with the military from a prior affiliation, until they can become a member of ANG. He concluded that maintaining the participation and readiness of these guard members supports recruitment, saves money, and provides for a more capable National Guard serving Alaskans. 3:50:44 PM REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there are employers who won't take back employees who have been serving in the National Guard in another state. MR. DOEHL answered that since there is currently no mechanism in place to address this situation, no incidents have been brought to the attention of DMVA. He mentioned that USERRA protects [the employment of] guard members who have been mobilized for periods of service for federal duties. He mentioned that most state active duty is of short duration; however, in the case of [the after effects of] Hurricane Katrina, guard duty lasted for months, resulting in difficult decisions and adverse actions by employers. REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation that currently there are no guard members who have been denied the opportunity to return to his/her job. He suggested that HB 3 was introduced to be proactive and not to address any current situations. MR. DOEHL responded that is correct. 3:52:48 PM REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if a member of the National Guard serves one weekend per month and two weeks per year. He asked if a guard member, who is currently living in Alaska but is a member of another state's National Guard, flies back to that state with that frequency. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded yes. MR. DOEHL answered that the bare minimum participation averages one weekend per month and two weeks of continuous training. He offered that National Guard duty has not been at that "bare minimum" level of training since [the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001]. He added that in his case, to maintain flight proficiency, monthly and twice monthly training periods were required. He said that depending on the military occupational skills, some guard members can go out once a quarter for six days to fulfill the training requirements rather than monthly, to save time and expense. He added that there are already federal protections in place for drill weekends and annual training. He asserted that HB 3 would apply to state active duty for specific disasters and state needs. REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he didn't realize there was so much specialized training associated with the National Guard. He offered that by joining other states that allow the [employment] protection, Alaska would increase the number of guard members joining ANG, as opposed to maintaining their membership in another state's National Guard. He suggested that a guard member from another state would move to Alaska and keep up his/her out-of-state National Guard membership until he/she could transition to ANG. MR. DOEHL responded that the protections [in HB 3} would allow an individual to continue to participate with an Outside organization. He maintained, however, that travel time and cost incentivize affiliation in ANG for those guard members and added that Alaska is the best place to train. 3:56:18 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 3. MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison, U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), testified that 28 states are providing the protection that would be offered in HB 3 and three other states have introduced legislation. He offered the example of an Alaskan resident, who is a member of the National Guard in Washington or Oregon, being called up for 30 days to fight a forest fire. He suggested that without the protection that would be offered under HB 3, he/she might be fired because of his/her absence. He mentioned that DoD addressed this as a key issue three years ago. He reiterated that there are 33 self- reported guard members in Alaska serving in 19 other states. He went on to list the states: Alabama, Arkansas, California, Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. He added that these guard members are serving in the other states either for professional development or because they are in the process of transferring to ANG. He concluded that the intent of HB 3 is to protect those Alaskans who are doing that "good duty" of serving in the National Guard in other states. 3:59:44 PM CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 3. REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if HB 3 would apply to people who work two weeks on and two weeks off in Alaska and are members of a National Guard in another state. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes, because their place of employment is in Alaska. The proposed legislation would apply to Alaskan employers. REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that HB 3 was amended in the House Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting [of 2/2/2017] to insert a new subsection (h) under Section 3, which states that there would be an exemption for the reemployment rights of a guard member "if the employer's circumstances have changed, making employment impossible or unreasonable, or the employment would impose any undue hardship on the employer." He asserted that this amendment created a balance: making sure that a National Guard member, serving honorably, would have the ability return to his/her job if it didn't create any hardship on the employer at the same time. [HB 3 was held over.]
Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
---|---|---|
HB003 ver D 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Sponsor Statement 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Memo of Changes 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Fiscal Note DOLWD 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Fiscal Note MVA 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Supporting Document-Letter Dept of Defense 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
HB003 Supporting Document-Dept of Defense One Pager 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |