Legislature(2009 - 2010)BELTZ 105 (TSBldg)
03/25/2010 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SCR16 | |
| SB258 | |
| SB303 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 258 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SCR 16 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 303 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SB 303-WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND CONTRACTORS
2:11:25 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN called the meeting back to order at 2:11 and
announced SB 303 to be up for consideration. He said he was
advancing this particular legislation and would be presenting it
to the committee. He said:
The intent of this bill is to address responsibility
and accountability, which are core values that are
promoted by SB 303. I submit that this bill advances
conservative principles and fundamental capitalism. It
does this by requiring owners and general contractors
and others to comply with the basic principle "if you
break it you pay for it."
Under this, if an owner or general contractor is 25
percent at fault they are only responsible for 25
percent of the injury damages.
He pointed out that as a nation 250 years ago, we fought a war
challenging the concept that "the king can do no wrong." Our
nation was formed based upon the concept that our government
should be responsible and accountable to its citizens for
government's wrongful conduct. In Alaska, the general concept
has been that immunity of our sovereign is the exception rather
than the rule. In other words, governments may be responsible
for their wrongful conduct to the citizens of Alaska. When
wrongful conduct exists, responsibility and accountability for
that wrongful conduct should attach. SB 303 removes immunity
which protects the privileged from the consequences of their
wrongful conduct.
SENATOR BUNDE said he is a veteran of several workers'
compensation vigorous discussions, and asked if he was correct
in believing that in 2004 the Legislature said subcontractors
(subs) have to be responsible for workers' compensation for
their employees and the generals, therefore, would not be
responsible. And that Senator Paskvan's goal is to say that subs
aren't responsible but the generals are.
CHAIR PASKVAN said no. "The intent is is that each employer is
responsible for complying with the law, which means that they
must have workers' compensation coverage."
SENATOR BUNDE remarked, "So, subs and generals will have..."
CHAIR PASKVAN answered, "All employers whether - however they
might be classified - whether they're a general contractor,
first tier subcontractor, second tier subcontractor - all
employers would remain obligated under the law to purchase
workers' compensation coverage."
SENATOR BUNDE asked if that seemed to be double coverage in some
cases.
CHAIR PASKVAN replied, "The employer is covering each employer's
employees. So, there is no double coverage in that regard."
2:15:39 PM
SENATOR MEYER asked if he is the general and he hires Senator
Bunde as the sub, who is responsible for purchasing workers'
compensation.
CHAIR PASKVAN answered the sub would be responsible for
purchasing workers' compensation coverage for the sub's
employees.
SENATOR MEYER asked, "So, the general is not responsible? The
subcontractor would be the responsible party?"
CHAIR PASKVAN answered that the subcontractor is supposed to by
law purchase workers' compensation for his employees. One of the
problems now is that the system is being scammed by subs who are
not purchasing it because they can bid work for less, which
constitutes an unfair bidding practice. This type of problem
arises when someone is provided a financial incentive to not
comply with the law by not purchasing workers' compensation
coverage.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if he also said that the generals would have
to have workers' compensation.
CHAIR PASKVAN responded, "For the general's employees."
SENATOR BUNDE asked, "And the sub is not an employee of the
general?"
CHAIR PASKVAN replied, "The sub is not an employee of the
general. That is why they have simply a business contract
relationship not an employment contract relationship."
SENATOR BUNDE said that current law requires subs to have
workers' compensation.
CHAIR PASKVAN replied, generally speaking, yes. The intent of
this bill is to remove the immunity that would apply if an
employee's injury were to result from wrongful conduct of an
owner or a general contractor.
SENATOR BUNDE said he thought he understood now. "The general
will have to buy workers' compensation for potential employees
and, in effect, the general contractor becomes the state agency
that enforces his subs to buy workers' compensation, because if
they don't it's going to fall back on the general."
CHAIR PASKVAN responded, "For purposes of the removal of
immunity it would not be covered under the workers' compensation
policy."
SENATOR BUNDE apologized for being so obtuse.
CHAIR PASKVAN added further, "If there is accountability and
responsibility for wrongful conduct, the general contractor's
liability coverage would be responsible to the employee of the
subcontractor for that general contractor's apportioned or
allocated fault."
SENATOR BUNDE said he thought he now understood that what
Senator Paskvan was saying was that he, as a general contractor
who employs Senator Meyer, and doesn't supervise him adequately
and he doesn't have workers' compensation and there is an
injury; it's going to fall back on himself because he didn't
enforce state law on Senator Meyer.
CHAIR PASKVAN responded, "We're somewhat talking about two
different things here. The question is whether your conduct as a
general contractor is wrongful conduct. And if that conduct was
wrongful, an employee of the subcontractor injured or caused
injury to an employee, then your wrongful conduct would be
accountable under the law."
SENATOR BUNDE quipped, "Could you title this the attorney's full
employment bill?"
CHAIR PASKVAN responded, "I think that it's a citizen's right to
redress grievances for wrongful conduct."
SENATOR BUNDE asked if this bill was trying to fix the problem
that some subs buy workers' compensation and some don't and
there may or may not be generals that knowingly or unknowingly
employ these subs who don't buy workers' compensation.
CHAIR PASKVAN replied that it's broader than that in the sense
that "it removes immunity that currently says there are
privileged or special interests that are not accountable and not
responsible for their wrongful conduct that injures someone
else."
SENATOR THOMAS said the bill gets at two issues. One is that
you're supposed to have workers' compensation insurance and
you're supposed to post it. It is posted the in Tom Stewart
Legislation Office Building. So, if a general overlooks those
types of things, and in fact the subcontractor does not have
workers' compensation, then they would be responsible.
The second part is in reference to Legal Service Opinion 3 that
says someone could be criminally negligent and be exempt from
obligation to the injured parties based on the existing statute.
SB 303 changes that. He knew of an example where a general
contractor actually supervised the subcontractor and indicated
that a particular situation was safe because they were the ones
responsible for purging a tank; the tank blew up and someone was
killed. In fact, they were responsible; the sub only sent their
workers in to do the work based on the general contractor's
certification that the tank had been purged and it was a safe
working environment. In fact, it was found that it was not.
He summarized that the bill gets at those two situations: one
where no workers' compensation exists for the subcontractor and
second where there is what could be considered, and often times
is, criminal or negligent behavior on behalf of the general
contractor beyond the ability of the subcontractor to recognize
or know.
SENATOR BUNDE said in that example the losses would probably
have been covered by workers' compensation, assuming the sub was
obeying the law. This would give those that suffered a loss
another opportunity for recovery.
SENATOR MEYER responded, "Correct."
2:24:28 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN said the question ultimately is whether workers'
compensation is designed to be a full compensation system - and
it is unquestionably not. For example, if you have a unmarried
25 year-old and he was killed, under Alaska's workers'
compensation law the total workers' compensation benefits are
reasonable funeral expenses currently set at $5000. That is the
maximum recovery a family could consider receiving for the death
of their son for someone else's wrongful conduct. He said most
people would find that somewhat less than moral.
CHAIR PASKVAN, finding no further questions, welcomed Trena
Heikes, director for the Division of Workers' Compensation to
the committee and asked her to explain what benefits are
provided under the workers' compensation system and how that
might differ from accountability outside of the system.
2:25:22 PM
TRENA HEIKES, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), explained
that workers' compensation is always required of any business
that hires employees. The 2004 amendments didn't change that. In
her 25-year history of litigating for employers on workers'
compensation before taking this job she found that there has
always been always been a "subcontractor under clause," which is
what she thought Senator Bunde was referring to. It means if the
sub doesn't carry insurance, then those above him would have to
pick it up. That just transfers the burden up to insure that the
employees of the subcontractor would be covered.
What happened in 2004 was that regardless of whether the project
owner or the contractor above that sub paid for the workers'
compensation they would were put into "the chain of potential
liability" and, therefore, given employer status which exempted
them from any negligence that may occur on the job site. For
example, an incident happened in 2007 where two young men were
killed in a crane accident. Workers' compensation death benefits
were paid, but the estates could take no action against the
negligent project owner because of the 2004 amendment.
MS. HEIKES said that workers' compensation would still exist,
but this bill would give the employee the right to sue the third
party who caused the negligence. This right is allowed
everywhere else in workers' compensation law. The only exception
is in the construction area because of the 2004 amendment.
She also said there would be no double recovery and explained
that if the subcontractor carried insurance in that example, the
project owner would get an "offset" for the amount that was paid
by workers' compensation benefits in that litigation (language
in another section).
MS. HEIKES gave an example of what the 2004 amendments did: she
is an employee and Senator Bunde runs into her while she is
driving her vehicle on a normal day. She can sue him in tort for
negligence. However, if she was running errands (construction
related) for her employer and the project owner or the
contractor ran into her, she couldn't sue him. Her limitation
would be under workers' compensation laws.
MS. HEIKES explained that was the trade off when workers'
compensation was developed. Employers would pay regardless of
fault, but there would be a cap on the damages - no pain and
suffering or lost future wages once medical stability is
reached. Under the act the worker could go to vocational
training or permanent impairment.
2:29:53 PM
SENATOR BUNDE said that was his understanding - everyone would
pay but you have immunity from suit, because it was a trade off.
And if this legislation passes, he assumed that generals would
stop buying workers' compensation if they don't have any direct
employee because it wouldn't give them immunity from a lawsuit.
MS. HEIKES responded that they would still carry workers'
compensation because under the Workers' Compensation Act they
would still be responsible for the "contractor under" as she
explained before. If their subs don't have insurance they want
to make sure they are insured.
SENATOR BUNDE said, "So, everybody gets the bargain except the
general then - the bargain being we're going to pay but we're
immune from suit. So, we're saying okay the workers' comp's
bargain is broken for some people."
MS. HEIKES replied that was one way of putting it. The other way
is to say that in the construction arena those injured workers
are limited and unable to seek redress for negligence that
occurred in the work place.
SENATOR BUNDE asked if negligence occurred with a sub, if there
would be limited opportunity to seek redress for that
negligence.
MS. HEIKES replied, "If it's solely the employer's negligence,
that's correct." She said she didn't follow his argument. The
bargain isn't broken, because they are not employers of that
individual. The law says general contractors have an obligation
to make sure every sub, when he submits a bid, shows proof of
insurance for workers' compensation, because otherwise he is
liable. If he's not doing that it's a risk he's taking.
CHAIR PASKVAN added that in federal contracting you have to
produce certificates of coverage for many types of coverage. The
question is if there is a failure to comply with the law, what
should happen. The focus of this bill is the wrongful conduct of
a project owner or a general contractor that results in injury
to an employee of the subcontractor. Ultimately, the question is
whether responsibility and accountability for that wrongful
conduct should be the policy of the State of Alaska.
SENATOR BUNDE said hypothetically what if he is a subcontractor
and he has workers' compensation, but he does something stupid
and an employee is injured. That employee gets his workers'
compensation benefit, but then he cannot sue him separately
because he has purchased workers' compensation.
MS. HEIKES said that was correct.
SENATOR BUNDE continued the hypothetical saying now he's a
general contractor, something happens, there's an injury, they
can sue him if he has done something stupid or negligent. So,
the bargain is broken for generals, but not for subs.
MS. HEIKES said she thought he was confused because there is no
employment relationship between that general and the employee of
the sub.
SENATOR BUNDE said, "You use a technicality and break the
bargain or make sure you employ everybody that works for you."
CHAIR PASKVAN added that ultimately if the general makes sure
the subs comply with the law and have workers' compensation
coverage, he has zero risk of paying compensation premiums. The
only way they are subject to accountability for wrongful conduct
is if they engage in it and it hurts an employee of the
subcontractor or someone other than their employee. This does
not change the exclusive remedy provision of Alaska statute in
the sense of the direct employer/employee relationship. That
exclusive remedy of the workers' compensation statute remains
the same; it just removes from the definition of employer those
that are not true employers.
SENATOR BUNDE said he understood where he was going, but he
didn't agree with it.
SENATOR MEYER asked if the administration is neutral on this
bill.
MS. HEIKES answered yes.
SENATOR MEYER said in 2004 this issue had a lot of support at
both the executive and the legislative level. It was part of a
special session that was very emotional and contentious. One of
the reasons they addressed this was because workers'
compensation was too expensive for contractors or they couldn't
even get it. Those costs were getting passed on and so then the
project costs just got higher. He asked if that was correct, and
if it is changed back, will costs go back up.
MS. HEIKES said she was in private practice at the time but
remembered that the reason wasn't motivated by cost of premium,
but rather by the indemnification clauses found in contracts
between contractors and project owners where the project owner
required the contractor to indemnify and hold him harmless for
any damages arising out of it. The contractor would have to pay
for the employees' workers' compensation losses but then the
employee would sue the project owner. The project owner would
request indemnification in that tort liability. In summary, she
said, the contractor was paying both, and that was the
motivation.
SENATOR MEYER said if he understood this bill correctly, they
wouldn't be going back to that situation.
MS. HEIKES replied that this language just removes the language
that was added in 2004.
CHAIR PASKVAN said they are also looking into the provisions
that wouldn't allow indemnifications for those at the very top
of the economic system to be imposed in contracts putting the
obligation on those towards the bottom of the economic chain. He
thought there were public policy issues if someone who is at
fault requires someone else to pay for it. Significant changes
have occurred to Alaska law in the last 20-30 years that deal
with indemnification for "knock for knock" and immunity issues
with respect to allocation of damages.
He said his intent today is to make people aware of the issues
that are important and ultimately to determine that those core
concepts of accountability and responsibility - conservative
principles of "if you break it you pay for it" should attach as
public policy of the state of Alaska. He also pointed out:
Under current workers' compensation law is the
obligation of reimbursement and if you are successful
in establishing accountability and responsibility and
recover for that wrongful conduct, the injured
employee's obligation under the law is to reimburse
the workers' compensation insurer. The intent of that
is to remove the burden from the workers' compensation
insurer which has the sole obligation now for even
others' wrongful conduct. And, you know, the question
is fundamentally is whether it's fair that a workers'
compensation insurer has to pay for a different
entity's fault. The intent of this would be - is that
if it is 100 percent of, for example, a general
contractor's fault, that the injured employee of the
subcontractor would obtain future lost wages, pain and
suffering. You know, an estate - the spouse can
recover loss of consortium - kids can get a recovery
for their loss of a parent. And as part of that the
injured or killed employee's estate reimburses the
workers' compensation insurance carrier out of those
proceeds. That is a balanced system. So, it is not in
any sense a double recovery system.
That is why also in the introduction is that if
someone is only 25 percent at fault, they are not 100
percent liable for damages. They are only responsible
and accountable for their allocated percentage. And I
think that that is part of "if you break it you pay
for it," but if you are only 25 percent at fault for
breaking it you only pay 25 percent. I think it's a
more appropriate public policy.
SENATOR MEYER commented that he is trying to understand the bill
and he is gun shy because a lot of blood has been shed already
over this issue. He asked if the percentage was determined by
the courts.
CHAIR PASKVAN replied that the Legislature about 20 years ago
enacted AS 09.17.080 which deals with allocation of wrongful
conduct. If there are multiple parties to such a litigation
allocation of fault is ultimately determined by a jury. If there
is only one defendant, then obviously the only parties are the
injured person and the person that is claimed to be at fault,
and the allocation is simply between those two entities. Under
Alaska's law, if a defendant believes that someone shares
responsibility, should they be found at fault, then the
defendant's obligation is to identify that potentially
responsible person, join them in the litigation so that then the
jury would have everyone that every party believes potentially
should share responsibility before the court. Then you rely upon
the good judgments of the citizens of the state to say who bears
what responsibility - including the plaintiffs if there is such
an allocation.
He said this bill is in no way designed to make it easier for a
plaintiff to recover or to adjust in any way the amount that he
would recover. In other words, if they are comparatively at
fault, they cannot recover for that percentage that might be
allocated to the plaintiff.
2:45:23 PM
SENATOR MEYER asked if he could assume that the jury would not
find both the sub and the general 100 percent responsible giving
the victim 200 percent.
CHAIR PASKVAN said it is the jury's duty to add the component
allocations of responsibility up to only 100 percent. Under the
original allocation of the fault statute certain limited
circumstances allow two or more persons to be considered as one
entity for the purposes of any particular percentage of fault.
That was removed so that each legal entity that is before the
court is responsible solely for their percentage.
MS. HEIKES added the 2004 amendment took out everyone who was
potentially liable in a "contractor under" situation from ever
having to pay for negligence.
2:47:38 PM
SENATOR BUNDE said you won't get more than 100 percent out of
workers' compensation, but if this passes a person has an
opportunity to sue in civil court where they could get hundreds
of thousands as well as the $5000 from workers' compensation. It
allows more recovery but in a different venue.
CHAIR PASKVAN replied that it is more recovery in the sense that
it would be the citizens' on a jury's determination of what is
appropriate and full compensation, which might include future
lost wages, which are prohibited under the compact. It might
include pain and suffering, loss of enjoyments of life. It is a
system that relies upon the good judgment of the citizens.
SENATOR BUNDE recalled the judgment for McDonalds' hot coffee
and didn't share his confidence.
MS. HEIKES added that this bill is the only one that prohibits a
victim access to the tort fees in the litigation system because
of the employment relationship on the construction site.
CHAIR PASKVAN said that is important to consider when moving
forward.
2:50:16 PM
MICHELLE KAHLE, representing herself, said she supported SB 303,
because it repeals and rectifies the grave errors of the Seekins
amendment of 2004. She said it was painful for her to testify
because her son Tyler and his co-worker were killed when the man
lift they were in collapsed at the Rock Creek Mine in Nome in
July of 2007. The man lift had been set there for over three
days improperly and unsafe. All parties responsible for
management ignored it until it was too late.
She clarified that her testimony today would not help in any
litigation, but rather she felt compelled to share her pain so
that some other mother doesn't have to suffer the same in the
future. She said this issue has many different facets which she
thought was partly the reason the Seekins amendment was passed
in 2004. Prior to that, project owners and contractors carried
liability insurance which protected them, but post-Seekins they
still have this expense. The cost of their liability insurance
has not changed.
Prior to the Seekins amendment, employees who were injured or
killed due to negligence at work could bring a legal action
against all responsible parties except that employer who
provided the workers' compensation under which they are
exempted. Post-Seekins employees have no recourse. They have to
be happy with the benefits that are provided by workers'
compensation alone regardless of the negligence of project
owners and contractors. They are now immune from any litigation
and they don't even have to buy a workers' compensation policy.
2:54:27 PM
MS. KAHLE said she wanted to give them a little background so
they understand that the actions of these laws have a real
effect. Tyler was their only child; his life was priceless to
them. His life was worth $5000 according to the Alaska workers'
compensation law. In the fall of 2006 he was only 19 years old
and was completing his first semester in college. He came home
very happy and announced that he had gotten a job opportunity in
Alaska and he was going to take a semester off and go to work.
They protested and wanted him to stay at home and in school, but
they knew they couldn't financially help him through college and
they were also afraid that he might find Alaska irresistible and
stay.
He said he was either going to go to Iraq or Alaska - and he
said, "Mom, you decide." She asked which option they would have
picked to bring him home safely. On January 2007 he went to
Alaska. He smiled and said, "What's wrong, Mom, I'm not going to
Iraq." But she said, "He came home in a box just the same."
MS. KAHLE said the owner and the contractor of the project he
was working on were responsible for safety compliance. On the
day of the accident the project manager actually took a picture
of the lift, at 2:24 p.m., precariously leveled with timbers
sitting there for the last three days. They obviously felt the
positioning of the lift was so dangerous that they felt they
needed to take a picture of it. Yet, no one bothered to prevent
her son's co-worker, Craig Bagley, from going back up in it
after taking the picture. Tyler innocently entered the lift for
just a ride to the ground. He wasn't even working in it. He left
his safety harness and as they started to descend, it came
crashing down catapulting the men to their deaths. At 10:30 p.m.
Wisconsin time their phone rang. She answered it expecting their
nightly call from Tyler. Instead of hearing the details of his
day, she received the details of his death.
They were told that they were only entitled to a $5000 funeral
benefit; and incidentally his funeral cost $14,000. Then they
found out that all of their other rights to sue responsible
parties were no longer there. They were taken away in 2004. She
said, "We found in Alaska it's cheaper to kill an employee than
to train them." She guaranteed them that it cost the employer
and the project owner more than the $5000 they had to pay for
Tyler's funeral to train the remaining staff properly after he
died. She asked what incentive there is to expend money to train
employees and for management to be safe when they are required
to pay for their workers' compensation premiums anyway. "Killing
an employee due to negligence didn't cost them an additional
cent."
MS. KAHLE said the contractor who was supervising the quality
and condition of the project was not responsible for anything;
the project owner was responsible for nothing. The 2004
amendment took away employees' right to sue, as well as justice.
Usually when a law is changed and it takes away somebody's
benefits it gives them something in return. This did nothing for
the employee whatsoever; it only benefited contractors and
project owners. That in itself should have been a red flag.
2:59:00 PM
She said most businesses today at the very least have $1 million
in general liability insurance. If her son had been killed
getting a tour of the project instead of working there, his life
would have been valued differently. Why? "Is my son's life worth
less because he was killed by the negligence at work instead of
in an automobile crash?" In hindsight she said she wished she
would have picked Iraq because, "Evidently it's safer to go to
war than to work in Alaska."
3:01:01 PM
JOHN LEWIS, President, Iron Workers Local 751, Anchorage,
supported SB 303. He said the 2004 amendment changed AS
43.30.055 to provide immunity to project owners and general
contractors from legal challenges by workers injured while
working on the job. Prior to this change to the Workers'
Compensation Act, an injured worker retained the right to pursue
other companies and employers through legal action as a result
of their negligence.
One of the outrageous arguments used to push the passage of this
amendment was that it would prevent double dipping by the
injured worker - in short keeping a worker from receiving
workers' compensation benefits as well as winning in court in a
civil suit. In reality, this argument was a red herring since AS
23.30.015 was already in place and clearly stated if a worker
did, in fact, receive money through court action, any benefit
received through workers' compensation would be repaid;
therefore, eliminating any double dipping.
What this law really did was create a path for general
contractors and project owners to cut corners on safety with no
fear of financial loss to the victims of accidents - while at
the same time allowing them the ability to sue down or sue
subcontractors for the very type of accident that they
themselves are now protected from by this statute. For example,
the iron worker industry is one that is affected by enormous
workers' compensation rates due to the extreme risk involved.
The way AS 23.30.055 is now written if an iron worker is hurt by
the action of someone else, his employer would now be the one
who would bear the cost. One accident could very easily raise
the employer's workers' compensation rate to where they are no
longer able to compete in the very competitive bidding process
of steel erection. "Why should the person responsible for an
injury not be the responsible person when it comes time to pay
for that situation?" If you cause an accident, then you are the
one who should be responsible for it.
MR. LEWIS said AS 23.30.055 as now written indemnifies everyone
else who may be the true responsible party while essentially
shifting the blame or cost to the employer who very well may
have taken every step possible to safeguard their employees.
This section of the statute was formed to provide a clear path
for resolution in the event the worker was injured or killed on
the job. A means to clearly identify the worker's exclusive
remedies was to use workers' compensation insurance to take care
of costs to regain their health. Instead it has become a message
for general contractors and owners to push subcontractors to cut
corners on safety to reduce their overall costs.
He didn't want to accuse anyone of intentionally cutting costs
knowing they are going to hurt or kill someone, but he would say
that it's easy to cut costs in the hopes that nobody gets hurt.
"How many estimators do you know that would like their boss to
know they save money on the job? I would venture to say all of
them." In closing he respectfully asked for their support in
passing SB 303 which would simply restore AS 23.30.055 as it was
originally written prior to the 2004 change.
3:05:11 PM
KEVIN DOUGHERTY, Alaska Laborers, Eagle River, supported SB 303.
He said he worked in 1981 on the ad hoc committee for workers'
compensation, served on Governor Hickel's workers' compensation
committee in 1990 and has had a couple of decades of experience
working in the field. He wanted to make three points in favor of
the bill. First is that Alaska's workers' compensation law has
been founded on very traditional values since it was enacted in
1915. A message to the Legislature from the Governor in 1915
states those bedrock values of respecting both employees and
employers. This has been the act's history until this loophole
was created in 2004 and exempted people with an evasive
definition of parties. This bill would close that loophole that
never should have occurred.
He said he was very much aware of the special session in 2004
that Senator Meyer and Senator Bunde mentioned, but that was
separate from this issue. He said SB 303 would restore that rule
of basic equality for all Alaskans to have access to the courts
if they are injured or if they have a son who was killed on the
job.
Secondly, he said SB 303 would be an incentive for safety. In
the real world of construction or any industry, you promote
safety by having responsible parties be responsible for their
own actions. "It's the best tool we can have. And it has worked
well, I'm pleased to say, if you look at the amount of people
that have died on the job or been injured." Those numbers have
really come down in the past 20-30 years.
3:08:02 PM
Finally, he said, this bill really assures that the definition
of "employer" should only be for true employers. It is not
forthright or honest to say that someone is an employer by
definition when they aren't; the public would consider
artificial terms deceptive. The system of having the actual
employer be entitled to the treatment of exclusive remedy was a
good one and has worked for almost 100 years, since 1915. This
bill would correct an injustice that occurred with the 2004
amendment.
CHAIR PASKVAN asked him to provide the committee a copy of the
historical overview he referenced earlier.
3:10:17 PM
CHAIR PASKVAN said he would not close public testimony and held
SB 303. Finding no further business to come before the committee
he adjourned the meeting at 3:11 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|