Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
04/19/2021 09:00 AM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB151 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 151 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE
April 19, 2021
9:02 a.m.
9:02:45 AM
CALL TO ORDER
Co-Chair Merrick called the House Finance Committee meeting
to order at 9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Neal Foster, Co-Chair
Representative Kelly Merrick, Co-Chair
Representative Dan Ortiz, Vice-Chair
Representative Ben Carpenter
Representative Bryce Edgmon
Representative DeLena Johnson
Representative Andy Josephson
Representative Sara Rasmussen
Representative Adam Wool
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bart LeBon
Representative Steve Thompson
ALSO PRESENT
Representative Ivy Spohnholz, Sponsor; Megan Holland,
Staff, Representative Ivy Spohnholz;
PRESENT VIA TELECONFERENCE
Patsy Westcott, Director, Division of Employment and
Training Services, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development; Lennon Weller, Economist and Unemployment
Insurance Actuary, Division of Research and Analysis,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
SUMMARY
HB 151 UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FOR COVID-19
HB 151 was HEARD and HELD in committee for
further consideration.
Co-Chair Merrick reviewed the agenda for the meeting.
HOUSE BILL NO. 151
"An Act relating to unemployment benefits during a
period of state or national emergency resulting from a
novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) outbreak; and
providing for an effective date."
9:03:08 AM
REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ, SPONSOR, introduced herself.
She relayed that the bill extended the provisions of HB 308
which the previous legislature passed to align with the
American Rescue Plan Act and did three things. First, it
waived the standard one week waiting period for receiving
benefits which would leverage $2.4 million in benefits for
Alaskans that was paid for entirely by the federal
government. Second, it extended the increase of the weekly
per-dependent benefit from $24 to $75 and removed the cap
of three dependents for which applicants could receive a
supplemental benefit. It was critical because some families
had more than three children in the State of Alaska. For
example, there was a family last year with seven children
in the news for whom the increase in the per-dependent
benefit was very important.
Representative Spohnholz reported that although things were
getting much better in Alaska, the state had not turned the
corner yet. According to the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DOL), Unemployment Insurance (UI)
claims in February were about 208 percent higher than last
year. Alaskans continued to suffer record unemployment
levels due to no fault of their own, and one-third of them
had children or people living with them with disabilities.
She clarified that UI was not Public Assistance or an
entitlement program. It was an insurance benefit that
Alaskans had paid into for years so it was available when
needed.
Representative Spohnholz continued that the State of Alaska
had the lowest wage replacement rates for UI. The benefit
of $51 per-dependent was temporary and targeted going to
Alaskan families that needed it. A temporary extension of
the benefits would provide some certainty for Alaskans,
particularly those with families and children and ensure
that no federal dollars were left on the table and support
Alaska's economic recovery. She was available for
questions.
Co-Chair Merrick indicated Representative Edgmon had joined
the meeting.
9:05:55 AM
MEGAN HOLLAND, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE IVY SPOHNHOLZ,
introduced herself. She read the sectional analysis:
Section 1: Removes the work search requirement for
applicants who cannot fulfill it as a result of a
COVID-19 outbreak and are otherwise eligible for
unemployment insurance (UI) benefits. Additionally,
this section waives the one-week waiting period before
applicants begin receiving UI benefits.
Section 2: Increases the per dependent UI benefit from
$24 per dependent to $75 per dependent. Additionally,
this section removes the existing cap of three
dependents for which applicants can receive a
supplemental benefit.
Section 3: Amends uncodified law to give the
Commissioner of Labor and Workforce Development
authority to adopt regulations necessary to implement
this act.
Section 4: Repeals the work search and one-week
waiting period waiver, (section 1), on September 6th,
2021.
Section 5: Repeals the increased per dependent
benefit, (section 2), on March 31st, 2022.
Section 6: Provides an effective date for sections 1-3
of the bill, retroactive to April 1, 2021.
Section 7: Provides for an immediate effective date.
Representative Edgmon asked about the nexus of the bill in
relation to the bill the committee would be hearing soon.
He wanted to understand the tie-in from Representative
Spohnholz's legislation to the American Rescue Plan Act.
Representative Spohnholz responded that the American Rescue
Plan Act had additional funding for wage replacement for
the one-week waiting period. She did not know about
additional pandemic-related unemployment assistance. She
indicated Patsy Westcott was available to provide more
details.
9:09:07 AM
PATSY WESTCOTT, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT AND
TRAINING SERVICES, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE
DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference), was aware that congress
was looking at some changes in how the UI Program would be
administered. Presently, she did not have any detail about
the potential provisions.
Representative Edgmon asked if the legislation would put
the state in a better position. He wondered if his
assumption was correct.
Ms. Westcott responded that the bill would align the date
of the waiting week waiver with the date proposed in
federal legislation. Based on forecasting by the
department, she anticipated that between April 1, 2021, and
the expiration proposed in HB 151 of September 6, 2021, the
state would have 10,825 new filers who would be the
beneficiaries of UI one week earlier than without a waiting
week provision. She confirmed that about $2.5 million in
federal dollars would benefit Alaskans.
Ms. Westcott commented on the dependent's allowance. She
indicated that the number of filers from one week to the
next changed as people came on or dropped off. She reported
that in the previous week of the just under 27,000 UI
clients that filed, 9,668 or them had one or more
dependents and would be the recipients of the enhanced
dependent's allowance if it were to be extended. She
thought it was highly possible for congress to make
additional changes to the Unemployment Insurance Program,
but she did not know what those would be.
Representative Edgmon believed the bill was very important.
He spoke about the cruise ship industry and how it had been
hit hard in the current year. In looking at the impact to
the hospitality and leisure industry, he thought jobs would
be greatly diminished. He spoke in support of the bill.
9:14:00 AM
Representative Wool asked about eligibility for seasonal
workers. He wondered if a seasonal worker could refile for
unemployment.
Ms. Westcott responded that regular state unemployment
benefits were based on wages that an individual earned
during their base period. She added that in order to be
eligible for back-to-back benefit years, sometime after
filing the first benefit year an individual had to return
to work and earn requalifying wages in order to be eligible
for the second benefit year. She agreed with Representative
Edgmon that there were many cases where individuals had
been unemployed for over a year and did not meet the
requalifying requirements.
Ms. Westcott continued that there were a number of federal
programs and extensions in play as a result of the CARES
Act and ARPA which have added additional weeks of benefits
and eligibility. She did not have the number of total weeks
at her fingertips but could provide a chart listing the
various programs and the number of weeks available for each
program. She suggested that while there were individuals
that might not qualify for a second benefit year of state
UI benefits, they were still receiving benefits under their
first benefit year because of all of the various federal
extension programs. Shae asked if she had answered the
representative's question.
Representative Wool responded in the positive. For a person
who was unemployed from the prior year, had various federal
extensions, and was still receiving benefits, he wondered
whether that person would have to apply again once their
benefits lapsed and remained out of work. He understood
that the bill would eliminate the one week waiting period.
However, it seemed that many people had waited more than
50 weeks. If someone was currently working but lost their
job, he wondered how long a person would have to wait to
receive their first unemployment benefit check.
Ms. Westcott responded to Representative Wool's question
about filing for another benefit year if a person's
benefits expired. She responded that before the state could
continue to pay a person from a federal program, the
department would have to run a test claim to make sure the
person was not eligible for regular state UI benefits.
Ms. Westcott had a copy of the chart she had referred to
earlier. It showed that under regular state UI benefits, a
person could receive state UI benefits for a maximum of
26 weeks. The Pandemic Emergency Compensation Program was
currently in play and paid benefits for a maximum of
53 weeks. Both benefits combined totaled 79 weeks. She
continued that Alaska had also triggered extended benefits
allowing for an additional 13 weeks. She suggested that a
year into the pandemic it was unlikely that many clients
had exhausted all the weeks available to them. She asked
the representative to repeat his second question.
Representative Wool commented that it appeared 92 weeks of
benefits might be available to a client. His second
question pertained to the timing of receiving an initial
payment of UI benefits.
Ms. Westcott explained that when someone filed for benefits
the week started on Sunday and ended on a Saturday.
Regarding UI benefits, in the case of an individual whose
last day of work fell on a Friday, wages were reported in
the week in which they were earned, not in the week in
which they were paid. For an individual whose last day was
on a Friday and they filed their claim immediately, their
effective date would be the Sunday prior and would not be
eligible for the first week because they had reported wages
for the first week. Under normal circumstances the first
week would be a person's waiting week and would not receive
benefits for the week. If the waiting week waiver provision
was in place, the first week of benefits would be payable.
They would file and receive benefits the following week.
Representative Wool reiterated that if a person lost their
job on Friday, Sunday would be their first week of
unemployment, they could file their claim on Monday and
receive their first check on the following Monday. He
thought in both the expedited and non-expedited process, a
person would receive their benefits in the same week.
Ms. Westcott replied that without the waiting week waiver
provision they would not be eligible for benefits for the
first week. The first week would be considered a person's
waiting week. They would be eligible the following week.
They would be in receipt of the benefits the following
week.
9:23:45 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if Ms. Westcott had data
regarding how many available jobs went unfilled. Ms.
Wescott responded that she would have to reach out to the
department's Research and Analysis Section to see if any
data was available.
Representative Carpenter asked if the administration
reached out to the employers of a person's previous job to
confirm they were still laid off or was it a self-reporting
system.
Ms. Westcott replied that when an individual filed an
initial UI claim, notification was sent to the employer to
determine the reason the individual was no longer employed.
From the time of layoff going forward the claimant had to
report every work application they submitted and to attest
that they remained unemployed due to a lack of work rather
than refusing an offer of work.
Representative Carpenter posed his question because he had
been hearing from constituents that they had had difficulty
finding people to come to work. They suspected it was due
to unemployment benefits. He thought he heard Ms. Wescott
report that the only way the state would know whether a
person receiving UI benefits was looking for work or had
refused a job offer, because they were self-reporting, was
through an investigation.
Representative Spohnholz clarified that if someone did not
accept a job that was available to them and they were
applying for and receiving benefits, it would be considered
unemployment fraud which was against the law. The person
would be prosecuted and the benefits would be taken back.
She also noted an additional testifier online that could
provide additional information or address questions about
unemployment's affect on people's willingness to return to
work. He had done some research in the topic.
Co-Chair Marrick indicated the committee would be hearing
from the testifier shortly. She invited Ms. Wescott to
address Representative Carpenter's question.
Ms. Westcott reported that the department had heard
employers were having difficulty getting individuals to
return to work after things started reopening. The state
had a refusal-of-suitable-work provision in statute which
stated that a person would be ineligible for benefits if
they refused an offer of bonified, suitable work without
good cause. The division issued a press release and reached
out to employers to let them know how to report those
issues to the department.
Ms. Westcott continued that the division also started
tracking the refusal-of-suitable-work cases. To-date, the
division had allowed 413 instances of refusal-of-
suitable-work. For example, there might not have really
been a job offer, or the work was really not suitable (the
individual did not have the skills or training to do the
job). She also reported that the division had denied 213
refusal-of-suitable-work cases. The division took the issue
very seriously, conducted investigations, and denied
benefits when appropriate.
9:29:37 AM
Representative Rasmussen referred to section 4 of the bill
which repealed the work search. She wondered why the
section was included, as there was a challenge of finding
people willing to apply to work based on the amount of
money the state paid recently in UI benefits.
Representative Spohnholz was open to the will of the
committee regarding the specific issue. She had taken all
of the provisions in HB 308 which passed in the prior year
with widespread partisan support. She had heard from the
department that changing the benefits would require new
programing, as the state still operated in an antiquated
data system which required significant effort. For the
simplicity of implementation, she chose to take the
previous' years bill and extend it. The one change that she
made was to extend the effective date of the per-dependent
benefit because she felt for children it was very
important. If it was the will of the committee to eliminate
the provision because there were more jobs available
presently, she was open to amending the bill.
Representative Rasmussen asked how many families had more
than 4 dependents.
9:31:59 AM
LENNON WELLER, ECONOMIST AND UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
ACTUARY, DIVISION OF RESEARCH AND ANALYSIS, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
introduced himself. He did not have the latest count of how
many families would have more than 4 dependents. However,
he had data for calendar year 2020, which included most
months the provision was in place. There were about 700 of
86,307 claimants who reported having greater than 3
dependents. The subset was very small. He also reported
that roughly 30 percent of claimants as a whole had 1 or
more dependents.
Representative Rasmussen relayed some calculations noting
that for a family with 7 dependents receiving $75 per
dependent per week and federal benefits, they would receive
approximately $4500 per month which equated to $28 per
hour. She thought it was a threshold families might have a
difficult time achieving. She wondered how many people were
receiving the full benefit versus a portion of the benefit.
Representative Spohnholz thought Mr. Weller could address
the question in more detail. She clarified that not
everyone on unemployment received the maximum benefit.
Alaska's maximum unemployment benefit per week was $370.
Additionally, a person could receive federal benefits and
per dependent benefits if applicable. She relayed that the
minimum state benefit was $56 per week. Dependent benefits
could be added. She had an additional comment regarding the
waiver of work search. She suggested that the legislature
might want to consider that there were some reasons why
people might not be able to go back to work relating to the
need to care for children. There might be a specific health
concern in the family that might prevent them from sending
their children back to childcare or school.
9:35:29 AM
Mr. Weller asked Representative Rasmussen to repeat the
question. Representative Rasmussen asked how many families
received the full benefit.
Mr. Weller responded that on average an individual received
approximately $250 per week in their regular qualifying
benefit amount. The majority of claimants claimed zero
dependents. On average, if a claimant claimed any
dependents, it was predominantly 2. He did not have the
number of claimants that would claim $370 or more as well
as dependents. He could certainly get a frequency of those
who file and at least receive the maximum of $370 per week.
It tended to be a high number because of the state's
outdated benefit schedule which capped the amount at $370.
He relayed that approximately 30 percent of claimants in
any given year reached the maximum benefit amount. He
reiterated that the average was $250 per week across all
claimants.
Representative Rasmussen asked for a breakdown of how much
Alaskans received including a range and broken into
quarters. She asked whether individuals qualified for other
state assistance such as SNAP [Supplemental Nutrition
Assistance Program] while on unemployment.
Representative Spohnholz clarified that $370 per week was
the maximum benefit. She also relayed that Alaska had the
lowest wage replacement value in the entire country. For
example, for someone earning $100,000 prior to being
unemployed also only received $370 per week. She thought
the information provided important context. It was her
understanding that for the purpose of public assistance,
people could apply but their unemployment insurance benefit
would apply as income against their eligibility for public
assistance.
Mr. Weller had been able to run a quick frequency. It
appeared that for those individuals in the March file who
qualified for a regular weekly benefit amount beginning
with $56 per week up to $370 per week (every benefit amount
category went up by $2 for every $250 in base wages), about
three-tenths of a percent fell into the $2 increment
buckets up to $370. At the $370 amount there was about 16.5
percent of claimants collecting UI at the maximum weekly
benefit amount.
9:40:07 AM
Representative Wool asked for the current federal subsidy
for unemployment. He wondered how long it would last. Mr.
Weller understood that the federal benefit was a $300 add-
on and would extend to March 2022.
Representative Wool asked that if an individual was laid
off but did not apply for unemployment right away, would
the waiver apply.
Ms. Westcott responded that if someone waited to apply for
unemployment insurance, their benefit year would be
effective the week in which they applied. If the
legislation was still in effect at the time, they would
still be the beneficiary of the waiting week waiver
provision and would receive benefits for the first week of
their claim. Currently, the way HB 151 was drafted, the
provision would expire September 6th. If a claimant filed
after that date, they would be subject to serving the
waiting week. She corrected a statement made earlier. She
noted that the current addition of $300 would only extend
to September.
Representative Wool was aware that the reason for
termination determined the waiting period. He wondered if a
person who was fired would be eligible to receive benefits
on an expedited timeline if the bill was extended.
Ms. Westcott indicated that if someone voluntarily quit
their job without good cause or if they were fired, there
were provisions for the denial of benefits for a 6-week
period. Following the 6-week period, the first week they
file would be there waiting week. If the waiting week
waiver provision was still in effect, the person would be
eligible for benefits that week.
9:44:23 AM
Representative Wool commented that everyone would receive
the waiver benefit. He had a question about the job search
requirement. Years ago, people would have to have a paper
signed by a potential employer when searching for work. He
thought the process had switched to an online method. He
asked about the current job search reporting requirement.
Ms. Westcott replied that an individual had to apply for 2
jobs per week and were required to self-report. The
division was required to do random work search audits. She
pointed out that section 1 of HB 151 did not waive the work
search requirement unilaterally. It gave the department
some flexibility for waiving the able and availability
requirements under certain circumstances.
Representative Wool commented that 86,000 people were
currently collecting unemployment benefits. He asked how
many claimants would be audited. Ms. Wescott responded that
she would have to get back to the committee with the
information.
Representative Spohnholz clarified that the waiver of the
waiting period portion was funded by the federal
government. If the state wanted to waive the waiting
period, although it did not have to, it would be federally
funded.
Representative Josephson thought it was no different than
any other funding the state received readily from the
federal government. He asked if he was correct.
Representative Spohnholz responded, "Yes."
Representative Josephson noted Ms. Westcott had talked
about the rapid turn-around of the applications. He asked
how long it had been taking to approve or disapprove a
claim. Ms. Westcott was not sure. She explained that back
in April, May, and June 2020 processing times were
significant. The division still had a 2-month backlog and
the load was extensive.
9:50:09 AM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the proof of a work search
included searches with new employers.
Ms. Westcott responded that after a period of time the
unemployed person was expected to expand their work search
looking for other types of work where they had the required
skills and training or the aptitude. It was not acceptable
to report a work search with the same employer week-after-
week.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if there were exceptions made in
certain circumstances. He provided an example applicable to
one of his constituents. The constituent was having a
difficult time widening their search, as there were only so
many employers.
Ms. Westcott responded that everyone's work search
circumstances were different. When the division was
reviewing the work search activities, it looked at an
individual's work history, what type of work they were
currently looking for, and what type of employment was
currently available in their local area.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked if the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development currently could waive the work search
requirement absent HB 151. Ms. Westcott responded, "No, not
specifically because of Covid."
9:54:13 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if Mr. Weller would comment
on his unfiled jobs question he had asked earlier.
Mr. Weller thought Representative Carpenter was
highlighting the relationship between unemployed
individuals and job openings or the demand for labor. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics put a Job Openings and Labor
Turnover Survey. At the national level, their preliminary
estimate through February was a ratio of 1.4 of unemployed
individuals to job openings. Looking at the information in
a historic context, there was roughly 40 percent more
individuals looking for jobs than there were openings at a
national level. He could not speak specifically to Alaska.
However, he thought it was indicative of the large pool of
unemployed individuals relative to the jobs currently
available. He hoped it provided an indication of why Alaska
was seeing so many individuals being unemployed and
continuing to file for unemployment insurance benefits.
Representative Carpenter thought he heard that 86,000
people were receiving benefits. He wondered how many
individuals were in the $13-$15 range for the work they
were doing previously.
Mr. Weller clarified that the 86,000 statistic was unique
for individuals in calendar year 2020. The latest weekly
data he had was that roughly 43,000 individuals filed for a
week of benefits across all programs that were currently
available. The level was about half of the unique
individual count was for the previous calendar year. He did
not have an exact figure of the number of individuals that
would meet the hourly range that the representative had
mentioned. He agreed that the cross over point would be in
the $14-$15 per hour range.
9:58:06 AM
Representative Carpenter asked if the information was
knowable. He requested the information.
Representative Johnson asked if the bill would only be in
effect if there was a state of emergency. Representative
Spohnholz responded in the negative.
Representative Johnson asked if the state had to be in a
state of emergency in order to receive federal funds.
Ms. Holland responded that there were 2 elements of the
legislation that were tied to a state of emergency. There
was currently a national emergency in place. The elements
tied to that included the waiver of the one week waiting
period and the increased per-dependent benefit.
Representative Johnson asked if federal legislation had to
be tied to a state of emergency or if HB 151 had to be tied
to a state of emergency.
Ms. Holland responded that HB 151 required that a national
or state emergency declaration be in place for the waiver
of the one week waiting period to take effect. There was
currently a national emergency declaration in place. She
did not believe it would be removed. It would take an act
of congress or the President's command to remove it. Given
that congress also passed legislation stating that if
states waived the period, they would be reimbursed 100
percent by the federal government until September 6th, she
thought it was safe to assume that the state of emergency
would not be repealed.
Representative Johnson asked if the declaration provision
was necessary. Ms. Holland indicated it was not required to
receive federal dollars.
Representative Johnson commented that Southeast Alaska was
significantly hit through the tourism industry. She
wondered if statistics were available that showed how many
employees were from in-state versus out-of-state. Mr.
Weller indicated that roughly 15.5 percent of current
claimants were filing from outside of Alaska.
Representative Spohnholz emphasized that unemployment
insurance was not a public assistance benefit. The funds
were coming from the unemployment insurance fund which was
paid into by employees and employers which was the reason
the state paid benefits to non-residents, as they were
people who had worked in Alaska and had paid into the
Unemployment Insurance Fund and were eligible to collect
benefits. An Unemployment Insurance benefit was the same as
a person's car insurance or health insurance. A person paid
into so it was available for them when they needed it.
10:03:33 AM
Representative Wool asked if the paid benefits were taxed.
Ms. Westcott replied that UI benefits did not have the same
deductions as a regular paycheck. Unemployment Insurance
benefits were considered taxable income that had to be
reported by the individual on the federal income tax
return. Upon their initial claim, individuals could have 10
percent of their benefits withheld for federal taxes. She
noted that ARPA included a provision that for calendar year
2020, the first $10,000 in UI benefits were non-taxable.
Representative Wool asked whether FICA and FUTA were
deducted from UI benefits. Ms. Westcott responded in the
negative.
10:05:30 AM
Representative Edgmon returned to the subject of the UI
fund. He mentioned that when HB 308 was being discussed in
the prior year in the House Rules Committee, the fund had a
significant amount in it around $300 million to $400
million. He wondered where the fund stood in terms of
capitalization presently. Representative Spohnholz
responded that currently the UI Fund balance was over $250
million. The solvency of the fund was not at risk.
Mr. Weller added that the latest balance of the fund as of
April 16, 2021, was $261.9 million. Regarding the relative
provision, given the current total level of wages that were
the entire liability pool was between $12.5 billion to $13
billion. For every $12.5 million that was pulled from the
fund, it would change by about one-tenth of a percentage
point. At tax calculation time for 2021 the reserve ratio
was approximately 2.57 percent. The department's target for
solvency pre-recession or pre-labor market shock was
between 3 percent and 3.3 percent. Currently, the state was
at a 2 percent reserve ratio. The state had two-thirds of
what the department liked to have in the fund pre-labor
market shock.
Representative Edgmon wondered if he was accurate in saying
that the bill impacted Alaskans in the lower economic
strata. Mr. Weller replied that it was certainly the case
that UI claimants tended to have lower earnings than
Alaska's labor market as a whole. For those who had a
dependent, their average weekly benefit amount tended to be
smaller than those claimants without a dependent. He
thought it would be a fair characterization to say that the
bill disproportionately helped those at the lower income
spectrum.
Representative Spohnholz added that what she had seen in
looking at the economic impacts of Covid-19 was that it had
disproportionately impacted the hospitality industry and
other low-income industries. Therefore, the program was
impacting low-income Alaskans which underscored the
importance of the per dependent benefit in particular.
Representative Edgmon agreed with Representative Spohnholz.
He thought there were two competing viewpoints regarding
the subject matter. First, there were many people living on
unemployment benefits who had no incentive to work and were
perhaps making more on UI benefits. Another viewpoint was
that Alaska with a highly seasonal workplace environment
had many areas with very little employment with the
cancelation of cruise ships. He did not think it was an
easy process to collect unemployment. He opined the
pandemic was not over, and there were still several
challenges that people faced. He suggested that the bill
should be in the legislature's tool box.
Representative Spohnholz thanked Representative Edgmon for
his comments. She agreed that the state was not through the
pandemic yet. She noted that although several people in the
tourism industry were non-residents, many of them were also
Alaskans. She wanted to make sure that they were able to
continue to take care of their families. She wanted to give
the department the flexibility to waive the work search
requirement if they deemed it appropriate.
Representative Spohnholz indicated there were several
reasons why people were unable to work. She was sorry the
committee was unable to hear from Mr. Kouda because he
could speak to the research on unemployment and its impacts
on people's willingness to look for work. The evidence
showed that while there had been some anecdata, the actual
research done by professional researchers was that
unemployment assistance did not reduce people's interest in
or commitment to working. In fact, Americans (Alaskans in
particular) wanted to work, because it provided dignity and
autonomy. No one wanted to go through the hassle of
applying for unemployment. However, it was a necessity at
times in order to pay for rent, utilities, and food.
Representative Spohnholz noted there was a time sensitivity
element to the bill. She explained that HB 308 expired at
the end of March. and the department would have to
dramatically shift what it was doing while the state still
had significantly high unemployment double what it would
typically be at present. There was an urgency in passing
the bill and the issue was addressed. Otherwise, the
department would have to make another massive shift in
changes in the way it implemented UI at a time when the
state had record-high unemployment.
Co-Chair Merrick hoped Mr. Klouda could join the committee
at another hearing. She reviewed the agenda for this
afternoon's meeting.
HB 151 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
10:14:39 AM
The meeting was adjourned at 10:14 a.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 151 Explanation of Changes Document, v. B - v. I.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Letter of Support - Arc of Anchorage, 4.14.21.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Letters of Support, Received as of 4.6.21.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Opposition Received as of 4.6.21.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Sectional Analysis v. I.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Sponsor Statement v. I.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |
| HB 151 Supporting Document - 2020 UI Claims, DOLWD.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 151 Supporting Document - UI General Information Brochure, DOLWD.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 151 Supporting Document - Wage Replacement Data, DOLWD.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
|
| HB 151 Response to Q DLWD 4.21.21.pdf |
HFIN 4/19/2021 9:00:00 AM |
HB 151 |