Legislature(1995 - 1996)
04/21/1995 03:10 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 21, 1995
3:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
None
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HB 260: "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of Marine
Pilots; extending the termination date of the Board of
Marine Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
HEARD AND HELD
HB 236: "An Act relating to reductions in compensation for state
officers and employees; and providing for an effective
date."
HEARD AND TABLED
HB 144: "An Act relating to salaries for officers and employees
of the state who are not members of a collective
bargaining unit; and providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 298: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of
the collective bargaining agreement with the Alaska
Public Employees Association, Supervisory Unit; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 299: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of
the collective bargaining agreement with the
Inlandboatmen's Union of the Pacific; and providing for
an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 300: "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of
the collective bargaining agreement with Public Employees
Local 71, Labor, Trades and Crafts Unit; and providing
for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 305: "An Act making appropriations to satisfy the agreed upon
monetary terms of a collective bargaining agreement for
certain employees of the University of Alaska; and
providing for an effective date."
PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
HB 251: "An Act relating to Native corporations."
BILL POSTPONED
HB 232: "An Act establishing an economic development tax credit;
and providing for an effective date."
BILL POSTPONED
HB 288: "An Act relating to procurement preferences for
corporations and partnerships owned by persons with
disabilities."
BILL POSTPONED
WITNESS REGISTER
DAN TWOHIG, Coordinator
Board of Marine Pilots
Department of Commerce and
Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, AK 99811-0806
Telephone: (907) 465-2548
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 260
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist
Southwest Alaska Pilots Association
10652 Porter Lane
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 790-3030
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260
CAPTAIN RICHARD GURRY, President
Southeastern Alaska Pilots Association
Box 6100
Ketchikan, AK 99901
Telephone: (907) 225-9697
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260
BOB EVANS, Lobbyist
Alaska Marine Pilots
2822 Iliamna Avenue
Anchorage, AK 99517
Telephone: (907) 364-3360
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 260
BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Representative
Southeast Alaska Pilots Association
302 Gold Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-2210
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in HB 260
GAYLE HORETSKI, Assistant Attorney General
Commercial Section
Civil Division
Department of Law
P.O. Box 110300
Juneau, AK 99811-0300
Telephone: (907) 465-3600
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260
JOE KYLE
Alaska Steamship Association
234 Gold Street
Juneau, AK 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3107
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 260
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director
Central Office
Alaska Court System
303 "K" Street
Anchorage, AK 99501-2084
Telephone: (907) 246-0547
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 236
MARK BOYER, Commissioner
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110200
Juneau, AK 99811-0200
Telephone: 465-2200
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 236
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President
Statewide University System
University of Alaska
P.O. Box 155000
Fairbanks, AK 99775
Telephone: (907) 474-7311
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 305
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 260
SHORT TITLE: MARINE PILOTS
SPONSOR(S): TRANSPORTATION
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 745 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 745 (H) TRANSPORTATION, LABOR & COMMERCE
03/22/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/22/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
03/24/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/05/95 (H) TRA AT 01:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(TRA)
04/07/95 1170 (H) TRA RPT CS(TRA) 2DP 2NR 2AM
04/07/95 1171 (H) DP: BRICE, WILLIAMS
04/07/95 1171 (H) NR: MACLEAN, SANDERS
04/07/95 1171 (H) AM: JAMES, G.DAVIS
04/07/95 1171 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/18/95 1356 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 236
SHORT TITLE: REDUCTION IN STATE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 597 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 597 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
03/17/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/17/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/20/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/20/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/95 (H) L&C AT 01:00 PM FAHRENKAMP ROOM 203
04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/08/95 (H) L&C AT 01:00 PM BELTZ ROOM 211
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 144
SHORT TITLE: NONUNION STATE EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASE
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/01/95 200 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/01/95 200 (H) FINANCE
04/10/95 1226 (H) L&C REFERRAL ADDED
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 298
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM APEA SUPERVISOR CONTRACT
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1027 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1027 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 299
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM IBU CONTRACT
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1028 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1028 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 300
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: MONETARY TERM LOCAL 71 CONTRACT
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/05/95 1028 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/05/95 1028 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 305
SHORT TITLE: APPROP: UNIV. OF AK LABOR AGREEMENTS
SPONSOR(S): FINANCE
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/11/95 1237 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/11/95 1237 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
04/19/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/19/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 251
SHORT TITLE: NATIVE CORPORATIONS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MOSES,MacLean,Williams
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/15/95 741 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/15/95 741 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
03/27/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/29/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
03/29/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/05/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/05/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/10/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/10/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/12/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/12/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 232
SHORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TAX CREDIT
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) KOTT
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/06/95 590 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/06/95 590 (H) ECD, STA, L&C, FINANCE
03/21/95 (H) ECD AT 09:00 AM CAPITOL 17
03/21/95 (H) MINUTE(ECD)
03/22/95 850 (H) ECD RPT CS(ECD) 6DP
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: KELLY, MOSES, MACLEAN, KOHRING
03/22/95 850 (H) DP: SANDERS, ROKEBERG
03/22/95 850 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
03/22/95 850 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/04/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/04/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/06/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/06/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/11/95 (H) STA AT 08:00 AM CAPITOL 102
04/11/95 (H) MINUTE(STA)
04/18/95 1345 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 4DP 2NR
04/18/95 1346 (H) DP: GREEN, PORTER, JAMES, OGAN
04/18/95 1346 (H) NR: WILLIS, ROBINSON
04/18/95 1346 (H) INDETERMINATE FISCAL NOTE (REV)
04/18/95 1346 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 288
SHORT TITLE: PROCUREMENT PREFERENCES/STATE LEASES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) JAMES
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
03/29/95 979 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
03/29/95 979 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
04/03/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/03/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/07/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
04/07/95 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/21/95 (H) L&C AT 03:00 PM CAPITOL 17
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 95-42, SIDE A
Number 000
The House Labor and Commerce Committee meeting was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:10 p.m. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Sanders, Kubina, Elton, Masek, Rokeberg
and Kott. Representative Porter had not arrived.
HB 260 - MARINE PILOTS
Number 030
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the first order of business would be
HB 260, "An Act relating to marine pilots and the Board of Marine
Pilots; extending the termination date of the Board of Marine
Pilots; and providing for an effective date."
DAN TWOHIG, Coordinator, Board of Marine Pilots, Department of
Commerce and Economic Development (DCED), testified via
teleconference. He said he supports the bill as it is currently
written. He referred to Amendment 0.1, which deals with pilotage
tariffs and establishing a maximum tariff, and said the DCED takes
no position on the tariff issue.
MR. TWOHIG referred to Amendment 0.2, relating to Section 2, which
removes the extra seats on the board, and said the DCED supports
the amendment.
MR. TWOHIG referred to Amendment 3, which will add additional
language to the cross regional licensing temporary license issue,
and said the department supports it.
Number 078
PAUL FUHS, Lobbyist, Southwest Alaska Pilots Association, was next
to testify. He stated his organization hasn't taken a position on
the composition of the board. He said it was probably an oversight
to include the ability to relicense someone the next year if the
shortage continues and if the commissioner finds there is a
continuing shortage. Mr. Fuhs showed the committee a map showing
the sizes of the three regions that currently exist. He said he
doesn't support cross regionalization. The regions are very large
and if you could keep up with what is going on within the regions,
you would be doing well.
Number 100
CAPTAIN RICHARD GURRY, President, Southeastern Alaska Pilots
Association, was next to come before the committee. He noted the
Southeastern Alaska Pilots Association is headquartered in
Ketchikan, Alaska. Captain Gurry read his statement into the
record:
"I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee
today. While we have several concerns about HB 260, which amends
the Marine Pilot Act, I am going to focus only briefly on two
aspects under consideration by this committee.
"First, cross regionalization; second, composition of the Board of
Marine Pilots; and, correct myself there is a third, the third is
a request by shipping companies to impose a maximum tariff on pilot
service fees.
"First, cross regionalization. We oppose cross regionalization.
We oppose cross regional licensing and support the Department of
Commerce's position on this issue.
"Second, composition of the Board of Marine Pilots. We support the
current composition of the board and no additions of industry
representatives on the board. The board should be comprised
primarily of pilots who are regulated by the board; and public
members because it is the public's interest that should be overseen
by the board. We oppose adding additional industry members on this
board. Industry agents are not restricted to working in regions as
pilots are and, therefore, cannot offer specific expertise that a
pilot can whose expertise lies only within a particular region.
Larger boards are more cumbersome, more costly and less effective.
Perhaps the best board make up would have three pilots, one from
each region, three public members and one state representative.
The board should be maintained as a Board of Marine Pilots and not
a Board of Marine Agents.
"Third, the maximum tariff. The State Board of Marine Pilots
wrestled with a maximum tariff for several years. We spent
countless hours on this matter taking up valuable board time which
could have been used on more pertinent issues such as safety and
training. Since last year, there has been no tariff for marine
pilots, there have been no pilot shortages and no price gouging.
We now hear from industry that a mechanism is needed for price
disputes and to prevent work stoppages. SEAPA pilots have
addressed both of these concerns in our contracts with cruise ship
companies. Dispute resolution and automatic contract extensions
have been suggested in every contract with vessel companies. Some
companies have opted for these and some have not. Pilotage rates
are below the tariffs set by the board in 1991. The reason why
they are below is because pilots offered to discount their rates in
exchange for long-term commitments. These commitments are needed
in order for us to project our future pilotage requirements. In
testimony before this committee on Wednesday, industry
representatives suggested that there would be pilot shortage this
year. The SEAPA pilots currently have 31 pilots on our roster.
Not all of our members have renewed their license at this time.
Many of our members would like to work a fuller schedule this
summer, but because of lack of projected work, they have chosen to
only work part-time. Industry has never specified a single blaring
problem that now actually exists, in fact, as a consequence of the
repealed maximum tariff. If industry is worried about the price
and availability of pilots then it is incumbent upon the state to
heavily regulate pilots to ensure that they are available and
highly trained. A maximum tariff undercuts the system that the
legislature has tried to enact, which is a competitive pilotage
system.
"Historically, under a state set maximum tariff, the board set the
maximum tariff that could be charged but had no oversight over the
actual amounts charged between pilots and vessels under private
contracts. Maximum tariff does not either actively regulate
pilotage or let pilots freely compete and this has serious
repercussions. When there is competition, the market place decides
the price and the Sherman Antitrust Act Law enforces competition
and punishes those who conspired to restrain trade. When there is
active state supervision of a private party, there is immunity from
antitrust laws. However, under a maximum tariff true market forces
are thwarted by establishing an artificial price ceiling and
pilotage associations cannot enjoy antitrust immunity under a
maximum tariff provision because there is not active supervision of
pilotage prices actually charged. Therefore, we support leaving
the bill as is - without a maximum tariff. Thank you.
Number 197
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON asked Captain Gurry how much of the work that
his organization does is provided to shippers that are under
contract. He also asked how much of the pilotage work is done
through people that they don't have contracts for.
CAPTAIN GURRY said very close to 100 percent is done under
contract. They have contracts that are through agents, and the
scope of the vessels that they cover, the ships can come from
anywhere. They represent such a broad scope of ships - different
companies from different companies. He said it would be very
cumbersome for them to get individual contracts from all the
different freighter companies throughout the world, so they
contract out with the agent that represents all those companies.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the contract with the agent would set a
price for an individual (indisc.)
CAPTAIN GURRY said that is correct. He noted it would cover any
vessel that came in under the agent's authority.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said any vessel that comes in probably has an
agent. CAPTAIN GURRY responded in the affirmative.
Number 224
BOB EVANS, Lobbyist, Alaska Marine Pilots, explained he was in
attendance to speak to the maximum tariff. He said he has heard
some concerns that the maximum tariff is necessary in order to
avoid antitrust concerns on a federal level. Mr. Evans said he has
given committee members a letter from Mark Ashburn, with Ashburn
and Mason, which speaks to the fact that Sections 12 and 16 of the
bill takes care of any concern about a maximum tariff. It provides
the level of regulation, according to them, that is at least as
good as a maximum tariff. Additionally, if that is a concern, his
comments in the past have indicated a fixed tariff would make more
sense. Mr. Evans said they are not asking for that at this time.
This view is not only shared by Mr. Ashburn, who is formally the
head of the Antitrust Section of the Attorney Generals Office, but
it is shared by Dick Monkman, who is now the head of the Antitrust
Section, and Mr. Weyhrauch who is with Faulkner Banfield.
MR. EVANS said it has been suggested that this is a concern as a
result of FTC versus TICORE. That case does not fall on all fours
with the context - the facts of this case. That case is
distinguishable from the facts in Alaska. TICORE involves the
independent businesses that operate as title companies. Each of
them independent of one another that come together as independent
businesses, set a price and then offer that to some state authority
which, in turn, will have to take some negative action to prevent
that from becoming the price. If they fail to reject the price
then the price goes forward as the price for the title companies.
These are independent businesses. The factual context of Alaska is
that these organizations, which are independent entities, will fix
a price, set an amount, within the organization. Mr. Evans said
there is nothing in the statute that says the Southeast Alaska
Pilots Association (SEAPA) is supposed to sit down with Alaska
Coastwise Pilots (ACP) and set a price or another organization.
There is no price setting from one business entity to another which
makes FTC versus TICORE not applicable to the facts of this case.
MR. EVANS said there are two reasons off the top. The statutory
provisions in the bill before the committee takes care of the
concern of a maximum tariff for antitrust problems. The FTC versus
TICORE is not applicable based upon the different factual context.
Mr. Evans said he would point out that the people at risk are the
individual businesses. They are not industry, it is not the state,
is not anybody but themselves with the advice of their counsel and
their own independent business decisions, they are prepared to take
that risk. Public safety is not an issue here. This is a
business/legal decision of these organizations. Mr. Evans said
there is no good reason why the state ought to involve themselves
in that kind of a decision.
MR. EVANS referred to the maximum tariff and said if it is put in
place, it will give a negotiating tool to one side that is not
available to the pilots. In the past when the maximum tariff
existed, there were no contracts. The individual pilot groups had
to take what came whenever it came. There is no market share.
They serviced the industry at the whim at getting a call or not
getting a call. The maximum tariff that went away last year has
brought more stability in the shipping lanes of the state of Alaska
than anything that has occurred since 1991. He urged the committee
to reject the amendment which establishes a maximum tariff.
Number 293
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the length of time has been that
there hasn't been a maximum tariff. MR. EVANS said since June,
1994.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many contracts have been entered
into since that time. He also asked what the atmosphere has been
between industry and the pilots.
MR. EVANS said he could only speak for the organization he
represents. He said they have signed one contract which amounts to
about 21 percent of the work in their region. They are currently
going through active negotiations with several others. He said his
organization has been told that there is probably not much reason
in negotiating until the legislature decides whether there is going
to be a maximum tariff. He said other representatives could
probably give a better answer to the number of contracts that have
been signed.
Number 310
BRUCE WEYHRAUCH, Representative, Southeast Alaska Pilots
Association, was next to come before the committee to testify. He
said in their capacity as attorneys representing the individuals
who are working for pilot associations, the Southeast Alaska Pilots
Association is not recommending that they would enjoy antitrust
immunity under a maximum tariff provision. If the Department of
Law suggests that it is better than nothing, then his organization
would like an indemnity provision from the Department of Law that
they will reimburse SEAPA for their legal fees and any damages they
have to pay for an antitrust judgement. Currently, the
negotiations between the pilot associations and the companies
involved are at arm's length with transactions between two private
parties over the terms of a contract, and that is what the
legislature deemed which should take place in 1991 -- a competitive
system of pilotage.
MR. WEYHRAUCH said unless the state actively and aggressively
supervises marine pilots, they will always face this antitrust
threat. So it is active supervision by the state of every aspect,
not just price. It includes training, entry, discipline,
everything, and clearly articulating that policy to displace
competition in the statue. That is what it will take before they
recommend that they have antitrust immunity.
MR. WEYHRAUCH said if a maximum tariff is imposed, why not a
minimum tariff on the industry. He referred to the industry side
of the issue and asked why the pilots should take all the heat.
Number 337
GAYLE HORETSKI, Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Section,
Civil Division, Department of Law, came forward to testify. She
said the Department of Law would decline to accept Mr. Weyhrauch's
invitation to indemnify them for their legal expenses. Ms.
Horetski said she has personally spoken with Mr. Robert Schoder,
Attorney, Federal Trade Commission (FTC), in Seattle. She informed
the committee the FTC issued a generalized report about competition
in the pilotage industry in Alaska. Mr. Schoder told her that the
FTC agrees with the Department of Law's interpretation of the
TICORE case as it applies to antitrust immunity, under federal law,
for pilot associations. She said she did invite representatives of
pilot associations to share with her any letters or memorandums
that they received from Mr. Ashburn on this issue. She noted that
several days ago the issue about Mr. Ashburn having a contrary
opinion was first brought up in the Senate. To date, she hasn't
seen anything in writing on that. She said she can't really
respond to what Mr. Ashburn has allegedly said since she hasn't
seen any documentation.
There being no questions of Ms. Horetski, Mr. Kyle was next to
testify.
JOE KYLE, Alaska Steamship Association, said he would like to
clarify a couple of things. He referred to the maximum tariff and
said he would like to remind the committee that what industry is
concerned about is not a maximum tariff so much as an impasse where
pilots and shippers cannot agree on a price. Mr. Kyle referred to
Captain Gurry's testimony and said he thinks that he gave a great
example of how likely it is that they are not going to be able to
agree all the time when he suggested that the industry be
disenfranchised from the process of the Marine Pilot Board. Mr.
Kyle said they are a major stakeholder in this entire process.
They have hugh capital investments that they entrust to the care of
pilots when they move into state waters. They want to be a player
in the process that regulates those pilots.
MR. KYLE referred to the issue of maximum tariffs being before the
committee and said it is because the industry has already tried
binding arbitration with the pilots as a dispute resolution
mechanism. The pilots shot that down. They then tried a mediation
process with the legislature. The pilots shot that down. Now
we're back where we were before which is maximum tariffs. Mr. Kyle
said different people will give different versions as to how well
the maximum tariff worked since 1991. The reason it is back before
the legislature is because they knew where they were with the
maximum tariff.
MR. KYLE said he doesn't know how binding arbitration, competition
and mediation hurts pilots. He referred to the experience they had
with the maximum tariffs over the last three years and said he
doesn't know how that hurts pilots. Mr. Kyle said he would like to
remind the committee that there needs to be some kind of mechanism
in the Marine Pilot Act to get a handle on tariffs so the industry
has some protection.
MR. KYLE referred to Mr. Weyhrauch's comment about pilot
associations and the companies involved are at arm's length and
said that isn't accurate when the companies are required, by law,
to engage the services of pilots. He said they are open to
mediation and arbitration. Since that hasn't been satisfactory to
the pilots, they are at the maximum tariff and that is what his
association currently supports.
Number 397
MR. WEYHRAUCH said, for the record, the pilot's have asked in their
contracts for arbitration provisions. The companies have rejected
those in contracts. The pilots are out there, they want to work on
their own and they don't need the paternalistic attitude of
industry trying to look out for their interests. He said they are
ready to compete if that is what the legislature wants them to do.
Number 410
There being no further witnesses to testify on the measure,
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public testimony. He said the committee has
three proposed amendments before them 01, 02 and 03, Utermohle,
dated 4/20/95. Chairman Kott moved Amendment 1. He noted the
amendment was requested by bill's prime sponsor. The suggestion
was that maximum tariff be established. Amendment 1 restores the
language that existed prior to the exploration of the maximum
tariff.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA put a call on the committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT
announced the committee would take an at ease at 3:35 p.m. The
House Labor and Commerce Committee was called back to order at 3:37
p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the call has been satisfied. He said Amendment
1 has been moved. He asked if there was an objection.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA objected for the purpose of discussion. He
said it seems like a maximum tariff would give a half of a
solution. He indicated it doesn't seem like there is open
competition. Representative Kubina said he would be very
supportive of binding arbitration and the board could be the
arbitrator. At least somebody is making a decision and they are
hearing both sides of the story. To put a cap on it seems like the
legislature is taking one side's point of view. He said he would
support binding arbitration, total competition or mediation.
Representative Kubina said the amendment appears to take one side
over the other.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the state has essentially mandated that
shippers/transporters are going to have to have pilots on board.
The board will determine the maximum tariff. He noted the board
consists of public members, shippers and pilots. Between the three
of those groups, they should come up with a rational approach.
Chairman Kott said Representative Kubina is right to a degree that
they are somewhat curbing free and open market competition by
establishing a maximum ceiling on what can be charged. Currently,
as it stands in some of the regions there is not competition
anyway. So what would prevent those individual groups from
establishing whatever tariff they want to establish within reason.
Number 456
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to his region, Prince William Sound,
Region 2, and said there is no competition for tanker traffic
coming in and out of the sound. He noted it is very substantive.
It doesn't appear they're having a problem there. Representative
Kubina said he would be more in support of the board deciding. He
suggested not setting a cap, but let the board set the rate.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there may be some severe problems with letting
the board set a rate as there may be problems in agreeing to that
rate.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to the amendment and said they're
setting a maximum rate.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER commented that he has been all over the board
regarding the issue between safety, competition, etc. The state
initiated this quandary by saying, "You will, shippers, have
pilots. We will establish standards for their experience and
training and (indisc.--coughing) and you will put them on your
ships." So the state has interjected itself once and said if you
don't, it's a crime. That is a pretty heavy sanction.
Representative Porter said, "To me, then saying, `But we're not
going to give you shippers any assistance in trying to reasonably
meet our expectation of being able to reasonably compensate pilots'
isn't there. So from that standpoint, and I have some labor
management experience in my background, I was taken (indisc.) when
I heard the representative of -- in effect management if this is
one of those kinds of issues saying, `Please give me binding
arbitration.' Wow! Binding arbitration generally does not favor
management and my personal philosophy is such that unless employee
who has the right to strike, which obviously pilots have the right
to say `I'm not going,' binding arbitration seems to be
inappropriate. So to hear the industry saying give us binding
arbitration makes me believe that they're really in a vulnerable
position." Representative Porter said he doesn't know that this is
appropriate answer but it is an answer and he is willing to give it
shot since it seems to have generated the contracts that are
currently in existence.
Number 501
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said it is hard for him to think of this in
terms of labor management -- talking about two different types of
business groups. He said he isn't as concerned about the major
shipping companies. They're going to be operating under a
contract. It seems to him that the value of a maximum rate for an
agent that's bringing in a ship that might come in once a year or
once every three years seems to be the area in which there are
vulnerabilities.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if the committee were not to adopt
Amendment 1 and leave the status quo as it currently is, there is
the threat of the FTC finding there is some antitrust violations.
He asked who would be penalized and what would be the corrective
action.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he believes the answer would be the
pilot organizations who don't want this.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they don't want it but they would be
the ones to answer to it.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks that there is substantial
concern and this would go towards ameliorating that problem.
Number 538
A roll call vote was taken on Amendment 1. Voting in favor of the
amendment were Representatives Kott, Porter and Elton. Voting
against Amendment 1 were Representatives Sanders, Kubina, Rokeberg
and Masek. So Amendment 1 failed to be adopted.
Number 547
CHAIRMAN KOTT moved Amendment 2 which restores the board back to
the existing composition as it currently exists. Hearing no
objection, Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 550
CHAIRMAN KOTT stated Amendment 3 addresses the renewal of a license
by the commissioner in times of immanent shortage. It makes it
simpler for him/her to continue with business under a shortage
condition. He moved Amendment 3 be adopted. He asked if there was
an objection. Hearing none, Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 554
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA asked for a brief at ease at 4:50 p.m.
CHAIRMAN KOTT called the meeting back to order at 4:55 p.m. He
handed the committee members Amendment 4 which deals with dispute
resolution. Do to the extensive nature of the amendment, he said
he will hold the bill over pending the committees review of it. He
said it would be brought up at another time.
At this point an at ease was taken. The meeting was called back to
order at 3:58 p.m.
HB 236 - REDUCTION IN STATE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION
Number 570
The next order of business was HB 236, "An Act relating to
reductions in compensation for state officers and employees; and
providing for an effective date."
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would like thank the subcommittee chairman,
Representative Sanders, for holding extensive subcommittee
hearings.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said when the bill was put into a
subcommittee, Chairman Kott asked them to try and find out what the
bill does, who it does it to, and to see what they could do to make
it more acceptable to the working public. He said after ten hours
of public testimony and well over 1,000 letters, he feels that
everyone knows what they are doing and they all have a good
understanding of who they're doing it to. Now the committee needs
to review the numbers and see what, if anything, they can do to
make it acceptable to the public employees. Representative Sanders
said earlier in the day he received information from Legislative
Research which is comprehensive. It includes every employee in the
state. Representative Sanders said, "What we need is more time,
Mr. Chairman, but it seems that for some reason unbeknownst to me,
there is no more time -- that his bill, Mr. Chairman, is so
important that it must be rushed through. I have never seen a bill
in my three sessions that had to move so fast with so little
scrutiny, Mr. Chairman. I just don't understand the urgency, but
for the unity of the majority, I am going to report this bill out
to the full Labor and Commerce Committee with the hope that as a
full committee, we can make a few adjustments that will ease the
pain caused by HB 236." Representative Sanders referred to pay
schedules and said he would challenge anyone at the table to tell
him how many different pay schedules are floating around in Alaska
state government. He said there are 180 different pay schedules
and every one of them are different. Representative Sanders said
how anyone would expect the legislature to do something like this
in the short amount of time they have had, he doesn't understand.
Number 611
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he appreciate all the work Representative
Sanders has put into the matter. He said he doesn't believe the
bill is being rushed to the next committee of referral. The bill
has been in the House Labor and Commerce Committee for over a
month.
Number 621
ART SNOWDEN, Administrative Director, Central Office, Alaska Court
System, came forward to testify in opposition to HB 236. He said
our judges are about thirty-fifth in the nation in salary. Over 70
percent of his employees within the Judiciary are range 15 or less.
They do not have a number of high paid employees and they would
respectfully seek exemption from the Judicial Branch from the
application of the bill.
Number 630
MARK BOYER, Commissioner, Department of Administration, came
forward to testify. He thanked the committee for giving the
Administration the opportunity to testify on the bill previously.
The Governor felt that given the lateness in the session and given
what they are currently doing at the bargaining table on a daily
basis.... (End of Tape)
TAPE 95-42, SIDE B
Number 000
COMMISSIONER BOYER continued, .... would do to the work force. He
said they are unclear of what the goals are of the proposers of the
legislation. If the goals are to reduce the personal services cost
to state government, the Governor and the Administration are
absolutely in support of that goal. They clearly understand the
need to reduce personal services costs over the next few years.
This bill, however, they feel is the wrong way to do it. If the
goal is to change the Public Employees Relations Act (PERA), this
bill is also the wrong way to do that. A more appropriate way to
change PERA, if the goal is to not have the Administration bargain
at the table over wages and benefits, is for the legislature to
change PERA taking the mandatory term of bargaining out of the act.
He said the Administration is unclear as to what the goal is.
Commissioner Boyer said the Governor is looking for a way to deal
with personal services costs without creating such havoc in the
labor work force. If the bill were enacted and were allowed to go
into law, the Governor has suggested that he will not allow the
kind of disruption to the work force that this bill would cause to
occur. There are alternatives to reducing personal services if
that is the goal. He said he would like to work with the
legislature in achieving that goal.
COMMISSIONER BOYER said the Governor is not prepared to encourage
the committee to go down a path that would have the Administration
unilaterally impose these terms and conditions on what could be as
many as 14,000 or 15,000 state employees. He informed the
committee that the Administration is currently negotiation with the
state's largest union which includes about 8,500 employees. There
are three contracts that cover approximately 3,000. If the bill
were passed and became law, the state would be forced to impose the
terms and conditions of this contract. There would be major
disruptions.
Number 012
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Commissioner Boyer saying that if the
intent is to change PERA, they should use a different vehicle. He
asked if it is safe to assume that the Administration would be
supportive of seeking ways to improve the PERA system.
COMMISSIONER BOYER said there are changes to PERA that even the
current Administration would like at some point in the further. He
said, "I'm not suggesting in any way, shape or form that the
Governor would support a wholesale change in the complexion of the
Employment Relations Act. I'm not suggesting that whatsoever. I'm
suggesting that if that's your interest or the interest of the
legislature, that there is a much more straight forward way to do
that and a clear delineation, if you will, in the sand on that
issue. This is not very clear. This is not a clear way of dealing
with that issue."
Number 025
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Commissioner Boyer saying that the
Governor has suggested that he will not allow the kind of
disruption to the work force that this bill would cause to occur
and said that suggests a veto.
Number 039
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to Commissioner Boyer saying the
Governor is working on ways to deal with personnel costs and asked
if there is a bill, proposed by the Governor, that he thinks does
deal with personnel costs in a better way than HB 236.
COMMISSIONER BOYER said they are developing a number of initiatives
that will be introduced during the next legislative session that
will deal with a number of issues. One bill that was introduced
this session are a couple of tools that will be necessary in
downsizing environmental. One tool is the change in the area cost
differential for non covered employees. While the fiscal savings
in that piece of legislation are small, the implications of the
application of that statutory scheme in other contract environments
is quite immense. Commissioner Boyer said the second tool has to
do with an early retirement incentive bill that has a private
sector twist to it. The private sector twist has two pieces. One,
there is a voluntary cash separation piece that was borrowed from
the private sector. ARCO has used that kind of a mechanism
successfully to permanently downsize its operation. He noted that
there are some up-front costs, but in the ARCO example for an up-
front expenditure of $39 million, they've reduced their work size
by 30 percent for a permanent reduction in personal costs of $25
billion per year for as long into the future as you can see.
Commissioner Boyer said they see that as a tool that should be
available to the state as well as the private sector.
COMMISSIONER BOYER said, "The RIP (Retirement Incentive Program) is
a very surgical RIP. We have an example, I hate to use this
example here at the table, Mr. Chairman, but in Representative
Kubina's district we think that with the RIP as a tool, and the
voluntary separation piece as a tool, that we can craft a package
that when we look at Harborview Developmental Center that is in the
heart of his district - a hundred highly trained and skilled
professionals providing services there, that as we stop doing that
service that we allow some of the people to RIP out of the system.
Some of the people whose jobs are disappearing to take a separation
pay. And those people that are left at the bottom who aren't able
to take advantage of either one of those for one reason or another,
help those people through an attrition plan - move throughout the
system and stay employed if that is in fact what their choice is.
So we're hoping that you do give us the opportunity to use a couple
of the tools that we've introduced. Long answer to a short
question."
Number 094
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he thinks it is safe to assume that the reason
why the bill was introduced was to close the fiscal gap and to look
at wages and compensation.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he has prepared some amendments. Amendment 1,
K.5 4/20/95, exempts the courts. He said there has been testimony
that our court system and those individuals that work within the
court system are well down the ladder compared to other states. He
said there was testimony from our Supreme Court Chief Justice
alluded to the fact that they are over burdened with work and we're
asking them to do more. On top of that, we're asking them to take
a reduction in pay at a point when court employees are way down on
the ladder to begin with.
Number 130
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 1. He explained he is
familiar with the wage and benefit packages that exist in the
Criminal Justice System. He said he believes the Court System has
done a good job in trying to be frugal. He said he believes
Amendment 1 is an appropriate amendment and he supports it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection to the adoption of
the amendment.
Number 146
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. He
asked if there are other amendments. CHAIRMAN KOTT said there are
four independent amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he curious as to what criteria is being
applied to the court system. CHAIRMAN KOTT said after listening to
the testimony by the court administrator as well as the chief
justice and alluding to the fact how far behind our Judicial Branch
is as compared to other states, he thinks that with the amount of
work they are asked to do, it is only warranted that they be
exempted from the measure.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 1 has been moved and asked if there
was an objection. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
Hearing no further objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
Number 180
CHAIRMAN KOTT explained Amendment 2, K.6, dated 4/21/95. He said
it strikes at the heart of the problem, from a public perspective,
that he heard from public testimony that we're cutting them 5
percent, however, we're not really addressing ourselves. He said
Amendment 2 conforms to many of the criticisms conveyed to the
committee by members of the public and that is that the legislators
took an increase in per diem this year. The amendment restores the
per diem back to the 1993 level. There is no option. The per diem
would go back to $100 per day. Chairman Kott said he isn't
suggesting that the legislators aren't deserving of it or that it
isn't warranted, but in many cases it is warranted. Every
individual in the legislature has a different circumstance. Some
have given up $30,000 or $40,000 a year jobs, some are maintaining
two households. All that must be factored in. He moved the
amendment.
Number 202
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of discussion. He
suggested an amendment to the amendment which would add a
differential for the members of the legislature who are single and
also presently receiving state retirement income. He suggested
lowering their per diem to $50 per day.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he believes that is a hostile amendment to his
amendment. He said the reason he would object to that is from a
constitutional perspective, we would be treating groups of
individuals unequally based primarily on marital status.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would point out that it is the
policy of the state of Alaska to administer all employment benefits
on a differential between marital status. That is the present
call. There is nothing unconstitutional. Representative Rokeberg
then withdrew his amendment to the amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said under this provision, if you live within 25
miles of where the legislature is convened, there is no per diem.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further discussion on Amendment 2.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection. CHAIRMAN KOTT
asked if there was further objection.
Number 250
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he objects. He explained he has gone on
record opposing this. He said he thinks that the bill that it is
in "stinks." He maintained his objection.
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott, Rokeberg,
Porter, Masek and Sanders voted in favor of the amendment.
Representatives Elton and Kubina voted against the amendment. So
Amendment 2 was adopted.
Number 269
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Amendment 3 and said the Administration
had testified that the bill probably doesn't get the intent of what
they're trying to do. He said he agrees and thinks there are
substantial problems with the measure in just making a wholesale
cross board cut. It is great for this year, but in further years
it probably will have little affect. Amendment 3, K.7, is to
establish a three year wage freeze for all non covered employees.
That includes an increase of compensation based on merit for the
incremental annual increases. He said we really have to hold the
line on wages. Chairman Kott moved Amendment 3, K.7, dated
4/21/95, be adopted.
Number 283
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected for the purpose of a comment. He
said the people who haven't gotten the wage increases are the non
union people as they haven't gotten a pay increase in six years.
He said he will do everything he can to make the bill better so
that if it does unfortunately move out of the House Labor and
Commerce Committee, at least they'll be moving something better
than what there currently is. Amendment 3 is making the people who
have already paid the cost pay more.
Number 294
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS referred to Amendment 3 being a three year
wage freeze and asked if that would freeze the pay at the rate that
it is today and the 5 percent wouldn't apply.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the effective date of the bill would be the
effective date of everything in the bill. If non covered (indisc.)
a 5 percent reduction, they would get the 5 percent reduction and
then there would be no increase for a period of up to three years.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he agrees with Representative Sanders in
that there is a conflict. He referred to page 3, Section 9, and
said still sets out a new pay scale and these are non collective
(indisc.) people. He said he believes that Section 9 should also
be deleted. In other words, Section 9 cuts their pay by 5 percent
and then a three year wage freeze is being added. He said he
believes is what would happen if the amendment is adopted is you
would cut their pay 5 percent and then freeze it to three years.
Representative Kubina asked Chairman Kott if that is his intent.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said that is his intent. That is what the drafters
of the bill have informed him that is what would occur.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he objects.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred ahead to a proposed Amendment 4 and said it
establishes a three year hiring freeze.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the freeze would apply to all the
wage schedules exclusive of the Alaska Court System.
Number 338
CHAIRMAN KOTT said because of all the confusion with Amendment 3,
he withdrew it.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Amendment 4, K.8, and said it establishes
a three year hiring freeze for the Executive Branch. He moved
Amendment 4.
Number 344
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON objected. He said he is willing to vote for
Amendment 4 under one condition which is that the House Labor and
Commerce Committee refer the bill back to subcommittee so that they
could go back to the public and say, "We've changed the parameters
of this bill dramatically. We're no longer talking about a wage
cut. We're talking about something that really gets into
management. We're talking about something that really gets into
management. We're talking about not being able to hire people to
fill critical jobs whether they're in Corrections or Public Safety
or something else." Representative Elton said if the bill sent
back to subcommittee so that new public testimony could be taken on
the whole new element, he would vote for it. If the bill isn't
sent back to subcommittee, he believes the committee is doing the
public a disservice. The bill is being made into something much
more dramatic.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he feels he could vote for the
amendment because it falls in line with his philosophy as he is in
favor of smaller government, not cheaper government. He said he
thinks the amendment helps to accomplish that.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he is in favor of smaller government too.
He said when you talk about things like this, you have to talk
about not only cost but value and the service that government is
providing. The amendment addresses cost, but we may have a problem
with value.
Number 379
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said the hiring freezes that he is used to
seeing have got a "fail safe" built into them that allow for
emergency exceptions. He said in review the bill, he didn't see a
"fail safe" that would qualify for the kind of situation that
Representative Elton discussed.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to page l, line 8, "State agency may fill a
vacancy in a position if the department, commissioner or agency
head certifies that the agency needs to fill that specific
positions to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public."
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he stands corrected and removed his
objection.
Number 390
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he will have to vote against the bill as
it is a whole new way of looking at saving money. No public
testimony has been taken. There hasn't been comments from the
department or the Administration. There should be hearings held on
the bill.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said an agency could fill a specific position to
protect the health, safety or welfare of the public. He said the
statement is open ended and could almost be considered to be all
inclusive with every conceivable problem out there.
Number 413
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said under the terms of the welfare of the
public, would the University of Alaska be able to hire a professor
of widgets in their school of business. CHAIRMAN KOTT said he
would suppose so only if they're teaching widget construction.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would be more apt to be able to vote
on that if the rest of the bill were deleted. He said we're going
from a pay cut to a hiring freeze. He said he would like to hear
that debate go forward. Representative Kubina said he has a
proposed amendment that he may bring forward after all other
amendments are brought up.
Number 426
CHAIRMAN KOTT said Amendment 4 is before the committee and there is
objection. A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Kott,
Sanders, Rokeberg, Masek and Porter voted in favor of adopting the
amendment. Representative Kubina and Elton voted against the
adoption of the amendment. So Amendment 4 was adopted.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there were additional amendments.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he did have a proposed amendment, but
seeing the turn of events he said he would like to move to table
the bill until the committee has had time to study it and perhaps
bring it up at a later date.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would object to the motion for the purpose of
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for an at ease.
An unidentified speaker said a motion to table is not debatable.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would take a brief at ease at
4:37 p.m. The meeting was called back to order.
Number 459
CHAIRMAN KOTT said there is a motion to table HB 236. The motion
is not debatable. There is objection. He asked the committee
secretary to take a roll call vote. Representatives Kubina, Masek,
Elton, Sanders and Rokeberg voted in favor of tabling HB 236.
Representatives Porter and Kott voted against tabling the bill. So
HB 236 was tabled until further notice.
HB 144 - NONUNION STATE EMPLOYEE SALARY INCREASE
Number 470
The next order of business was HB 144, "An Act relating to salaries
for officers and employees of the state who are not members of a
collective bargaining unit; and providing for an effective date."
At 4:45 p.m. CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would take a five
minute at ease. The meeting was called back to order at 4:50 p.m.
He announced the committee had before them five labor contract
bills and there are several people signed up to testify. He said
it is the intent of the Chairman to pass the bills out in their
virgin form. He said he would take them numerically, from HB 144
through HB 305.
He asked if there was anyone to testify on HB 144. There being no
response, he asked for a motion to move the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 144 out of the House Labor
and Commerce Committee with attached fiscal notes and individual
recommendations. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection.
Hearing none, HB 144 was moved out of committee
HB 298 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM APEA SUPERVISOR CONTRACT
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next order of business would be HB 298,
"An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the
collective bargaining agreement with the Alaska Public Employees
Association, Supervisory Unit; and providing for an effective
date." He asked if there was anyone wishing to testify. There
being no testimony, he asked if there was any debate.
There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved to pass HB 298
out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with attached fiscal
notes and individual recommendations.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for the purpose of a comment. He
said he has a problem with the fact that the prior Administration
felt it needed to negotiate a contract which extended the work week
by 2.5 hours and add a substantial additional increase for that
amount of money. Representative Rokeberg said that concerns him
from a conceptual standpoint, when we should be cutting the budget.
He then withdrew his objection.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was further objection. Hearing none,
HB 298 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee.
HB 299 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM IBU CONTRACT
Number 494
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the next bill before the committee would HB
299, "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the
collective bargaining agreement with the Inlandboatmen's Union of
the Pacific; and providing for an effective date." He asked if
there was anyone to testify. There being no testimony, he asked if
there was debate.
There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move
HB 299 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 299 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
HB 300 - APPROP: MONETARY TERM LOCAL 71 CONTRACT
Number 500
HB 300, "An Act making appropriations for the monetary terms of the
collective bargaining agreement with Public Employees Local 71,
Labor, Trades and Crafts Unit; and providing for an effective
date," was the next piece of legislation to come before the
committee. CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was anybody wishing to
testify. There was nobody to testify. Chairman Kott asked if
there was debate.
There being no debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion to move
HB 300 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 300 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
HB 305 - APPROP: UNIV. OF AK LABOR AGREEMENTS
Number 506
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced HB 305, "An Act making appropriations to
satisfy the agreed upon monetary terms of a collective bargaining
agreement for certain employees of the University of Alaska; and
providing for an effective date," was the next order of business.
He asked if there was anyone wishing to testify. There was nobody
to testify. Chairman Kott asked if there was debate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said in another meeting the committee heard
testimony from the university. He asked if HB 305 ameliorates some
of the problems that had been raised earlier. CHAIRMAN KOTT said
he is sure it ameliorates some of the problems and alleviates some
of the concern.
WENDY REDMAN, Vice President, Statewide University System,
University of Alaska, said it is a very small unit consisting of
about 200 employees. She explained it is just the crafts and
trades.
There being no further debate, REPRESENTATIVE PORTER made a motion
to move HB 305 out of the House Labor and Commerce Committee with
individual recommendations and attached fiscal notes. Hearing no
objection, HB 305 was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business come before the House Labor and
Commerce Committee, CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the meeting at 4:59
p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|