Legislature(1997 - 1998)
01/29/1997 03:15 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
January 29, 1997
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative John Cowdery
Representative Joe Ryan
Representative Tom Brice
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Bill Hudson
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Eric Croft
Representative Gene Kubina
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 68
"An Act relating to the exemption from the requirement for payment
for overtime under a voluntary work hour plan; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 30
"An Act relating to civil liability for skateboarding; and
providing for an effective date."
- PASSED HB 30 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 68
SHORT TITLE: VOLUNTARY FLEXIBLE WORK PLAN: OVERTIME
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) THERRIAULT, Kelly, Vezey
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/15/97 67 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/15/97 67 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
01/27/97 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/97 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/29/97 175 (H) COSPONSOR REMOVED: JAMES
BILL: HB 30
SHORT TITLE: CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKATEBOARDING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) MULDER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
01/13/97 35 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/3/97
01/13/97 35 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
01/13/97 35 (H) L&C, JUDICIARY, FINANCE
01/29/97 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
GENE THERRIAULT, Representative
Alaska State Legislature
State Capitol, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-4797
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 68.
ED FLANAGAN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 68.
JOHN WARD
1357 Sloan Drive
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-2597
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
DENNIS BROSMAN
P.O. Box 70852
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 451-0012
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JOHN BENCK
515 1st Avenue, Number 5
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-3725
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
STEVE LANG, General Manager
Fort Knox Mine
P.O. Box 73726
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 490-2201
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
TERRY QUIRK
P.O. Box 11-1115
Anchorage, Alaska 99511
Telephone: (907) 345-5428
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
LORIN JOHNSON
2716 Berryman
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 243-1620
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MALCOLM AUBLE
7611 Little Bend Circle
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 349-2494
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
CAROL DYSNOYERS
P.O. Box 33
Healy, Alaska 99743
Telephone: (907) 683-1498
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JOHN BRADING
2004 Steese Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-2049
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
CLARENCE NAZURUK
P.O. Box 74391
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 451-0185
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JESUS PRIM
P.O. Box 75245
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 488-7406
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
TOM REHARD
P.O. Box 871550
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-4441
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
DARRELL HILDEBRAND
Box 74983
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 457-3598
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
DENNIS ALEXANDER
Box 35496
Fort Wainwright, Alaska 99703
Telephone: (907) 457-4549
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
JIM BLAKEWAY
Healy, Alaska 99743
Telephone: (907) 683-2226
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
LYLE JOHNSTON
115 Bridgett Street, Number 6
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (07) 458-2790
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MATT CLOWARD
Healy, Alaska 99743
Telephone Number Unavailable
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MONTY BURBANK
Healy, Alaska 99743
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
STEVE ANDERSON
15100 Mesa Place
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-1973
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
WAYNE BLUMB
22225 Whispering Birch
Chugiak, Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-1420
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MICHAEL KILLIAN
9131 King David Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 09507
Telephone: (522) 941-0005
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
CLICK BISHOP
3365 Sankvik
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-3969
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
TONY ROYBAC
Address and telephone number not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MIKE TOMSHA
1413 Noble Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-4500
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
NED GRIFFITH
1543 Porchett Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 456-5578
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
ARON HOULTON
1242 Raymond
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 451-9369
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
DAN SIMIEN
315 Barnette
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-4584
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
SCOTT VAUGHN
324 Slater Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-4735
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
RICHARD ROSE
3044 Super Cub's Lane
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-7720
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
DAN REPASKY
2702 Denali Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 272-6571
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
RICK BOYLES
3810 Erickson Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-7180
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JOE ROSSER
1228 Denali Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 451-7180
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
RICHARD STALEY
P.O. Box 55882
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-2275
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MARK JOHNSON
5001 Chena Avenue, Number 1
Anchorage, Alaska 99508
Telephone: (907) 337-6267
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MIKE GALLAGHER
4631 Southpark Bluff Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99516
Telephone: (907) 345-2144
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
CHARLES PASKVAN
1028 Dogwood, Number 404
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 456-2537
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
SANDRA MCGILL
P.O. Box 56197
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-8954
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
BRUCE MITCHELL
P.O. Box 85107
Fairbanks, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (90&0 452-3917
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
FRED SMITH
P.O Box 73545
Fairbanks, Alaska 99707
Telephone: (907) 458-0527
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
PAUL CUPPY
100 10th Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MICHELLE SIMPSON
P.O. Box 10229
Fairbanks, Alaska 99710
Telephone: (907) 457-1173
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
DAVID FORD
6930 Crawford Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99502
Telephone: (907) 248-7532
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
BLAKE JOHNSON
HCO-1 box 1580
Anchorage, Alaska 99511
Telephone: (907) 776-5212
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JANE BENEDICT
77 Slater Drive, Number 14
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
GLEN BAYSINGER
1269 Nordin Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 457-5251
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
DARLINE HERBERT
455 3rd. Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 458-0431
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JIM LAITI
4325 Old Nenana Highway
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-4941
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MANO FREY
2501 Commercial Drive
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 272-4571
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JAMES CONATSE
7700 Pleasure View
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 272-4311
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
DAN LOUDERBACK
22225 Whispering Birch
Anchorage, Alaska 99567
Telephone: (907) 688-1420
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
MIKE SWEENEY
1453 Eielson Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-8520
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
GREG CHAPIN
P.O. Box 84049
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-4834
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
STEVE STEEL
221 Dunbar Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 457-8335
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
IRBY EDWARD
3521 Industrial Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2787
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
JOHN BROWN
814 Austin
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-5870
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
DWAYNE COUCH
300 Howland Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-7861
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
CORY BELLOWS
1516 Farmers Loop
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 452-3429
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
BRAD MERRILL
4772 Glasgow, Number 2
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-7328
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
MARK HAMBLETON
2784 Totem Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 455-7120
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
MIKE MENNAGHAN
1120 Eastwood Land
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
WAYNE PEPPLER
928 Mark Way
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-2787
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
DONNIE RICE
1102 Lakeview Terrace
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 456-5730
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
GARY ALLEN
1090 Coppet Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
Telephone: (907) 479-7854
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
SYLVIA WARD
P.O. Box 85066
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 474-8292
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
JEFF HOWE
632 Holiday
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-6321
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
TIM SHARP
1284 Lois Lane
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 457-2749
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
ALEX KARVELIS
P.O. Box 83083
Fairbanks, Alaska 99708
Telephone: (907) 479-4661
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
MICHELLE STEEL
221 Dunbar Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 457-8335
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
TERRY COX
887 Chena Hot Springs Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 479-4661
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 68.
TIM RENNER
719 Herning Road
Fairbanks, Alaska 99712
Telephone: (907) 488-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
PATRICK SUMPTER
2877 Horseshoe Way
North Pole, Alaska 00705
Telephone: (907) 488-4758
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
STEVE BRANDT
1137 Desperado
North Pole, Alaska 99705
Telephone: (907) 488-3007
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 68.
TIM SULLIVAN, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Eldon Mulder
State Capitol, Room 411
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1182
Telephone: (907) 465-2647
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented sponsor statement on HB 30.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 97-5, SIDE A
Number 001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee to order at 3:15 p.m. Members present at the
call to order were Vice-Chairman Cowdery, Representative Sander,
Representative Brice and Representative Ryan. The committee took
a brief at ease for five minutes.
HB 68 - VOLUNTARY FLEXIBLE WORK PLAN: OVERTIME
Number 151
REPRESENTATIVE GENE THERRIAULT came forward to present a committee
substitute related to HB 68 and to answer questions for the
committee. This committee substitute incorporates comments made
from the previous hearing and as a result narrows the scope of the
legislation. The new language appears primarily in lines 5 through
9 of the new committee substitute as follows:
(17) work performed by an employee under a voluntary flexible
work hour plan that is not entered into under paragraphs (13) or
(14) of this subsection if the employee is employed at a surface
metal mining operation that operates year round and if
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated that they didn't want to impact
seasonal employment and the overtime opportunities made available
in these positions. They also narrowed the legislation to metal
mining operations to make clear not to impact gravel extraction,
peat operations for lawns, coal operations, etc. In addition, much
of the previous testimony made it seem like a number of people were
unaware of the extensive exemptions in the current statutes. He
said he had a document which he would make available that outlines
these exemptions.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT continued that currently small mining
operations with no more than 12 employees are completely exempt;
agriculture, horticulture and dairy product processing are
completely exempt; small businesses with less than four employees
are completely exempt; forestry and lumber operations with no more
than 12 employees are completely exempt. He noted that the
previous testimony indicating that this would impact thousands of
employees in the State of Alaska, in light of this narrow scope,
plus the existing exemptions make it clear that the impact of the
bill has been greatly narrowed and would not impact nearly the
number of employees indicated.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT added that there was some question as to
whether or not the bill's scope could be narrowed without causing
a constitutional problem because they would be treating one class
of mining operation differently from another. He did have a
discussion with the legal department and they indicated that the
narrowing or limitations drafted into this bill would probably not
trigger a heightened scrutiny by any court. They don't believe
that there is any problem currently in the state statutes. There
are a number of distinctions drawn between coal mining operations
with regards to reclamation, gravel mining operations and different
sections of the statute. These have been allowed to exist in the
statute for a long time without any legal challenges.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT also noted that he did check around for
some other 24-hour operations in the State of Alaska that currently
operate under a very similar job scenario as proposed in this new
legislation. He cited medical facilities as an example. Right now
people providing medical services are completely exempt, as well as
those that operate under collective bargaining agreements. In
Fairbanks, the municipal utilities system operates a power plant
and are organized under Local 302. These employees currently work
12-hour shifts and are not paid for overtime until they work over
40 hours in a given week which is exactly what they are asking for.
He referred to previous testimony from someone within Local 302 who
testified against the bill. What they are asking for is that the
Fort Knox workers have the same flexibility to structure their work
situations as those utilities workers as referenced.
Number 606
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE noted that it was a stretch by using the
example of a Local 302 employee under collective bargaining to
compare this to the legislature. The legislature is not prepared
to negotiate for employee's rights or benefits to the extent of an
organized union. A lot of the exemptions within .060 deals with
very small mining operations which are limited to 14 weeks in a
year and he didn't think the Fort Knox situation could be compared
to a hospital where lives are at stake.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked why it was necessary that the
legislature act as a negotiating agent between management and labor
at the Fort Knox mine. This was his concern.
Number 730
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT didn't think the legislature needed to
act as a negotiator for the employees. What the employees are
asking for is that they be able to negotiate on their own behalf,
just as the workers at the power plant used earlier, they've chosen
to negotiate as a group through a collective bargaining agreement.
This certainly is their right. The Fort Knox employees have chosen
not to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement and as
a by-product of this decision their flexibility to structure their
work hours are limited by state statute. They are asking for the
same flexibility. It doesn't preclude them from organizing under
a union eventually if they so choose. The Commissioner of Labor is
the person to approve these flexible hour agreements. No standards
have been included in this legislation by which the commissioner is
to make a determination based upon the same. The courts then won't
have anything to come back and say, "well according to the
standards we think you made a wrong decision in either approving or
turning it down. It's completely his call."
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT stated that he used the hospital example
as other 24-hour operations in regards to employees having some
flexibility in structuring their work schedule. The overriding
consideration is that it's a 24-hour operation, rather then
factoring the fact that a hospital provides life or death services.
Number 890
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE noted that a 711 or a MAPCO convenience store
are 24-hour operations too. He asked for a reference specifically
to the 24-hour section within the statute and its exemption.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT qualified that there was not an exemption
in statute specific to a 24-hour operation.
Number 1122
REPRESENTATIVE JOE RYAN moved to adopt the new committee substitute
before them. Hearing no objection it was so moved. The committee
substitute 68, version 0-LS0329/F was adopted by the Labor and
Commerce Committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called a very brief at ease which lasted for five
minutes.
Number 1284
ED FLANAGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor came forward
to testify. He initially spoke to the committee substitute. He
stated his appreciation for the committee and sponsor for
addressing some of the concerns verbalized at the previous meeting,
but the department was unable to remove its objection to this
legislation. The department felt as though it was ill advised to
add "willy-nilly" more exemptions to the state's basic labor laws.
It's true that there is a laundry list of exemptions in statute
already, but many of them go back to the original enactment of this
statute. In the case of the medical centers, they are public
employees regardless of whether they are represented by a union or
not. They are also exempt under this act. "We would probably as
a department, I don't know as an administration, support putting
them under the act, but I think Alaska Municipal League might have
a different opinion on that. So they are only under federal FLSA
law for over 40."
MR. FLANAGAN stated that the department's opposition to adding
exemptions is born out by one of the letters received from a
trucking firm in Fairbanks supporting the original bill and stating
that all employers should have the right to work their employees 12
hours without paying over-time. This was exactly what the
commissioner was saying and "I'm sure there will be two or three
lobbyists racing each other to the phone to call this company and
have them as a client next year to get a little technical amendment
exempting their employees from these onerous over time laws."
MR. FLANAGAN responded to the statement made about the
commissioner's power to approve or deny flexible hour agreements,
by stating that any action the department takes can be challenged
in court. They would only be able to deny them as they do under
current law if there is evidence of coercion or that the agreement
was a condition of employment.
Number 1416
MR. FLANAGAN stated that the department has 17 years of experience
approving flexible work hour plans and these are approved or denied
on their merits as to whether they comply with statute and
regulation language under the Administrative Procedures Act. The
department is complaint driven. If a problem is brought to their
attention they will investigate, but they do not have any audit
trails on these items. With regard to the memorandum which the
commissioner submitted to the chairman, they ran the numbers in
different ways. The only new number they ran was a figure under
current law of Fort Knox's proposed schedule of 14 / 12-hour shifts
in a 28 day period what the gross wages would be which was
$3,430.00 as opposed to $3,080.00 in a four week period under the
Fort Knox, AMAX Fairbanks Gold proposal of straight time, 12 hours.
They also ran the figures to try and estimate a pay adjustment to
hold harmless or neutral which was $15.71 per hour on the proposed
schedule. This would be gross pay neutral and benefits would have
to be adjusted to hold the employees harmless. They also ran the
figures in regards to the cost on a yearly basis for 240 employees
on a proposed 14 / 12-hour shift in a 28 day period under current
law this figure would be just under $1.1 million. This is just in
gross wages. He noted there were roll-ups such as social security,
medicare, etc. "There probably is somewhere $1.3, $1.4, $1.5
million that Mr. Lang represented as the cost. Again, that is the
cost of complying with the law."
MR. FLANAGAN stated that commissioner at the previous meeting was
asked if the Fort Knox mine had an approval for its 4 - 10 plan.
Since July of 1995 they have been in compliance with this plan and
they've had no complaints.
Number 1563
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG inquired as to a meeting last year regarding ten-
hours-at-the-face bill and whether or not the commissioner wanted
more discretion then when the committee was trying to put some side
boards on it.
MR. FLANAGAN responded affirmatively and stated that, "in that bill
and actually as the bill was passed, but for the 12-hour
possibility, not the 10-hour, the 10-hour is a given and then with
a request they can get a variance for 12. The variance procedure,
the variance language was an entirely different process. It was
more akin to what we do for OSHA variances. There has to be a
finding, the possibility even of a hearing, a written finding and
the discussion and as that language stands it would lend itself to
a more comprehensive examination." The issues there were what the
total work encompassed when travel was accounted for. This was a
broad look and a finding that this situation was safe or whether it
was unsafe. This was a different analysis and standard.
MR. FLANAGAN reiterated what the commissioner had noted when one 4
- 10 or 4 - 12 plan is approved for one concern and denied for
another this would open up to the department to challenges,
especially if it was anything construed to be arbitrary or
capricious.
Number 1660
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated his astonishment at the analysis used by
the deputy commissioner and for the record noted that this
particular bill gives the commissioner total discretion to make
this determination. What Mr. Flanagan suggests is that the
department would like to have further constraints placed on the
commissioner which seems to be diametrically opposed to the idea of
100 percent discretion.
MR. FLANAGAN noted that it had been their experience that they do
not have the discretion that the chairman or the sponsor have
referenced. The department issues a certificate approving a plan
which states the work is for 40 hours a week and not more than 12
hours a day. They have no confidence that a denial by the
department related to this review, unless coercion or a voluntary
standard being a condition of employment can be found, would pass
any judicial or legal challenge.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, in light of this, whether or not Mr.
Flanagan's confidence level would go up if he did have a process
for a finding within this exemption in the statute.
Number 1730
MR. FLANAGAN stated, not particularly, the exemptions as they are
added, results in two more the next year. "Where's it going to
stop?" Stated simply, the department's position is there are
several exemptions already provided for and at what point are there
enough?
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that they couldn't have it one way or the
other.
MR. FLANAGAN noted that he was responding to the sponsor's
statement that the commissioner has a very broad discretion. They
do not feel as though this is fact.
Number 1790
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT asked the deputy commissioner to explain
the standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), a federal
statute.
MR. FLANAGAN stated that the FLSA requires overtime over forty
hours. It does not reference the over eight hour standard which is
in place in Alaska and in six other states.
REPRESENTATIVE THERRIAULT noted he thought it was portrayed that
paying overtime for anything over eight hours despite what the
individual worker wants was the mainstay for workers in the United
States. He didn't know that this was necessarily true. He asked
if there was a problem with the way that the 10-hour exemption is
working now as far as the commissioner reviewing and approving to
make sure no coercion is present and it's what the employees really
want.
MR. FLANAGAN stated that the problem with this is the department's
resources. He reiterated that the department is complaint driven.
They don't audit payrolls like they do under Title 36. If the
application on its face complies with the law, the department
approves it through their regional wage and hour supervisor.
Number 1870
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT asked that if the commissioner gets an
application and determines that an application is what the workers'
want without coercion in any form would there be any other reason
for the commissioner to turn an application down, regardless of
safety issues or fair wages which could be taken care of through
collective bargaining.
MR. FLANAGAN stated that they always can opt for the latter option
which is outside of state law. They also have an option under
regulation for this chapter to annually rescind their individual,
voluntary agreement. He further stated that a reason for the
commissioner to turn down an application if the proposed work
schedule was regularly scheduled for more than 40 hours a week even
for more than 10 hours in a day, if it was 3 / 12's and a 4, they
would not approve it.
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT asked if under this proposal, meeting
these three standards, it is voluntary, no requirement, no
coercion, would there be something that the commissioner would in
addition look for to as a reason to turn it down.
Number 1945
MR. FLANAGAN stated that since the department would view this
effort as a "gutting" of the 8 hour work week for these employees
and those that would follow in similar exemptions they would
probably try to reject it on those grounds if it was perceived that
they had the authority, but he felt that this would pass muster.
"Your intent is going to be pretty clear through the record here,
of, as this bill makes its way through that it's supposed to be
approved and it's pretty hard, the whole 4 / 10's thing it lends
itself to it, it's congruent 40 hours. Once we add 12 it kind of
makes the whole, the 8 and the 40, even the exception to the 8 kind
of meaningless. When 4 / 10's was done in 1980 that's what people
were after, people understood what was involved. There were a lot
of them happening at that time throughout the country really, as we
first started to see these alternate work weeks."
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT made it clear that when he was presented
with the idea he asked for the petition to make sure that this was
what the workers wanted and he called some of the workers
independently to make sure there was no coercion. He also asked
how the idea was presented and he was told that this was what the
employees very enthusiastically wanted.
Number 2008
MR. FLANAGAN noted that they didn't dispute this a bit. He said
that the department feels for these employees and they've talked to
the employees, they've read all their letters. The department is
not saying that there was coercion, it was their concern for other
situations and unfortunately there's always the exception of a bad
party who might abuse a situation.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked how many employees in the state come
under some of the present exemptions.
MR. FLANAGAN stated he didn't know, but they would try to get this
information for the committee and he generally stated that this
number would definitely over a 1000.
Number 2157
JOHN WARD testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He stated that HB 68 is a bad bill since it focuses on
people who when they took their job knew what shifts they would be
working. He thought it was bad precedent to change state law for
a handful of people when it has huge potential of affecting others.
Number 2188
DENNIS BROSMAN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. The legislation leaves it wide open for
abuses of shifts from 10 to 12 hours.
Number 2198
JOHN BENCK testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He stated that he'd worked construction in Alaska for 23
years. He noted that any number of contractors who have found it
necessary to run 24-hour operations, including pipeline companies,
road workers, etc., have done so without running to the legislature
looking for an overtime pay exemption. He offered that this
legislation appeared to be a special interest bill. The scheduling
of a company's shifts is a company problem, not an issue for the
legislature. If Fort Knox has a problem scheduling they should
perhaps look at their own management.
Number 2235
STEPHEN LANG, General Manager, Fort Knox Mine testified by
teleconference from Sitka. When asked how many Alaskan workers
would be covered by this new committee substitute or what
operations would be covered, he responded that his understanding
was the current substitute would cover two operations, Fort Knox
and the Red Dog properties. He suspected that about 400 to 500
hundred workers would be covered and the amount of these workers
which would actually participate depends on the individual.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted at the previous hearing that there were a
number of comments and allegations made that Fairbanks Gold
deliberately created an onerous work schedule in order to coerce
workers into supporting this type of legislative change and asked
for Mr. Lang's comments.
MR. LANG stated that with all respect the allegation was a lie. He
noted the feasiblity studies and how if someone had reviewed them
would recognize that due to the very low grade nature of the
deposit and in accordance with Alaska law that the only way to
afford to operate the property was on eight hour shifts. He
checked the individual labor cost calculations in these reports and
verified this. He pointed out the employees are not asking to go
to a different 8-hour shift, "if it's simply a matter of the shift
schedule they had been given they could have asked for a different
8-hour shift. They're asking for a 12-hour shift and the reason is
to limit the number of, to increase the number of days they have
off work." He added that this was a consequence of following the
law, while allowing them to have more time off work. "It's almost
word for word why we have the flexible work plan, the very language
provided us from the Department of Labor which states it's
designed to allow some scheduling flexibility by affording the
employee an opportunity to work a reduced numbers of days within
the 40-hour week."
MR. LANG continued that is what's disturbing is the suggestion that
if the company could have manipulated more than 200 people in this
fashion, it is really an insult to the worker's intelligence. He
felt the workers out there are far more intelligent than this and
anybody who suggests otherwise grossly underestimates them.
Number 2358
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if the work crews had always been on
this 8-hour shift or whether they had been on a 4 / 10's schedule.
MR. LANG offered that he had only been with the company since
November 1 and added that they had been on an eight hour shift
since then. He didn't about the early mine operations and the 24-
hour schedule and how it was segmented.
Number 2385
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked if Mr. Lang or his predecessors were
ever approached by employees prior to the petition presented to the
legislature outlining this new proposal and whether or not there
were other schedules proposed.
MR. LANG stated that he had been approached by employees prior to
this petition, yes.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "did, about a different schedule than
what they're working, or about the 4 / 12's?"
MR. LANG responded "about working 12-hour sched -- 12-hour shifts.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "4 / 12's and the 4 / 12, 3 / 12 that
you, that you presented us or a different shift?
MR. LANG stated that he simply presented it as 12-hour shifts.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE reiterated 7 / 12's.
MR. LANG answered, "no sir."
Number 2429
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that he was not quite clear when Mr.
Lang says a 10-hour shift. Generally, when shifts are discussed
it's usually in the context of five days for eight hours a day, or
seven days of 12 hours a day.
MR. LANG stated that it was certainly possible to work 7
consecutive days and have the following 7 days off; it's possible
to work 3 days on, 4 days off; or visa versa and there are a large
number of varieties available.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that this was his question, which
variety was presented to you by the employees prior to this
proposed shift.
MR. LANG noted that there was no specific shift rotation presented
to him (indisc. - cross talking) be able to go to 12-hour shift to
limit the number of days at work.
TAPE 97-5, SIDE B
Number 000
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if Mr. Lang had looked into the
alternatives to this legislation proposed by Mr. Frey and a few
other individuals who will meet next week. Chairman Rokeberg
outlined that it would be an alternative to reduce the wage
schedules for the work force and pay the statutory overtime as
presently conducted and proceed on this basis. In other words, it
would keep their employees whole and the company's cost would be
the same or similar and still operate their 12-hour shifts within
the law.
Number 155
MR. LANG stated that he was shocked to hear from the Department of
Labor a recommendation to cut people's pay, but he also looked at
the costs or impact similar to what the Commissioner of Labor did
and he came up with a slightly different number. The commissioner
showed about a $1.79 and Mr. Lang showed a figure of about $2.10.
Regardless, he agreed that the impact would be about 2 to 3 times
as suggested by Mr. Frey. As to the feasibility he noted there
were some clear problems with it. Not all the employees would go
to a 12-hour shift. Again, he felt like he'd need to accommodate
employees on an individual basis. This would put him in the
position of running a dual payroll system and his entire payroll
department consists of one person. There are numerous
disadvantages to the employee with this plan, most particularly,
once they reduce the base wage there may be occasions where the
employee does work an extra shift that would be compensated at an
overtime rate, since the base rates would be reduced, by his
calculation this would be a reduction in the overtime pay by more
than $3.00 per hour. The employee would see a reduction in holiday
pay and time worked on a holiday based on the base pay rate.
Similarly they would have reductions in vacation pay, they would
see reductions in the short-term disability and long-term
disability payments to the employee, reduction in life insurance
and also in the accidental death and dismemberment policy. They
would have reductions in funeral leave, jury duty pay, and military
leave pay, as well as a reduction in worker's compensation
benefits. Based on all of these reasons, he felt as though the
consequences of this casual suggestion was not clearly in the
interest of the employee. He felt as though this would place a
harsh burden on those individuals who want to spend more time with
their families. He didn't think it was very well thought through
and that this suggestion should be rejected.
Number 185
TERRY QUIRK testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. The eight hour work day with overtime over
eight was given to the American workers and their families by the
United States government some 50 years ago. This effort was made
necessary due to the exploitation of the American worker in mines,
factories and other sweat shops of the day. Labor rights, just as
constitutional rights, civil rights and the like are entrusted to
our elected government officials of this land, to protect, not give
away these rights and conditions. He suggested that Fort Knox
adjust its hourly wage to accommodate the work schedule that the
mine wants to work and pay the workers the money that the mine
wants to pay them. "I calculated at $17.00 an hour under the 14
days every four weeks would currently pay $17.00 an hour for that
employee and the company agree that the employee would work seven
days straight, 12 hours per day, for $1496.00 a week. Instead the
company could adjust the hourly rate of those workers to $14.11 an
hour, the workers could agree to this on a voluntary basis and
under the existing state labor laws work 7 / 12-hour shifts for the
same $1496.00 a week."
Number 282
LORIN JOHNSON testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he had been in the
construction field for 40 years. He does not support increasing a
work day to 12 hours without overtime pay. He noted that if this
bill passes it will only open the door for those other exemptions
as mentioned.
Number 306
MALCOLM AUBLE testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He felt that it served a special interest for
Fort Knox gold mine. State law should not be changed to benefit a
few while creating a hardship for many others. To restrict this
bill to mining and surface metals would be discriminatory to other
industries. If it passed with a 12-hour work day it would be
challenged in the courts, as well as other exemption allowance.
This would cause harm to people employed seasonally who depend on
overtime to make their yearly income.
Number 376
CAROL DESNOYERS testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. She said she sympathized with the workers of
Fort Knox gold mine, especially in regards to the horrendous
schedule which they keep in order to keep their jobs. "The reason
we are here is because these workers have been led to believe that
the only feasible and workable solution to rectify their scheduling
dilemma and allow them more off time while still allowing the mine
to operate within budgeting guidelines as the change exists in
labor laws." She said they shouldn't loose sight that these laws
were put into effect for a reason. They were put in place to
protect the worker and also noted that this law could affect other
occupations. This legislation would reduce any leverage regarding
overtime hours and subsequent pay regardless of whether they are
union or not. She mentioned the voluntary flexible work plan as an
option which is already under existing legislation.
Number 578
JOHN BRADING testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He felt as though the workers could have
their proposed work schedule without changing the present laws.
Number 605
CLARENCE NAZURUK testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he is currently on the
executive board of Labor Local 942 and has worked out of that hall
since 1974. He believes this bill will have rippling effects into
organized labors which sets high standards for working conditions
and wages. He felt as though this legislation would erode these
conditions.
Number 636
JESUS PRIM testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He felt it was unsafe work practices to pay straight
time for 12-hour days.
Number 666
TOM REHARD testified from the Mat-su Valley by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. Mr. Quirk stated most of the concerns by
everyone there in the Mat-su. He noted that AMAX outside provides
buses for their workers to commute.
Number 705
DARRELL HILDEBRAND testified from Sitka in support of HB 68. He
works for AMAX Gold at the Fort Knox project. He stated he
supported this bill for a number of reasons, mainly because he's a
family type person and he'd like to see his children grow up. He
stressed that the employees are not being coerced and he said it's
not all about money. He also noted the voluntary aspect to this
plan.
Number 786
DENNIS ALEXANDER testified by teleconference from Sitka in support
of HB 68. He said this legislation would improve the quality of
life for the employees. He said a cut in pay for hourly wages to
include compensation for overtime to make up for this cut was
unacceptable. He said he was disappointed with Tom Cashen's stand
on this issue and made reference to the handbook on Alaska state
government dated November 1996, on page 63 he read Mr. Cashen's job
description as follows: "...to promote the welfare of the wage
earner and to improve working conditions." He stated that this was
exactly what the independent workers were trying to achieve without
the input from labor unions and he also noted that Mr. Cashen's
statement was an echo for the labor unions. The workers of Fort
Knox need Mr. Cashen's support and he needs to also look at the
condition of the operations. It is Mr. Cashen's mandate to do
this.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Alexander and Mr. Hildebrand if they
had paid their own way to Juneau and noted that they had attempted
to fly to Juneau, but were unable to due to the weather.
MR. ALEXANDER answered, "no, I was, I was sure trying to get there
hard, but no I didn't."
Number 1040
JIM BLAKEWAY testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He works for Usabelli Coal Mine and his
concern is that this new legislation could interfere with their
renegotiations of their contract. He also said he didn't
understand how this could be voluntary and felt as though Fort Knox
could handle the cost of overtime in light of the profits made.
LYLE JOHNSTON testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He vested out of the Laborers Union, Local
942. If this legislation passes other industries will want to
follow suit.
MATT CLOWARD testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He is a heavy equipment mechanic and he is
totally against this legislation.
MONTY BURBANK testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He has been a member of organized labor since
1976 and he's currently employed at Usabelli Coal Mine. He cited
the sacrifices of men who organized and lost wages through
picketing so that he was able to make a decent living. He saw no
reason to tamper with labor laws and it would only throw back the
clock. He encouraged the Fort Knox employees to organize.
Number 1040
STEVE ANDERSON testified from Anchorage by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he has been in construction
for 25 years and that HB 68 would cause deterioration to the
present law.
Number 1074
WAYNE PLUMB testified from Anchorage by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He has been a seasonal construction worker
and he's also worked 4 / 10 flexible work weeks and has seen how
they are manipulated and abused.
Number 1107
MICHAEL KILLIAN testified from Anchorage by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he's worked in numerous
capacities in the construction trade, including mining. He
questioned how the voluntary aspect of this legislation could work.
He didn't see any correlation between this legislation and the
accommodations made for Greens Creek mine last year. Their issue
was extending hours working at the face of the mine underground
from eight hours a day to ten hours a day and it was not intended
to jeopardize any existing statutory protection now or then. He
noted that employers will bargain hard to revise language and labor
contracts to be changed from current overtime situations to the new
revised laws they should have rights to such as outlined in HB 68.
Number 1278
CLICK BISHOP testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he was a second generation
member of the Operating Engineers Local 302. He made it clear that
he is very proactive for the mining industry in Alaska as long as
it can be achieved in an economically feasible manner for both the
owner and the employee, along with safety considerations and the
affects to environment. He is not opposed to the Fort Knox
employees achieving their scheduling goals, but he is opposed to a
bill which would be a detriment to all surface miners in Alaska.
He also mentioned workers at the Red Dog Mine and how none of them
had testified to this legislation yet.
Number 1362
TONY ROYBAC testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He's been a member of the Laborers Local 942
since 1975 and he felt as though this legislation would open up a
whole "can of worms."
Number 1389
MIKE TOMSHA testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that this shift work issue is
nothing new and will be implemented whether the employees get their
overtime or not.
Number 1408
NED GRIFFITH testified from Fairbanks by teleconference in
opposition to HB 68. He works for Local 942 and he addressed the
Fairbanks legislators specifically. He didn't agree with
legislating for a small few in relation to laws which have been
intact for 60 years.
Number 1469
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he agreed with Mr. Bishop's comments
regarding the Red Dog Mine. The committee has solicited a response
from these employees to make sure they are appraised of this
legislation.
Number 1490
ARON HOULTON testified from Juneau in support of HB 68. He works
at the Fort Knox facility. He noted other testimony from
individuals who seem to ignore the voluntary aspect of this
legislation. He has worked at this mine from the first day and
this scheduling issue was an issue then. It seemed the main
opponent to this legislation was organized labor. He stated that
the employees of this mine are thinking, competent individuals who
wish to have want they want, not to put it on anybody else. They
want to be able to decide their own work schedules and spend more
time with their families.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT asked Mr. Houlton to explain how the issue
of a petition was raised and presented to him.
MR. HOULTON stated that this issue was brought to him by Doug
Nicolson. It had come to Mr. Nicolson's attention that the
employees wanted this new schedule, which was nothing new. Mr.
Houlton mentioned co-workers who had left the mine because of the
work schedule. The workers were told the petition was voluntary
and said that 241 employees signed it.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT asked if there was a high level of
understanding amongst the employees that if at any time they were
being unfairly treated by the company that they had the right under
federal law to organize and collectively bargain for hours and
wages.
MR. HOULTON responded absolutely. He said they'd never seen the
need to organize. When this scheduling change issue was brought
forth, Fort Knox said they would "go to the wall" for the
employees. The company pays a fair wage and he makes more money
now than he's ever made anywhere else, plus they offer great
benefits.
Number 1669
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Houlton what he did, how much he made
and whether or not he had paid for his trip to Juneau to testify.
MR. HOULTON stated that no he did not pay for his trip, he makes
$19.50 an hour and he's a shovel operator at the Fort Knox Mine.
Number 1685
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked who Doug Nicolson was.
MR. HOULTON stated that he is a mine supervisor and was the
individual who made the petition available. He stated that the
first time they put equipment into the dirt they worked 5 / 8's and
then it changed to the current schedule they have now. The 5 / 8's
shift only lasted about two weeks. He said he was aware of other
employees who had tried to get the schedule changed before Mr.
Nicholson's efforts. At safety meetings the subject of the
schedule has always been discussed. It was understood that once
the mine was in full production this issue would be addressed.
Number 1800
DAN SIMIEN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He noted that everyone in Alaska had a collective
ownership to mineral resources. He asked that overtime laws as
they currently exist be maintained.
Number 1938
SCOTT VAUGHN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that this was regressive
legislation and erodes laws established to protect workers.
Number 1983
RICHARD ROSE testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He thought that the Fort Knox employees have
not contemplated enough what they're going to loose in the long
run.
Number 2047
DAN REPASKY testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He said he spoke for on behalf on the entire
membership of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers
(IBEW), Local Union 1547. The IBEW represents nearly 5000 men and
woman throughout the state of Alaska, all of whom are paid an
hourly wage in exchange for their work. To adopt this proposed
legislation would return the Alaskan worker to a pre-twentieth
century standard. Wage and hour laws were established in response
to employer coercion. "There is a strong motive for an employer to
subtly or even overtly suggest workers voluntarily give back two
hours of overtime per day. One must seriously consider the
realistic chances of an employee risking a job by refusing to
(indisc.) an employer and thereby facing a prospect of being
replaced by someone just a little bit hungrier who is willing to
work under the voluntary plan. That is precisely why the provision
exists in state law for workers to develop a bonafide, voluntary
flex plan within a collective bargaining agreement."
MR. REPASKY stated that corporate benefit drives this legislation.
His organization is not convinced that this reduction in
compensation is being brought before the legislature solely on
behalf of these workers and noted the four lobbyists hired to help
with this effort. Fort Knox should accommodate their employees
concerns under current law.
Number 2244
REPRESENTATIVE TERRIAULT stated that the testimony heard regarding
employees forfeiting two hours of overtime pay led him to believe
that the speaker thought the Fort Knox employees could exercise the
ten-hour exemption for the two hours beyond this. He asked Mr.
Flanagan to speak to them briefly about the ten-hour exemption. It
was his understanding that the department's interpretation of the
ten-hour exemption is that they can get the ten-hour exemption, but
they could not work past ten hours. The ten-hour exemption
couldn't be used to work straight time up to ten hours and then
continue to work two more hours and get overtime. He stated the
reason he brought it up was that many of the witnesses were
testifying under this belief.
MR. FLANAGAN said it's true. They would deny a request for an
existing law flex plan for regularly scheduled 4 / 10's although in
the law it does allow payment of overtime over 10 in those 4 / 10's
plans.
Number 2350
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that he had in his hand a Fort Knox flex
plan that's been approved by Mr. Flanagan's department. He asked
if Mr. Flanagan would approve two hours of overtime based on this
plan already in place.
MR. FLANAGAN responded that no, not for the current proposed
schedule.
Number 2396
RICK BOYLES testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He addressed the Fort Knox operation and its
profitability by mention of an article in the Keyways Construction
Magazine, September/October issue that quotes Fort Knox officials
as saying, the mine is expected to produce 300,000 to 350,000
ounces of gold annually and 4.1 million ounces of gold over a 12
year period which equates to over a billion dollars in revenues for
Fort Knox. They've also said it would only cost them approximately
a million dollars a year in overtime to pay their employees. He
noted that this amount was not much out of a million dollars. This
does have an effect on the surrounding economies which are based a
lot on overtime. Overtime is a big factor in the Fairbanks area.
TAPE 97-6, SIDE A
Number 019
JOE ROSSER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He is a member of Local 867 and said that this
legislation caters to a single out-of-state company. He felt as
though this legislation would erode the already existing labor
laws.
Number 113
RICHARD STALEY testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He's a construction worker and felt that the
laws shouldn't be changed for just one company. He asked if this
could be considered discrimination and whether or not this was
something the voters wanted. Mr. Staley then gave figures of what
the Fort Knox Mine would stand to make in profits.
Number 285
MARK JOHNSON testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He stated that he is a 17 year construction
worker. He felt as though the overtime concessions in this
legislation could be abused.
Number 325
MIKE GALLAGHER testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. To change a law for one operation is
ridiculous and will affect other industries. He felt that if this
group of people sat down and looked at the options they could come
up with solutions rather than altering legislation.
Number 430
CHARLES PASKVAN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He has worked in construction for 22 years
and he did work at the Fort Knox Mine for two years. While there
he witnessed a lot of out-of-state workers who came to work there.
He didn't believe that this company should be able to change the
laws to make money and thought that these individuals were mostly
from out-of-state who wanted to see these changes made.
Number 500
SANDRA MCGILL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. She has lived in Alaska for 16 years. She
felt that if the Fort Knox Mine couldn't make a profit they should
sell it to someone else.
Number 554
PAUL MITCHELL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He stated he has been in the mining industry
for 20 years and was not representing a union. He asked that this
legislation be buried.
Number 610
FRED SMITH testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support of
HB 68. He presently works at the Fort Knox Mine and would like
this legislation to pass in order to change his work schedule so he
could be at home more. He would also save gas on commuting.
Number 653
PAUL CUPPY testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He has worked in the Alaskan construction industry since
1974. He understands the dissatisfaction of working long shifts
since he has done so himself, but he didn't feel it was necessary
to change existing law to resolve this issue.
Number 719
MICHELLE SIMPSON testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HB 68. She didn't understand why everyone was there to
protest if they felt this legislation would affect just a few
individuals. She felt like family time was more important than
overtime.
Number 767
DAVID FORD testified by teleconference from Anchorage in opposition
to HB 68. He is the business manager of Iron Workers Local 751 and
he's been an Alaskan resident for 22 years. He felt as though they
all agreed this legislation was at the bequest of the employer
rather than the employee. This is special interest legislation and
spoke to it lowering the standard of living. Mr. Ford also
discussed the insurance ramifications of this legislation.
Number 908
BLAKE JOHNSON testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He's a life-long Alaskan and represents the
Kenai Peninsula Central Labor Council. He recalled a bonfire in
1959 representing statehood and felt this legislation belonged
there. He cited all the industries in the Kenai area which work
overtime schedules.
Number 980
JANE BENEDICT testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. Her husband works at Fort Knox and he was a local hire.
They used to live out-of-state and saw the affect of the change
from an 8-hour rotating shift at a mine to a 12-hour shift and
their family life improved considerably. She noted that the
scheduling of both hearings on this legislation made it
inconvenient for the Fort Knox workers to attend.
Number 1070
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG made a point for the record that the committee
has received a number of letters from the workers and their
families in lieu of verbal testimony. He asked Ms. Benedict to
elaborate on how these two shift options affected their family.
MS. BENEDICT explained that she also works full time at a more
traditionally shifted job for eight hours a day, five days a week.
She's not available to participate in her child's school activities
as much as she'd like. When her husband's on a 12-hour shift he
has more time and energy to give to such activities which helps to
take pressure off the family.
Number 1110
GLEN BAYSINGER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HB 68. He's an employee of AMAX Gold and he considers
this a good opportunity. He felt the present schedule was not good
from a safety perspective.
Number 1160
DARLINE HERBERT testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. She felt that this legislation was a step
backwards.
Number 1210
JIM LAITI testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He is a 26 year construction worker and didn't think
this scheduling issue should be resolved through legislative
channels.
Number 1335
MANO FREY testified by teleconference from Anchorage in opposition
to HB 68. He is the local president of the AFL-CIO council.
Firstly, he stated that Mr. Lang's numbers were closer to the mark
than his in regards to the reduction of wages. This doesn't change
the fact of the matter. Schedule changes should take place to
accommodate family life, but this should be done within the
restraints of the law. He felt that if this law was not modified
that the company would adjust the employee wages which should be
done anyway.
Number 1517
JAMES CONATSE testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He is the business manager of one of the
local unions there and applauded Mr. Frey's comments.
Number 1546
DAN LOUDERBACK testified by teleconference from Anchorage in
opposition to HB 68. He found this legislation offensive to labor
and exploitative.
Number 1590
MIKE SWEENEY testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He is an employee at Fort Knox. He stated that the
people who oppose this bill already have the right to negotiate
their schedules under collective bargaining. Because they don't
belong to a union, they're not allowed and he has a problem with
this.
Number 1620
GREG CHAPIN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He's an employee of Fairbanks Gold and it's been the
best job he's ever had. He doesn't need a union to find himself a
job. The employees are just asking for the right to determine
their own schedules.
Number 1658
STEVE STEEL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He's an employee of Fairbanks Gold as a shovel hand and
as lead on his crew. This scheduling concern has been an issue
from the beginning and it's physically exhausting.
Number 1749
EDWARD IRBY testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He commented to the earlier questions about truck driver
scheduling. This legislation would allow more time with families.
Number 1800
JOHN BROWN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He is currently the president of the Fairbanks Central
Labor Council. Even though this is a union concern he felt like he
represents all workers. He spoke to why there are labor laws in
this country. This proposed change would be a backwards step.
Number 1884
WAYNE COUCH testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He is an employee at Fort Knox. He understands the
value placed on unions, but their opposition to this bill is
unjustified. It's not their place to negotiate this legislation
for them. He spoke about the work schedule now as it exists.
Number 1925
CORY BELLOWS testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He is a mill operator at AMAX. He said he would choke
if he heard one person say they, the employees, did not come up
with this proposal on their own. He noted the exemptions already
built into the present law. He made the analogy that maybe the
unions were special interest groups.
Number 2028
BRAD MERRILL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He stated that he used to live in Ketchikan and worked
at the mill. Since the shutdown he moved to Fairbanks and went to
work at the mine. The Fort Knox Mine is a great company. He
outlined the proposed changes to the schedule and its benefits.
Number 2098
MARK HAMBLETON testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HB 68. He works for AMAX Gold and he felt they've been
the best company he has ever worked for and he's worked for a lot
of different companies. He was disappointed that the unions were
trying to twist their arms to join when they feel the unions aren't
necessary.
Number 2125
MIKE MENNAGHAN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks against
HB 68. He has worked in Alaska for 23 years and now presently
works out of Local 942. He is against HB 68.
Number 2140
WAYNE PEPPLER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He has lived in Fairbanks since the early 1960's and has
engaged in every type of mining and on either side of the labor
situation. This company has offered him more benefits right off
the top. His family is covered by full medical.
Number 2250
DONNIE RICE testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He is an employee at Fort Knox and has worked mining
most of his life. He stated the schedule changes would improve the
life of the employees, even though they'd loose the overtime.
Number 2318
GARY ALLEN testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support of
HB 68. He is an employee at Fort Knox Mine and made an argument
that this company came in and hired 90 percent local people. He
made the comparison of this to the North Slope.
Number 2360
SYLVIA WARD testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. She works with the Northern Alaska
Environmental Center and made clear it that she does not work for
or represent a union. Ms. Ward stated that Fort Knox has
contributed quite a lot to this community, but she saw this
legislation as special interest and said this could be destructive
to others. She then outlined proposed suggestions to their
schedule which would not impact legislation. Ms. Ward referred to
a Wall Street Journal article dated January 27th and quoted the
headline, "Goldmining Firms Act to Meet Price Slump Challenge."
MS. WARD responded to Chairman Rokeberg's question as to whether or
not she wanted to see the Fort Knox Mine shut down. She said no
and that this was not what her testimony was about.
TAPE 97-6, SIDE B
Number 000
JEFF HOWE testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support of
HB 68. He is an employee of the Fort Knox Mine and has been a
resident of Alaska for 13 years. In no way were the employees
coerced. This is a voluntary program.
Number 102
TIM SHARP testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He represents the Alaska Labor Political Education
Committee and initially noted how he resented that this was being
played in the press as a union issue. He said instead of taking a
cut these employees should get a raise and stated that organized
labor speaks for everyone. Laws are not written for just the good
employers like Mr. Lange, but for the bad employers as well. These
alterations to existing law have the potential for abuse.
Number 2045
ALEX KARVELIS testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support
of HB 68. He is a Fort Knox employee and likes his job. The
present work schedule is hard on the body and it seems like this
legislation is the best option.
Number 227
MICHELLE STEEL testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
support of HB 68. She and her husband are employees at Fort Knox
and they were local hires. She was not coerced to testify and
wholly supports this legislation. This legislation will reduce the
time to drive to work reducing money on gas and will increase their
income by 2.3 percent, not to mention more time spent with family.
Number 302
TERRY COX testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in support of
HB 68. He is a Fort Knox Mine employee and has five children. He
makes a good income and is satisfied. With the schedule change
he'll have more time with his family. It's important that
employers and employees are able to work things out themselves.
Number 384
TIM RENNER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in opposition
to HB 68. He is a member of Carpenter's Local 1243. In the long
run this legislation has the potential to affect him and others in
unions.
Number 429
PATRICK SUMPTER testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He's been a commercial truck driver for 15
years and the last few years he's been a Teamster. He also worked
at the mine for some time too and had no problem with the long
shifts. He felt that overtime laws should stay intact and that he
can't support this legislation.
Number 575
STEVE BRANDT testified by teleconference from Fairbanks in
opposition to HB 68. He is a 25 year resident and is a teamster.
He also worked at the Fort Knox Mine during the construction phase.
He broke his back on the road commuting from the mine this last
summer after working long hours during the day.
Number 622
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG closed the public testimony and welcomed further
written testimony from anyone who so desired.
HB 30 - CIVIL LIABILITY FOR SKATEBOARDING
Number 648
TIM SULLIVAN, Legislative Assistant to Representative Eldon Mulder,
read the sponsor statement into the record:
"HB 30 was introduced at the request of the Municipality of
Anchorage.
"The municipalities of Anchorage, City and Borough of Juneau, as
well as the Fairbanks North Pole Borough would like to create
skateboard parks so skateboarders will have a place to ride, rather
than using other areas designed for pedestrians. Anchorage and
Fairbanks are willing to develop areas suitable for skateboard
riding if they can be insulated from liability for claims arising
from hazards inherent in skateboarding.
"The intent of House Bill 30 is to encourage the municipalities to
proceed with development of areas for outdoor recreation without
increasing their liability unnecessarily. The bill applies only to
municipal skateboard parks.
"This bill is patterned after the legislation passed providing this
limited protection to ski areas. The protection from liability
relates to inherent dangers and risks of skateboarding. The
municipality is required to post signs warning that there are
inherent risks and the liability rests with the skateboarder. It
was amended in the Judiciary Committee to make it certain that the
parks are not required to have on-site supervision provided by the
municipality."
MR. SULLIVAN noted a letter of support submitted to the committee
by the City and Borough of Juneau and one from the Alaska Municipal
League, as well as their 1997 legislative platform which names this
issue as one of their priorities.
Number 720
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY stated that he supports this
legislation and talked about how if we restrict our youth too much
they go to other inappropriate means of recreation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sullivan is he had had a chance to
review some proposed amendments to this legislation.
MR. SULLIVAN stated that the sponsor had no concerns with the
amendments labeled A1 and A3. The amendment labeled A2 might have
some constitutional problems though. Mr. Sullivan stated that
Legislative Research could not give him a definitive response
presently in regards to A2, but it was decided to hold this
amendment for the Judiciary Committee to consider at a later time.
Number 820
MR. SULLIVAN gave the committee a legislative history of this bill
since last year it passed the house. What has happened in areas
such as Anchorage, the city park downtown in front of the
Performing Arts Center has personalized bricks in the sidewalk.
These bricks have deteriorated severely and skateboards have been
prohibited. By prohibiting skateboarding in this area, it put kids
on the streets. With the lack of enforcement in this area this
doesn't completely absolve the municipality from skateboarders
getting hurt in areas not designed for skateboarding. This
legislation will give kids an area to go to for skateboarding and
relieve the burden of civil liability for the municipalities as
long as they are not negligent.
MR. SULLIVAN stated that this legislation made it through the house
last year and was referred to the senate and from there it was
referred to the Judiciary Committee where it sat for the remainder
of time. (The committee took an at ease for five minutes.)
Number 922
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG relabeled the amendments. Amendment A1 was
marked as amendment number one and Amendment A3 was marked as
amendment number two.
REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY made a motion to adopt these amendments as
indicated. REPRESENTATIVE BRICE objected for discussion purposes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that amendment number one was to set up
a standard or criteria in judging who can actually use these
skateboard parks and makes the parent or legal guardian responsible
to determine the minor satisfies these standards. Unless there is
a supervisor at the park there's no one there to make this
determination. The amendment number two, "says this is an
attractive nuisance, but a skateboard park would be an
extraordinary attractive nuisance, so unless it's expended or
secured it doesn't make any sense to have it." The text of these
amendments are as follows:
Amendment one:
Page 2, line 14, following "safely":
Insert";in the case of a minor who uses a municipal skateboard
facility, the minor's parent or legal guardian is responsible for
determining whether the minor satisfies the requirements of this
paragraph"
Page 3, line 18, following "ability":
Insert "; in the case of a skateboarder who is a minor, the
minor's parent or legal guardian is responsible for determining
whether the minor satisfies the requirements of this paragraph"
Amendment two:
Page 3, following line 13:
Insert a new subsection to read:
"(c) A municipality shall clearly delineate the boundaries
of a municipal skateboard facility with fencing or another type of
enclosing or surrounding structure."
Number 1002
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE removed his objection.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG then determined that by removing the objections
these two amendments were adopted by the committee.
Number 1018
REPRESENTATIVE RYAN made a motion to move HB 30 with individual
recommendations along with a zero fiscal note as amended. Hearing
no objection, it was so moved.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1029
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the meeting at 6:01 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|