Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/29/1999 03:25 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
March 29, 1999
3:25 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Sharon Cissna
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Tom Brice
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 127
"An Act relating to the sale of studded tires; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 127(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
* HOUSE BILL NO. 61
"An Act relating to an exemption from the requirement for payment
for overtime under a voluntary written agreement for certain
employees in the airline industry; and providing for an effective
date."
- MOVED HB 61 OUT OF COMMITTEE
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 127
SHORT TITLE: LIMIT WEIGHT OF STUDS USED ON TIRES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) MASEK
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
3/05/99 368 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
3/05/99 368 (H) TRA, L&C
3/18/99 (H) TRA AT 1:00 PM CAPITOL 17
3/18/99 (H) MOVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
3/19/99 511 (H) TRA RPT 5DP 1NR
3/19/99 511 (H) DP: HUDSON, KEMPLEN, COWDERY, HALCRO
3/19/99 511 (H) MASEK; NR: SANDERS
3/19/99 511 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DOT)
3/19/99 511 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
3/29/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 61
SHORT TITLE: OVERTIME WAGE EXEMPTION AIRLINE EMPLOYEES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVES(S) HALCRO
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/22/99 68 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
1/22/99 68 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE
3/29/99 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
TED DEATS, Researcher
for Representative Beverly Masek
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 432
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2679
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 127 for the bill sponsor.
SAM KITO III, Chairman
Legislative Liaison Committee
Alaska Professional Design Council
6420 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Number 7-E
Anchorage, Alaska 99504
Telephone: (907) 338-5486
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127.
TONY BARTER, Statewide Materials Engineer
Division of Statewide Design and Engineering Services
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
Telephone: (907) 269-6230
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding HB 127.
GARY WESSEL, President
Bruno Wessel, Incorporated
300 Long Beach Boulevard
Stratford, Connecticut 06615
Telephone: (203) 380-2524
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127 as manufacturer
of tire studs, provided information.
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Transportation and Public Facilities
3132 Channel Drive
Juneau, Alaska 99801-7898
Telephone: (907) 465-3904
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127.
JAMES M. JOHNSON, President
Johnson's Tire Service Incorporated
3330 Denali Street
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
Telephone: (907) 561-1414
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 127.
MATT SEIDLER, Owner
Alaska Tire Service
2330 East 88th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
Telephone: (907) 344-6288
POSITION STATEMENT: Addressed question to Mr. Wessel during HB 127
hearing.
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Norman Rokeberg
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4968
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained Version H committee substitute for
HB 127 as aide to the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant
to Representative Andrew Halcro
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 418
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-4939
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 61 for the bill sponsor.
MICHELLE BUCKMASTER
1205 Hollywood Drive, Number 600
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
Telephone: (907) 276-4364
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 61.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided department positions on HB 61 and
possible Version G committee substitute for HB 61.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 99-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:25 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Sanders, Murkowski and Harris. Representative Cissna arrived at
3:26 p.m. Chairman Rokeberg circulated the committee's advancement
of the name of Ed Flanagan as commissioner of the Department of
Labor for signature. The chairman noted the motion had been made
at the committee's previous meeting [March 19, 1999] but the
document had been held for more members' signatures. He indicated
a signature on the document would not be an endorsement; the
confirmation would be taken up by the full joint body of the
legislature.
HB 127 - LIMIT WEIGHT OF STUDS USED ON TIRES
Number 0169
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would address HB 127, "An
Act relating to the sale of studded tires; and providing for an
effective date." He invited the sponsor's representative forward.
Number 0190
TED DEATS, Researcher for Representative Beverly Masek, Alaska
State Legislature, came forward to present HB 127. The purpose of
HB 127 is to require installation of lightweight studs in new
passenger studded snow tires. It is a point-of-sale legislation
that will grandfather in all studded tires currently in use. The
law would take effect July 1, 2000, which would allow companies
time to prepare their inventory. According to the Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities (DOT-PF), $5 million worth of
stud-related road wear is done each year to Alaska's highways.
Many Alaskan roads have severe ruts which cause hydroplaning and
loss of control. One of the ways to reduce this road wear is by
requiring the use of lightweight studs in snow tires. The
reasoning is that as the tire spins at 55 miles per hour, the stud
strikes the road with a certain amount of force. Mr. Deats
indicated the heavier the stud, the more striking force.
Number 0292
MR. DEATS stated the majority of rutting on Alaska's high-volume
roads is caused by passenger studded tires, rather than heavy truck
studded tires. These aluminum and lightweight studs will cost $1
to $2 more in material per tire. However, HB 127 should be seen as
a bill to reduce wear on Alaska's roads, not as a bill to ban steel
tire studs. Both lightweight and conventional tire studs are steel
tire studs. Tire studs are a two-part item; the inner pin of
hardened carbide steel is what provides the traction on the road.
An outer casing of aluminum or steel holds the pin in the tire.
Both types of studs are engineered to wear at the same rate as the
tire, and are claimed to provide three to four winters' worth of
traction. Tests in Finland and Sweden have shown there is no
appreciable difference in the traction characteristics of the two
[types of] studs. Mr. Deats urged the committee to pass the
legislation as a way to reduce wear on Alaska's roads and maintain
safe driving surfaces throughout the state. Witnesses to testify
are: the Alaska Profession Design Council (APDC) which asked
Representative Masek to sponsor the bill, a tire company already
selling tires with the lightweight studs, and one of the primary
Alaska and Northwest tire stud suppliers.
Number 0440
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA mentioned she has heard the lighter-weight
studs do not work as well with antilocking [ABS] brakes.
MR. DEATS replied he is not aware of this issue but one of the
speakers might be.
Number 0505
SAM KITO III, Chairman, Legislative Liaison Committee, Alaska
Professional Design Council, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage in support of HB 127. The Alaska Professional Design
Council is a consortium of professional societies representing
architects, engineers, land surveyors, building code officials and
landscape architects. He stated, "Ten member organizations, a
combined membership of over 1,400 and represent approximately 5,000
licensed professionals." The Alaska Professional Design Council
addresses issues of concern to the various design professions
through workshops, seminars, ad hoc and standing committees, and
governmental task forces. One of the priorities of this year's
legislative committee is to work toward passage of legislation
mandating the sale of only lightweight studded tires. The APDC
proposal is before the committee as HB 127. Mr. Kito indicated the
APDC's collective desire is to foster an environment where Alaska
is not reacting to damage to its roads or loss of its facilities by
continually deferring maintenance. Deferred maintenance may not
appear to be directly related to studded tires but there is a
connection. In the effort to encourage the legislature to pass HB
127, APDC is encouraging a proactive step towards taking care of
Alaska's assets.
Number 0592
MR. KITO noted the state of Alaska is battling with severe roadway
wear. Everyone has seen and driven in the ruts in the state's
major roadways. Studies completed by DOT-PF indicate there are
three factors which, when addressed, will significantly decrease
road wear on Alaska's highways. 1) The utilization of a stone
mastic asphalt mix. 2) Utilization of harder aggregate or rock
material in pavement. 3) Encouraging the use of lightweight
studded tires. The Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities is currently utilizing stone mastic asphalt mix design;
it is investigating, and has located, some possible sources of
harder aggregate material. The third component in reduction of
stud-related road wear is the use of lightweight studded tires.
This use can decrease the wear and rutting of Alaskan roads by
decreasing the striking force of each stud. The Alaska
Professional Design Council is interested in this issue for two
basic reasons. 1) To advocate safety on Alaska's roadways. APDC
believes the rutted roadways pose safety hazards to the motoring
public if left unrepaired. 2) To encourage preventative
maintenance of Alaska's road infrastructure. While connecting
direct savings to decreasing wear on Alaska's roadways would be
extremely difficult, APDC believes that by engaging in this type of
preventative maintenance, the state is bound to free up an
undetermined amount of federal construction funding that will then
be available for other projects. The Alaska Professional Design
Council believes this is an important preventative maintenance
issue and they would like to encourage all members of the committee
to support the legislation's passage.
Number 0696
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what kind of scientific and engineering
background and studies the design council has for its position.
MR. KITO referred the question to DOT-PF, commenting that numerous
studies have been done, predominantly in Scandinavia. Mr. Kito
mentioned Tony Barter of DOT-PF is available via teleconference.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG rhetorically questioned whether that meant the
committee would have to rely on the department again for technical
information, not the private sector. He requested Mr. Barter's
testimony.
Number 0778
TONY BARTER, Statewide Materials Engineer, Division of Statewide
Design and Engineering Services, Department of Transportation and
Public Facilities, spoke via teleconference from Anchorage. He
stated he did not have any prepared testimony; he is available to
answer questions as a technical representative of the department.
Number 0822
GARY WESSEL, President, Bruno Wessel, Incorporated, testified next
via teleconference off-network from New York in support of HB 127.
He noted Bruno Wessel is one of the major suppliers of tire studs
and related equipment in North America. He indicated his company
tries to be involved in anything concerning its products. Mr.
Wessel said Mr. Barter has done quite a bit of research regarding
the road wear characteristics from the Nordic countries. Bruno
Wessel is there simply to answer any questions regarding studs and
related equipment: deliveries, inventories, pricing issues, et
cetera. Mr. Wessel stated they are in support of HB 127; anything
reducing road wear related problems due to tire studs, hopefully
reducing road maintenance costs, will certainly be a benefit to the
state of Alaska and, hopefully, other states using tire studs.
Regarding the ABS [antilock brake systems] brake question, ABS
brakes do not reduce the performance of tire studs, either steel or
aluminum, to his company's knowledge. Mr. Wessel noted there have
been quite a few studies done. He indicated Jim Johnson of
Johnson's Tire Service, one of the larger Alaskan tire dealers, has
been using aluminum studs for approximately four years and would be
able to provide information about his customers' response if he is
available.
Number 0929
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS questioned if any studies have been done
about the life span of an aluminum stud versus a steel stud. He
asked the anticipated life of the stud on a tire with aluminum
studs versus a tire with steel studs on an average Alaskan winter.
MR. WESSEL replied the average life of the stud should be the same
whether it is aluminum or steel if the stud is properly inserted
into the tire. The actual life of a tire varies depending the
individual's driving characteristics, vehicle type and weight, and
amount of driving. The stud basically wears with the snow tire
itself. If the snow tire is going to last two to three seasons
then the studs should last two to three seasons. There should
really be no wear difference between the aluminum and steel stud.
Number 1017
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Wessel if his company supplied all
different varieties of studs.
MR. WESSEL indicated it does. In North America the number one stud
is a standard steel stud that has been used for the last 30 years.
Stud manufacturing has improved quite a bit over that time, just as
tires and roads have improved. In North America Bruno Wessel sells
steel studs, some aluminum studs, and Mr. Wessel noted there is now
a modified steel stud. This could be called a lightweight steel
stud. He indicated there are currently three levels of tire studs:
1) the standard steel stud, 2) a slightly lighter modified steel
stud, 3) a considerably lighter aluminum stud. He commented the
carbide insert is the same. They also have plastic studs but these
are not used very often in North America.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed the name of Mr. Wessel's company. The
chairman asked what the company's North American market share is.
MR. WESSEL replied probably 70 to 75 percent. In answer to the
chairman's inquiries, Mr. Wessel noted his company is not publicly
traded and is located in Stratford, Connecticut.
Number 1126
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned HB 127 contains a stud specification by
weight. The chairman mentioned existing state statute or
regulation [AS 28.35.155(b)] has a 1/4-inch protrusion factor;
other states have different protrusion factors down to a .04-inch
protrusion.
MR. WESSEL said the normal standard of measurement in tires is
thirty-secondths of an inch. He questioned whether they were
referring to the distance the stud protrudes from the tire. He
noted a 1/4-inch protrusion would be significant, and, for some
tire studs, it would be the entire stud length. Normally the
protrusion is 1/32 to 2/32 of an inch out of a tire. Mr. Wessel
indicated the carbide tip of the stud is really the only thing
doing any work; the body of the stud should wear out very quickly
to equal that of the rubber around it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to a state-by-state chart in the bill
packet titled, "Studded Tire Use as of April 10, 1998." The chart
seems to indicate there is variability in allowed protrusion from
state to state - 3/32-inch plus or minus, or 1/16-inch - and Alaska
has a 1/4-inch protrusion. The chairman asked the length of a
normal stud.
Number 1211
MR. WESSEL replied studs are measured in millimeters (mm) but he
can also give thirty-secondths of an inch. He stated, "The average
stud - the 80 percent of the market - is a[n] 11 millimeter [mm]
which is a 12/32 (indisc.) and it's about a quarter of an inch ...
I'm sorry, maybe about a half an inch.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented, then, Mr. Wessel's testimony is that
the protrusion of the stud from the tire is usually only 1/32 or
2/32 of an inch. He asked about a specific recommendation.
MR. WESSEL mentioned a guideline of the proper studding method
which basically shows a side-view diagram of a tire with three
studs: one correct, one too deep, one protruding too far. The
true protrusion of a tire stud from the rubber should only be the
small carbide tip in the middle. The body of the stud should be
flush with the rubber around it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG mentioned limitations in other states on the
percentage of coverage area, such as 3 percent of the total tire
contact surface. He asked what this means.
MR. WESSEL replied he was not sure, indicating he was not familiar
with the document the chairman was reviewing. Mr. Wessel commented
most states basically have time limitations on tire studs and there
is not really much enforcement on the protrusion of the stud; if a
stud sticks out too far, it is going to fall out anyway.
Therefore, if a stud has not been inserted properly, by the time it
starts to wear out the stud will fall out.
Number 1314
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented the document he is reviewing is a very
good chart; it even says studs are allowed in the Mauna Kea Reserve
in Hawaii. The chairman questioned if they recommended that only
a certain number studs be inserted into a tire of a particular
size, or if is there a specific spacing, or how this is done.
MR. WESSEL responded the rubber manufacturers mainly determine how
many studs go into a tire. The average tire has approximately 90
studs; the studs go down the left and right sides of the tire and
are spaced about one inch apart. The desired configuration is to
have three or four tire studs making contact on the ground at one
time if the vehicle is in a slide condition. However, the stud
manufacturer does not determine the number of studs that go into a
tire. Cooper tires average about 75 studs per tire, last year's
Firestone tires averaged about 126 studs per tire, Gislaved, from
Sweden, averages about 115 studs per tire. The number of studs per
tire varies depending on the manufacturer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it seems logical the Cooper tire with 75
studs would have less wear on the roadways than the Firestone tire
with 126.
Number 1395
MR. WESSEL answered absolutely; it would also perform less in the
related conditions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, then, if he purchased a tire that
would take the maximum number studs and asked that 125 or 150
1.3-gram studs be inserted, wouldn't the numbers of studs have as
much to do with it as the amount of protrusion or weight of the
stud?
MR. WESSEL replied not really. He wished he could provide the
complicated mathematical equation which they have at their office.
He mentioned perhaps Mr. Barter could assist there. The equation
to calculate the impact on the road is extensive, and it really has
nothing to do with the volume of studs as far as they understand
it. They basically look at the weight, and with the centrifugal
force; that is how it comes down and impacts the ground. One would
assume that more studs in the tire would increase road wear, but he
does not know if that is necessarily true. Mr. Wessel said he has
not read a study saying that.
Number 1459
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the cost of the 1.3-gram aluminum stud
versus the 1.6-gram steel stud.
MR. WESSEL answered studs are purchased boxes of 1,000 at a time.
The average price of tire studs in Alaska is about $25/1,000 for
steel studs and about $35/1,000 for aluminum studs. This increases
the cost to a tire dealer about $1 per tire. In response to the
chairman's question if that is based on 90 studs per tire, Mr.
Wessel replied it is based on 100 studs per tire.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Mr. Wessel's company is an "OEM"
[original equipment manufacturer] supplier to the tire
manufacturers. The chairman questioned whether most tires sold in
the United States are sold with steel studs.
MR. WESSEL replied most are. However, Michelin and Firestone both
purchase aluminum studs.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that there would be fewer brands for
Alaskan consumers to choose from if this legislation is passed
unless the tire manufacturers change their manufacturing "specs"
[specifications] to meet the Alaskan market.
Number 1536
MR. WESSEL answered no. The tire manufacturer does not specify
what tire stud will be used; most tires studding is actually done
in the field. Michelin and Firestone have contracts with Sam's
Club Membership Warehouse, for example, and some of the larger
warehouses that want to buy tires ready to go right off the shelf.
A typical Alaskan tire dealer like Johnson's Tire Service will
begin studding tires in June to build up an inventory. Since the
tire dealers are responsible for studding most tires and they
basically decide which stud will be used, this would not reduce the
consumer's choice of tires at all.
Number 1604
DENNIS POSHARD, Legislative Liaison/Special Assistant, Office of
the Commissioner, Department of Transportation and Public
Facilities, came forward in Juneau to testify in support of HB 127.
He brought some samples of different types of tire studs - plastic,
aluminum and steel - labeled with their weights. Mr. Poshard
stated to the committee, using his prepared materials as the basis
for his remarks:
"A little background first: Studded tires were first
developed and used in Finland in 1959. By the winter of
1963, studded tires were being used in all 50 states. As
early as 1972, the State of Alaska Department of Highways
released a report outlining the problems of studded tire
use on Alaska roads. The department estimates that
studded tires cause approximately $5 million damage to
Alaska roads annually. This is damage that, some of
which the department repairs, and much of which gets
added to our deferred maintenance backlog.
"The use of studded tires and the relationship to road
wear is a subject of comprehensive international interest
- over the last 30 years the Scandinavian countries have
spent over $50 million researching this topic.
"In 1995 and 1996 the department did an extensive review
of the Scandinavian research and released a report
titled, "Options for Reducing Stud-Related Pavement
Wear." And I think you all have a copy in your packet.
To summarize briefly, that study had 3 recommendations
for reducing stud wear: number 1) the use of stone
mastic asphalt [SMA], number 2) using harder, more
durable aggregates in the pavement mix, and number 3) was
requiring use of lightweight studs.
"First, stone mastic asphalt. The department has begun
using stone mastic asphalt in the Anchorage area. This
type of asphalt contains a higher percentage of coarse
aggregates and has been shown to reduce pavement wear by
25 to 50 percent. It's a much more expensive asphalt and
use to date has been limited to the Anchorage area where
traffic counts make it economically feasible. The
Department plans to continue to increase the use of
SMA-type pavements."
Number 1714
"The second recommendation was harder, more durable
aggregates because they provide much better wear
resistance. First, let me say that Scandinavia, which
has been working on this issue for 30 years, has
determined that only 2 to 4 percent of their available
aggregate materials meet the standard for stone mastic
asphalt pavement mix to resist studded tire wear. In
Alaska, we're comparatively in our geologic infancy when
it comes to identifying good materials sites. To date,
the department has found three sites with acceptable
materials: 1) is the Chistochina, 2) is Black Rapids and
3) is near Cantwell. We have shipped in materials from
the Cantwell site for the test projects in the Anchorage
area.
"The third recommendation from the report was the use of
lightweight studs - mandating the use of the lightweight
studs. The use of lightweight studs can decrease
pavement wear by up to 50 percent. To explain why this
is the case, if you have the report in front of you ...
on page 12 there's a chart that shows the energy that is
in the use of a stud. And the energy that does the most
damage is the energy in the dynamic hit and the energy in
the after-scratch. That's what does the most damage.
Harkening back to your physics classes, or to the
Transportation Committee [House Transportation Standing
Committee] a couple of weeks ago [March 18, 1999], I
brought out the fact that Energy = 1/2 Mass times
Velocity squared. When you look at that equation there's
only two variables that we can change to reduce the
energy, or the wear on the roads, ... mass and velocity.
Assuming that we don't want to lower the speed limit to
30 mile-per-hour [mph] on all of our roads, we need to
focus on the mass, or the weight of the stud. By
reducing the weight of the studs we can reduce the energy
and the wear on our roads. This can be done, as you've
heard, without reducing the effectiveness of the studded
tires.
"In conclusion, the department is supportive of this
legislation as a safety measure and as a way of reducing
the annual damage done to Alaska's roads."
MR. POSHARD said he would be happy to answer any questions and
indicated Mr. Barter, the department's expert on tire studs, is
also available in Anchorage. He asked Mr. Barter to address the
previous question on Alaska law regarding tire stud protrusion, and
possibly also the number of studs in a tire versus the weight of
the studs in terms of roadway damage.
Number 1851
MR. BARTER answered that the length of the stud and the protrusion
from the tire is related to the performance characteristics. Mr.
Barter noted he thinks Mr. Wessel also addressed number of studs
per tire. The variance being seen is based on the size of the
tire, a 13-inch tire versus a 15-inch. The predominant passenger
tire is in the 13-inch to 14-inch range. Mr. Barter commented,
therefore, they were running on the lower side of 75 to 90 studs
per tire. The number of studs installed in the tire is based on
the tire manufacturer who pre-molds the tire with the tread
pattern; this determines the quantity of studs that will be
installed. Another key component of the aluminum studs is that the
technology has improved to the point where a component called
"Duralcan (ph)" is being added. He indicated this strengthens the
stud and improves durability.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to information in the bill packet
discussing that much of the roadway damage cause by studs comes in
the shoulder seasons. She asked Mr. Poshard what efforts DOT-PF
makes to educate people to change their tires so that this type of
wear does not occur once the roads are dry. Additionally,
Representative Murkowski asked if that could be used to ameliorate
some of the problem.
Number 1940
MR. POSHARD answered that, in the past, the department acted to
alert car owners and tire stud users of the existing state law
prohibiting studded tire use after certain dates. He believes
these dates are April 15 for those living below 60 degrees of
latitude and May 15 for those living above 60 degrees. Mr. Poshard
mentioned a radio commercial from the department with "Click and
Clack" [Tom and Ray Magliozzi, hosts of the "Car Talk" radio
program] reminding Alaska tire stud users to remove their studs by
the required date. The department has taken other measures, and
will continue this. He indicated this year the department may be
planning to ask the local law enforcement agencies to assist with
enforcement for a short period of time after the removal date. The
department will also probably do another public information
campaign this year.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI noted the existing law requiring removal
of studded tires by a certain date, but she commented the weather
in any given year may not require studded tire use all the way to
that removal date. Mentioning the procrastination tendency, she
thinks there needs to be a more concerted effort to inform people
the longer they keep their studded tires on, the more damage they
may be causing to the road. She indicated people should do the
right thing by removing their studded tires early in this
situation. Representative Murkowski commented she never hears that
message.
Number 2046
MR. POSHARD agreed that is a good point and will consider doing
that. In the past, the department's efforts have focused on making
sure people switch their tires by the deadline.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked how many passenger vehicles are on the
roads in Alaska.
MR. POSHARD indicated Mr. Barter might have some information, but
he did not know that figure.
MR. BARTER stated he did not know the exact number of passenger
vehicles, but he can relate the percentage of vehicles using
studded tires if that is of interest. In the Anchorage market the
department periodically runs parking lot surveys, evaluating 500
vehicles at a time. At the peak of the season, about 50 percent of
the passenger vehicles will have studded tires.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS questioned, though, that they did not have
any idea of the number of passenger vehicles in the state.
MR. BARTER replied he does not know the registered vehicle count.
MR. POSHARD offered to try to obtain that information for
Representative Sanders from the Division of Motor Vehicles.
Number 2112
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said his reason for asking is because $2 a
tire may not sound like very much money. However, if, for
instance, there are 500,000 cars on the road and 50 percent are
using studded tires, that is $2 million dollars a year, which is
effectively a tax on transportation. Representative Sanders
commented he remembered the House Transportation Standing Committee
testimony was that there was not going to be any fiscal note, that
there was not going to be any savings. He added, "So if there's no
savings we're just -- the people who are driving on the roads are
just forking out another $2 million dollars ...."
MR. POSHARD responded he thinks, as was heard in the House
Transportation Standing Committee and on the department's fiscal
note, the department projects the use of the lighter-weight studs
would reduce the amount of damage being done to Alaska's roads.
They approximate about 40 percent, or $2 million per year, less in
damage. He would say currently most of that is winding up on the
department's deferred maintenance backlog. Therefore, there is a
benefit to the public, even if it is not a direct budgetary benefit
in terms of general fund savings. Mr. Poshard respectfully
indicated he thinks the cost to the consumer would be less than $2
million annually because a certain percentage of passenger cars
probably already have lightweight studs and a good set of snow
tires should last more than one year.
Number 2204
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS commented Representative Sanders had brought
up a good point. Representative Harris stated, "Your executive
summary here says that you believe you spend about $5 million
dollars a year on ... stud-related pavement damage, at least you
attribute it to stud-related pavement damage, and then you're
saying that you would save about, I think you just said two and a
half million dollars (indisc.). Something doesn't - something
doesn't quite come together there." Representative Harris
commented the department's executive summary states both
lightweight and conventional studs use the same carbon-tungsten end
for traction. Noting if that is the case, he questioned if just
that much difference in weight pounding the road over a period of
time at the speed creates the added damage.
MR. POSHARD addressed Representative Harris' first question: there
would still be stud-related damage even using lightweight studs,
but the amount of stud-related damage would be reduced. He said
the department estimated it would reduce the $5 million dollar
annual damage by about $2 million annually. In response to
Representative Harris' second question, Mr. Poshard said
essentially the weight of the stud is the only difference. The
carbon-tungsten tip is the same in the examples he distributed,
whether the studs are plastic, aluminum or steel. The tip is what
provides the traction performance. Really, it is only the
difference in the weight of the stud, in terms of the difference
between the stud types.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked, then, is he to assume that what DOT-PF
would really like to see is the elimination of studded tires
completely. He asked if that would save the department the most
amount of money.
Number 2301
MR. POSHARD replied that is not a correct assumption. The
department recognizes there is a safety factor to lightweight
studs. For example, several of the Scandinavian countries
researched require the use of studded tires with lightweight studs
on vehicles for insurance and safety purposes. Heavier weight
studs have been completely outlawed. The department recognizes
there is a benefit to using studs, but it does not see a difference
in effectiveness between lightweight studs and steel studs.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO mentioned the presentation Mr. Poshard had
given in the House Transportation Standing Committee.
Representative Halcro said he was struck in particular by a comment
made by Representative Hudson after adjournment. He related that
Representative Hudson had said he had steel studs and, if they were
banned, he would just continue using his until he had to replace
them. Representative Halcro asked if the department had considered
the possibility retailers might create concern in consumers to
purchase steel studs before July 1, 2000 [the legislation's
effective date]. He commented on a huge retail sales rush on these
studded tires, noting, then, the department would not see a return
on this legislation for a while.
MR. POSHARD replied this question might be better addressed to the
sponsor. He noted outlawing the sale would delay the full benefit
to some degree, as opposed to outlawing use altogether, but he
thinks this is probably a better way to implement the law for
Alaskan consumers.
Number 2427
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Poshard if the department would
have someone checking with all the tire sales people to make sure
they are complying with the law, if this goes into effect.
MR. POSHARD answered the department does not have any plans for
this. He noted, though, there are a limited number of tire sales
places in the state. Mr. Poshard indicated he thought it would be
likely that a competitor would let the appropriate agency know, for
enforcement measures, if steel tire studs sales were outlawed but
someone continued to sell them.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS indicated he wanted to ensure this
legislation would not add department staff.
MR. WESSEL commented, as a supplier of tire studs, there are truly
only two people in North America who supply tire studs to the tire
dealer network. If Alaska passes this law, they would simply not
be selling steel studs to Alaska. Getting steel studs to Alaska is
not one of the most convenient things to do; Mr. Wessel commented
they are always concerned with their freight costs, so they would
make sure the product going up into the area would be aluminum
studs. He indicated about the only way steel studs would get to
Alaska would be if someone was willing to spend a lot of extra
money to purchase the studs out-of-state and then barge them up.
Number 2499
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO addressed Mr. Wessel, "Let me ask you, with
75 percent of the stud market..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY TAPE
CHANGE]
[From tape log notes: 'a lot of feedback from (retailers?) ...
presentation in Transportation']
TAPE 99-31, SIDE B
Number 0001
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO continued, "... (indisc.) who were opposed to
this legislation, and I'm gonna read you a quote and I just want to
get your feedback. This one particular retailer said, 'We saw the
carbide tips just smashed right down into the casing of the stud.'
Have you heard this from your retailers at all? ... Is this an
aversion to buying lightweight studs?"
Number 0018
MR. WESSEL answered he believes that is a dealer, for whatever
reason, voicing an opposition with no facts. A pin pushing down
into the body of a stud is possible, it is also possible on a steel
stud. It only means it is a defective stud. He recalls five or
fewer phone calls regarding something of that nature in the last
ten years. Mr. Wessel indicated he did not think an Alaskan tire
dealer who had not used aluminum studs could really comment on the
studs' performance without testing the studs themselves. He noted
Jim Johnson is the only Alaskan tire dealer using aluminum studs on
a high volume and regular basis, and he would certainly be the
person to speak to the consumer response towards the lightweight
studs.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Mr. Johnson is online. The chairman
further confirmed Mr. Poshard has a copy of an article on highways
from Fortune magazine provided by the committee aide ["Industrial
Management & Technology - Smoother, Sturdier, High-Tech Highways"
by Stuart F. Brown, Fortune magazine, 12/21/98].
Number 0088
JAMES M. JOHNSON, President, Johnson's Tire Service Incorporated,
testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He said he is
present to assist or answer any questions concerning the use of
lightweight studs. Johnson's Tire Service has been using this type
of stud since 1994.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he understood the testimony earlier was
that 13-inch to 14-inch tires were the norm. He questioned whether
it wasn't true that the move was to lower-profile 15 and 16-inch
tires.
MR. JOHNSON replied he thinks the mix is almost 50/50 now.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, though, that the trend is to bigger
tires.
MR. JOHNSON agreed, but noted that does not mean the tire contains
more studs. In response to the chairman's request, he explained
the manufacturer molds the stud hole in the tire during the
manufacturing process. His company uses an average of
approximately 100 studs per tire.
Number 0136
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned that the manufacturer predetermines
the number of studs which can be installed.
MR. JOHNSON indicated the placement of the studs for maximum
traction and longevity is all done by computer. He agreed that a
very small 13-inch tire would have fewer stud holes than a large
15-inch or 16-inch tire, but the number is pretty close. 100 studs
per tire is a very good average.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if Mr. Johnson had heard his
(Representative Halcro's) question to Mr. Wessel concerning the day
after the House Transportation Standing Committee meeting.
MR. JOHNSON replied he could discuss that and a few other things.
Johnson's Tire Service has been using the lightweight environmental
stud since 1994. The usage of this stud came through the March
1994 Winter Cities meeting. They heard the testimony of "VTI (ph)"
experts and engineers from Finland and Sweden, and went to Bruno
Wessel inquiring about this environment-friendly stud because they
thought it was a good idea. Bruno Wessel provided them with a lot
of studs to choose from, and, luckily, Mr. Johnson noted, they
chose the best stud. It is ranked number one; Johnson's Tire
Service has been using it since 1994. The first year they put it
in approximately half their tires and studded the other half with
steel studs because they were concerned about the consumer trusting
the lightweight stud. The next year they went to the lightweight
stud 100 percent at their retail level. Mr. Johnson commented if
the benefits of the lightweight stud are explained to the consumer,
and the consumer is assured that the longevity and traction are the
same, the consumer will buy the environment-friendly stud.
Number 0227
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if Mr. Johnson had seen anything from
his customers like the situation described in the article, "'We saw
the carbide tips just smash right down into the casing of the
stud.'"
MR. JOHNSON answered in the negative. He indicated when Johnson's
Tire Service began this lightweight stud in 1994, they closely
examined the tires coming off vehicles in the spring. The company
has a very large share of the market and if the consumer is unhappy
with the performance or longevity of the stud, the consumer simply
is not going to buy the studs again. Mr. Johnson said his
company's sales continue to increase year after year, so the
consumers are very pleased with the environmental stud his company
is using at least. There are many different grades of studs,
including lightweight studs. Mr. Johnson emphasized his company
chose the best.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the best is.
MR. JOHNSON replied it is a stud his company is purchasing from
Bruno Wessel. The studs are expensive, but, again, his company has
taken the route to provide an environmental stud which they think
is the right thing to do to reduce road wear and save taxes.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked the weight of the stud.
MR. JOHNSON answered 1.1 [grams]. They also use .9 gram stud
developed by Nokia in Finland. Mr. Johnson emphasized that the
lighter weight does not mean traction or longevity is going to be
decreased.
Number 0303
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the protrusion.
MR. JOHNSON replied each manufacturer gives a list of tire offering
sizes and specify what size stud to use in their literature.
Perhaps five choices - 11 [mm], 12, 13, 15 or 16 - might be given.
He noted, "The recommendation is to follow the manufacturer's
recommendational stud length, and we do that - we adhere to that
100 percent." If a specific size [tire] calls for a 12 [mm] stud,
that is what Johnson's uses. Mr. Johnson indicated if the wrong
size stud is inserted into a tire, the stud will not hold and the
longevity of the tire will be decreased dramatically.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked about the legislation's 1.3 gram maximum
weight and a type of tire requiring a longer protrusion or stud,
noting the weight is limited.
MR. JOHNSON answered, "The magic number, the one we use, is the one
-- that's where the largest volume is. As you go up into a, say a
15 or 16, that's gonna be increased slightly, but all the studs we
would use - whether it's a 12, 13, 15, or 16 - would meet the 1.3.
weight requirements." In response to the chairman's question about
the diameter increasing with a longer stud, Mr. Johnson noted the
diameter is the same; only the length is longer, which slightly
increases the weight of the stud. Mr. Johnson reiterated the 1.3
[gram] would meet all requirements. He commented, "It is very
difficult to say, okay, all 13s will take 1-1 [1.1], all number 15s
will take 1-2 [1.2], and I think a 1-3 [1.3] is an average and you
should not exceed that."
Number 0402
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what keeps this legislation from being the
Johnson's Tire Service bill versus its competitors.
MR. JOHNSON said that with or without the bill, his company has
been selling these studs since 1994. They have not increased their
prices even though the studs cost them about a $1 more per tire
than what the standard steel studs cost their competitors; the
labor costs are the same for steel studs or lightweight studs. Mr.
Johnson asked if the chairman's question was the reason why
Johnson's Tire Service is using lightweight studs instead of steel.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG answered in the negative. He indicated he was
asking why this wouldn't give Johnson's Tire Service a competitive
advantage.
MR. JOHNSON replied his company would just go to another level,
another step. Consumers will not walk out of their stores because
they only have lightweight studs. He noted a previous question, "I
think someone mentioned a question that if people knew that ... the
steel studs were gonna be banned they would have a run on studs.
I disagree with that totally. ... The consumer, you know, they --
if you can assure them the same quality, same longevity, same
traction, and ... even if they cost a little bit more, the
consumers are concerned about the environment just like everybody
else."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG repeated his question was what makes this bill
not advantageous to Mr. Johnson's company. The chairman noted it
seems to him this legislation would give Mr. Johnson's company a
competitive advantage because it has been selling the lightweight
studs.
Number 0485
MR. JOHNSON said he somewhat disagrees. He indicated this
legislation could work against them. Mr. Johnson indicated they
are using the environment-friendly nature of the lightweight stud
as a selling feature, and they have a very large market share, but
could lose this selling feature because the guy down the street
would be able to make the same claim. However, he thinks it boils
down to [the fact that] consumers buy from dealers who provide them
quality and service equally. He is for this bill; his company has
been using the studs for five years; the consumers love them. The
legislation might affect them in some way, but he expressed his
interest in protecting the environment.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Representative Halcro's
quoting of the March 19, 1999, Anchorage Daily News article in the
bill packet regarding the problem with the aluminum stud. Her
understanding is that Mr. Johnson is selling the best lightweight
aluminum stud. Representative Murkowski questioned whether the
quality of stud she might buy from Johnson's Tire Center selling a
Bruno Wessel stud might be different from the 1.3 [gram] aluminum
stud she might buy from COSTCO Wholesale Corporation.
MR. JOHNSON answered yes. There are a lot of lightweight studs
available in different grades and qualities. The choice of stud is
up to the tire dealer. Johnson's Tire Service is paying a lot of
money for the studs they buy, but they're receiving quality in
return. Whether or not an independent tire dealer would want to
spend the additional money to get the best stud is a question Mr.
Johnson cannot answer; the choice is up to the dealer. He thinks
the additional cost is the main reason Alaskan tire dealers have
not gone to the lightweight studs.
Number 0633
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked: 1) Does Mr. Johnson buy his studs from
Bruno Wessel? 2) Are there other suppliers of quality studs?
MR. JOHNSON replied his company has been buying studs from Bruno
Wessel since 1982, indicating his company has never had a reason to
consider changing or even looking somewhere else.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Wessel if he had competitors for these
lightweight studs.
MR. WESSEL replied they did.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Bruno Wessel did not have a corner on
the market for lightweight studs, asking to make sure the company
did not have an exclusive agreement with Nokia or anything like
that.
MR. WESSEL noted there are about five tire stud manufacturers
world-wide. Only two are really capable of handling the quantity
requirements for the world. The other manufacturers are smaller,
specializing in different types and shapes of studs, each with its
market niche. About 400 different types of studs are made. For
example, studs are made for horseshoes, shoes, and Zamboni ice
machines.
Number 0738
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted he has always been a skeptic about Alaskan
roads; he questioned Mr. Poshard if the Alaska is one of the 45
states using the WesTrack and Superpave [superior-performing
asphalt pavements] procedures.
MR. POSHARD deferred the question to Mr. Barter because of Mr.
Barter's involvement in research and materials.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the December 21, 1998, Fortune
magazine article ["Industrial Management & Technology - Smoother,
Sturdier, High-Tech Highways"] in the bill packet that describes
the WesTrack, a 1.8 mile oval located near Carson City, Nevada.
The WesTrack contains 26 different asphalt recipes and is a
cooperative venture. The chairman asked Mr. Barter if he is aware
of this project.
MR. BARTER answered in the affirmative. The Alaska Department of
Transportation and Public Facilities is a cooperative sponsor in
the pooled funds; Alaska helped finance part of the research taking
place there through the Federal Highway Administration.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted, "In the executive summary it says about 50
percent of the wear could be laid down to the -- is it just the ...
stone mastic mix, or is it the hard aggregate? And the studs,
there seems to be various percentages granted." He commented there
seems to be no mention of the road base; the chairman questioned
Mr. Barter about that being a major factor in Alaska.
Number 0806
MR. BARTER replied in that regard one is into the displacement type
rutting - a totally different phenomena. That is where the
structural capability of the road bed embankment will not carry the
additional weight of the heavier vehicles.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned, then, that the aggregate and the
various other types of fill materials do not have an impact on the
standard passenger car type rutting, or even commercial vehicle
rutting.
MR. BARTER responded that the quality of the aggregate is a very
significant component. This is where they start talking about the
hard, durable aggregates. In Alaska, the glacial deposits are
(indisc.) random valleys, so the deposits are very sorted and
mixed. Technically speaking, Alaska has a soft rock in comparison
to what it could have. Mr. Barter referred to the research
mentioned earlier: DOT-PF has identified three other sources and
started its experiments last season with the hard rock out of the
Cantwell area. The department is not building full depth pavement
with it; it is just trying to armor-coat or "black-coat" the
surface so it is more resistant to the studded tire impact. Mr.
Barter commented it is a grinding action, not a shoving or pushing
type action.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there were further questions of DOT-PF.
There being none, he asked if anyone else wished to testify on HB
127.
Number 0886
MATT SEIDLER, Owner, Alaska Tire Service, testified next via
teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Seidler stated he had a
question for Mr. Wessel. He noted some of the northwestern states,
Washington and Oregon, have had lightweight stud laws in effect
before, and he asked if this had been reversed or if those states
had had problems with the same legislation before the committee.
MR. WESSEL indicated the issue has been raised in "Tire Talk," the
trade magazine (indisc.) the Northwest. Mr. Wessel said the state
of Oregon was the first state to pass a law regarding lightweight
studs. This law set a 1.1 gram requirement [limit]. There were
problems the first year with about 3 percent of the tires studded.
However, Mr. Wessel noted they could provide quite a bit of data
showing most of those problems were related to installation of the
tire stud. Mr. Wessel indicated the aluminum tire studs have been
used worldwide and there have been no reversals of laws in any area
where aluminum studs are used. He clarified that Oregon had
modified its law, increasing the requirement [limit] to 1.5 grams.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there was no further testimony on HB
127, closing the public hearing. He invited Ms. Seitz forward to
explain the Version H proposed committee substitute (CS).
Number 1001
JANET SEITZ, Legislative Assistant to Representative Norman
Rokeberg, Alaska State Legislature, came forward as aide to the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee to explain a possible
committee substitute (CS) for HB 127, Version H. Version H,
labeled 1-LS0567\H, Ford, 3/25/99, was drafted by Mike Ford,
Legislative Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services,
Legislative Affairs Agency, to address the concern expressed in the
municipality's [Municipality of Anchorage] letter about emergency
vehicles. In response to the chairman's question, Ms. Seitz
indicated Representative Masek's office is aware of the possible
CS.
MR. DEATS added, in response to the chairman's question, that
Representative Masek's office has no objection.
MS. SEITZ explained the change in the CS, indicating subsection (1)
of Version H reads:
(1) "commercial motor vehicle" means a vehicle
described in AS 19.10.399(1)(A)-(C);
MS. SEITZ noted the difference from the original bill is the
addition of "(1)(A)-(C)". Ms. Seitz indicated and confirmed
emergency vehicles, school buses, fire equipment, and farm
vehicles, as well as other commercial vehicles, would be excluded
from the provisions of the legislation.
Number 1114
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt Version H as the
proposed committee substitute for HB 127. There being no
objection, it was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there was no further discussion of HB
127.
Number 1133
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSHB 127 out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objections, CSHB 127(L&C) moved out of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 61 - OVERTIME WAGE EXEMPTION AIRLINE EMPLOYEES
Number 1183
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's next order of business
is HB 61, "An Act relating to an exemption from the requirement for
payment for overtime under a voluntary written agreement for
certain employees in the airline industry; and providing for an
effective date." He invited the sponsor's representative forward.
Number 1195
JONATHON LACK, Legislative Assistant to Representative Andrew
Halcro, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to present HB 61.
He noted Representative Halcro is offering HB 61, which was
introduced the previous legislative session as HB 389. House Bill
389 moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee
but did not make it to the House floor because it was introduced
late in the session. Mr. Lack explained HB 61 is intended to allow
airline employees to trade workdays with each other without
invoking overtime pay requirements for their employers. Under
current Alaska Statute, a substitute employee who works a shift for
another employee must be paid overtime if that substitute employee
has already worked 8 hours in the same workday or 40 hours in the
same workweek. Employees currently enjoy shift-trading so they can
attend special events for their children, take longer weekend
trips, and travel. This legislation is necessary because Alaska is
the only western state with a daily overtime requirement.
Shift-trading is very common nationwide throughout the airline
industry. Usually it is done informally, with the employer's tacit
approval, and HB 61 would legitimize the custom in the industry.
Mr. Lack, noting the committee was running short on time, made
himself available for questions and said Michelle Buckmaster is
also available in Anchorage to testify in favor of the legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Lack to quickly list for the record the
letters of support for the legislation in the bill packet.
Number 1288
MR. LACK commented there are letters of support from Alaska
Airlines, ERA Aviation and the Alaska Air Carriers Association, as
well as a resolution of support from the Alaska Air Carriers
Association. There is a letter of support for the previous
session's HB 389 from Peninsula Airways, Incorporated [d.b.a.
PenAir]. There are letters of support from a number of airline
employees. Mr. Lack said the bill packet also contains petition
format support forms from various airline employees including ERA
Aviation, United Airlines counter and airfreight staff, United
Airlines ramp agents, and Delta Airlines.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Lack if they had received any
comments from the Department of Labor.
Number 1379
MR. LACK noted Mr. Perkins [Deputy Commissioner, Department of
Labor] had been present earlier but had to leave to attend a
"Finance Subcommittee" meeting. Mr. Lack said Mr. Perkins has
indicated the department and the Administration do not oppose the
intent of this legislation as written.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI commented a couple of the letters in the
packet are in support but they express the desire that the flexible
work hour be included. She questioned, "I notice that it
specifically does not include, and that's why you're asking for
this additional exemption. What's going on there?"
MR. LACK indicated he thinks there possibly may have just been a
misunderstanding and that is why the letters include flexible work
hour. He noted the state of Alaska already has provision for
people to work four 10-hour shifts for their employers. They
simply have to sign up for that and it has to be approved by the
Department of Labor. The legislation before the committee would
allow shift trading within the same work period, either an 8-hour
period or a 40-hour workweek. Mr. Lack stated he believes this is
what the letter's authors are speaking of when they talk about
flexible shifts.
Number 1449
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said, then, the exemptions set out in
subsections (13) and (14) in statute [AS 23.10.060(d)] do not
currently cover the miscellaneous airline employees.
MR. LACK answered no, they do not.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why.
MR. LACK indicated he does not know, he has been told by
legislative counsel that those exemptions do not cover these
employees.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG questioned if it has anything to do with whether
they are under a labor agreement.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI reviewed subsections (13) and (14). [AS
23.10.060(d)(13) and (14) read:
(13) work performed by an employee under a flexible
work hour plan if the plan is included as part of a
collective bargaining agreement;
(14) work performed by an employee under a voluntary
flexible work hour plan if
(A) the employee and the employer have signed
a written agreement and the written agreement has been
filed with the department; and
(B) the department has issued a certificate
approving the plan that states the work is for 40 hours
a week and not more than 10 hours a day; for work over 40
hours a week or 10 hours a day under a flexible work hour
plan not included as part of a collective bargaining
agreement, compensation at the rate of one and one-half
times the regular rate of pay shall be paid for the
overtime;]
Number 1515
MR. LACK indicated he understands it is currently possible for the
employee and the union to negotiate whether or not to have flexible
time rules. He noted that is allowed, but non-union airlines do
not have this luxury because they're not part of a collective
bargaining agreement.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he remembers this provision very well,
stating, "That is, if you have a collective bargaining (indisc.) if
you have a flex-work plan that's already bargained for -- but if
not, you have to have an approved plan." The chairman indicated
this is for a flexible work plan hour, normally providing for a
four 10-hour day work week. He noted it is a formalized process
which has to be approved.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated the shift-trading practice has been
going on for a very long time. The problem lies with Alaska's
daily overtime requirement. A lot of airlines have told their
employees that they can't allow the employees to trade shifts until
this is resolved in statute and the airlines are protected.
Representative Halcro noted a large part of working in the airline
industry is the ability to trade shifts. He indicated this
practice is done in every state and the legislation is just a means
of legitimizing the practice in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee would take Ms.
Buckmaster's testimony.
Number 1636
MICHELLE BUCKMASTER testified via teleconference from Anchorage in
support of HB 61. She spoke mainly from a prepared statement:
"Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, ... I am a
customer service representative for United Airlines in
Anchorage, Alaska. I am here on behalf of numerous
airline employees who are from various airlines here in
the state of Alaska. I would like to thank you for
giving me the opportunity to give my testimony.
Unfortunately there may not be too many people here today
because of the short notice of this hearing, so I am
speaking on behalf of quite a few people. I am here in
regard to HB 61, which I hope will be passed through ...
this legislation [legislature] this year. As you are
aware, the states of Washington and Hawaii passed a
similar bill last year.
"In May of 1997 United Airlines informed us employees in
Alaska that because of the labor laws in our state, the
trade policy in company regulations would no longer
pertain to us. The trade policy is a significant benefit
to us as employees as well as all airline employees in
the state of Alaska.
"The airline industry ... is an industry that spends 24
hours a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year in promoting
and supporting the economic growth of our state through
tourism, conventions, sporting events and numerous other
activities. The trade policy is a valuable benefit and
tool to its employees who would otherwise miss out on
precious time with their family, observance of religious
holidays, educational opportunities, summer vacations and
extra income for those who require it.
"In an industry where competition is always a priority,
as we know, we have come together to make a change that
will benefit and create a win-win situation for all
airline employees."
Number 1737
"Over the past two years employees from several airlines
have worked together to encourage implementation of this
bill. As you are aware, last year [you] received
numerous phone calls and letters from concerned airline
employees; this still holds true today and the support is
here. I faxed you Friday a (indisc.) petition I had sent
to airlines to have signed in support of this bill, just
to show you a little support this and that we still stand
behind our word. Unfortunately today Doug Orcutt who
works for Alaska Airlines, the largest airline in Alaska,
has a previous engagement in Washington, D.C. I talked
with him and he reassured me of the full support from
Alaska Airlines employees. He is a ramp serviceman here
in Anchorage. There has been a great deal of grassroots
support for this legislation. I would like to remind you
that this is on a volunteer basis by employees, making
their own choice. This will not invoke overtime pay
requirements. This will ... ["not" stated on tape and in
written statement] give individual workers the freedom to
schedule specific time off or to make extra earnings
without invoking overtime. Therefore you will have
happier, more productive, more dedicated employees in a
highly traveled state."
"To give you an example: Employee A works 40 hours a
week, Friday/Saturday off. Employee A would like to have
an extra day off, Thursday, so he can have a long weekend
fishing. Employee B works 20 hours a week,
Wednesday/Thursday off. He would like to work for
Employee A on Thursday to get the extra hours and money,
however he only receives straight-time pay on (indisc.)
volunteer basis. If the company needs him to work extra
hours on (indisc.) day or his day off and he is eligible
for the overtime, then he would receive (indisc.) the
applicable overtime rate. Let's not get confused that
the overtime that the company needs you to work is
(indisc.) totally separate issue (indisc.) assumption.
Another example is Employee B needs an extra day off. He
needs Saturday, he is running the Mayors Marathon here in
Anchorage. Employee A will work for him that Saturday on
a volunteer basis and only receives straight-time pay
even though he exceeds his forty hours in a work week
and/or 8 hours in a day, he only receives his
straight-time pay. However, if his company needs him to
work the overtime or calls him in needs of his service,
he is eligible then for the applicable overtime rate. As
you see this does not hurt anyone, the company or the
employee. They both meet their needs.
"In closing, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, we
understand and respect that the labor laws are here to
protect us. However, this particular law which may be a
protection in your eyes has eliminated a benefit in ours
here in Alaska. Therefore, here I am on behalf of these
employees to request the amendment we have brought before
you not only be passed, but in a timely manner be passed.
This is a very valuable benefit to us, and throughout the
country with United Airlines as well as many other
airlines. I am here again to support HB 61 along with
several other airline employees. Thank you again for
your time."
Number 1946
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee appreciated Ms. Buckmaster's
efforts. He invited Mr. Perkins forward.
Number 1978
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, came
forward to testify on HB 61. He noted the department has
historically opposed these types of legislation because the
department feels they weaken overtime requirements for employers.
However, Mr. Perkins indicated the department feels HB 61's
voluntary written agreement between the employer and employee
provides a safeguard for the employee against being coerced by the
employer to voluntarily work when the employee really does not want
to. The benefits the employees received from the airlines kind of
make up for "the sometimes pay that they may not receive on the
paycheck," so this is a benefit the employees would lose if this is
not changed. Mr. Perkins also indicated the employers do have a
possibly strong liability out there and the department understands
the employers' need and desire to add this exemption. He stated
the department does not oppose this legislation.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented to Mr. Perkins there is also a possible
CS [labeled 1-LS0335\G, Cramer, 3/19/99] which deletes the written
contract. He asked for the department's position on this CS.
Number 2160
MR. PERKINS answered the department supports HB 61, Version A, as
he has testified. However, the department would have some concern,
and probably not be able to give its non-opposition to the bill, if
the CS was to be adopted. The written agreement provides some sort
of safeguard for the employee and does ensure the employee
voluntarily agreed to the shift change. Mr. Perkins indicated he
thinks the employer would want to have that as well to protect them
against possible claims of unpaid overtime from an employee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, for the record, if the voluntary written
agreement would be between the employer and employee, and asked how
that would work as a practical matter regarding Department of Labor
enforcement.
MR. PERKINS responded that if a wage claim was brought to the
department, the department would ask the employer for supporting
documentation and the employer would produce the written agreement.
Mr. Perkins referred to subsection (d)(18)(D) of HB 61, which
reads:
* Section 1. AS 23.10.060(d) is amended by adding a new
paragraph to read:
(18) work performed by an employee under a voluntary
written agreement addressing the trading of work shifts
among employees if ...
(D) the trading agreement states that the
employee is not entitled to receive overtime for any
hours worked by the employee when the employee
voluntarily works those hours under a shift trading
practice under which the employee has the opportunity, in
the same or other work weeks, to reduce hours worked by
voluntarily offering a shift for trade or reassignment.
MR. PERKINS stated he believes it is a good safeguard for both
employer and employee, and it is a workable solution.
NUMBER 2333
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, confirming there were no questions for Mr.
Perkins and that no one else wished to testify on HB 61, announced
the public hearing was closed. The chairman commented he was
familiar with the practice of shift trading from his work
experience in 1966 and 1967 as a transportation agent for Northwest
Airlines and a customer service representative for Alaska Airlines.
He noted the practice is longstanding and has almost completely no
bearing on labor practices. Chairman Rokeberg indicated HB 61
merely legitimizes this customary practice. He thanked organized
labor for not opposing the legislation and the Department of Labor
for its non-opposition. The chairman indicated he wished Mr. Lack
to explain why the verbiage in subsection(18)(A) is necessary. He
understands it, but wishes the explanation to be on the record.
[Subsection (A) reads:
(A) the employee is employed by an air carrier
subject to subchapter II of the Railway Labor Act (45
U.S.C. 181-188), including employment as a customer
service representative;]
Number 2486
MR. LACK replied, "Mr. Chairman, to answer your question, the
reason we -- it's put in the Railway Labor Act and defined as who
are ... employees of an air carrier under that Act is because the
Act specifically allow..." [SOME TESTIMONY LOST DUE TO BRIEF TAPE
MALFUNCTION DURING TAPE CHANGE. A REQUEST WAS MADE TO THE CHAIRMAN
TO RESTATE HIS QUESTION SO MR. LACK'S ANSWER COULD BE FULLY
RECORDED. A VERY BRIEF AT-EASE WAS TAKEN DURING THE TAPE
MALFUNCTION.]
TAPE 99-32, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "For the record, could you answer why
including employment as a customer service representative is
stipulated in the bill."
MR. LACK answered, "Mr. Chairman, it is redundant including
customer service representative. However, because ... the federal
Railway Labor Act does include all employees of the air carrier
unless they're involved in the mining of coal. So it is redundant,
however there was some concern by people, apparently last year,
that customer service agents might not be included under the
federal Act."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed Mr. Lack had read the minutes from the
last session. The chairman recalled there had been a reason but
could not remember exactly why. He asked Mr. Lack to follow up on
this with Representative John Cowdery [sponsor of the previous
session's HB 389], noting the committee did not like to have
surplus wordage and definitely wanted to avoid redundancy.
Number 0097
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO indicated the initial version of HB 389, the
bill introduced the previous session, did not contain that
provision but the version brought back before the committee after
work with organized labor had that language added [Note:
Representative Halcro's testimony mentioned the creation of "kind
of a work subcommittee" for HB 389; HB 389 was not formally
assigned to a subcommittee].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG confirmed there was no further discussion. He
indicated both he and Representative Halcro represent the area
encompassing Anchorage International Airport and he does not think
this is a conflict of interest. The chairman commented there are
some 10,000 jobs at that airport; the airport is very important to
the economy of Anchorage and the state of Alaska.
Number 0172
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI clarified that the sponsor had withdrawn
the possible CS.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the written contract was being retained.
Number 0206
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI made a motion to move HB 61 out of
committee with the zero fiscal note and individual recommendations.
There being no objection, HB 61 moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
Number 0222
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the March 31, 1999, House Labor and
Commerce Committee meeting would be cancelled.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 0257
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG adjourned the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting at 5:04 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|