Legislature(1999 - 2000)
01/31/2000 03:18 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 31, 2000
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative Lisa Murkowski
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Jerry Sanders
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 305
"An Act relating to the membership of the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 316
"An Act relating to standard industrial classification for,
eligibility for benefits under, and the definition of 'benefit
year' for, the Alaska Employment Security Act; and providing for
an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD; ASSIGNED TO SUBCOMMITTEE
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 305
SHORT TITLE: BD OF ARCHITECTS ETC/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/21/00 1970 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/21/00 1970 (H) L&C, FIN
1/21/00 1970 (H) FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
1/21/00 1970 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1/21/00 1970 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
1/31/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 316
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
1/24/00 1990 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
1/24/00 1990 (H) L&C
1/24/00 1990 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (LABOR)
1/24/00 1990 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
1/24/00 1990 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
1/31/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
LANCE MEARIG, Professional Civil Engineer
P.O. Box 34752
Juneau, Alaska 99803
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 305.
SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist
Alaska Professional Design Council
315 Fifth Street, Apt. 8
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 305.
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community and Economic Development
P.O. Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 305.
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Director
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
P.O. Box 255509
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 316.
CHARLES BLANKENSHIP, Assistant Director
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
P.O. Box 255509
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 316.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-08, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Harris, Cissna and Sanders. Representatives Murkowski and Brice
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 305-BD OF ARCHITECTS ETC/LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 305, "An Act relating to the membership of the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land
Surveyors; and providing for an effective date." [The bill was
sponsored by the House Rules Committee, at the request of the
governor.]
LANCE MEARIG came forward to testify in opposition to HB 305. A
licensed civil engineer in Alaska, he clarified that he was
testifying on behalf of himself. He is also a member of the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers and Land
Surveyors (AELS). He said the board supports HB 305, but he does
not. He is opposed to this bill mainly because of the cost
involved with adding another member. He indicated there is are
relatively few landscape architects expected to be licensed in
Alaska. He does not feel the cost of adding a member is
warranted.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how much Mr. Mearig anticipated the
cost would be raised.
MR. MEARIG stated that the fiscal note associated with the bill
is around $3,100.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered what adding another position would
do, other than increasing the cost.
MR. MEARIG said he feels it is already a fairly large board, and
he thinks there are some disadvantages to having a larger board.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS wondered what those disadvantages are.
Number 0281
MR. MEARIG said he believes it is more difficult to reach a
consensus. He clarified that he is not opposed to licensing
landscape architects, but he does view landscape architecture as
a big issue around the state with respect to violations of
practice. He does not think having an additional person will add
much value to the discussions the board has on other professions.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked if Mr. Mearig has any idea why the
Governor recommended the addition of a member.
MR. MEARIG replied that the board had asked the Administration to
add the position.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked, "Is this borne by the membership?"
MR. MEARIG replied that it is not borne by the members but by the
registrants.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA wondered if it would increase the fees per
person by having an extra member.
MR. MEARIG said it would either require an increase in fees or a
decrease in some other board activity.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked if that is why he is in opposition.
MR. MEARIG said his primary reason is the cost.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA wondered if the cost is per member.
MR. MEARIG indicated it is per registrant. He explained there is
no cost to the board, only to licensees.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG clarified that "per licensee" would be the
correct legislative nomenclature.
Number 0470
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA inquired if the licensees have been polled.
MR. MEARIG said he does not believe they have been polled. He
indicated the board recently went through a renewal process in
which the fees were increased and noted there was significant
opposition to the increase.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to correspondence included with
the bill packet. She commented there is an inference: instead
of adding a member to include a landscape architect, the board
recommends changing one of the existing positions to a landscape
architect. She wondered if this is the source of the
controversy.
MR. MEARIG explained that he was made aware of this issue just
prior to the meeting. He does not think it is a good idea, but
that is not the reason he opposes it.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated:
Mr. Mearig, ... in our package there's an e-mail that
indicates that because the landscape architects have a
temporary representative on the board until June of
2001, it was part of the statutory requirement when it
established the landscape architects as part of your
board. The person that is representing the landscape
architects has done a very good job, and there's a
feeling that the board didn't want to vote against that
person because they'd kind of be embarrassed by voting
against that person .... Do you think there's any
merit to that question?
Number 0648
MR. MEARIG said he does not think so. There have been some frank
discussions on the board regarding adding landscape architects.
He believes the board has been told there is no guarantee, if a
permanent member is added to the board, that it would be the
temporary member.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how the membership of the board is
constituted now and wondered where the membership come from.
MR. MEARIG stated that members are appointed by the Governor.
There are two designated civil engineer seats, two designated
architect seats, two designated land surveyor seats, a public
member, a mining engineer, either an electrical or mechanical
engineer for one seat, and another engineer. He said right now
there is an electrical engineer, a mechanical engineer, a mining
engineer and two civil engineers on the board.
Number 0740
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "Just another engineer?"
MR. MEARIG explained that it is an engineer from another one of
the licensed professions.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there are basically five engineers on
the board now.
MR. MEARIG said that is correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to two e-mails from Patrick
Kalen, Chair, Alaska Society of Professional Land Surveyors
(ASPLS), which reference two different dates (February 16, 2000,
and February 23, 2000) for their annual meeting.
MR. MEARIG said he did not have those e-mails.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she thought if the committee was
considering delaying the bill, it would be important to know
which is the actual date of the meeting.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what the vote of the board was to
approve the switch from a temporary position to a permanent
position.
MR. MEARIG said the vote was six to two.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said:
So, you have existing on the ten permanent members of
the board ... a pretty diverse group of folks that are
put on the board to represent the ideas and positions
of their independent professional organizations, I
would assume -land surveyors, mining engineers,
mechanical engineers. So, all these groups are
represented. And so the board consists of people who
represent these specific professions. And if the board
votes six to two, and one group doesn't like the
outcome of the vote, why should we not honor what the
board has voted?
MR. MEARIG explained that the board members are not there to
represent their industry or profession. They are there to
protect the public. He stated that those people do provide some
specific areas of knowledge to help regulate the professions. He
indicated that not all of the professions that are licensed are
represented on the board. He clarified he is not trying to
subvert the action the board took.
Number 0940
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he is simply trying to understand the
opposition from Mr. Mearig and that expressed in the e-mails from
Mr. Kalen with respect to delaying the bill until after the ASPLS
annual meeting. It is his impression a board exists to create
some policy for the group.
MR. MEARIG said the professional societies are separate from the
board, but do impact legislation. He does not have an opinion
about delaying the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS said he likes that the bill gives the board
11 members because it helps avoid a tie on a vote.
Number 1030
SHARON MACKLIN, Lobbyist, Alaska Professional Design Council
(APDC), came forward to testify on HB 305. She explained that
APDC is a trade association of ten different design professional
trade associations. She said APDC represents professions such as
architects, land surveyors, landscape architects and a variety of
different engineering groups that have their own separate
organizations. The APDC has one voting member for every
organization that belongs to APDC. She said their legislative
committee took a look at this issue last Thursday evening, and
the majority of the people on the conference call supported the
issue. Mr. Kalen was the only person who was not supportive.
His primary objection, as a land surveyor and a member of the
board, is the cost. Since there was not a unanimous decision at
the conference call, she noted that the full APDC Board will be
meeting next week and taking this issue up.
MS. MACKLIN further explained the fiscal note for the bill is
$3,100 and there are 5,000 licensees; thus the cost is 62 cents
per person per year. She stated:
When the legislation passed a few years ago,
registering landscape architects, we felt that there
would be probably fewer than 50 that would get
licensed. And at that time, our statute said that each
category under the AELS Board had to pay their own way.
... So, there were 3,000 engineers, so their fees were
less than, say, the 200 hundred architects, and it
would have cost 50 landscape architects a considerable
amount to be licensed. So, the APDC board took a
position to change the statute just for design
professionals and share the fees equally, and it was
very well discussed. And the full APDC board,
representing all of these different licensees, agreed
to it ....
In that vein, this ... additional cost is something
that the APDC board will be discussing .... My guess
is they will support it, but they haven't officially
taken a position yet .... I hope you'll look favorably
on this issue. We feel that it is beneficial to the
deliberation of the board, and we know the cost is an
issue.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO suggested - since Mr. Kalen is a land
surveyor and is concerned about the cost - reducing the number of
land surveyors on the board from two to one and then making the
landscape architect a permanent position.
MS. MACKLIN said a few years ago the make-up of the board was
looked at. It seemed, at the time, there were very few mining
engineers getting licensed, perhaps 30 or 35. She indicated
there was a discussion about whether or not the seat should be
replaced with a landscape architect. She said some very strong
supporters of mining in Fairbanks did not think that was a good
idea. She stated, "They were very supportive of mining
engineers, and so, we just took that issue off of the table at
that time."
Number 1321
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked if there is any reason, in Ms.
Macklin's opinion, that action should be withheld on HB 305 until
after the ASPLS meeting.
MS. MACKLIN said no. The opposition stems from the fiscal
impact. She clarified that the bill goes to the House Finance
Committee after this committee.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG suggested that the APDC take up a resolution on
designated program receipts or contact both the House and Senate
Finance Committees. He stated that he has been discussing in
caucus how the Division of Occupational Licensing should be
handled differently and not as part of the general fund budget.
MS. MACKLIN said she appreciates Chairman Rokeberg's bringing
that issue up.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG urged Ms. Macklin to consider Representative
Halcro's potential amendment to the bill, as well as the
reduction of the board to nine members. He suggested deleting
two members but adding the landscape architect member.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "Why don't we just move the board
outside of the purview of state government and privatize it and
let them run their own ...?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said it is a great idea, but there is a problem
because of the Alaska State Constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE disagreed.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG maintained that it is in the constitution.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked, "There's a Board of Landscape
Architects in the constitution?"
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said no, but there is a proviso in the
constitution stating that the legislature provides the framework
for boards and commissions. He commented that he has been trying
for years to do the same thing Representative Brice is talking
about.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied, "Then you should do it."
Number 1499
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational Licensing,
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), came
forward to testify in favor of HB 305. She said the Governor
introduced the bill because it was part of the legislative
recommendations in the annual report of the AELS board. This is
a subject the board has shown significant interest in over the
last two years. In February of 1998, the board voted six to two
to ask for legislation to make the seat permanent. The board as
a whole felt pretty committed and interested in the issue. She
noted that the cost is $3100 per year, which includes travel to
board meetings and the annual meeting. If she had not included a
fiscal note on the bill, then the expenditures would have had to
come out of what was already being done, and the other
professions might have lost their ability to participate in
meetings.
MS. REARDON further commented that the board has made it very
clear they would like to participate more actively in national
meetings of their respective professions so that they can help
influence national policy. She indicated there is a policy
reflected in the budget that says a single member from each board
can have one state paid trip to a national meeting. This has
been something that has caused the board a lot of frustration;
they feel it limits their ability to represent Alaska in national
situations. She thinks perhaps there is a concern on Mr. Kalen's
part that there are already strict limitations on the ability to
travel and participate in national events. Increasing the
membership might make this worse.
MS. REARDON explained that the second land surveyor member was
added two or three years ago to the board. She feels the
temporary board seat is not an ideal situation because the way
the current law reads, the member cannot have travel to meetings
paid by the state or any money spent by the state. It is awkward
to have someone on a board have to pay for his or her own travel.
This has brought up questions as to whether the association or
the other landscape architects can sponsor this person and pay
for travel. She said this is a good thought, but it sets up an
awkward position in which someone outside of the state is paying
to send a board member to meetings. She commented that it would
be nice to not have a temporary member. At the time the Governor
introduced the bill, she thinks it was done with the anticipation
that there was not much opposition to the concept. If that is
not the case, then she does not believe she had accurately
informed him. She commented that the AELS board is unique in the
division because all of the professions within the board share
their costs equally and have identical fees.
Number 1765
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked why just a temporary, non-voting
member was added in 1998.
MS. REARDON replied that when the bill to license landscape
architects was introduced, the landscape architects were going to
have to cover their own costs. The bill did not include the
language for collective finances. It was going to cost $600 per
license, and that was too much. The temporary member stemmed
from the desire to cut costs. She explained, "Then, as the
legislation went through, the board and APDC came to feel that it
would be all right to share costs, but we didn't go back to that
starting point and say, 'Well, can we add back on some things.'
... That's one perspective on what happened."
MS. REARDON further explained that the fee would be 50 cents per
licensee if the member is permanent. She said, "You could either
view it as people coming back to the table and wanting more, or
you could view it as ... the environment changing in which the
decision's been made."
Number 1865
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented:
On that point - regarding the institutional history -
as I recall, the engineers, the land surveyors and
architects were all drug screaming to the table ...
basically against that idea, or, I'd say, a large
number of them were against the idea of adding ... the
landscape architects. However, they were convinced
that it was the right thing to do, and the rationale
behind the adoption of the landscape architects as part
of the board was to get board certification so those
landscape architects could get federal government
contracts. And that was the reason. So, it was not
like they were going to be highly regulated. It was
because they were, in essence, board certified enough
.... That was all they needed. They needed a state
license to be able to qualify for those contracts, and
that was the entire rationale that they sold the board
on their membership on.
MS. REARDON said she believes the ability for Alaskans to bid on
federal contracts was a significant part; there was also some
discussion of public health and safety with respect to playground
design. She indicated she did not see the kicking and screaming
element that Chairman Rokeberg had described. She said the board
voted to support the licensure. The bill was introduced in two
different legislatures to license landscape architects. It there
had been significant opposition, she does not feel it would have
been successful through the process.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG acknowledged that he was over-characterizing
the kicking and screaming part.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether it is true that $3,100 spread
out equates to 50 cents per licensee.
MS. REARDON clarified that 60 cents is the actual amount. She
said there were 4,971 licensees in the program at the beginning
of the fiscal year. They are licensed for two years, so $6,200
would need to be paid by the licensees. This would be
approximately $1.20 paid by each licensee for two years.
Number 2014
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked, "You said two years ago, when
legislation was passed, it increased the number of land surveyors
and it also added this temporary member; is that correct?"
MS. REARDON clarified that it was two different pieces of
legislation. She believes it was the board's sunset extension
that made the increase in number of land surveyors. She thought
maybe it was three years ago on the additional land surveyor.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO wondered if, at that time, Mr. Kalen raised
a concern about increased costs when a land surveyor was added.
MS. REARDON indicated Mr. Kalen strongly supported that. He was
the sole land surveyor on the board, and thought their numbers
merited a second land surveyor. She said there are quite a few
more land surveyors than there will ever be landscape architects,
which was part of the argument for the additional land surveyor.
Having an additional land surveyor also helps with the
administration and development of examinations.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI asked whether a board with 11 members is
reasonably constituted or becomes unwieldy.
Number 2083
MS. REARDON explained that the AELS board is the largest board.
She does not think there is a significant difference in the way
the board would function with 11 members versus 10. She thinks
there is a difference between how five-person boards operate
versus nine-person boards, however. With five people, she feels
that a board is less formal, which could be good or bad. She
said:
I think that the advantage of having fewer boards and
having professions willing to oversee several
professions outweigh the advantages of having small
boards, personally. It's my impression that in quite a
few other states you have separate boards for
architects and engineers, although engineers and land
surveyors are usually together - and then you get more
turf battles. My opinion is that when you get people
at the same table, they have to work it out. There's
still probably those same concerns about where does
engineering stop and architecture start, but the
professions sit and work it out, whereas, if you have
separate boards, you might instead just be developing
regulations in isolation for each other and lobbing
bombs at each other that way. So, I would like to
encourage rather than discourage boards from being more
inclusive.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said, "Ms. Reardon, you mentioned there's a
policy of no travel to national meetings and no more than one
member once a year. Where is that policy coming from?"
MS. REARDON said the Administration was looking to cut the budget
in either 1995 or 1996. One way was to be conservative about
out-of-state travel. She stated that there was a $15,000
decrement to the budget in the first year. The text placed in
the budget stated that the amount of travel being funded would
allow one trip by one member from each board that was already
traveling that year. No new boards could travel out-of-state,
but already existing boards could have one trip by one member.
It was an attempt to be fiscally conservative. She noted there
was a $50,000 increment in the Governor's budget this year that
was specifically for the participation by boards in out-of-state
conferences. This figure came from adding up all the boards that
had serious desires and legitimate purposes to participate in
out-of-state events. She hopes the legislature will consider
that increment in the budget this year.
Number 2268
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether it would make any difference if
it were a designated program receipt.
MS. REARDON replied that it might because the legislature might
be less concerned about how a $50,000 increase would play into
the overall budget figures.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented that it is because her department and
division are in the general fund.
MS. REARDON said, "But if you moved us off [the general fund],
perhaps, then you could evaluate on the merits of the travel."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered, "Or if a board or commission wanted
to authorize that travel and pay for it, why should they be
restricted by an artificial ceiling if they wanted to pay for
it?"
MS. REARDON indicated that is her perspective on it. She
commented that it is difficult to manage the whole budget of the
division. If there is an across-the-board budget cut, out-of-
state travel is the first place she would look for reduction.
She said that is not a threat, and she realizes it makes people
angry. She sees out-of-state travel as a long-term investment
that does not pay off right away, which is probably one of the
reasons it gets short-funded.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated HB 305 would be held over until he
had received more feedback.
HB 316-EMPLOYMENT SECURITY ACT
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 316, "An Act relating to standard industrial
classification for, eligibility for benefits under, and the
definition of 'benefit year' for, the Alaska Employment Security
Act; and providing for an effective date."
Number 2392
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), came
forward to testify on HB 316. She explained that Section 1
amends AS 23.20.110 (n) and addresses the change in industry
codes. The United States Department of Labor is moving from the
Standard Industrial Classification System (SIC) to the North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS). This would
bring the (DLWD) into conformity when the new reporting system is
ready.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if these are the SIC codes.
MS. GAMEZ clarified that the SIC codes are going to NAICS codes,
in order to conform with the U.S. Department of Labor's reporting
requirements for industry.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if it is being mandated.
MS. GAMEZ replied yes. Under the Workforce Investment Act (WIA),
many things are changing. There are things occurring that have
already been reflected in the actions of the State of Alaska.
For example, the passage of HB 40 last year created DLWD, the
Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), and the
Department of Education and Early Development (DEED). She said
the DLWD has been posturing itself for the workforce changes that
are coming down from the national level.
TAPE 00-08, SIDE B
Number 0006
MS. GAMEZ further stated that Section 1 basically pertains to
statistical information that the federal government requires be
reported in its form. The new system will be in place in January
2001. Section 2 amends AS 23.20.179 (b) and pertains to Employer
Rate Contributions, which are related to the type of industry.
For example, the rate for the fishing industry is different than
that of the tourism industry. Analysis done does not show that
there would be any significant - if any - effect on the employer
rate.
MS. GAMEZ indicated Section 3 amends AS 23.20.379 (a)(2). She
said:
Apparently, in the late 70's, when an unemployment
insurance piece of legislation went to committee, some
language was accidentally dropped off. And so, we're
just trying to tidy that up.
MS. GAMEZ noted that a person who quits a job voluntarily has an
automatic six-week disqualification of unemployment insurance
benefits because it was completely in that person's control. If
a person is discharged for reasons that were within that person's
control, then that person will also receive a six-week
disqualification. She indicated it parallels the "voluntary
leaving" provision with the misconduct provision that is in law.
Number 0136
MS. GAMEZ said Section 4 amends AS 23.20.382 (d). It allows for
benefits to continue while a person is attending vocational
training approved under the WIA. The Workforce Investment Act
repeals the Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) effective July 1,
2000.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if this is a change in nomenclature.
MS. GAMEZ said JTPA is being phased out, while WIA is being
phased in. The job training dollars that come into the state
from the federal government will now be WIA dollars. Section 5
amends AS 23.20.520 (5). It repeals the current definition of an
unemployment benefit year and replaces it with a new definition.
The benefit year will begin on the Sunday of the week filed and
continue for 52 weeks, which allows for a 53-week benefit year.
She indicated it is a technical change, and 45 other states do
this now. She said problems occur during a leap year. This
cleans up the language so that a person's base period and
eligibility do not get messed up.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered what is done now.
Number 0217
MS. GAMEZ responded, "We spend a lot of money, with human hands
touching these claims, as opposed to letting our automated system
take care of the problem."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that is because of the definition of a
benefit year.
MS. GAMEZ replied yes. She commented that 53 weeks are needed to
eliminate the possibility of an eligible person's claiming in the
prior year or the next year. Benefit weeks currently begin on a
Sunday and are mutually exclusive. The change in Section 5 makes
the benefit year mutually exclusive and eliminates confusion.
MS. GAMEZ noted that Section (6) adds a transitional provision in
uncodified law to address the benefit years that began under the
current definition. These will expire under the new definition.
Section 7 states that Sections 1 through 4 will take effect July
1, 2000. Section 8 states that Sections 5 and 6 will take effect
on October 7, 2001.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the significance of the October 7,
2001, date is.
MS. GAMEZ said it deals with the new definition of the 53-week
benefit period.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered if that is because of the federal
fiscal year.
MS. GAMEZ commented, "We're funded on a federal fiscal year."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG wondered why it is October 7.
MS. GAMEZ deferred to Charles Blankenship.
Number 0299
CHARLES BLANKENSHIP, Assistant Director, Division of Employment
Security, Department of Labor and Workforce Development, stated:
The October 7 date is almost a little embarrassing, Mr.
Chair. When we started looking at calendars and
deciding that claims would begin on a Sunday from the
enactment of this legislation forward, the first time
that we would mess it up would be October 1 of the year
2001. ... To avoid that, we just went to the seventh.
The 53rd-week provision in here would eliminate any
problems (indisc.-coughing). The secondary reason was
workload. For unemployment insurance, at the beginning
of a new quarter we get a significant increase in
workload because it changes the base period of earnings
on which the claim would be established, and we wanted
to get any change we made to our definition outside of
that period of increased workload.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he needs a better explanation.
MS. GAMEZ replied that Dwight Perkins, Deputy Commissioner, DLWD,
would be happy to provide any "bullet points" that Chairman
Rokeberg would need.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said a situation occurs with the workload for the
claims-processing units. Whenever there is a new quarter, a new
base period of earnings can be used to establish claims. An
unemployed worker can take advantage of some of the wages earned
during the summer when moving into the October 1 quarter. He
stated, "With our seasonal employment situation in Alaska, this
affects a lot of people, and we do get a significant influx
during the first week." He explained that introducing a
significant change to statute during the first week of any
quarter runs the risk of decreasing the level of service that can
be delivered.
Number 0416
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI referred to Section 3, regarding
discharge for misconduct. She indicated there was a constituent
running a business with a zero-tolerance drug policy. An
employee working there was subjected to a random drug test,
failed the drug test, applied for unemployment insurance
benefits, and received the benefits right away. She said the
conclusion from Unemployment Insurance was that "because the
circumstances involved in your discharge did not show a willful
disregard of your employer's interest, it has been determined you
were discharged for reasons other than misconduct in connection
with your work, and, therefore, benefits are allowed to begin
right away."
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said when this came to her attention,
she was dumbfounded that someone could immediately receive
benefits after being terminated for obvious misconduct in the
workplace. She noted it had been explained to her that the
employer in this particular situation had failed to appeal. She
had asked Ms. Gamez previously if this was something that
required some kind of a legislative fix. She indicated she ran
this by Legislative Legal and Research Services, who explained
"you don't necessarily want to run a laundry list of those things
that constitute misconduct." She feels it is a troubling enough
issue, however, that she wanted to bring it to the attention of
the committee. She wondered if Ms. Gamez has any further
comments regarding this issue.
Number 0543
MS. GAMEZ explained there are a couple of types of misconduct.
She said:
There's property damages, reckless disregard, and that
follows under one thing. I hate to do this under
Employment Insurance, and I don't want to step too far
out on the limb. We try not to do what-if's because
we have a case-by-case determination of benefits. We
have a lower appeals system and then the commissioner
level appeals. And I would have thought that the
employer would've probably been in pretty good shape
had the employer [chosen] to appeal.
MS. GAMEZ stated that the appeals process in the Unemployment
Insurance system is very easy. A person can make a phone call or
send an e-mail, fax or letter. There is also a little
flexibility with the 30-day time limit. She asked Mr.
Blankenship to explain the different levels of misconduct
connected with Unemployment Insurance. She also asked
Representative Murkowski to clarify whether or not there was a
six-week waiting period in the situation she had described.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said there was a three-day delay.
MS. GAMEZ said she wished the employer had appealed.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said she hoped that Mr. Blankenship
could help clarify the situation.
Number 0648
MR. BLANKENSHIP provided some background on the general
disqualification for a discharge for misconduct. The federal
guidelines indicate that if a worker loses his or her job for
work-related misconduct there will be some disqualification
imposed. In Alaska there are two levels of work-related
misconduct. He stated:
In Alaska, we had had just the one misconduct provision
for anything that constituted a deliberate act or
omission that was contrary to your employer's best
interest and in connection with the work. A few year's
ago, there was a second piece of legislation added - I
believe it's [HB]379 D [version] - which allows for a
much more significant disqualification for someone who
commits a felony or a theft while on the job, and that
imposes a 52-week disqual[ification]. That's, in
general, the misconduct provision.
You're referring specifically to why would we pay
somebody unemployment insurance if they failed a drug
test. We do have a fairly large body of policy on
this. It's been developed from court cases, previous
commissioner decisions on the issue. As I said, the
basic requirement in a discharge for misconduct case is
that there be a connection to the work. And in drug
testing we went into a kind of a muddy area there.
It's possible that 30 days ago they used some
marijuana. It'll show up in a drug test, and they'll
fail the test. Is there, in fact, a connection to the
work there? ... Much of our precedent indicates that
unless there's a showing of impairment on the job, that
... would not be disqualifying. It's very clear that
if someone's under the influence or using drugs or
alcohol on the job, that is work-related misconduct.
The evolution of our policy, as far as drug testing and
the use of intoxicants or drugs on the job, has become
much less liberal and, in the case that you're
referring to, ... we look at each case by the facts
presented. I cannot say from the information you've
given whether this decision was correct or incorrect.
My assumption would be that based on the information we
received from both parties, ... the decision was
correct in that, for some reason, we did not have a
clear connection between that drug test and the job,
even though the employer may have required it.
MR. BLANKENSHIP continued:
There was a great increase in the requirements for
random drug testing on the job in the last ten years.
We found that 7-11 franchises began to require drug
testing. I don't want my air traffic controller
testing positive for drugs, but the guy that makes my
Slurpy, I'm not sure that's really a reason to
discharge him if he fails his drug test. In general,
our policy now says that if you're operating any
equipment that could be life-threatening or property-
threatening, in a position where there's a federal or
state requirement, that you ... not have drugs in your
system; those are generally disqualifying provisions.
Now, beyond the fact that we don't know all of the ...
facts to this instant case, there is the appeal period.
But I'm not going to say that the employer is under an
obligation to appeal just to get a correct decision.
We do try to make a correct decision, based on the
initial facts. There is not an assumption that the ...
unemployed worker is eligible automatically for
benefits. However, since the moving party in a
discharge is the employer, much of the burden does rest
on him in that case to show that it was, in fact, an
action that constituted misconduct, just as if, in the
case of somebody quitting a job, the burden largely
rests on the employee [who] quit to show that those
reasons were with good cause.
Number 0850
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI agreed it would be a much better case to
pursue if, in fact, the employer had appealed and that appeal had
been denied. She wondered if there are regulations that define
what the misconduct is and if there is a so-called laundry list.
MR. BLANKENSHIP replied there is a regulation that defines
misconduct; the regulation does not have a laundry list. There
is a significant body of written policy pertaining to the laundry
list of things that a person could be discharged for.
REPRESENTATIVE MURKOWSKI said:
The reason I ask is because Ms. Gamez, when she was
discussing Section 3, indicated that it was essentially
anything that was within the individual's control.
Well, I certainly look at taking drugs as being within
my control, ... and if you happen to test positive for
marijuana 30 days later and you're out, I say you're on
your own, but that's my own personal opinion. ... It's
an interesting discussion, and I guess I'm looking for
a little guidance as to whether or not we should pursue
to define this somewhere.
Number 0920
MS. GAMEZ indicated she cannot say this case would have been
overturned or that there would have been a disqualification
period. It seems to her that would have been reasonable. She
reiterated that the appeal process is very simple. She commented
that a lot of their policy is based on the appeals that come up;
there is ever-changing policy based on precedents. She said she
would be happy to meet with Representative Murkowski to ensure
that she has a clear understanding of the policies and
regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said that he would like to be included in
that meeting. He commented:
One of the things that's frustrating from an employer's
standpoint is, even when you spend time developing
company policies, rules and regulations, even go so far
as to have an employee, at the point of hire, read the
document and sign it, acknowledging the fact that
they've ... received a copy and they understand it --
so, the employee knows doggone well that there's random
drug testing and that they're in a sensitive area and
they need to be drug-free.
And, whether he's getting high at home or at lunch, I
mean, that's really not the issue. The issue is he
showed up for work, he was random drug tested, he had
drugs in his system, and the employer should, in all
fairness, have a right to discharge him without this
person being able to come back and claim unemployment
insurance.
And my frustration with this is, like I said, even when
you go to the extent of spending dollars having private
legal counsel development company policies and
adequately and clearly presenting them to the employee
at the time of hire, there's always that loophole. ...
I think there has to be a way to protect all employers.
... I certainly have had a number of experiences where
you just say, ..."What is the use of even developing
company policy?" if ... somebody's going to say, "Well,
that really doesn't count in this case," when clearly
it does.
MS. GAMEZ said she welcomes the opportunity to have a discussion
with Representative Halcro. She explained that she dealt with
many of those same frustrations as an employer. She feels great
strides have been made in the last five years. She wishes people
would take advantage of the appeals process because it is so easy
and has minimal impact. She noted they are always looking for
ways to increase the customer service to employers. There used
to be a 15-day appeal period, but that was increased because they
wanted people to have the opportunity to appeal in a reasonable
amount of time. She stated that an employee who receives
unemployment insurance benefits but is then disqualified would
have to repay those benefits. She said $126 million is paid out
every year in benefits. She empathizes with the desire to
protect the employer.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG appointed a subcommittee on HB 316, consisting
of Representative Murkowski, Chair; Representative Halcro; and
Representative Cissna. [HB 316 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1246
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:40 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|