Legislature(1999 - 2000)
03/06/2000 03:28 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 6, 2000
3:28 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Chairman
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chairman
Representative John Harris
Representative Tom Brice
Representative Sharon Cissna
Representative Jerry Sanders
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 176(RLS)
"An Act permitting a physical fitness facility to limit public
accommodation to only males or only females."
- MOVED CSSB 176(RLS) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 224
"An Act requiring a public employee labor organization
representing employees of a school district, regional educational
attendance area, or a state boarding school to give notice before
striking."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 247
"An Act revising the nonprofit corporations code and the
religious corporations code; relating to disclosures and reports
by certain nonprofit corporations; amending Rules 3, 4, 8, 17,
19, 23.1, 24, 25, 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 803, Alaska Rules of Evidence, and Rules 602 and
609, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an
effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 370
"An Act relating to a short-term exemption from the minimum wage
for newly hired young employees."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 176
SHORT TITLE: SEX DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CLUBS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/15/99 1488 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/15/99 1488 (S) L&C
1/13/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
1/13/00 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
1/18/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
1/18/00 (S) Bill Postponed
1/25/00 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
1/25/00 (S) Moved CS (L&C) Out of Committee
1/25/00 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
1/26/00 2078 (S) L&C RPT CS 4DP NEW TITLE
1/26/00 2078 (S) DP: MACKIE, LEMAN, DONLEY, TIM KELLY
1/26/00 2078 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/02/00 (S) RLS AT 11:45 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
2/02/00 (S) Heard & Held
2/02/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/16/00 (S) RLS AT 11:15 AM FAHRENKAMP 203
2/16/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/21/00 2362 (S) RLS TO CALENDAR AND 1 OR 02/21/00
2/21/00 2363 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
2/21/00 2363 (S) HELD IN SECOND READING TO 2/24
CALENDAR
2/22/00 (S) RLS AT 12:00 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
2/22/00 (S) <Public Hearing Notice Waived>
2/22/00 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
2/22/00 2382 (S) RETURN TO RLS COMMITTEE
2/22/00 2382 (S) RULES WAIVED NOTICE, UNIFORM RULE 23
2/24/00 2406 (S) RLS TO CAL W/CS & 1 OR 02/24 NEW
TITLE
2/24/00 2407 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FISCAL NOTE (GOV)
2/24/00 2408 (S) IN SECOND READING
2/24/00 2408 (S) RLS CS ADOPTED UNAN CONSENT
2/24/00 2409 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN
CONSENT
2/24/00 2409 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME CSSB 176(RLS)
2/24/00 2409 (S) PASSED Y17 N3
2/24/00 2414 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
2/25/00 2297 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/25/00 2298 (H) L&C
2/25/00 2298 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
3/01/00 2376 (H) CROSS SPONSOR(S): HALCRO
3/06/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 224
SHORT TITLE: PERA: NOTICE BEFORE STRIKE
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/05/99 1180 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/05/99 1180 (H) HES, L&C
5/06/99 1214 (H) COSPONSOR(S): OGAN
5/07/99 1247 (H) COSPONSOR(S): DYSON
1/25/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
1/25/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/03/00 (H) HES AT 4:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/03/00 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
2/08/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/08/00 (H) Heard & Held
2/08/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/15/00 (H) HES AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 106
2/15/00 (H) Moved CSHB 224(HES) Out of Committee
2/15/00 (H) MINUTE(HES)
2/16/00 2202 (H) HES RPT 1DP 1DNP 1NR 2AM
2/16/00 2202 (H) DP: GREEN; DNP: BRICE; NR: COGHILL;
2/16/00 2202 (H) AM: DYSON, KEMPLEN
2/16/00 2203 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM)
2/16/00 2203 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
2/21/00 2249 (H) CORRECTED HES RPT CS(HES) 1DNP 4AM
2/21/00 2249 (H) DNP: BRICE; AM: DYSON, COGHILL,
KEMPLEN
2/21/00 2249 (H) GREEN
2/21/00 2249 (H) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (ADM) 2/16/00
3/03/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
3/03/00 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
3/06/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 247
SHORT TITLE: NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
5/18/99 1596 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
5/18/99 1597 (H) L&C, JUD
3/06/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 370
SHORT TITLE: EXEMPTION FROM MINIMUM WAGE FOR TEENAGERS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
2/11/00 2184 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
2/11/00 2184 (H) L&C, JUD
2/11/00 2184 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
3/06/00 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 111
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as sponsor of CSSB 176(RLS).
DAN COFFEY, Attorney at Law
207 East Northern Lights Boulevard, Suite 200
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 176(RLS).
JOHN SANKEY, Owner
Anchorage Women's Club
207 East Northern Lights Boulevard
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on CSSB 176(RLS).
RANDALL LORENZ, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 421
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 224 on behalf of the sponsor.
DEBORAH OSSIANDER, Member
Anchorage School Board
P.O. Box 670772
Chugiak, Alaska 99567-0772
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 224.
JOHN CYR, President
National Education Association-Alaska
114 Second Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 224.
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist
AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations]
710 West 9th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 224.
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director
Governmental and Legislative Affairs
General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska
520 East 34th Avenue
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 224.
CARL ROSE, Executive Director
Association of Alaska School Boards
316 West 11th Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1510
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 224.
PATRICK HARMAN, Staff
to Representative Pete Kott
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 118
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 247 on behalf of the sponsor.
FRED JENKINS, Session Executive Director
United Way of Anchorage
1057 West Fireweed Lane
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 247.
RICHARD BLOCK, Christian Science Committee
on Publication
360 West Benson Boulevard, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 247.
JOHN BROWN, President
Fairbanks Central Labor Council
819 1st Avenue
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 370.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 370.
RICH MASTRIANO, Investigator
Wage & Hour
Division of Labor Standards & Safety
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
3301 Eagle Street, Suite 301
Anchorage, Alaska 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 370.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 00-26, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN NORMAN ROKEBERG called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:28 p.m. Members present
at the call to order were Representatives Rokeberg, Halcro,
Harris and Brice. Representatives Cissna and Sanders arrived as
the meeting was in progress.
SB 176 - SEX DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CLUBS
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the first order of business would be
CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 176(RLS), "An Act permitting a physical
fitness facility to limit public accommodation to only males or
only females."
Number 0096
SENATOR DRUE PEARCE, Alaska State Legislature, came forward to
testify as the sponsor of CSSB 176(RLS). She stated:
Senate Bill 176 allows gender-based health clubs to
provide services to members wishing to exercise in the
presence of only persons of their own gender. Under
the Alaska Constitution, Article 1, Section 22, the
right of the people to privacy is recognized and shall
not be infringed.
The Alaska Human Rights Commission [AHRC] filed an
action against the Anchorage Women's Club last year
stating the club unlawfully discriminates against men
because the club is a place of public accommodation.
The AHRC based their decision on AS 18.80.230, which
states that in places of "accommodation" it is unlawful
to refuse, withhold from, or deny to a person any of
its services, goods, or facilities based on sex.
However, health clubs are not referenced in AS
18.80.300 (14), which is the list of places that are
places of public accommodation.
Senate Bill 176 establishes that health clubs are not
designed for public accommodation and have no public
policy interests. Gender-based health clubs offer a
secluded environment allowing people to feel more at
ease in what is often an intimidating setting. Through
this measure, Alaska will recognize the unique setting
of a male-only or female-only health club based on
membership and employment. This bill in no way
excludes any individual from the opportunity to
exercise or work at a co-ed health club if he or she so
desires.
Number 0257
I introduced the legislation on behalf of the
[Anchorage] Women's Club, which is the club that is
being held with a big question mark over their
facility. It's a facility in Anchorage, a physical
fitness facility, that is open to women as members, and
it has female employees. In 1998, an Anchorage man was
denied membership in this club based on his gender,
since the ... club caters exclusively to women. He
filed a complaint to the [Alaska] Human Rights
Commission. He later dropped his claim to the
commission, but they went ahead, opened a case, and
voted that the women's club violated [AS] 18.80.230
which (indisc.) the list of places of public
accommodation that I mentioned.
This bill merely clarifies that physical fitness
facilities would not fit in that list. There are other
states who have gone the same direction that we are
proposing here. There's no state or federal court or
legislative body in the United States that has
prohibited the operation of same-gender physical
fitness facilities. Illinois, New Jersey and Tennessee
explicitly authorize same-gender centers.
Pennsylvania, Colorado, New York and Hawaii authorize
the existence of same-gender fitness and wellness
centers.
One of the reasons, Mr. Chairman, that we believe that
there's a privacy interest, but also, if you will, a
public interest in having facilities able to be open to
women only or to men only, I don't have to tell anyone
here that Americans, as a group, are getting less
healthy. We're getting less exercise and doctors who
try to get people to join health clubs find that it is
an intimidating setting. It is particularly difficult
to get women to join health clubs, and so I think that
these clubs in Anchorage serve a very important purpose
for the health of the individuals who are members.
I believe that we dealt with all of the questions to
make sure that we didn't catch gymnasiums somehow
without meaning to. Over on the Senate side,
gymnasiums are not mentioned. We've gone through the
language in a number of permutations, and I think we've
handled all of those questions of vagueness.
Number 0446
REPRESENTATIVE TOM BRICE asked Senator Pearce whether the
language in CSHB 176(RLS) is specific enough in relation to
expressing a public need in order to withstand a court challenge.
SENATOR PEARCE replied that there is a list of public
accommodations in state statute. The law clearly says a person
cannot discriminate in those places of public accommodations.
The bill clarifies that physical fitness facilities are not a
part of that list and therefore should withstand a court
challenge.
Number 0538
DAN COFFEY, Attorney at Law, testified via teleconference from
Anchorage. He stated that he represented the Anchorage Women's
Club in the AHRC action. He commented:
We prepared and submitted to the committee and to the
full House [of Representatives], for that matter,
what's been documented as a memo to legislators dated
December 19, 1999, which contains a variety of
information on what has happened in other jurisdictions
where this same issue has been considered.
During the course of this process, we have heard
nothing that hasn't been considered in other
jurisdictions. The lines, if you would, are drawn
clearly here as between the reasons why this should be
permitted and those who argue against it, the reasons
they believe it should not be permitted.
There's clearly a question of balancing here. Mr.
Chairman, we believe that there would be some
legitimate concerns, things like the proliferation of
men-only clubs and loss of some of the gains that ...
people have made over the last 10 or 20 years in
eliminating gender discrimination; and there's nothing
about this bill that would permit that to occur in the
manner that their fears are stated to you, and to us as
we listen to them. So, we believe that when you come
to balance the right to privacy and the needs that
Senator Pearce identified, [those] clearly outweigh the
potential and, we believe, unlikely risks that the
opponents of this legislation voice to you.
Number 0689
REPRESENTATIVE ANDREW HALCRO referred to a letter included in the
bill packet [from Robert Tanenbaum, Licensed Psychologist] which
states that some women, based upon their religious beliefs, are
forbidden from exercising in the presence of men. He asked Mr.
Coffey whether the Anchorage Women's Club has experienced this as
one of the reasons for having a women-only club.
MR. COFFEY said he is not familiar with that. He deferred the
question to the owner and operator of the Anchorage Women's Club.
Number 0758
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked what the rationale was for making a turn
in the direction of the definition of "public accommodation."
MR. COFFEY answered that the idea is that it falls under the
right of privacy in the state constitution. He said:
The question is: Do we permit women, particularly, and
men, if they so choose, particularly, to exercise in
the presence of only their own gender for all of the
reasons that are listed and put forth in that memo,
including the studies done by Robert Tanenbaum and so
forth? And, on the other hand, we have a statute that
says, unclearly at best, that you shall not
discriminate in gender and sex in places of public
accommodation. The statute then goes on to list places
of public accommodation. It doesn't list health
facilities, but it says "and others", or something
along those lines. So, it's sort of a catch-all at the
end.
The question I think that is legitimately posed by
Senator Pearce and her testimony is: Do we want to
specifically exclude these places from public
accommodations and clarify the statute? And in
reaching that decision, then you have to ask
yourselves, I think, the legitimate public policy
questions: What is the benefit? And what is the
downside of doing this? Some of the downsides have
been argued; well, then, you'll find a proliferation of
men's clubs, and we'll step back to the time when women
were excluded from ... the business decisions and the
social atmosphere that occurred at ... private men-only
clubs.
Well, those concerns, like I say, have been addressed
in every other jurisdiction that's considered it and
the facts, again, are in this memo, but they show there
has not been a proliferation of men-only clubs. In
fact, the fears that the people have talked about
haven't occurred ... when you balance the two issues,
the right to privacy versus the potential fears, I
think what you find is that the privacy rights and the
things that are intended on that far outweigh what I
believe to be unfounded fears about some bad
consequences, ... and that's what we've heard from the
opponents of this: "Oh, there'll be bad consequences."
In fact, the history shows, no, there haven't been bad
consequences.
Number 0949
JOHN SANKEY, Owner, Anchorage Women's Club, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He stated that he has a
Bachelor's of Science Degree in Nursing and a Master's Degree in
Psychiatric Nursing. He commented:
My background was in those areas that you refer to as
recovery areas. I have developed smoking cessation
programs and presented them to the city [of Anchorage]
and to people up on the Slope and have worked with
people in the areas of recovery from alcohol and drug
abuse.
I became involved in the weight-loss field about 11
years ago. Probably 95 percent of the clients coming
to the weight loss clinic were women and it tells me
that these women were in a recovery process. There was
more to what was going on there than simply reducing
their caloric intake. Over a period of time, I would
meet with them on a one-to-one basis or in a group
setting and I would (indisc.) encourage exercise as one
of the steps in this recovery process to lose weight
and, more importantly, to keep weight off. Almost all
the women refused to go to any of the clubs in town at
that time, because they were co-ed and they were just
too, some would say, ashamed of their bodies and too
just self-conscious of their appearance.
As time went on, the building that I'm in, space became
available, and I built a women's-only fitness club.
Prior to building it, though, I did do some research,
went back and found out that all the other states here
in the country have women's-only clubs, that some were
tested in court, and they had passed. And with that in
mind, I thought: Well, this is fine. I built a
fitness club for women only, and it's been in place
about seven years right now. The women go in there,
like it, they feel comfortable, and it does help them a
great deal to lose their weight and, more importantly,
keeping the weight off. That's where I am right now,
and I think it certainly does no harm to anyone and
does a lot of good for the female population here in
the state.
Number 1119
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Sankey how many members there are,
how many employees he has, and how much space he rents.
MR. SANKEY responded that there are approximately 1,500 women who
are members. He has 45 full-time and part-time employees. The
space he rents is about 30,000 square feet.
Number 1235
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to move CSSB 176(RLS) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the attached zero
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSSB 176(RLS) moved out
of the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 224 - PERA: NOTICE BEFORE STRIKE
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 224, "An Act requiring a public employee labor
organization representing employees of a school district,
regional educational attendance area, or a state boarding school
to give notice before striking."
Number 1304
RANDALL LORENZ, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska State
Legislature, came before the committee to present HB 224 on
behalf of the sponsor. He started by illustrating a hypothetical
story of a family's dilemma between the demands of work and
demands of a child in school in relation to the TOTEM
[Association of Educational Support Personnel] strike last year.
House Bill 224, he said, is not only a child safety bill, but it
guards businesses as well. The bill guarantees parents in Alaska
at least 24 hours' notice before a school bargaining unit can
allow its members to strike; in that way, it provides parents
with ample time to prepare for the safety of their children and
the demands of business. The unions, he said, will indicate that
this will never happen again; but the sponsor says that if
positive steps are not taken, it will happen again. He noted
that Ms. Debbie Ossiander, a school board member, was online to
testify, since the bill was introduced on behalf of the Anchorage
School District.
Number 1455
DEBORAH OSSIANDER, Member, Anchorage School Board, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. She urged the committee members
to support HB 224. The school board believes that this is a
child safety issue for all public school children, especially for
the medically fragile and very young students. Children's safety
is at risk if they are dropped off at school and there is an
inadequate number of adults present to watch over them. Some
students, she noted, require one-on-one adult supervision. In
that regard, it's essential that parents, families and employers
have adequate time to prepare for a strike that closes the
schools.
MS. OSSIANDER explained that she uses the word "close" because
just about every school district in the state would have to close
if "hit by a bargaining group strike" as a result of a shortage
of labor. She assured the committee members that the closure of
schools due to a strike is not like a snow-day closure. Parents
are able to look out the window and suspect a closure in relation
to inclement weather, but authorization to strike may occur
months before the actual labor stoppage. She pointed out that
for the majority of strikes, there is adequate notice given.
Number 1640
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Ossiander, excluding the TOTEM
strike, how many times there has been a strike without
notification.
MS. OSSIANDER replied that a strike without notification has only
happened once; it was significant, however. She also noted that
the Anchorage School District is having trouble with labor
negotiations at the present time.
Number 1661
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Ossiander where besides Anchorage
there has been a strike without notification.
MS. OSSIANDER said she can't answer the question. She noted that
the Association of Alaska School Boards [AASB] voted unanimously
to support HB 224. She therefore assumes that this is a concern
for every school district in the state.
Number 1685
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Ossiander whether it is correct to
say that it would be a problem to find substitute supervision for
the special education students without due notice.
MS. OSSIANDER replied, "You're exactly right." It's very
problematic. There were significant problems with that
population during the TOTEM strike. She noted that there is
special training for dealing with students who require nursing
care. She further stated that, if there isn't an adequate number
of adults to maintain order and discipline, the result is chaos,
which she believes is unacceptable to everyone.
Number 1751
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Ossiander what the parents of
special education students do for care when school is canceled
because of snow.
MS. OSSIANDER replied that when school is canceled because of
snow it is a problem for every family, and even more of a problem
for families with children who have high needs. Luckily, she
said, employers around the state are very aware of the needs of
working families and oftentimes they grant personal leave days
for parents to adequately care for their children.
Number 1855
REPRESENTATIVE JOHN HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether there is
any provision at all for a strike notification in the union
contracts.
MS. OSSIANDER replied, "No." The board, she noted, was taken
aback when they encountered the problem last year, and to a
certain extent the board is reacting to that problem.
Number 1879
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether her concern is
related to the fear of the unknown rather than to an actual
strike.
MS. OSSIANDER replied exactly. House Bill 224 is just a
safeguard that the school board feels needs to be in place. It's
not because they have any real expectation that any particular
bargaining groups is going to [strike] in the near future. But
the potential exists, and there is some precedence to give a
reason for concern.
Number 1902
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Ms. Ossiander whether she has talked
to any of the leaders of the bargaining groups about dealing with
the fear in the form of a contract rather than [in the form of a
bill] that changes the statute.
MS. OSSIANDER replied that the issue has been discussed
informally. According to her experience, informal or cordial
relationships deteriorate rapidly when emotions get high and
labor negotiations get close to a strike situation. The school
board, however, believes that this transcends a bargaining issue
and is a basic safety issue.
Number 1962
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Ms. Ossiander why a strike
notification is not negotiated in good faith since it is a basic
safety issue.
MS. OSSIANDER answered that the school district believes that
they are negotiating their contracts in good faith. She said,
"If I may make a slight aside comment: It would certainly help
if statewide educational funding had ... matched inflation."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE agreed with her aside comment. He further
noted that a strike is the last [action] in a long process. In
that regard, he doesn't see how the sides can't see the
possibility of a "walkout."
Number 2035
JOHN CYR, President, National Education Association-Alaska [NEA-
Alaska], came before the committee to testify. The public
employees got the right to strike a number of years ago, he
explained, under the Public Employees Relations Act [PERA]. It
was nothing that NEA-Alaska wanted. It was a compromise in
relation to binding arbitration. The bargaining process, he
said, is very lengthy. In that regard, the issue is not like a
sudden snow storm, as Ms. Ossiander indicated earlier. When
TOTEM went on strike, the Anchorage School District tried to hire
replacement workers in order to keep schools open. He
understands that is their job, but when talking about the health
and safety of children he would like to see a provision that
doesn't allow a school district to hire less qualified
replacement workers. That, he said, would keep the playing field
level. He doesn't believe that HB 224 is about health and
safety; he believes it is about tilting the playing field in the
direction of the Anchorage School Board over one incident.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Cyr whether he said that a 24-hour
notification is tilting the playing field. Isn't there a
scintilla of public safety and concern involved?
MR. CYR replied that certainly, there is some public safety and
concern involved. He said:
I think the Anchorage School District, the last time
the weather was bad, closed school at ten thirty in the
morning; I think that's a mistake. I think to hire
replacement workers is a mistake. I think there are
things that can be done and should be done to bring
negotiations to a close before it ever gets to this
level. That's where the concern should lie.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG agreed with Mr. Cyr's final point. Nobody, he
said, likes strikes. They usually upset life and commerce, even
if they are in the public sector.
Number 2194
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Cyr why a strike option was
preferred over binding arbitration.
MR. CYR replied, from the point of view of NEA-Alaska, that a
strike option was not preferred over binding arbitration. He
said:
We had on our books and as part of our records for
years we looked for finality in bargaining around
binding arbitration. We wanted to be placed in the
same class because we think it is a public interest as
law enforcement and fire people and the right to
binding arb[itration]. We believe we needed some
finality in bargaining and that was the way it should
go.
The legislative process, though, dictated otherwise.
We went through this process a number of years ago
trying to get binding arbitration. Could not agree to
it. In the last hour, we got the right to strike under
PERA. We agreed to the right to strike under PERA with
the idea and we said publicly at the time that we would
never again, or at least we would try not to, introduce
a bill asking for binding arbitration. You know, that
we had cut a deal and we were done. We didn't like it,
but it was a deal. So, we got finality but we didn't
get the finality we wanted. And we're happy with the
law that we have. We believe ... the law that we have
now works.
Number 2260
REPRESENTATIVE HARRIS asked Mr. Cyr whether he thinks school
districts now would prefer to have binding arbitration. It would
seem to do away with their concern in relation to strikes and
notifications.
MR. CYR said he could not testify on behalf of school districts.
Number 2286
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist, AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor
and Congress of Industrial Organizations], came before the
committee to testify. The AFL-CIO is opposed to HB 224 on the
grounds that the parties involved know when there would be a
strike. That, he said, is when the school district could react.
In that regard, the bill would give the school districts another
24 hours to find replacements and extend a strike.
Number 2332
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Etheridge whether the "scab"
employees are trained to the same level of those they are
replacing.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "No."
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE replied, in that case, there would be a
greater danger to children by exposing them to those who don't
have the training in relation to the regular employees.
Number 2354
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Etheridge whether the ability to
strike or the requirements that surround strike notification are
usually handled in the collective bargaining process.
MR. ETHERIDGE said yes. During the bargaining process, language
calling for the requirements to strike can be negotiated.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Etheridge whether he is aware of any
contracts that contain strike notification provisions.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied, "No."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Etheridge whether it is the same for
the federal government.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied that he doesn't know about the federal
government. He noted, however, that a lot of federal government
employees are prohibited from striking.
Number 2401
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Director, Governmental and Legislative
Affairs, General Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska, came
before the committee to testify in opposition to HB 224. She
said:
We're speaking against notice because we unfortunately
- the Teamsters - represent the bus drivers for the
Anchorage School District. We also have the
maintenance workers and we also have the food services
workers under the district contract. All three
different contracts; all negotiated at separate times.
At the time that the TOTEM association gave notice to
go out on strike, we were also in a similar situation
at the table.
... I don't know how many committee members have
actually sat in an actual negotiating session, but John
Cyr had mentioned earlier the balance or leveling the
playing field out there. And collective bargaining,
the negotiating process is a very, very delicate
balance that unless you've actually sat across the
table and negotiated and experienced that give-and-
take, it doesn't take much from other side to really
offset that very, very delicate balance of
negotiations, especially from a union perspective, with
the cards per se that really truly are more on the
management side than they are on the union side.
About the only thing that we do have as we're going
through the collective bargaining process and
ultimately end up after ... going through mediation and
then through interest arbitration and then the finality
of the management introducing their last best and final
offer and giving us the right to strike. It is an
impasse situation that actually is required a condition
of both side. It's not one side or the other that
declares while we're going out on strike or we're going
to implement our last best offer. It actually is a
very thought-out process that is also under government
control because before we can even go out on strike we
have to go through the state board. The state board
conducts this particular election which is all public
information and also requires that or allows for
representatives from the management, in this particular
case, the Anchorage School District, to also sit and
... [ends midspeech because of tape change].
TAPE 00-26, SIDE B
Number 0001
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS continued:
When TOTEM went out, unfortunately, the Teamsters who
represented the Anchorage school bus drivers also found
ourselves in a similar situation. We, for the record,
gave five days notice, and that was public notice. We
are not crazy. We are not going to leave these kids in
the middle of winter sitting at the bus stops without
proper notice to the pubic. I mean, we also live and
work in these communities. We have to deal with the
parents with the children of which most of us also have
children that attend these various schools around the
state as well.
And, I guess, in closing my statements, it is a very
delicate process. It requires, I think, some political
astuteness on the part of not only the management but
the union negotiators from both sides and hopefully as
we're going through this very delicate process there is
that astuteness on both sides to assure that the public
is given proper notice. I myself have given my son, at
five-thirty in the morning, notice on a no-school day.
Yes, I guess you could argue that all of the signs were
out there hours before, but I can also sit here and
argue that months before.
I would predict that if things don't get better at the
table with Anchorage School District and the teachers,
and I'm not involved in those negotiations, that I
would anticipate probably a strike coming down the
road. But, I mean, this is all because of what I'm
reading in the newspapers. I think that the way the
rules are set forward right now do somewhat level that
playing field, and we have been willing to work and
play within those set rules. And I would request the
committee [to] not support this bill.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Huff Tuckness whether he heard her
say that Local 959 gave five days' notice in relation to the bus
drivers' strike.
MS. HUFF-TUCKNESS replied, "Yes."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Ms. Huff Tuckness whether there are
provisions in Local 959's contracts to provide for strike
notification.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied, "No."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, then, that Local 959 provided
notification out of courtesy and public safety.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied, "That's correct." She explained that
Local 959 provided paid advertisements in the newspapers for five
days before they went on strike.
Number 0098
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Ms. Huff Tuckness to indicate how
public sentiment relates to a strike. He imagines that the
public would get angry in regard to a lack of notification to the
point that it wouldn't happen again.
MS. HUFF TUCKNESS replied that she anticipates that this
particular situation would probably never occur again. There was
backlash, she noted, from the public and from the rank-and-file
members of the union.
Number 0163
CARL ROSE, Executive Director, Association of Alaska School
Boards [AASB], came before the committee to testify.
Historically, it was the desire of AASB to remain in the meet-
and-confer status under Title 14. The issue, he noted, of
binding arbitration was a desire at the time of NEA-Alaska. The
compromise was made to allow for the right to strike that neither
AASB or NEA-Alaska wanted. But they have lived with it ever
since, and it has worked for the most part. In 1995, he
explained, AASB passed a strike notification resolution calling
for 72-hours of advance notice. They were told by members of the
legislature that there was no need for such a bill, and last year
TOTEM went on strike.
MR. ROSE further stated that he is looking at HB 224 in relation
to the issue of public confidence. An unannounced strike, he
said, weakens the public's confidence; it creates security and
child safety problems. As previous testimony has indicated, all
parties involved understand when a strike is imminent. But a
strike being imminent and knowing when people are going to
strike, he said, are very different.
MR. ROSE said HB 224 does not tip the balance of power, for a
strike or job action is a serious matter. It's an economic and
political tool that is used and in most cases the message is very
clear. But he doesn't think that it's the intent of the state in
its policy to strike communities and students. He thinks that
the difference lies between the governing boards and
organizations. In that regard, HB 224 is trying to get some
accommodation for proper notification to communities in order to
alleviate any security problems and most importantly to
accommodate the children in relation to any safety concerns. The
AASB, therefore, supports HB 224 and urges the committee members
to pass it out of the committee.
Number 0291
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose how many strikes have taken
place in the last ten years across the state, and where.
MR. ROSE replied that he can think of two strikes in Anchorage
and one strike in Ketchikan.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose, outside of the TOTEM strike,
how many strikes have taken place without any notification.
MR. ROSE replied that to the best of his knowledge, the only
strike without notification was the TOTEM strike.
Number 0327
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Rose to define what he means by an
unannounced strike. He noted that before there is a strike,
there is mandatory arbitration, a strike vote as well as other
steps. In that regard, he sees an unannounced strike along the
lines of "wildcatting."
MR. ROSE clarified that he was not alluding to wildcatting. When
negotiating, the parties involved know when a strike is imminent.
The question is: Will the strike happen on Monday or Tuesday or
Wednesday? In that regard, the AASB is looking for a 24-hour
advance notice in order to make the proper accommodations.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked whether, in the cases when the parties
involved know that a strike is imminent, isn't it prudent to have
contingency plans?
MR. ROSE replied that he believes there are contingency plans,
but they don't know when to implement them if they don't know
when a strike is going to occur.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said a plan is implemented when a strike
occurs.
MR. ROSE replied:
I guess my response remains the same. You have plans
to implement, but you don't really know when that
strike is going to happen. But ... you can't make
accommodations for the community or kids. I mean, for
schools and issues of security, I think, you can try to
do that, but with regard to our communities and
students, there is no way of knowing until you actually
find out that there is a strike.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE said that is why there should be alternative
plans.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that HB 224 would be held in the
committee to allow for further public testimony.
HB 247 - NONPROFIT CORPORATIONS
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 247, "An Act revising the nonprofit corporations
code and the religious corporations code; relating to disclosures
and reports by certain nonprofit corporations; amending Rules 3,
4, 8, 17, 19, 23.1, 24, 25, 65, 79, and 82, Alaska Rules of Civil
Procedure, Rule 803, Alaska Rules of Evidence, and Rules 602 and
609, Alaska Rules of Appellate Procedure; and providing for an
effective date." There was a proposed committee substitute (CS).
Number 0437
PATRICK HARMAN, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, Alaska State
Legislature, came before the committee to present HB 247 on
behalf of the sponsor. He noted that the bill has dramatically
changed from its original version and that the nonprofit
[corporations] have not had a chance to look at the latest
version. House Bill 247, he said, is basically a disclosure
bill. It asks that domestic and foreign nonprofit [corporations]
file a Form 990, a form that they already produce and provide to
the Internal Revenue Service [IRS], with the state. Nonprofit
[corporations], he said, are exempt from paying certain taxes
because they provide a service for the good of the public; in
that regard, the bill asks that they prove their service on a
regular basis.
Number 0531
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO made a motion to adopt the proposed CS for
HB 247, Version I [1-LS0676\I, Bannister, 3/3/00], as a work
draft. There being no objection, Version I was before the
committee.
Number 0547
MR. HARMAN pointed out that the essence of HB 247 is Section 4,
which starts on page 2, line 31. He read the following language
[Version I, page 3, lines 1-4]:
(a) A foreign corporation transacting business in the
state and a domestic corporation shall file with the
department on or before July 1 of each year a copy of
the most recent Form 990 filed by the foreign or
domestic corporation with the federal government.
MR. HARMAN noted that Form 990 is a public document, but it is
very difficult to get from the IRS. Version I asks that the
corporation pay the Department of Community & Economic
Development a fee in order to keep it revenue-neutral [subsection
(c), page 3, lines 10-11]. There are approximately 5,000
nonprofit [corporations] in the state; and, in that regard, the
bill would increase the department's costs. He noted, however,
that there isn't a fiscal note for the proposed committee
substitute yet from the Administration.
Number 0672
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Harman whether the federal
government decides if a corporation is nonprofit.
MR. HARMAN replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Harman why the state has an
interest in making sure that nonprofit corporations really should
qualify for a tax-exempt status if the IRS already verifies the
qualifying nonprofit [corporations].
Number 0695
MR. HARMAN replied that there are nonprofit organizations coming
to the state which are trying to affect public policy on both the
right and left of the political spectrum. He asked: Who are
these people? Where are they getting their money? In that
regard, it's hard to track them down and get their annual
reports.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG remarked that HB 247 is the APOC [Alaska Public
Offices Commission] bill for nonprofit [corporations].
MR. HARMAN answered that it could be considered as such. He
noted that most of the nonprofit [corporations] are nonpolitical.
Number 0744
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: If a nonprofit [corporation] is
taking a position in an election to influence the outcome of a
race or ballot proposition, doesn't it fall under APOC anyway?
MR. HARMAN said that is true but there are other public policy
issues that don't have to do with an election.
Number 0767
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE stated that nonprofit [corporations] are
broken down as (c)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), and so forth. Traditional
nonprofit [corporations] such as the human services are
designated as (c)(3), while labor unions are designated as
(c)(6). He can see the benefit of getting that information for
some, but for others it would be a little overburdensome. He
asked Mr. Harman what the Form 990 shows.
MR. HARMAN distributed to committee members a copy of Form 990
from the IRS.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Harman what types of fees would be
associated with this requirement for a nonprofit [corporation].
MR. HARMAN replied, if there were 5,000 filings and if $20 was
collected for a filing fee, it ought to be close to revenue-
neutral. He deferred the question to a representative of the
Department of Community & Economic Development.
Number 0889
FRED JENKINS, Session Executive Director, United Way of
Anchorage, testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He had
received notice of HB 247 last Friday, and he had not had a
chance to really look at it. He hopes, therefore, that the
committee can answer a few questions. He asked: What is hoped
to be accomplished by the bill? Is what is being accomplished
for the benefit of the public or for the benefit of the
department?
MR. HARMAN replied that HB 247 is based on a political philosophy
of free and open disclosure.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Harman what the sponsor hopes to
accomplish from the bill.
MR. HARMAN replied that nonprofit corporations are essentially
tax exempt - a privileged position. House Bill 247 would require
nonprofit [corporations] to validate their status by filing
annual reports stating where they get their funding and how they
spend it.
Furthermore, they already submit a Form 990 annually with the
IRS; in that regard, the sponsor wants to make the disclosure
open but not onerous.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that the sponsor is targeting the
nonprofit [corporations] which engage in the political activity
in the state that do not have to disclose where their sources of
funds come from - the rationale behind HB 247.
Number 1007
MR. JENKINS asked whether the rationale is to have nonprofit
corporations which don't currently do so disclose their sources
of funds.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG affirmed that. He asked Mr. Jenkins whether
the sources of funds are disclosed to the IRS.
MR. JENKINS replied, "Yes." He asked whether HB 247 is for the
benefit of the public or the department.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that he would say it is for the benefit
of the public, not the department.
Number 1034
MR. JENKINS asked why the definition of "transacting business" in
Version I is being expanded [page 3, lines 18-19].
MR. HARMAN answered that the bill drafter expressed that the
definition of "transacting business" was too broad and too hard
to interpret. The language, therefore, was included to pin it
down.
MR. JENKINS said, "So, the intent is that if you're expending
money in the state, you're transacting business?"
MR. HARMAN answered, "That's correct."
Number 1090
MR. JENKINS asked how nonprofit [corporations] know that they are
to file a certificate of authority with the state. Does an
organization that solicits in a newspaper or magazine and
receives donations have to file a certificate of authority with
the state?
MR. HARMAN answered that it is not the intent of the sponsor to
require nonprofit corporations to have a certificate of authority
if they aren't already required to have one. He further said,
"Transactions of business would be expending monies in the state.
I think solicitations wasn't the intent. That, if you're buying
media time, if you're renting office space, [if] you're
procuring, distributing printed material in the state but not
necessarily mailing it to the state or newspaper ad (indisc.), a
national advertisement."
MR. JENKINS said, "So, if you place an advertisement in the state
in a periodical or any kind of publication then you're
transacting business in the state and spending dollars in the
state."
MR. HARMAN replied that it depends on whether it's a national
publication.
MR. JENKINS said, "So, national, no. But state or local, yes."
MR. HARMAN replied, if a merchant or business received the money
in the state.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Jenkins whether he had any testimony
to provide.
MR. JENKINS replied, no, not at this point; he hadn't had enough
time to really look at the bill. However, he appreciates Mr.
Harman's answering his questions.
Number 1238
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Jenkins whether there are specific
federal designations that the United Way of Anchorage will not
support as a 501(c)(3) organization.
MR. JENKINS replied that the United Way of Anchorage supports
activities which are within their bylaws and articles of
incorporation in relation to health and human services in the
community. They do not contribute to political candidates, for
example.
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE asked Mr. Jenkins whether the United Way of
Anchorage stays with the 501(c)(3) types of designations.
MR. JENKINS replied, "Yes."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Jenkins whether the United Way of
Anchorage completes a Form 990 every year.
MR. JENKINS affirmed that.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Jenkins whether a person could
request to see the form from the IRS.
MR. JENKINS replied, "Yes." A person could come to the office
and request to see the form as well.
Number 1326
RICHARD BLOCK, Christian Science Committee on Publication,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He noted that he is
the person requested by Christian Science churches in the state
to overlook legislation that may affect the practice of their
religion. He noted that under Section 6033 of the IRS churches -
among other organizations - are specifically and mandatorily
exempted from filing a Form 990.
MR. BLOCK said the bill, however, requires a nonprofit
corporation to file a statement of information with the state.
The Christian Science Committee would find that to be
objectionable because of the burden of filing a form and
disclosing the internal workings of a church. It also mixes
church and state activities, which he supposes is why at the
federal level the IRS has mandated that churches be exempt from
the filing requirement. He pointed out that the legislature is
considering HB 387, which requires that there shall be no
legislation or act by a state, municipal or school district
entity unless there is a showing of a compelling state interest
that it interferes with the practice of religion. If there is a
compelling state interest, the least restrictive means has to be
used. In the case of churches, he doesn't see a compelling state
interest so far in relation to HB 247 other than a general
curiosity of who is contributing money to the organization. If
there was a compelling state interest, he's sure that there are
lesser restrictive means in which to accomplish whatever may be
the compelling state interest. In that regard, he urged the
committee members to remove subsection (b) [page 3, lines 5-9, of
Version I] so that churches are not required to make the filings.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, to Mr. Block, he's sure that it's not
the sponsor's intent to "throw his net so wide that it catches
his organization." He asserted that a committee substitute with
an exemption section or provisions to that effort would be made.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that HB 247 would be held in the
committee for further consideration.
HB 370 - EXEMPTION FROM MINIMUM WAGE FOR TEENAGERS
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 370, "An Act relating to a short-term exemption
from the minimum wage for newly hired young employees."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at-ease, then called the
meeting back to order.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG, speaking as the sponsor of HB 370, stated
that the intent of the bill is to permit an employer to pay an
employee a training wage. There are two theories, he said, in
relation to minimum wage. One camp believes that higher minimum
wages reward workers; while another camp believes that minimum
wages are artificial and uneconomical so that it hurts the job
market by becoming a barrier of entry for youngsters who don't
have any training or experience. The sponsor of the bill falls
into the latter camp. A large number of states have provisions
that allow for a training wage for persons under the age of 20.
Alaska, however, does not have that statutory foundation, which
is why he brought the bill forward. He noted that such a
provision would provide for consistency with the federal Wage and
Hour Act.
Number 1864
JOHN BROWN, President, Fairbanks Central Labor Council, testified
via teleconference from Fairbanks. He said a minimum wage law
was established because it's the right thing to do. A civil
society needs to protect workers from exploitation for profit.
House Bill 370 would allow employers to pay less than what has
been established as the minimum wage. He pointed out that the
vast majority of training involves minutes or hours at the most.
In that regard, he can't see a justification for allowing an
employer to pay less than minimum wage for persons under the age
of 20 for jobs that don't have many training requirements.
Number 1980
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "Well, Mr. Brown, don't you think it's
the American way to make a profit?"
MR. BROWN replied:
I ... do, but in a civil society I think there ...
should be a minimum that employers should be allowed to
extract a profit from somebody from. You know, I know
there should be. I mean, the minimum wage levels
already, if you're raising a family, [are] well below
the poverty level in this country. And I don't
understand why anybody would think that that's an okay
thing to do, to ... have somebody working at that kind
of a wage.
Number 2027
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Brown whether he believes that profit
is good but shouldn't be made on exploiting people's labor.
MR. BROWN said he believes that there should be a minimum to what
somebody should be working for. He said:
If ... we didn't have minimum wage laws, I mean, you
see it in California here in our own country people
working in bondage still. We need some language on the
books that say, you know, enough is enough. You can't
have slave labor. You can't have forced labor. You
can't pay less than this. It puts everybody on an
equal footing. They're competing based on how well
they run their business, not on how little they can pay
their people.
Number 2097
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he's sure that there is language on the
books.
MR. BROWN said there is language on the books, but HB 370 talks
about lowering the standard when it's already low enough.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Brown whether he thinks that every
wage paid should put a "chicken in every pot" and a "car in every
garage." This is not, he said, a living wage bill; this is a
minimum wage bill.
MR. BROWN replied that HB 370 talks about lowering the minimum
wage, and he can't agree with that. He believes that if a person
comes to work every day and works hard that person should be able
to make a descent living.
Number 2178
DWIGHT PERKINS, Deputy Commissioner, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, came before the
committee to testify. He noted that AS 23.10.070 allows for an
exemption from minimum wage for a training wage upon the approval
of the commissioner. The department appreciates the working
relationship with the chairman of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee and the committee, but today the department would like
to respectfully agree to disagree in relation to HB 370. The
main reason is because there are provisions already in statute
dealing with the issue of a training wage. He referred to the
following sections:
AS 23.10.055(11) - "Exemptions."
AS 23.10.340 - "Children under 16."
AS 23.10.350 - "Employment of person under 18."
MR. PERKINS said under state statute, a person under the age of
18 but not under the age of 16 can work six days a week and five
hours a day, and [an employer] is not required to pay minimum
wage.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG called for a brief at-ease in order to change
the cassette tape, then called the meeting back to order.
TAPE 00-27, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether AS 23.10.055(11), 23.10.340 and
23.10.350 are programs that have to be approved by the
commissioner or whether they are programs that are self-
actualizing.
MR. PERKINS replied that the sections stand alone and are in
addition to AS 23.10.070, "Exemptions from minimum wage." No,
the sections do not have to be approved by the commissioner.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked whether the exemptions are limited to
persons under the age of 18 and 30 hours a week under the other
program.
MR. PERKINS replied that's correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that HB 370 raises the level to the
federal standard of persons under the age of 19 [20] during the
first 90 consecutive calendar days the employee is initially
employed.
MR. PERKINS stated the commissioner is concerned about a person
working for the same employer who has three different businesses
in which that person could theoretically work for each business
for 90 days and fall within the purview of HB 370. There are
also a lot of senior [citizens] who rely on this type of income
to supplement their retirement. The department therefore sees
this as a potential means to "put them out of work."
Number 0126
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins whether he is going to
galvanize the AARP to try to stifle the bill.
MR. PERKINS indicated that he would not. The commissioner feels
that a person 19 years of age is more than likely out of high
school and has entered the workforce. In that regard, the
department thinks that that person ought to be paid at the very
least the Alaska minimum wage.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated that it's harder to make that
assumption anymore.
Number 0213
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins whether any program, that
requires the commissioner's approval, has been applied for and
approved.
MR. PERKINS replied, to his knowledge, the exemption was applied
to confectioners and bakers in the "old days." In recent
history, to his knowledge, the department has not been involved
with any apprenticeship type of program.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to AS 23.10.055(11) and noted that the
exemption is for a person "under" 18 years of age. It's not for
a person 18 years of age.
Number 0291
MR. PERKINS replied it breaks down into categories. Provisions
for 16-year-olds contain requirements in relation to school
hours, while provisions for individuals under the age of 18
contain other requirements. [He did not specify the other
requirements.]
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that the commissioner and the
legislature have decided that 18-year-olds are worthy of a
training wage.
MR. PERKINS stated that when he was 18 years old, he was in the
workforce making a living. He can imagine that Chairman Rokeberg
was also in the workforce.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that in many instances an 18-year-old
would be pleased to have a job. That, he said, is the thrust
behind HB 370. He's not trying to lower compensation for a
person to "get by on the cheap." He's trying to allow those who
have never had a job before to break into the workforce in order
to develop some experience. He further noted that HB 370 is
important because there are distinctions between the exemption
and what the bill says. In that regard, he wants to know why the
department does not meet the federal Wage and Hour Act. He
understands that the reason is partially legislative. He further
pointed out that HB 370 contains a sideboard of 90 days and
allows for 85 percent of the Alaska minimum wage. He said, "You
could have a youngster working from 15, 16 or 17 years of age for
about some two to three years, potentially for 30 hours a week,
at the coolie wages that aren't even 85 percent that's in my
bill, as a matter of fact."
Number 0491
MR. PERKINS said he's sure that the department would be
interested in working with the sponsor to strengthen the minimum
wage.
Number 0518
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated that if a person under the age of 18
works less than 30 hours a week, there is nothing in law to
prevent an employer from paying less than minimum wage. That
person could be paid $1 per hour. He asked whether that is
correct.
MR. PERKINS replied that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins whether there is any time
limit in law relating to how long a wage can be paid as long as a
person is under the age of 18 and works less than 30 hours a
week.
Number 0575
MR. PERKINS replied, "No." The law reads, "(11) an individual
under 18 years of age employed on a part-time basis not more than
30 hours in a week" [AS 23.10.055, "Exemptions"].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins how old a person has to be in
order to get hired.
MR. PERKINS replied that the minimum age is 16. The law reads:
(a) A minor under 16 years of age may not be employed
for more than a combined total of nine hours school
attendance and employment in one day. If employed, the
minor's work may be performed only between 5 a.m. and 9
p.m. Employment outside school hours may not exceed 23
hours in one week, domestic work and baby-sitting
excepted" [AS 23.10.340].
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked how old a person has to be in order to
work 22 hours in a week.
MR. PERKINS replied 14 years is the minimum age at which a person
can be hired to work.
Number 0675
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted that, under the law, an employer can work
a person for 22 hours a week at 14 years of age, and all year
long pay 50 cents an hour. A 16-year-old and a 17-year-old can
work up to 30 hours a week.
MR. PERKINS indicated that is correct.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said he's sure that Mr. Brown would be very
concerned about the exploitation of this potential situation.
Number 0675
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG referred to the exemption for persons under the
age of 18. He asked Mr. Perkins whether the department thinks
most 18-year-olds are out of high school, or substantially out of
high school.
MR. PERKINS replied, "Yes."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Perkins whether there is any
legislative history in relation to the exemption for persons
under the age of 18.
MR. PERKINS said he couldn't answer off the top of his head.
Number 0698
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG explained that he had asked the question
because the federal government refers to persons under the age of
20.
REPRESENTATIVE SHARON CISSNA said, "Well, I don't care. It's
wrong."
Number 0720
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said, "Since Alaska has the lowest minimum
wage of any West Coast state, even if we adopted this and paid
people 85 percent of minimum wage, we're still going ... to be
paying them less. They're already getting paid less."
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG pointed out that other states have another step
in relation to minimum wage.
Number 0781
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he wasn't sure he understood the
intent of HB 370. He asked Mr. Perkins how many people are
working for minimum wage.
MR. PERKINS replied that he can't answer the question. He
doesn't have the numbers with him.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated there are many minimum wage workers
in the state. He asserted that, under existing law, a person
could be abused worse than what's under HB 370. He is,
therefore, willing to fix his bill in order to allow for the 90-
day provision to apply only once.
REPRESENTATIVE CISSNA asked Chairman Rokeberg whether he means
for the 90-day provision to apply towards a person's first time
in the workforce.
Number 0863
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "Right." That, he said, is the whole
idea of a training wage and the issue of HB 370. Under federal
law, the 90-day provision could be used recurrently, and the same
is true under state statute.
Number 0888
RICH MASTRIANO, Investigator, Wage & Hour, Division of Labor
Standards & Safety, Department of Labor & Workforce Development,
testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He pointed out that
according to statute, persons under the age of 18 cannot be paid
less than the federal minimum wage of $5.15. He also pointed out
that the use of a subminimum wage for persons under the age of 20
was added in 1996 when some provisions of the Fair Labor
Standards Act were changed.
Number 0985
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that the fast-food industry
traditionally pays minimum wage and provides positions that do
not require a lot of skills. In that regard, he's not sure why
the sponsor of the bill would want to give an employer the
provision to pay an employee subminimum wages for 90 days. To
learn how to work the fryer does not take 90 days. It usually
takes a few days.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied that the 90-day provision came from the
federal law. He reiterated that his first intention was to amend
HB 370 to include a "don't kick me out more than 90 days once"
provision, then "cool" it. But, in light of the discussion
today, he wants to work with the department to provide some
sideboards, and he wants to look at a minimum payment of 85
percent of the federal minimum wage. He fully anticipates that
the state minimum wage will go up substantially via a federal
enactment.
Number 1138
REPRESENTATIVE BRICE pointed out that the House Labor and
Commerce Committee has a piece of legislation within its grasp
that would boost the state minimum wage. He would be more than
happy to move it along.
CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced that HB 370 would be held in the
committee for further consideration.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1180
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was adjourned at 5:22 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|