03/09/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 9, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Norman Rokeberg
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 58
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of unemployment
compensation benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 58
SHORT TITLE:UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
01/16/01 0089 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
01/16/01 0089 (H) L&C, FIN
01/16/01 0089 (H) FN 1: ZERO(LWF)
01/16/01 0089 (H) FN 2: (ADM/VARIOUS DEPTS)
01/16/01 0089 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
01/16/01 0089 (H) REFERRED TO LABOR & COMMERCE
02/28/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/28/01 (H) Bill Postponed To 3/9/01
03/09/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REBECCA GAMEZ, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that the department supports HB
58.
RON HULL, Acting Director
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information to the committee on HB
58.
CHUCK BLANKENSHIP, Program Manager
Unemployment Insurance Program
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information to the committee on HB
58.
JOHN BROWN
International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
Local 302
309 Juneau
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 58.
KIM GARNERO, Director
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110204
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0204
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided information on the fiscal note for
HB 58.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-30, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. Members
present at the call to order included Representatives Hayes,
Meyer, Crawford, Kott, and Murkowksi. Representatives Halcro
and Rokeberg joined the meeting as it was in progress.
HB 58-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
Number 0021
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the committee would hear HOUSE
BILL NO. 58, "An Act relating to the calculation and payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; and providing for an
effective date."
Number 0093
REBECCA GAMEZ, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD), testified in support of HB 58; the
bill would increase the maximum weekly benefit amount of
Unemployment Insurance (UI). She said this piece of legislation
comes before the legislature every four to six years; it has
been about five years since the last "go around."
MS. GAMEZ stated that the bill does three things: it raises the
maximum weekly benefit amount of UI from $248 to $284 in the
first year; it raises the maximum from $284 to $320 in the
second year; and third, during the second year it attaches
itself to an indicator, which is the average weekly wage of
earners for the state.
Number 0246
MS. GAMEZ referred to a question-and-answer sheet provided to
the committee by the DLWD. She said the average weekly wage [is
figured] by dividing the total of all covered wages for the
fiscal year ending June 30 by the average covered employment in
the state. The figure is divided by 52, for 52 weeks [in a
year], to obtain the average weekly wage, so [UI benefits] would
be tied to that, she explained.
RON HULL, Acting Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), referred
to one of the charts provided by the department. The first
chart, entitled "State Average Weekly Wage Comparison 1999,"
depicts Alaska's ranking for an Alaskan worker's average salary.
He said Alaska ranks number 14 at $639.50 per week. He pointed
out that this [information] is tracked by the research and
analysis section [with the DLWD]. This consists of all covered
taxable wages, divided by the number of Alaskans employed; it
covers 97 percent of all wages, he said. The earnings of
corporate officers, elected officials, and those who are self-
employed are not included.
MR. HULL referred to the second chart, entitled "Federal Wage
Replacement Comparison, CY 1999, Average Wk Benefit as a Percent
of Average Weekly Wage." He said this compares wage replacement
with all other states; it shows that Alaska is "dead last,"
which is the issue that is addressed in HB 58. The data was
prepared by the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) under
the Government Performance Results Act (GPRA). The federal
government set three performance standards: wage replacement,
trust fund solvency, and the recipiency rate. Alaska is doing
fine on two of the three, but [the DLWD] is in front of the
committee today because of the third one, he said.
Number 0437
MR. HULL referred to the next chart, entitled "Wage Replacement
Comparison 1999, Maximum Weekly Benefit as a Percentage of
Average Weekly Wage." If [Alaska] gets to the maximum weekly
benefit amount [WBA] of $320, he explained that it puts Alaska
just below the "middle of the pack," in the 28th position. Next
year, at $284, Alaska would be number 12 from the bottom.
MR. HULL referred to a chart entitled "Alaska's Maximum Weekly
Benefit Amount Compared with 50 Percent Average Weekly
Earnings." He explained that this refers to the years 1980 to
2001, and shows what [Alaska] would have been paying if benefits
had been paid at the average weekly salary level. The increases
in wages in the past have been significant because Alaska has
waited so long to make the changes.
MR. HULL referred to the chart entitled "Number of Two Dollar
Increases in Calculation of [the] 50 Percent Average Weekly
Earnings." This attempts to ease the fears of the potential for
wildly shifting tax rates, he said. "We" went back to 1990, and
for each year through the current year, calculated increases at
$2 increments and [figured out] what it would cost the UI trust
fund. A $2 increase represents a cost of $200,000 to the UI
trust fund, and an increase of $500,000 in benefits equates to
an annual cost of $3 per worker for the average tax class
employer.
Number 0567
MR. HULL, still referring to the chart, said the number "1" on
the top bar, referring to years 1990, 1993, 1997, and 2001,
indicates one increase of $2 in weekly UI benefits. This one
increase would cost the average employer $1.20 in taxes per
employee per year. This increase would only be for those
earning the maximum taxable wage. The number "4" [on the chart]
is for years 1991 and 1992, which would increase to $8 in weekly
UI benefits, and an increase of taxes of $5 per employee. He
pointed out that during this same period, 1990 to 2001, Alaska
raised benefits $90. If it had been attached to the average
weekly wage, Alaska would have raised them only $36; [having it
tied to an indicator] stops the fluctuations, he said.
Number 0640
MR. HULL referred to the chart entitled "Alaska Wage Replacement
[Compared] to Washington [State] Wage Replacement." This shows
that Alaska is close to Washington [state] in average weekly
wage, but in the maximum weekly benefit amount, there is a
disparity between what "we" expect Alaskans to get by on when
they are temporarily unemployed.
Number 0665
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how long someone is eligible for UI.
He said according to the packet, the average claim duration is
14.9 weeks, which equates to almost four months. He remarked
that it seems like a long period for someone to be unemployed.
MR. HULL responded that the other two programs within the DLWD
work on that. The worker profiling system tries to get people
back [to work] by giving them classes on resume [writing], job
search, and job-hunting [skills]; it is for those people likely
to run out of benefits before going back to work.
Number 0789
CHUCK BLANKENSHIP, Program Manager, Unemployment Insurance
Program, Division of Employment Security, Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DLWD), said there is a formula that
calculates duration [of benefits] based on the worker's
attachment to the labor market. If a person has worked 12
months straight on a normal basis and loses his or her job, this
person would have a longer-duration claim. Those that normally
work more intermittently would have shorter-duration [claims];
the duration ranges from 16 to 26 weeks.
MR. BLANKENSHIP, responding to a question about whether the
claims formula is a federal formula, said it isn't. The 26-week
maximum [weekly benefit amount] is common and there are other
federal requirements that limit states to 26 weeks. He said
[Alaska's formula] compares the total wages on which the claim
is based to the quarter with the highest dollar amount, and the
formula that [HB 58] affects is in statute.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what percentage of claimants are
seasonal workers.
MR. BLANKENSHIP replied that he didn't have that information but
could get it for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the average weekly wage is one-
dimensional; Alaska has a different labor force and job market
up here. The amount of benefits paid out and the relationship
to the trust fund is extremely important. It would be helpful
for the committee to see the length of time and dollars per
capita paid out on a comparative basis, because it might be
different. He surmised that people would be on UI longer here
than in other "jurisdictions."
MR. HULL said [Alaska's] average is 14.9 [weeks], and 15 weeks
is the average nationwide.
Number 1019
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that the 14.9-week duration is the
entire duration for a one-year benefit period. An individual
period of unemployment compensation is generally closer to eight
to nine weeks, he said. And [Alaska] has a large number of
employees that may have more than one "spell" of work during the
course of a year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if Alaska would be changing the
average weekly wage formula [under HB 58].
MR. HULL responded that the formula remains in place; all the
bill does is raise the amount in two increments and tie it to an
indicator, which is 50 percent of the average weekly wage. The
formula in statute remains in place.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said, in looking at the characteristics
supplied by the DLWD from 1999, over 50 percent [of the
unemployed] are in some of the largest urban centers of the
state; these folks aren't in isolated rural villages, but are in
urban centers, and there seems to be a lot of employment out
there. He asked why there would be such a large percentage from
urban areas, if the [employment] is in fact seasonal.
MR. HULL responded that this is because of tourism and
construction, which are big [employers] in urban areas and have
the biggest impact on seasonality.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the chart broken down by
category [with the reference year of] 1999. He observed that
construction wasn't even the highest [category]; "services" was.
He said he would assume "services" incorporates large department
stores, and so forth.
MR. HULL responded affirmatively, but pointed out that tourism
also falls under this [category].
Number 1220
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said we tend to think of fisherman as being
in the category that would draw UI, but many of these fishermen
are self-employed and don't pay into the UI program, and thus
aren't eligible [to receive benefits].
MR. HULL confirmed that Representative Kott was correct in his
assessment.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked where the seafood industry [would fall] in
the categories, because she understood that area had an
exceptionally high turnover and number of [UI] claimants.
MR. HULL said it would be under manufacturing, but said the DLWD
would double-check that.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about interstate benefits. Referring to a
handout supplied by the DLWD that indicates that of the benefits
received, a total of 17.7 percent go outside Alaska, she asked
how Alaska monitors whether a person is doing what Alaska
requires to continue receiving benefits.
Number 1348
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that since 1948 [there has been] an
interstate benefit agreement; the 53 signatories have agreed to
assist each other in ensuring that those who draw UI from one
state, but live in another, are exposed to the labor market in
that state [of residence]. The requirement is that a person
meet the work search and availability [criteria] from that
state, which are often more stringent than Alaska's might be in
the winter.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said a person [residing] outside Alaska would
have to check in with the job service where he or she is, and
that state would contact the DLWD [and relay] that he or she is
doing what [is required]. She asked if there are any states
that are not a part of the "compact."
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded negatively.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked about the average claimant who works
[in Alaska] and then goes out of state [and claims UI].
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that oftentimes these workers earn
wages in more than one state. A common example is a seafood
worker who comes up for a season, then goes back to his or her
state of origin and seeks work there until the next season in
Alaska. Similarly, there are construction workers who will
travel up to Alaska. The rate of benefits going out of the
state is [currently] lower than it has been over the last 20
years; traditionally, 20 to 24 percent went out of state.
Number 1485
MR. HULL emphasized that people aren't coming up to Alaska to
earn benefits and take them out, because almost every other
state pays more benefits than [Alaska] does. He said there
might be seasonality issues in Alaska that aren't [present] in
other states.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for a clarification of the average
weekly wage chart, and whether there was information showing a
comparison to other states on what [Alaska] is paying in actual
dollars.
MR. HULL pointed out that the state average-weekly-wage chart is
not [referring to] UI benefits, but refers to salary. He
directed the committee to the handouts and said there is a chart
that shows that 35 other states are tied to an indicator; the
chart shows the maximum weekly benefit amount. He made a point
to say that the DLWD could provide the information needed by the
committee.
Number 1605
MR. HULL, responding to a request for clarification on a
previous statement he made, said that individuals wouldn't come
to Alaska just to accrue wages in order to file for benefits
when they would be going to a state that actually pays more.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if federal employees who retire from
the military are eligible for UI [benefits].
MR. BLANKENSHIP said there are two issues involved and the
military service can be considered covered service to establish
a claim. The ex-military person could establish that claim in
the state where he or she resides, and a person has a choice of
where he or she resides. Separate from the monetary issue, one
must establish that he or she is able and willing to return to
full-time work. Any retirement pay being received from the
military would be deducted from [UI] benefits on a dollar-for-
dollar basis, he said.
Number 1714
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT used another example of a person who has
been an air traffic controller all of his or her life. That
person is separated from the military, and finding similar
employment is difficult. He asked if that person would be
eligible for UI.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said probably so. The benefits paid to that
person would be directly reimbursed by the federal government
and wouldn't come from the state's trust fund; furthermore, if
he or she is attempting to work in an occupation with limited
job opportunities, that person would be given a relatively short
period of time before the DLWD would expect him or her to expand
the job search to include other occupations.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked:
If that is in fact the case and the federal government
is reimbursing our trust fund, if that is how it
works, are those people that are identified as being
unemployed and susceptible to drawing from that trust
fund, which is reimbursed, part of the overall
population, as far as we determined in the packet, of
[the] percentage of Alaskans who are unemployed?
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that he believed so, and didn't know
why those people would be excluded. The benefits paid wouldn't
come from the tax contributions of Alaskan employers unless the
numbers [in the charts] included those drawing from the trust
fund.
Number 1804
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said Alaska has a large per-capita military
[population], not only [those stationed] in the state, but also
those who stay in Alaska and are out there seeking employment.
Many of the military occupations are not easily transferable, so
those numbers [provided by the DLWD] could be skewed, when
compared with states that may not have a large military
population.
MR. HULL recalled an ex-military employee who went into the job-
training program, was trained in computers, and ended up working
for the DLWD in Juneau. He said he understood that a lot of
what one learns in the military doesn't translate [to the
civilian labor force], but [the DLWD] has programs to help train
people.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to teachers and how they are not
eligible for UI during the summer months. If a teacher's
contract wasn't renewed, and he or she didn't have a job at the
beginning of the school year, Chair Murkowksi surmised that the
person would be eligible for UI.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said the disqualification for the school
employee applies only to those benefits that are based on wages
earned from the educational institution; it only applies to
those who have worked in the first school year and have a
reasonable assurance of work in the next. If a schoolteacher is
laid off in May and has no contract, he said, that person could
be eligible for benefits through the summer based on his or her
school wages; [benefits could extend] until that person has a
reasonable assurance of getting a similar position with an
educational institution.
Number 1927
MR. HULL clarified that those benefits wouldn't come out of the
UI trust fund, because the school district is a reimbursable
employer.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if Alaska is seeing an increase in
claimants who are teachers. She said in the past couple of
years in Anchorage, because of how the budget happens in the
school district and the state, there are "pink slips" that go
around toward the end of the school year, and there is no
certainty that teachers will be back; however, they are back at
the beginning of the year.
Number 1966
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded in the negative. Generally teachers
don't file; a lot of the claims come from school district
employees who are aides and substitute teachers. If the teacher
works for a district where the budget is a perennial problem,
yet it comes through at the last minute, loss of "reasonable
assurance" becomes somewhat questionable. In reality, [the
DLWD] knows that the Anchorage School District has had some
significant cutbacks, he noted. If [teachers] have lost
reasonable assurance and don't find out until the day before
school starts, it is not until that point that the
disqualification would be reapplied.
MR. BLANKENSHIP clarified that reasonable assurance would be
[determined through] communication with the school district and
with the employee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the grounds for denying UI benefits.
Number 2054
MR. BLANKENSHIP said if a person lost a job [due to a criminal
act], there would be a disqualification [from benefits]. But if
[the offense] was not the cause for losing the job, and if that
person is able and seeking work and not incarcerated,
eligibility could still be established; however, the reason for
losing the job could be a critical factor.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how benefit amounts are figured.
MR. BLANKENSHIP replied that Alaska has a fairly standard
qualifying period that is used in most states. The first four
of the last five completed calendar quarters would be the
qualifying period of wages. As happens with any other insurance
program, if one doesn't incur a loss, one will not get the
premium back; but if a loss is incurred, a "snapshot" of wages
is taken. He said maximum benefits would be based on that level
of wages. Responding to a question about whether someone could
get out what was paid in, he said pretty rarely.
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that a person who earned $1,000 over a
couple of quarters in the year 2000 could file a claim on April
1 [2001] and would qualify for the bare minimum in the current
wage schedule in statute. For every additional $250 of wages
[earned] during the calendar year 2000, that benefit amount
would increase by $2. The proposed legislation extends that
schedule, he remarked. He said $26,750 is the amount that a
person would have to earn to get $248 [a week], which is the
current maximum.
Number 2166
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if a person who had two part-time jobs
and was laid off from one could apply for UI [benefits].
MR. HULL replied that a person could be working and get UI.
MR. BLANKENSHIP added that [the DLWD] would reduce the benefits
by the wages [earned]. A person can earn up to $50 without
affecting the weekly check; after that the weekly check is
reduced by 75 cents for each dollar earned.
Number 2244
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she is somewhat troubled that a person can
get UI [benefits] while working.
MR. HULL replied that the reduction is severe; if a person is
drawing benefits and has a part-time job, this person is not
getting a whole lot of money.
MR. BLANKENSHIP clarified that the compensation is for
"underemployment," and there is a rapid decrease [in benefits]
until a person reaches what [the DLWD] defines as full
employment, meaning a person either is working 40 hours a week
or has made one-and-a-third times the benefit amount plus the
$50. He said there are many claimants at the very low end of
the employment scale who are marginally employed and receive a
reduced amount of benefits; however, they must be available for
full-time work.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said he believes the philosophy of not cutting
off benefits immediately when a person begins work is to
encourage people to return to work; benefits would be gradually
phased out as people moved into work. He added that a person
couldn't earn much money and still receive benefits.
Number 2351
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD, speaking from experience as an
ironworker, said he is one of those people who have a lot of
temporary jobs, especially in the wintertime when hours are cut.
[Unemployment Insurance benefits] are not enough to live on, he
emphasized, but are enough to "keep the wolf from the door
sometimes."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said he is in favor of raising UI
[benefit amounts]. From his perspective as an iron worker,
Alaska is loosing more and more workers because the weekly
benefits have fallen so far behind; Alaska doesn't provide
enough of a benefit during the winter to retain employees, so
[workers] are going to other states and [Alaska is] not getting
a lot of those folks back. "We're" going to have to address
this if we want to retain our trained construction [workers],
and [workers from] other areas of employment, he concluded.
Number 2432
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said if a person is on a job, and because of a
"slowdown," is only working one day out of the week, [UI]
encourages a person to stay on that job and finish it up, rather
than "quit it altogether and go out and look for one more full-
time job."
TAPE 01-30, SIDE B
Number 2456
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO requested clarification regarding his
understanding that the first week a person is on UI, he or she
gets back what was paid in.
MR. HULL said it fluctuates with the tax rate, but he thinks
[the employee deduction] is the highest that it has been in
years, around $114 to $120 [a year].
MR. BLANKENSHIP said the tax costs are split 80-20 between the
employer and the employee. The maximum an employee could pay
would be $120 or $130. He said he thought the average cost for
employers, per employee, was a maximum of $530.
MR. HULL explained that there are 21 different rate classes for
taxes. He explained the chart. He said for a $500,000 increase
in benefits, the taxes are raised $3 per year, per employer.
Number 2377
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked why the numbers jump around on the chart.
MR. HULL explained that it depends on the tax rate for [an
employer], and there is a multiplier, so the higher the tax rate
where a person resides when that multiplier takes effect, the
more that person's cost will go up [accordingly]. He pointed
out that there is no cost at all at the lower end of the rate.
MR. BLANKENSHIP, responding to an earlier question from Chair
Murkowski, said he, too, had noticed that the numbers go up in
an unpredictable fashion on the chart, and had asked the
actuaries about it; he said the formula is complex, and he would
be glad to bring [the actuaries] in [to explain].
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that the reason $500,000 was used -
instead of the $200,000 [figure] that [the DLWD] thought a
single $2 increase in benefits would cost - was because it
couldn't be calculated that small. A $500,000 increase in
benefit costs is still on the lower end of what [the actuaries]
can calculate, as far as an individual dollar increase per tax
rate.
Number 2318
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked for confirmation that with the 21
different rate classes, an employer will be in a higher rate
class for a category such as construction, tourism, or seafood
processing, in which there is a higher turnover within the
industry.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said in general, that is correct. He explained
that rate classes 10 and 11 are the average tax rates calculated
in the initial tax-rate formula; everything up and down from
there is [graduated] based on the portion of payroll [affected]
and the degree of risk that employment poses.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there was a process for lowering one's
rate.
Number 2250
MR. BLANKENSHIP replied that the Alaska tax schedule determines
the experience rating, so called by the federal government,
which is how much risk is posed by an entity's employment using
a payroll decline formula. If a payroll is relatively stable
throughout the year, a business would gravitate to the lower tax
rates.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked whether, if she owned a small business and
lost half of her staff due to an unforeseen circumstance, she
could [make a case] to the DLWD that her rate shouldn't change.
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that the payroll dollars that a
company reports is what is used to calculate the tax rate. A
small "blip on the screen" wouldn't have a significant impact on
the tax rate, he explained.
Number 2183
MR. HULL said the DLWD's tax unit goes out and trains employers
on how to lower their tax rates. He said the class is set up
with the Small Business Administration (SBA), the Internal
Revenue Service (IRS), and the DLWD staff. He said "we" are not
in a "gotcha mode"; if an employer is doing something wrong,
there is help to lower the tax rate, but employee turnover is a
problem that [the DLWD] can't help a company with.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the chart entitled "Alaska's
Maximum Weekly Benefit Amount Compared with 50 percent Average
Weekly Earnings." He said this bill proposes to make a
fundamental policy change in Alaska. If he is understanding
this chart correctly, it says that if [Alaska would have] had a
formula going all the way back to 1980, this is where [referring
to the chart] Alaska would be in terms of a dollar pay out.
MR. HULL said it shows what Alaska would have paid out if [the
DLWD] were paying out at 50 percent of the average weekly wage.
Number 2015
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said this bill provides a huge policy
change. Not only is it raising the average benefit, but it also
[changes] how it is calculated. He said it looks as if there is
at least a 10 percent increase to employers over a period of
time.
MR. HULL said [the DLWD] would calculate that [and report back
to the committee].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 6 of the bill, and
asked for clarification on the incremental approach.
MR. HULL said the calculation and the incremental approach are
in statute now; all the new bill does is extend the increments.
He said the first year would take "us" up to $284, referring to
the bold print on page 5 of the bill that has been added to the
current statute. The second step continues on, and is discussed
in Section 3, subsection (h), which extends it on to "not more
than 50 percent of the average weekly wage." He explained that
the DLWD would extend the $2 increment of benefits from $250 of
earnings out to $320.
Number 1931
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the handout provided by the
DLWD regarding the percentage of impact to the calculation of
tax. He said it goes from 2.08 [percent] to 2.18, and then to
2.28 the next year. He asked if it represents a two-year
increase of 10 percent.
MR. HULL responded that it is 8 percent the first year, from
$248 to $284, and 9 percent the second year, from $284 to $320.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it is actually greater than 17
percent, depending on how it is calculated. He asked if a lower
base [number] had been used.
MS. GAMEZ explained that she took the jump from $248 to $284,
which is roughly 8 percent, and then she calculated from $284 to
$320, which is roughly 9 percent. She said, it is about a 9
percent increase over five years from the last increase. This
would self-adjust, so there wouldn't be 8 and 9 percent
increases in the future; increases would be smaller or there
would be a decrease.
Number 1847
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said Alaska is raising not only the
benefit, but also the formula, which is huge. Over time, it is
greater than a 10 percent increase in taxes with the second
increase increment of .03 in contributions from employers and
employees. Frankly, he said this committee was adjourned last
year increasing workers' compensation benefits, which was a big
burden, particularly on small businesses. He said he hoped this
wouldn't be an annual thing coming out of the DLWD. He said he
is concerned about the macroeconomic impact on the economy.
Alaska needs an adjustment in benefits, but he asked if the
formula needs to be changed by such a huge increment.
MR. HULL responded that [the legislation] is not changing the
formula; it stays the same. The tax rates are going to go up,
he said, but [the DLWD] has shown that the fluctuations for an
employer will be less when [the rate] is tied to the indicator.
Number 1796
MR. HULL said if [Alaska] raises the benefits $90 over eight or
ten years, and during that time it is tied to an indicator, the
benefits would have [only] risen $36. He said [the state] has
to get there first, and that is the "leap" that "we" have to
take in the first two years.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if "we" are paying for all that is
received out of the federal and [state] trusts, because of the
"translation" through the federal government.
MR. HULL said [Alaska] does get an extra benefit because the
state gets to keep the interest being earned on the trust fund.
He remarked that Alaska wins as a small [population] state.
Number 1747
MS. GAMEZ, speaking from six years' experience with the
department, said [the DLWD] gets anywhere between 215 and 325
percent back in administrative funds to administer the program;
Alaska is considered a "winner" state. Many states get less
than 50 percent back for administrative funds. Alaska gets
about $22 million to administer UI, so in terms of benefits and
the trust fund, employers pay into that; in terms of
administration, employers pay much less in this state than in
any other.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that Alaska is increasing
benefits 17 percent over a two-year period, and he asked what
taxes are being raised to pay for that.
MS. GAMEZ said the benefit is raised within three years, and the
tax effect is spread over a period of five to six years. The
employers wouldn't feel the impact until 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said if there is an annual adjustment
under the statute to the average weekly wage, to the average
benefit, it is going to be an annual increase; if there is an
increase in wages, it is going to keep going up and accelerate
faster than what [the DLWD] testified to. He asked whether that
is correct.
MS. GAMEZ said it depends on the wages in the state. The wages,
benefits, and tax rate could go either up or down. She referred
to the packet and said 35 other states have their benefits tied
to an indicator of some sort.
Number 1650
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he wants to know what the cost to
employers in Alaska will be, because he is concerned about its
impact on the economy and the "macro effect." He asked if "we"
are talking about raising taxes $10 million or more.
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that if [Alaska] increases the benefit
amount, since the tax calculation is based on an average of
three years of benefit costs, it impacts the tax rate; the full
impact is not felt for three years. Regarding what the full
impact of this increase to $320 would be on the employer, he
said the current tax rate for the average employer is 2.08
percent; [the DLWD] anticipates that if it is increased to $320,
it would be 2.28 percent, or a 10 percent increase, not in full
effect until 2007.
Number 1573
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for confirmation that the 2.28
would be spread over the years. He referred to subsection (h)
and said with the addition of the average weekly wage
calculation going into effect 2003, [the DLWD] can make the
adjustment in the rate to the employer.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said if there is an increase to $320 January 1,
2003, when the tax rate is calculated for 2004, it will be near
the end of 2003; only six months of that increased benefit cost
would go into [the DLWD's] calculation. "Our" calculation
average is 3 years, so only one sixth of that final step of
increase would be included in the calculation for 2004. The
calculation for 2005 would have about half of the impact of that
new increase included in the tax calculation.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said four-fifths of it [would be felt] in 2006,
with the full impact in 2007. That section of statute could
adjust, $320 in January of 2003 to $322 in January of 2004, or
down to $318. There could be some adjustment. He said the
chart attempted to show that the changes in the past decade
would [have been] relatively flat.
Number 1465
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG mentioned that Alaska is one of the only
states where employees make contributions. Switching gears, he
said periodic review of this [issue] by the legislature is not a
bad idea.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified her understanding that [the bill] is
not changing the formula, but the tax rate. She said it is
confusing because in Section 3 the formula is changed because it
is no longer pegged to a fixed maximum weekly benefit, but
rather to 50 percent of the average weekly wage. She said to
her, that changes the formula.
MR. BLANKENSHIP clarified that the "hard-coded formula" that
allows a $2 benefit increase for every additional $250 for
qualifying period wages would remain. Whatever the new maximum
amount becomes, if it's tied to 50 percent of the average weekly
wage, would extend to that new amount. The difference is that
it wouldn't be hard-coded in statute, but would be recalculated
at the beginning of each new year.
Number 1374
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO returned to the interstate claim issue.
He expressed concern about those that work and then leave the
state and claim UI; however, he recognized that it wouldn't be
enough to live on. He asked what percentage of the 17.7 percent
come back to the state to work.
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that he didn't know the answer. He
said approximately 20 to 24 percent of [Alaska's UI] dollars go
out of state, and, frankly, he was surprised to see that it was
down to 17.7. "We've" lost the high-pay advantage. The last
figure he'd heard from the economists was that Alaska's wage was
1.03 [percent] of the national average; Alaska used to be known
for having a wage that was much higher than one would get in
another state. He surmised that the decline of UI claimants
drawing benefits out of state might be indicative of their not
returning.
Number 1271
MS. GAMEZ referred to a report done each year by the research
and analysis section, DLWD, called "Non Residents Working in
Alaska." Alaska is the only state that prepares that report,
which goes by industry, wages that go out, what industries they
are in, and so forth. She said there is definitely a
correlation between that and the interstate claims against the
state.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how many people, drawing on Alaska's
UI from out of state, draw the maximum dollar amount. He was
interested to know if the [agreement] between states is actually
working. He said he would also like to see data on those who
come to the state and draw UI from other states.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said he didn't have that information but could
get it for the committee; however, the information on claimants
in Alaska drawing UI from other states would be more difficult
to get. [The DLWD] would have to contact the individual states,
and Washington and Oregon would be the easiest from which to get
information.
Number 1115
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she would assume that the numbers residing
in other states [and drawing Alaska's UI] could be gotten. She
said she would like to compare that with the weekly benefit in
individual states. People could make their own assumptions
based on the correlation, she pointed out.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said that figure is gathered weekly and is used
in the weekly "employment picture for the nation" report.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there had ever been studies
about types of employment, to coordinate why Alaska has such a
disproportionate number of out-of-state people. In the "old
days," he said, it was "We'll work and bust our chops in the
summertime, and then go on rocking-chair money in the wintertime
[mentality]," just part of the "labor culture" of Alaska, until
Alaska started developing winter construction techniques. With
the exception of agricultural-type production, Alaska seems to
be more susceptible to employment seasonality. He asked if
there had been studies done to see what can be done to overcome
some of those problems and "the interstate plight of our money."
Number 0986
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded that [the DLWD] has information about
the distribution of seasonal workers by industry and by
location. The information has not been used by UI to develop
back-to-work programs, but Mr. Blankenship said he is certain
that it has been used by other agencies within division.
MS. GAMEZ said, "We can ferret that out."
MR. HULL said the research and analysis section does research on
jobs and future jobs, which is pointing to things like health
care as a field that people should be looking at in Alaska that
isn't seasonal; he said another way to keep everyone here is to
raise the benefit so people don't want to leave.
Number 0906
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said there is a correlation between the
seasonality and interstate workers, which used to be referred to
as the "snowbirds."
MR. HULL said he thought that is still true. He pointed out
that Alaska doesn't have a border state, and that other states
have border-state agreements, although there may be less of an
impact [in those states] than here.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said states that share geographic borders have
special problems tracking who is filing where, and who is paying
whom. He said that is less of a difficulty for Alaska, which
has very few commuters from other states. He said at one time
[the DLWD] knew that Alaska had wages that attracted people up
here, when the cost of living was lower elsewhere, but this is
going away.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked about seasonal employment and rate
classes.
Number 0766
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked [hypothetically]: If he worked for
a company based out of Seattle and his check was from Seattle,
and he was laid off and claimed benefits, would he get
Washington benefits or Alaskan benefits, because he is currently
in Alaska?
MR. BLANKENSHIP said any company doing business in Alaska has to
establish an Alaskan account and pay taxes to [the DLWD], which
will issue that check.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO followed up by asking about the weekly
reports from the various states showing UI recipients that are
living in Alaska now. He asked what type of interaction the
DLWD has with those folks to satisfy the suitable-work clause
regarding UI.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said [the DLWD] includes interstate claimants in
the worker profiling reemployment services. This is an
algorithm that identifies those likely to run out of money
before finding another job, and refers those people to services.
He said people from other states might get lesser services than
Alaska; there is less contact with them than with in-state
people who need work.
Number 0650
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if other states contact the DLWD to
inquire about what a claimant is doing in Alaska.
MR. BLANKENSHIP said traditionally that was the way the system
worked, because all of the states had in-person-filing
requirements. Every week a person would have to stand in line
and see someone in person who would make sure that all of the
boxes were checked right, and [ensure that the claimant] hadn't
refused work. Filing systems now have generally migrated to
telephonic filing systems, so there is more computerized
identification of people who are likely to be unemployed longer
than the average, and the department can refer them to services.
Number 0572
MR. BLANKENSHIP, responding to a question about cruise ship
employees and whether "we" count them, said there are some
special provisions for maritime employees. If a person is hired
out of Seattle or Vancouver and works on the ship and not on
shore, most would not be covered by Alaska tax; however, there
are some exceptions in the seafood industry. There is a
complexity there that he is not familiar with, he said.
Number 0503
JOHN BROWN, International Union of Operating Engineers (IUOE)
Local 302, and President of the Central Labor Council, said he
supports HB 58. Unemployment Insurance is vitally important to
construction workers, whom he represents; construction workers
are vitally important to Alaska, as a young growing state that
still needs to build infrastructure. Construction is a huge
part of our economy, and it appears that it will be growing with
some of the projects "online" to go.
MR. BROWN said without UI, there is no way [Alaska] is going to
be able to retain the workforce that is needed to complete these
projects, and to maintain the ones that are done on a regular
basis. The evidence is clear with the testimony from the
department that the numbers are on the way down, as far as being
able to attract workers to Alaska, and workers are just not
coming here. "We" need to find ways to keep the workers that
are already here, and to attract new ones to the industry.
MR. BROWN said without a reason for people to stay, and without
raising UI, "we" are "cutting our own throats." He urged the
committee to pass the bill.
Number 0300
KIM GARNERO, Director, Division of Finance, Department of
Administration, introduced the fiscal note indicating the
budgetary impact of HB 58 on the State of Alaska. Like the
school districts, the state is a reimbursable employer for UI,
she said. "We" don't make tax contributions based on employer
experience ratings; rather, "we" reimburse the UI compensation
fund for actual payments made to former employees. The state
[allocates] about $4 million a year in UI. A 15 percent
increase in benefits, as proposed by this legislation, results
in an annual increase for payroll costs of $590,000 to the
state's budget.
MS. GARNERO, responding to a question, clarified that the
$590,000 is the incremental step for 2003.
MS. GARNERO said [the department] assumed a 15 percent increase
starting half way through the first year and through the life of
the fiscal note. She would like the UI fund actuary to look at
the fiscal note, and said she would redo it after that. She
explained that the $284 or $248 was calculated as a 15 percent
increase in benefits.
Number 0130
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked for clarification of why the fund
source [on the fiscal note] says "other." He also asked if the
state contributes to the fund and where the money comes from.
MS. GARNERO said the money for the reimbursement comes from the
working reserves. As authorized under Title 37 of the Alaska
Statutes, all state agencies pay into the working reserves based
on rates developed by the Division of Finance, Department of
Administration. The money accumulated in the worker reserve
pays for leave "cash-ins," terminal leave, as well as worker
compensation. The source of those funds is an assessment on an
employer's charge on payroll, coming out of all funding sources
that pay for payroll across the state.
TAPE 01-31, SIDE A
Number 0031
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the department and division have indicated
that there are items they would like to provide to committee
members. She said the bill goes onto the House Finance
Committee next, and the House Labor and Commerce Committee is
the primary committee of review. She stated that she would like
to make sure that all the members are comfortable with this.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if Chair Murkowski would be accepting
amendments the next time the bill comes before the committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI responded that she thought the committee would
be ready. She hadn't heard that there was desire for further
public comment on the bill, she said. She appreciates the
department's effort to educate the committee, and said it has
been very helpful.
Number 0204
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT commented that the meeting was advertised as
usual, and there were no business people out there "clamoring"
that this is going to "break the bank." Alaska is last in the
nation, and there has always been this notion that "we" are open
for business; this says, not only are "we" open for business,
but Alaska is open for employees. It is important to recognize
that this group was notably absent, he said, although he wasn't
sure why.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked the department for information on who
is ineligible for UI. He said he hadn't realized that if a
person was fired or quit a job, eventually he or she could draw
UI.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said he would be interested in seeing the
breakdown on seasonal employees and how [Alaska] compares to
other states as far as interstate claims. He thinks workers
need to be protected if they are to stay in the state, he said.
If the "rocking chair" money is going out of state for four or
five months, and then dropping off [when that person] gets
another job, [Alaska] should take a look at that; [Alaska] is
possibly very seasonal [when] compared to other states, he said.
Number 0339
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that one of the reasons Alaska
has an employee contribution is to try to dissuade people from
that type of thing, because [Alaska] has such a transient
workforce. People have an investment in it and feel that they
are making a contribution. This "super amount of leakage" is
always very troublesome. He added that he would not be
comfortable with any bill that takes away the review [process]
from the legislature. [HB 58 was held over.]
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:02 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|