03/23/2001 03:20 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 23, 2001
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Lisa Murkowski, Chair
Representative Andrew Halcro, Vice Chair
Representative Kevin Meyer
Representative Pete Kott
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Joe Hayes
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
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
03/09/01 (H) Heard & Held
03/09/01 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
03/23/01 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Deputy Director
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 58 for the department.
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: Testified on HB 58 for the division.
PAM LaBOLLE, President
Alaska State Chamber of Commerce
217 Second Street, Suite 201
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 58.
KIM GARNERO, Director
Division of Finance
Department of Administration
P.O. Box 110204
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0204
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 58.
ROYCE ROCK, Business Manager
Carpenters Union Local 1281
407 Denali, Number 100
Anchorage, Alaska 99501
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 58.
CHUCK BLANKENSHIP, Assistant Director
Division of Employment Security
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD)
P.O. Box 25509
Juneau, Alaska 99802-5509
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered question on HB 58.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 01-39, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR LISA MURKOWSKI called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 3:20 p.m.
Representatives Murkowski, Halcro, Meyer, and Crawford were
present at the call to order; Representatives Kott and Rokeberg
arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 58-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
Number 0046
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."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that the committee had asked the Division
of Employment Security for additional information, which was
received on 3/15/01; and she mentioned that there was a revised
fiscal note.
Number 0139
REBECCA NANCE GAMEZ, Deputy Director, Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD), explained the three things the
bill does: it raises the maximum weekly unemployment insurance
("UI") benefit amount from $248 to $284 the first year; then it
raises it from $284 to $320 a week in the second year; and then
it ties it to the average weekly wage, which will allow the
maximum weekly benefit amount to "flow" with the economy.
MS. GAMEZ commented that 35 states have economic indicators
attached to their maximum weekly benefit amounts. [The DLWD]
comes before this committee every four to six years, and tying
this to the average weekly wage would change that; this would
become a flexible rather than a static number in law.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked for confirmation of her understanding that
it doesn't make a difference whether a person is a claimant from
Alaska or from Ohio: if a person worked in Alaska and has been
laid off, the claim can be made [against Alaska].
MS. GAMEZ responded affirmatively; however, she added that the
reverse is true as well. A person can work in Ohio, come to
Alaska, and file a wage claim against Ohio, which is why it is
part of a larger national system.
MS. GAMEZ stated that [the department] was found out of
compliance many years ago when out-of-state people used to be
given a $20 bill and in-state people were given considerably
more.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI commented that if a person is working in Alaska,
and Alaskan benefits are going to be claimed, that person ought
to be at least making the claim here in Alaska before moving to
Ohio.
Number 0446
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, referring to the handout entitled
"Answers to House Labor and Commerce Committee Questions of
March 9, 2001" from the department, stated that in looking in
the history, "the practice was discontinued to avoid serious
sanctions against our program." He pointed out that this was
almost 30 years ago; was it voluntary by the state, he asked, or
was it an actual mandate from Congress?
Number 0543
MS. GAMEZ replied that she couldn't speak to whether it was a
congressional Act; however, there is now an interstate compact
that all states and jurisdictions participating in the UI system
are signatory to. Every state, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the
District of Colombia are part of the compact that makes the
interstate system run smoothly. There are some advantages to
being a part of that, she said; for instance, when Alaskans move
out of state, they can go elsewhere and receive [UI] funds while
training in another state. Oftentimes, there are combined wage
claims, so a person isn't just claiming against Alaska; if wages
were earned in Ohio, for example, it takes those wages out of
both the Alaska and Ohio trust funds to pay the claimant.
MS. GAMEZ explained that tracking the success of [the DLWD's]
training programs, employment, and placement will be possible
soon; right now, [the DLWD] has no capability to do that on an
interstate basis. She said soon, if a person leaves the state,
[the DLWD] will be able to know if those federal training
dollars are still working for [the department]. The tracking
system will be called the Wage Record Interchange System and is
modeled after the benefit system.
MS. GAMEZ stated that it is a "bitter pill to swallow" when
thinking about all of the dollars going out of the state in
wages and UI benefits, although she believes a benefit comes
back to the state and is reciprocal.
Number 0640
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO said the concern is that every employer
and employee pays into this fund, but there are some industries
that have a higher impact on the UI fund; for instance,
referring to chart 1, entitled "Alaska's Interstate UI claimants
1999 Distribution by Industry," a little over 30 percent of the
claimants in the manufacturing category are in seafood
processing. That industry obviously has more of a draw on the
UI fund; meanwhile, other industries and employers might have a
negligible effect. There has to be some kind of way to equal
this out so other employers aren't bearing the burden for this
one industry.
MS. GAMEZ responded that the UI program has a system called the
experience-rating system that does just that. The more seasonal
an industry - the more turnover - the higher the rate is
proportionately.
Number 0754
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, referring to the statistics for interstate
claims from the handout, said essentially 2,600 unemployed
workers living in Alaska filed claims against other states as
compared with over 10,000 claims filed against Alaska by those
living outside [Alaska]. She asked whether Ms. Gamez attributes
the bulk of that to those in the seafood processing industry.
MS. GAMEZ remarked that [Alaska] has the highest proportional
rate of interstate claims. Last year, in-state [Alaskan claims]
totaled $107 million; the number of those living outside the
state claiming against [Alaska] was the lowest that it had been
in a long time, at about 18 percent or roughly $19 million. She
commented that the gap has been narrowed a bit.
Number 0861
MS. GAMEZ stated that [the DLWD] has focused on the seafood and
processing industries. There are a lot of people coming up to
work in both the seafood and tourism industries, she said, and
these are the [employment sectors] for which [the DLWD] is
trying to attract Alaskans; it is a challenge because some
people don't want to do these jobs or they are not trained
adequately to go to work at one of the higher-paying jobs. [The
Department of Labor and Workforce Development] tries to focus
the job training and employment service programs to train
Alaskans for jobs that go to [nonresidents].
MS. GAMEZ pointed out that during the last hearing on this bill,
the report of nonresidents working in Alaska was discussed.
[The Department of Labor and Workforce Development] uses that
report to target specific industries for training, and uses the
state and federal dollars to target occupations in the hopes of
making the connection for Alaskans. When she started with the
department six years ago, she said, between 23 and 25 percent
were interstate claimants, and now is down to 18 percent. She
said she would like to think that [the DLWD] is partially to
credit for making the training opportunities available for those
industries that tend to have a higher nonresident population;
there is a direct correlation between the job training and UI
data that [the department] gets. It is a goal of the department
to get that number down, she said, and [the DLWD] wants Alaskans
to get those high-paying jobs.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if there is any way to keep Alaskans for
these jobs that are here, rather than having this constant out-
migration.
Number 1008
MS. GAMEZ remarked that the UI program enables many Alaskans to
stay here. Many people in the trades will go outside [Alaska],
and when workers are needed, [Alaska] can't get them, and they
end up being imported; oftentimes UI compensation is the thing
that allows Alaska to keep the expertise in-state, as opposed to
depending on bringing people in - that coupled with the
nonresident hire report and the targets that are set in the job
training sector which are all interrelated. It is a huge policy
issue, she emphasized, and is something that [the DLWD]
continues to tackle because of the permanent fund and the cross-
match that can be done on wages. [The Department of Labor and
Workforce Development] is in a unique position to know what
those industries are and how to go about targeting them, which
is being done, she said.
MS. GAMEZ offered to meet with committee members to talk about
the job training sector within the Division of Employment
Security to further explain the linkages.
Number 1153
RON HULL, Acting Director, Division of Employment Security,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD), added that
seafood processing is an industry that the division works
specifically with, and that the division has opened an office in
Naknek to try to get Alaskans into those jobs. "We" have made
some inroads in this area, he remarked.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked: For how many claimants is going
through job training and actively looking for work in the state
a priority? And how many return to the Lower 48 after the
season ends?
MS. GAMEZ replied that [the DLWD] targets training on Alaskans.
Training is going on during the off-season, so [the department]
is focusing it on the people who stay in-state. It is a federal
program, and there are limitations; however, [the DLWD] can't
[deny] people who choose to live here. She said training is
oftentimes counter-cyclical to working.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO expressed the desire to make sure that the
UI benefit is a livable one between jobs; however, someone who
is just here seasonally with no desire to stay in the state
beyond the season is a concern - the person who goes home to the
[Lower 48] and collects UI for as long as it allows, waiting for
the season to start again.
Number 1204
MS. GAMEZ confirmed that Representative Halcro had a valid
point. She said the longest duration of benefits that a person
could get is 26 weeks, with the average duration for all claims
against [Alaska] at 14.9 weeks. She said the conclusion that
she draws is that people are looking for work or staying in-
state and are unable to work because of the weather. There are
few claimants that exhaust benefits, whether living in or out of
the state. In addition, she said, [Alaska] has the lowest
maximum weekly benefit amount in the Western region; a person
would do better filing against another state rather than filing
against [Alaska]. She said there is nothing that [the DLWD] can
do to discriminate against the people who file against the state
and then leave.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to pages 4 and 5 of the handout
entitled "Answers to House Labor and Commerce Committee
Questions of March 9, 2001." He pointed out that it says that
workers with claims against other states are not asked to
participate in profiling services but are registered with the
employment service office nearest to the resident. He asked Ms.
Gamez to further explain this information.
Number 1279
MS. GAMEZ explained that the worker profiling and reemployment
services started as a pilot program funded through the United
States Department of Labor (USDOL). There is a statistical
model that [the division] matches against the claimant
population to identify people who are likely to exhaust UI
benefits; however, there are exemptions to that, such as for a
person who has a labor attachment to a certain field through a
union hall. Most people are pretty happy about it, she
remarked; it's kind of a "job-club" atmosphere in which people
come together to learn about interviewing skills, job leads, how
to dress for an interview, and how to give a good interview.
MS. GAMEZ said the reason interstate claimants aren't profiled
is because the funding isn't available to do it; however, she
added, it is being looked at. She said she feels very strongly
that if Alaskans have to leave for whatever reason and go
elsewhere, she would hope that they would get those intensive
employment services. The reciprocity issue is very important to
[the department], and [these services] will be added in the
future. She said there is a finite amount of dollars, and [the
DLWD] tends not to include them in the statistical sample at
this point.
Number 1376
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD emphasized that [Alaska] pays the lowest
UI weekly benefit amount in the Western region.
Number 1455
PAM LaBOLLE, President, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, stated
that [business community members] have been slow to really
understand this. She said Ed Flanagan, Commissioner, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development, came to speak to the
chamber's board of directors about six weeks ago, and the
understanding amongst the [business membership], she said, was
that the maximum weekly benefit amount was going to be raised
from $248 to $284, and that was the "sum" of it. Earlier this
week she had decided to read the bill and found it difficult [to
understand], so the department gave her a study guide and now
there is some concern.
MS. LaBOLLE stated that one of the things that makes it
difficult is that 42 states [or jurisdictions], including Puerto
Rico and the District of Colombia, are using a different
formula, the high-quarter formula; only six are on the formula
that Alaska is on, the annual-wage formula; and four are on the
average-weekly-wage formula. Alaska is one of nine states that
give a supplemental benefit for dependent children, so the
maximum weekly benefit amount ranges - depending on the number
of dependent children that might be involved - from $248 to
$320. According to some information from the [DLWD], on average
an unemployed Alaskan's [UI] check replaces less than 30 percent
of the average weekly wage. She also understood that with the
two steps involved in this legislation, it would increase it to
50 percent, which is two-thirds of an increase, she said, which
seems like a "hefty" step. And then it is tied to a formula,
rather than having it reviewed by the legislature, which looks
at the current circumstances to determine what the economic
climate is.
Number 1622
MS. LaBOLLE stated that as employers, [chamber members] have
always felt that it is important to have real people looking at
the increases that are going to happen in taxes rather than
having an automatic formula. The other thing that happens, she
said, is that when there is a downturn in the economy, the [high
rate] is still being paid and it's harder to be reacted to
quickly. All in all, she commented, there is enough concern at
this point that she would hope that the committee would give
[the chamber] a little more time to get some employer feedback
for the committee on this issue.
Number 1712
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said by tying [the indicator] to the
average weekly wage when the [downturn] happens, [benefits] will
actually go down; [Alaska] won't be left at the high wage [rate]
like the way the [system] is set up presently, which is one of
the reasons he thinks this is a far better solution because it
can fluctuate with the economy much better than if it were tied
to the consumer price index (CPI) or some indicator that really
doesn't go down. The average weekly wage does fluctuate over
the years.
MS. LaBOLLE responded that since the legislature meets
essentially every six months, there is an opportunity to react
quickly to an economic trend, rather than doing away with the
formula.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked if [the legislature] had lowered
it before.
MS. LaBOLLE said she didn't know the history of UI in Alaska.
Number 1774
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that in the last 25 years it
hasn't happened, and he feels that it would be politically
unfeasible for [the legislature] to go in and lower the
unemployment benefits, especially when heading into an
[economic] downturn.
MS. LaBOLLE suggested perhaps not lowering it but keeping it
from increasing at the very time when employers are hurting the
most with the "downed" economy.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that he thought it lowered as the
economy went down.
Number 1880
MS. LaBOLLE said it has been viewed too simply by a lot of
people, and that is why there hasn't been a great deal of
concern. There is probably a good case for increasing the
benefit amount; however, she didn't know to what extent. In
1997 it was increased, so it is time to increase it to some
level. She reiterated that there is concern about tying it to a
formula. She pointed out that the increase is approximately $10
million in taxes over two years, which sounds excessive.
MS. LaBOLLE said the employer's amount would be a .2 percent
increase in the tax rate, and the employee's amount would be a
.0003 percent increase in the tax rate, so the employers are
going to get the biggest "jolt."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked Ms. LaBOLLE which of the employers
she represents would be most impacted by this.
MS. LaBOLLE replied that it would be [employers] in
construction, hotels, and restaurants where there is a greater
turnover because it is experienced-rated. So the more it is
used, the higher the tax rate is going to be and the more that
will be paid.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER stated that during the minimum wage
legislation, the committee heard from a lot of employers, but
with this topic there has been [no testimony from employers].
MS. LaBOLLE commented that [employers] haven't understood that
it involves two steps, and would increase to 50 percent from the
current 30 percent of the average weekly wage and would stay
there.
Number 2052
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that there is a significant
"disconnect" between the activities that go on [at the
legislature] and in the business community of this state. He
asked Ms. LaBOLLE if she would agree that it is in large part a
fault of the press - that they report the end of activities,
when bills are passed, with the exception of the budget or a few
of the "sexier" media issues that get ongoing press.
MS. LaBOLLE stated that people could turn on the television and
watch what is going on if they really care. Also, she said, it
behooves anyone, while the legislature is in session, to watch
what is going on or at least have some basic connection to the
process. She doesn't absolve her members, business, or any
citizen of Alaska if something happens to them because of an
action of the legislature that they weren't aware of, she added.
Number 2149
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that the Gavel-to-Gavel Alaska
coverage of this committee numbers half a dozen times or less,
although that is more than in prior years.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO, returning attention to HB 58, said
regardless of the concept of the bill, Ms. LaBOLLE is opposed to
the formula theory whereby the department is going to establish
regulations to figure how to revise and increase the average
weekly wage every year; he asked Ms. LaBOLLE if that is correct.
MS. LaBOLLE answered affirmatively; she also answered
affirmatively regarding her preference for legislative review.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that it wouldn't be raised
every year; this is tied to the average weekly wage, which
fluctuates, unlike the CPI, which relentlessly moves forward.
He said the average weekly wage has dropped numerous times over
the last 20 years. When he came [to Alaska] in 1975 to work on
the pipeline, [Alaska] had some of the highest UI benefits in
the country, and over the years it has gone down since it's a
politicized system, and [Alaska] is now one of the lowest in the
country. If [Alaska had an indicator] tied to the average
weekly wage, he explained, the legislature wouldn't have to go
back in and find out what the proper wage replacement ought to
be. It is imperative to tie it to some sort of formula so that
the process doesn't have to been politicized every two or three
years. He said he didn't know if 50 percent of replacement wage
is the proper percentage but said it is imperative that it be
tied to a formula so it can be flexible, to fit the economy.
Number 2300
KIM GARNERO, Director, Division of Finance, Department of
Administration, said the fiscal note is the cost to the state,
as an employer, for the proposed increase in benefits. She had
originally calculated the impact on the working reserves by
assuming that all former state employees would receive increased
benefits. The DLWD's actuary analyzed the actual claimant
information, however, and found that only about 60 percent get
maximum benefits. That refined analysis resulted in $293,000
for the weekly benefit amount of $284, and $498,000 for the
maximum weekly benefit amount of $320, phased in by fiscal year.
Following the last committee meeting, she said, "we" got
together and aligned the assumptions. Using the DLWD's numbers,
the state employees not covered by the working reserves were
"backed out"; the DLWD's original numbers covered the whole
state including the University of Alaska, the railroad, and the
Alaska Housing Finance Corporation (AHFC), which are not covered
by the working reserves.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the mathematical formula cut the
fiscal note for 2002 by over 60 percent, instead of the 40
percent; is that because of the actuarial formulation, he asked.
He clarified that he is referring to the change between 2002 in
the original fiscal note of $295,000 down to $95,000, which is
$200,000 less.
Number 2419
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the University of Alaska, the railroad, and
AHFC were "backed out."
MS. GARNERO explained that the original numbers were too
simplistic and she feels much better with the actuary's numbers
going into the fiscal note.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to the analysis notes provided by
Ms. Garnero. He asked if there were fiscal notes from any of
the other agencies.
MS. GARNERO replied that she had spoken with the payroll manager
and the human resources manager last Friday in Fairbanks [at the
university], but it was the beginning of spring break. "We"
sent them the information, she said, and will get on the phone
with them upon returning to the office.
TAPE 01-39, SIDE B
Number 2442
ROYCE ROCK, Business Manager, Carpenters Union Local 1281, via
teleconference, spoke in support of HB 58. The Western Alaska
Building Construction Trades Council, he said, brought this as
one of its main items to focus on during this legislative
session. He said the UI benefit is just not enough to cover the
bills, and people are forced to go outside of Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Rock to outline how UI affects
his carpenters.
MR. ROCK estimated that in the wintertime 60 percent of the
membership is drawing UI. He said [UI] isn't something to make
one whole, but is something to get one through the hard times.
He pointed out that Alaska is number 50 out of 50 [states
regarding benefits], when Alaska is normally a leader.
Regarding the issue of going up to 50 percent replacement [of
the average weekly wage], Mr. Rock said the federal guidelines
are at 50 percent, and this just shows how far behind the
"curve" [Alaska has] been for many years. He said maybe what
should be looked at is how much money was saved by not having
[Alaska's UI benefits] up where they should have been.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Rock if the majority of the
members stay here and wait for work or go south looking to work
there.
MR. ROCK remarked that most of them would try to stay here if
possible because a person must be in-state to sign the out-of-
work list; if a person wants to go to work in early spring, the
only way that person is going to get to the top of that list is
by physically being here to sign the list. He said if finances
were hit hard, a person would have to leave the state; however,
it sets the person back even more when returning in the spring.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Mr. Rock if he's ever had any out-
of-state workers ask him what Alaska's UI benefits were before
making the decision whether to come up or not.
Number 2337
MR. ROCK replied in the negative.
MS. GAMEZ continued with her comments. She announced that the
DLWD is going to be having a "UI 101" session to take some of
the mystery out of this. She clarified that the current wage
replacement is 38.8 percent; the reason [the DLWD] wanted to tie
this to the indicator, the average weekly wage, is because if it
were tied to the CPI, it would always go up. In 1995 and 1996
it would have gone down, she said, had this formula been in
place. In addition, $10 million [in taxes on employers] is a
lot of money, but it would be over a seven-year period of time,
not something that would happen in one or two years. It is
something that is easier to manage than a big jump, and it would
then fluctuate with the economy.
Number 2192
MS. GAMEZ explained that the UI fund doesn't "ding" the
employers when the economy is down; the trust fund reserves are
at a level where benefits can be paid without impacting the
employers at that point in time. It really self-balances, she
said. Regarding the dependent allowance, she said [Alaska] is
one of four states with this allowance. Twelve or fifteen years
ago, "they" tried to get rid of the allowance, and it ended up
going up substantially per dependent. Per claim, she said,
Alaska's average dependent allowance is $20.21, so the impact
isn't that great; when looking at the charts and graphs, it
doesn't have a significant impact on them at all.
MS. GAMEZ stated that in terms of the high-turnover occupations,
[the department] thinks that tying the maximum weekly benefit
amount to the average weekly wage does allow an accurate
accountability of what is happening in the state. The CPI would
always go up, and [the DLWD] thought this was a reasonable thing
to do; 35 states have it tied to some sort of indicator, whether
it is the average weekly wage, the CPI, or something else. It
is self-adjusting, rather than putting a static number in
statute. She said it would be nice to keep more people in the
state during the wintertime so that employers have a pool of
trained workers to draw from when the busy season starts up.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO mentioned that Ms. LaBOLLE had stated that
she was worried about the effect of an [economic downturn]. He
referred to page 7, subsection (k) of the bill, where it
outlines exactly how [the DLWD] is going to come up with the
average annual wage on a yearly basis. He noted that it
determines the average annual wage based on the preceding 12-
month period. The gas pipeline, if developed, would create
thousands of new jobs, he noted, and the average weekly wage
would go through the "roof" because of this one spike. Now the
project is gone and suddenly the average wage is [high] because
the last 12 months are being looked at. That isn't a realistic
assessment of the current wage, he said, and asked if there are
any protections that address this.
MR. HULL referred to chart 4, entitled "Estimated Max Cost per
Worker for Average Employer (5 years to reach cost of proposal)"
from the committee's packet. He stated that the trust fund is
not set up to react quickly, and in this particular case, if
this were passed in 2002, the full impact wouldn't be felt by
the employer until 2007.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that if [the legislature] adopts
this legislation, a method would be set in motion by which the
DLWD can review the average weekly wage every year, look back
over the last 12 months, and decide to set the next 12 months
based on that. He asked what [methodology was used] for setting
the average weekly wage.
Number 1978
CHUCK BLANKENSHIP, Assistant Director, Division of Employment
Security, Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DLWD),
responded that the "look-back" is based on the average wages in
the state for the previous state fiscal year, which is as
current as it gets. Each December, he said, that same period
would be looked at again, and if there were an increase in wages
one year, the benefit amount would go up; if the increase in
wages had been transitory and disappeared the following January,
however, the benefit amount could drop back down.
MR. BLANKENSHIP, referring to a packet given to committee
members the week before, pointed out that a chart showed a 12-
year period of increases to 50 percent of the average weekly
wage, which he pointed out is a fairly flat graph; there was a
drop in 1995 and 1996, and had [Alaska's] maximum benefit been
tied to 50 percent of the average weekly wage, it would have
actually decreased at that point. During this period of time
[the Department of Labor] came to the legislature asking for an
increase in the maximum benefit amount of $60. During that same
period of time, had [Alaska] been tied to the 50 percent wage
replacement, the increases would have been $32.
Number 1946
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that the increases gained by coming to
the legislature and asking for them had caused more of a spike
and had a more significant impact on the employer tax rate
because it took effect right away. It might not have had an
impact at all, depending on the solvency of the trust fund at
the time. He said the actuary was telling him that given the
picture of employment growth in the state now and the relatively
fair economy, the projected rate increases for the next five or
six years may not even occur.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO noted that it clearly states the following
[subsection (h)] on page 6 of the bill: "if the average weekly
wage in this state, calculated under (k) of this section, has
increased by an increment amount established by the department
in the regulations." He pointed out that it talks about how
[the department] accounts for increases, but doesn't say
anything about when the average weekly wage "bottoms out."
Number 1807
MR. BLANKENSHIP read in part from subsection (j), page 7, "The
commissioner shall report to the governor and the legislature if
the average weekly wage in this state decreases to the extent
that an adjustment in weekly benefit amounts set in (d) ... is
appropriate for the proper administration". He said [the DLWD]
was advised by the Office of the Attorney General that decreases
would have to be done with proper notice to the governor and to
the legislature, which is why subsection (j) is in there. He
said the key point in the proposed language under subsection (h)
is that this law would set forth that the methodology may not
result in a new weekly benefit amount that exceeds 50 percent
replacement of the average weekly wage. So if the calculation
were to come up with an average weekly wage that was more than
twice what the existing benefit amount would be, this statute
would prevent [the DLWD] from paying a replacement [wage] of
greater than 50 percent.
Number 1746
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to page 6, line 16, "The
department shall adopt regulations to establish a methodology to
calculate new amounts that increase the highest weekly benefit".
He said this doesn't say that new amounts will be calculated,
but specifically talks about an increase. And he doesn't
believe it addresses how decreases will be dealt with other than
reporting them back to the legislature and the governor.
Number 1713
MR. BLANKENSHIP explained that in his understanding the language
prohibiting those increases from being in excess of 50 percent
of the average weekly wage would also require [the DLWD] to look
at decreases. He stated that the first section extends the
benefit schedule to $284 and is "hard-coded"; however, nothing
from $284 [forward] is then "hard-coded" - it is a new game
every year based on 50 percent of the average weekly wage, but
just extends the schedule up to that point. So there would be
no formal benefit schedule in place until the average weekly
wage is calculated and the new maximum set.
MR. HULL referred to page 5 of the bill and said the increments
for the first year go up to $284, but uses the same formula, the
$250 increments to the $2 increase in benefits to the $320
amount and doesn't allow it to go over $320 by regulation.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked for clarification that it could go over
$320 as long as the average weekly wage is not in excess of 50
percent.
MR. HULL answered affirmatively and said it could go under that
amount, too, but stays with the 50 percent. What it is saying
is that it can't go over 50 percent. He clarified that line 16
refers to an extension of the formula on page 5, out to $320 in
the second year.
Number 1578
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the "magic" behind the numbers.
Right now [Alaska] is at $248, she said, and under this proposal
would go to $284 and then to $320 in the subsequent year.
MR. BLANKENSHIP commented that [the DLWD] currently knows the
average weekly wage, 50 percent of which would be approximately
$320 or $318.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that according to the chart provided by
[the DLWD], the average weekly wage in 1999 was $639.50. She
asked for clarification that 50 percent of that is taken to get
to the $320, which is where [the DLWD] wants to be in two years.
Number 1525
MR. BLANKENSHIP clarified that he thought the $284 was just a
midpoint to avoid putting the full increase in one year. He
said regarding the $620 average weekly wage, the actuaries feel
that the 1999 figure is relatively "flat," the same as for 2000
and 2001.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to the dependent allowance. She said
she's heard that between four and six states allow for this. In
the documentation supplied by the division, she said, she
understood that there is an allowance of $24 per dependent for a
maximum of three dependents. And the average weekly amount for
the dependent allowance averaged over all the claimants is
$20.21. She asked if she is comparing "apples to apples" in
saying that if taking the current amount of $248, and adding
$20.21, which is the average overall [for a dependent
allowance], the weekly benefit amount is not $248, but $268.
Number 1443
MR. BLANKENSHIP replied that it is an awkward statement since
only 45 percent of the claimants receive a dependent allowance.
So as far as the statement goes, it would be correct to say that
averaged over the entire population it would be an additional
$20.21 per claimant per week; however, over 50 percent of the
people are not getting that, which is why [the DLWD] decided to
stay with the maximum weekly benefit amount as something that
could be compared among the entire population.
MR. HULL explained that if a person were getting the maximum
benefit amount, then Chair Murkowski's aforementioned statements
would be correct; however, not everyone gets the maximum weekly
benefit amount. He added that the $248 is the maximum weekly
benefit amount, not the average.
Number 1396
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for clarification that the $20.21
is the average for all the claimants.
MR. BLANKENSHIP answered affirmatively. And of those claimants
receiving a dependent allowance, the average is about $40.00 a
week. Responding to a question about whether 45 percent of the
claimants receive this allowance, Mr. Blankenship stated that he
believed this to be correct.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that according to the fact sheet
entitled "Q&A's" supplied by the department, the average weekly
amount paid to claimants for dependents is $44.94. And in
Alaska approximately 44.5 percent of the claimants receive
dependent allowances. He asked what percentage of interstate
claimants claim dependents.
Number 1218
MR. BLANKENSHIP clarified that [Alaska] is one of 12 states
[that pay a dependent allowance]. He responded that in studying
that, [the DLWD] has found that there is generally a lesser
amount of dependent allowance going out of state than staying in
the state.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is any way that [Alaska]
could deny the allowance for out-of-state claimants and still
stay within the federal guidelines.
MR. BLANKENSHIP responded in the negative. He stated that he
believed the numbers given in the handout for the dependent
allowance were spread over the entire population, both in and
out of state; and there is a slightly higher percentage of rural
claimants receiving the dependent allowance.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked what the highest unemployment [rate]
on a yearly basis is.
Number 1146
MR. BLANKENSHIP verified that it would be around 6.9 or 7
percent. He explained that [Alaska] just "triggered" onto the
federal extended benefit program on March 10, 2001, that
required a state-insured unemployment rate of 6 percent. [The
department] doesn't believe that it is going to be up that high
for more than three months. January and February are the
highest claimant months, he said; Alaska didn't hit the 6
percent this year until the second or third week in February,
and he thinks it will end in May. The economy has been good, UI
is low, and the employment picture overall has been expanding
the last several years, he remarked.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that Mr. Rock had indicated that the
desired goal with the federal wage [replacement] is 50 percent
of the average weekly wage. She said according to the
[department's] chart, [Alaska] is at 46 percent, and she asked
if there is a federal statute that indicates this.
MR. BLANKENSHIP remarked that the program has been around for 65
years and some of this information isn't in federal regulation.
The program guidelines over the past 25 years, he said, have
been that a 50 percent wage replacement is desirable for the
majority of those people receiving benefits. The last guideline
that [the department] saw that came out in writing from the
United States Department of Labor (USDOL) was in response to its
need to come up with performance standards for the Government
Performance Results Act. One of the standards that [the USDOL]
has asked the states to shoot for is a maximum weekly benefit
amount approaching 75 percent of the average weekly wage.
Number 1009
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked for the nominal dollar increases
and the percentage against the base of the increases made by the
legislature in 1984, 1990, and 1996, which are the last three
increases that [Alaska] had, which went into effect in 1985,
1991, and 1997.
MR. BLANKENSHIP stated that the dollar amounts of the increases
in 1980, 1981, and 1982 in [Alaska] were $150; the next increase
was to $156; the increase in 1985 was to $188; in 1991, to $212;
and in 1997, to $248.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to chart 2.1, entitled "Amount of
UI Payments, Regular Benefits 1985-1999." He asked if this is a
"look-back," had this bill been adopted years ago.
Number 0853
MR. HULL commented that this was not the chart being referred
to, and remarked that it was in the handout provided to the
committee on [March 9, 2001] entitled "Alaska's Maximum Weekly
Benefit Amount Compared with 50 Percent Average Weekly
Earnings".
MR. BLANKENSHIP added that it reflected an 11-year period.
Responding to the question as to why [the division] feels that
if this formula had been in place years ago, there would have
been a decline, Mr. Blankenship stated that with the multiple
periods in-between increases - for which [the department] came
back to the legislature and asked for increases - the state kept
playing catch-up after falling behind. And because of that,
during the decade of the 1990s, [the department] asked for an
increase of $60. Referring to a chart supplied by the DLWD
entitled "Number of two dollar increases in Calculation of 50%
Average Weekly Earnings," he said had [Alaska] already been tied
into a percentage of the average weekly wage for a maximum
benefit amount, [Alaska] would have increased the maximum
benefit amount by $32, with less dramatic increases in tax
rates.
Number 0667
CHAIR MURKOWSKI stated that the bill would be held over because
she is concerned about the "double-jump" and the "tie-in." She
said recognizing the impact to employers and how they have not
given input, she isn't sure if they are not concerned about it
or don't understand the full extent of the issue.
[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
4:50 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|