Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/01/2002 03:20 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
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 1, 2002
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
Representative Joe Hayes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 399
"An Act relating to the Uniform Mechanical Code and other safety
codes; annulling certain regulations adopted by the Department
of Community and Economic Development relating to the mechanical
code that applies to certain construction contractors and
mechanical administrators; and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 399(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 504
"An Act relating to the wages of people working in the fisheries
business."
- MOVED CSHB 504(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 472
"An Act relating to persons who buy and sell secondhand articles
and to certain persons who lend money on secondhand articles."
- MOVED CSHB 472(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 443
"An Act retroactively extending the application and licensing
deadlines and amending the effective date of certain provisions
relating to regulation of persons who practice tattooing and
permanent cosmetic coloring or body piercing; and providing for
an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 443(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 448
"An Act relating to establishing a data base of residential
telephone customers who do not wish to receive telephone
solicitations, providing that the data base be compiled at no
cost to the customers, requiring telephone solicitors to
purchase the data base, and requiring paid solicitors to
register; and providing for an effective date."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38
Relating to urging the United States Congress to pass the
Terrorism Risk Protection Act.
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: HB 399
SHORT TITLE:UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
SPONSOR(S): RLS BY REQUEST OF ADMIN REGULATION REVIEW
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/11/02 2204 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/11/02 2204 (H) L&C
03/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/01/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
03/15/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/15/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 504
SHORT TITLE:WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES
SPONSOR(S): RLS
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
03/15/02 2547 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
03/15/02 2547 (H) L&C
03/25/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/25/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
03/27/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 472
SHORT TITLE:PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)GREEN
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/19/02 2315 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/19/02 2315 (H) L&C, JUD
03/04/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/04/02 (H) Heard & Held
MINUTE(L&C)
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 443
SHORT TITLE:TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S)KOHRING
Jrn-Date Jrn-Page Action
02/15/02 2288 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME -
REFERRALS
02/15/02 2288 (H) L&C
03/25/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/25/02 (H) Bill Postponed To 3/27
03/27/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/27/02 (H) -- Meeting Canceled --
04/01/02 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
CATHERINE REARDON, Director
Division of Occupational Licensing
Department of Community & Economic Development
PO Box 110806
Juneau, Alaska 99811-0806
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 399.
KRIS NOROSZ
Icicle Seafoods
PO Box 1147
Petersburg, Alaska 99833
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 504 [Version L].
RICHARD MASTRIANO, Director
Division of Labor Standards and Safety
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
PO Box 107021
Anchorage, Alaska 99510-7021
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 504 on
behalf of the division.
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist
for Alaska State AFL-CIO
710 West Ninth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 504.
ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 504.
LAURA ACHEE, Staff
to Representative Joe Green
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 403
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 472 on behalf of
Representative Green, sponsor.
DAVID HUDSON, Captain
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety
5700 East Tudor Road
Anchorage, Alaska 99507-1225
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions relating to HB 472.
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff
to Representative Vic Kohring
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 24
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 443 on behalf of
Representative Kohring, sponsor.
MARY SIROKY, Manager
Information Education & Coordination
Division of Statewide Public Service
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC)
410 Willoughby, Suite 303
Juneau, Alaska 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in regard to the public notice
related to HB 443.
TODD GIPSON
Two Moons Tattooing
44720 Sterling Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked who [HB 443] addresses.
LAURA IVANOFF
Two Moons Tattooing
44720 Sterling Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on the grandfather rights
relating to the regulation of tattooers and hairdressers.
JOE SCHOOLCRAFT, Owner
Two Moons Tattooing
44720 Sterling Highway
Soldotna, Alaska 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 433, testified that it
isn't fair to those who worked through the process [under
SB 34].
JEFF MACAMBER
112 North Turner Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 443.
GAIL McCANN, Owner/Operator
The Electrolysis Clinic
537 Lee Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 443.
KEVIN McKINLEY, Owner
Body Piercing Unlimited
112 North Turner Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that HB 443 is a good thing.
JEFFERY MARTIN
Muttley's Tattoo Clinic
224 North Yenlo, Suite 3B
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he only wants an extension
of the application period [as specified in HB 443].
ANDY KOPCZENSKI
American Tattoo
HC89 Box 259
Willow, Alaska 99688
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that he thinks HB 443 looks good
and offered that a six-month extension of the application period
won't hurt anyone.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-45, 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, Rokeberg, and Hayes
were present at the call to order. Representatives Kott and
Crawford arrived as the meeting was in progress.
HB 399-UNIFORM MECHANICAL CODE
[Contains discussion pertaining to HB 436 and HB 437]
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business
before the committee would be HOUSE BILL NO. 399, "An Act
relating to the Uniform Mechanical Code and other safety codes;
annulling certain regulations adopted by the Department of
Community and Economic Development relating to the mechanical
code that applies to certain construction contractors and
mechanical administrators; and providing for an effective date."
[HB 399 was sponsored by the House Rules Standing Committee by
request of the Joint Committee on Administrative Regulation
Review.]
Number 0226
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as the chair of the mechanical
code subcommittee, informed the committee that by a vote of 2-1,
the subcommittee had amended Version F. There was a new Version
J, which the subcommittee recommended to the full committee.
Version J amends AS 08.40.490(3) so that reference to the
Uniform Mechanical Code is deleted and the division is directed
to refer to the mechanical code adopted by the Department of
Public Safety (DPS); it annuls the regulations adopted by the
Division of Occupational Licensing - 12 AAC 21.990(7) and 12 AAC
39.992(b); from the effective date through December 31, 2003, it
permits applicants for a mechanical administrator's license to
be tested on either the 1997 edition of the Uniform Mechanical
Code (UMC) or the 2000 edition of the International Mechanical
Code (IMC) - applicant's choice; and it adds an immediate
effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that the Division of Occupational
Licensing currently administers the [IMC exam] and would check
on the costs to go back to the old [UMC]. He stated, "At the
time, the contracted test service only charged $100 for the '97
UMC to be taken." He surmised that there shouldn't be any
problem with doing that again, but said it hadn't been verified.
Number 0435
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt CSHB 399, version 22-
LS1461\J, Bannister, 3/28/02, as the working document. There
being no objection, Version J was before the committee.
Number 0467
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked what will happen after December 31, 2003,
because up to that date an applicant can choose either the UMC
exam or the IMC exam.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that the Division of
Occupational Licensing will administer the IMC [exam], unless
the legislature changes that.
Number 0505
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it wasn't clear to her in reading through
[HB 399] what will happen after year-end 2003. She asked if HB
436 and HB 437 were still being reviewed.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained, "Section 1 indicates it's the
code adopted by the Department of Public Safety at that time,
and then the uncodified law in Section 3 explains how the
process is to be done. It defaults in Section 1 back to the
IMC."
Number 0558
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it's "less than clear."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that it is because of the way
it's drafted. He noted that the UMC has been taken out of
Section 1 and that new language has been added: "and the
mechanical code adopted by the Department of Public Safety under
AS 18.70.080;". Currently, the adopted codes are IMC codes. He
referred to Section 3, which explains the timeframe and gives
direction to the Division of Occupational Licensing as to the
election of either examination by the applicant.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the Division of Occupational Licensing
had confirmed whether the 1997 [UMC] test would be available.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that is the only question
outstanding at this juncture.
Number 0620
CATHERINE REARDON, Director, Division of Occupational
Licensing, Department of Community & Economic Development,
informed the committee that the division has asked "the
contractor" and hasn't received an answer. She said the
Division of Occupational Licensing was offering the [1997 exam]
as recently as September.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the administration fee for the
1997 UMC exam was $100.
MS. REARDON replied in the affirmative, adding that the division
also charges $100 for the IMC test. In further reply, she said
the contractor charges the division $100. The fee was $75 under
the last contract. The reason the contractor charges the
division for rewriting the exam is because the contractor
doesn't make enough from the $100 fees.
Number 0704
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Reardon if she would "feel
bad" about negotiating with the contractors for re-establishing
the 1997 UMC exam for $100.
MS. REARDON said she doesn't have any problem asking the
contractors to do that. She speculated that it wouldn't be too
difficult for the division to offer [applicants] the choice.
There is the public policy question for the legislature to
determine whether or not the division should be testing on both
[sets of mechanical codes] if only one is in effect.
Number 0739
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked when the new, revised UMC test will be
released.
MS. REARDON explained that the test revisions were triggered by
the division's asking the testing company to revise the exam.
The code updates occur every three years. She said the initial
price in the fiscal note - $40,000 - was a result of the
division's asking the testing company what it would cost to
write an exam for the 2000 UMC. She speculated that the testing
company could do that now, but that the 1997 exam is probably
still available.
Number 0797
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the testing process to become a
mechanical administrator requires a one-time test, with
continuing education to follow.
MS. REARDON replied in the affirmative. She added that [a
person who lets his/her license] lapse without renewal will have
to retake the exam.
Number 0879
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated his concern over "what the practice
is versus what's in statute," and said a lot of communities are
currently doing work against the statutes. He offered that
there is "a lot of work being done under the ICBO [International
Conference of Building Officials], but in our statutes we have a
totally different book that we have in law."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the IMC, which is part of the
regulations adopted by the DPS, is now the state standard and is
also the ICBO standard. He stated, "We are working on another
bill to try to resolve this."
Number 0960
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked if there is "a lot of work" that has
been done using a different method than what is in the current
statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied in the negative and asked if
Representative Hayes was referring to work done under the IMC or
the UMC.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES replied, "The international."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the IMC has now been adopted by the
State of Alaska as the standard.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES responded, "In regulation but not in
statute. Isn't that the whole argument of why we have [HB
399]?"
Number 1069
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt Amendment 22-LS1461\J.1,
Bannister, 3/28/02, which read:
Page 2, following line 6:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 2. AS 18.56.300(e)(3) is amended to read:
(3) "state building code" means
(A) for building standards, the standards
set out in the version of the Uniform Building Code
adopted by the Department of Public Safety under
AS 18.70.080, including the provisions of that code
applicable to buildings used for residential purposes
containing fewer than four dwelling units,
notwithstanding the exclusion of those buildings from
the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction made by
AS 18.70.080(a)(2);
(B) for mechanical standards, the standards
set out in the mechanical code [VERSION OF THE UNIFORM
MECHANICAL CODE] adopted by the Department of Public
Safety under AS 18.70.080, including the provisions of
that code applicable to buildings used for residential
purposes containing fewer than four dwelling units,
notwithstanding the exclusion of those buildings from
the Department of Public Safety's jurisdiction made by
AS 18.70.080(a)(2);
(C) for plumbing standards, the minimum
plumbing code adopted for the state under
AS 18.60.705; and
(D) for electrical standards, the minimum
electrical standards prescribed by AS 18.60.580."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that Amendment J.1 would
clarify those provisions that relate to AHFC [Alaska Housing
Finance Corporation]. Referring to AS 18.56.300(e)(3), he said
the amendment would adopt a "generic" mechanical code and delete
the specific reference to a "version of the Uniform Mechanical
Code." He explained that this would default back to the
Department of Public Safety's adoption by regulation. He
offered that as a matter of policy he doesn't want to leave [the
issue] out there as a regulatory matter.
Number 1080
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO objected for the purpose of discussion.
He said this amendment wasn't discussed in the subcommittee; he
asked Representative Rokeberg to explain further.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that there are some specific
references in the AHFC statute to the UMC. Through adoption of
Amendment J.1, the statute reverts to generic language. He
explained that if DPS were to change the code adopted, then this
would automatically change also, without having to change the
statute again. He noted that AHFC had requested this amendment;
it wasn't discussed in the subcommittee because he was
approached by AHFC after the meeting on this specific matter.
Number 1184
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said it seems to make sense based on testimony
heard from Mr. Bitney. She said [Amendment J.1] clears up
ambiguity in this particular statute, but asked if there are any
"loose ends" in other areas of the statute.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that the primary issue is
whether adoption of the building codes should become a
legislative issue or should be "bequeathed ... to the
departments." He explained that currently the Department of
Labor and Workforce Development and DPS are both adopting
[regulations] under statutory authority. He said the
subcommittee is working on trying to bring that together under a
central umbrella. He suggested this is a noncontroversial fix
to the statute.
Number 1276
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered that the question is whether
"we're talking about the status quo ... since September or ...
before September" when the UMC was in statute. He said he
doesn't like the status quo since September, and he felt the
[UMC] should have been enforced until the legislature changed
it, and not the state fire marshal.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed, but offered that this is a
practical situation that was handed to the legislature as "a
fait accompli", and he doesn't like that. He explained that [HB
399] does ratify the IMC and not the UMC. He agreed that the
legislature needs to retain its authority to select a code.
Representative Rokeberg added:
What I aim to bring out to this committee is, ... an
umbrella agency should have all the codes together and
the legislature should stipulate what codes they
should be. And the cyclical editions that are adopted
should be up to the ... administration. You don't
need to come back to the legislature and do the
cyclical updates.
Number 1422
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if Representative Halcro maintained his
objection to Amendment J.1.
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO responded in the negative.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there being no further objection,
Amendment J.1 was adopted.
Number 1440
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 399 [version 22-
LS1461\J, Bannister, 3/28/02, as amended] out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 399(L&C) was moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 504-WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES
Number 1497
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 504, "An Act relating to the wages of people
working in the fisheries business." [HB 504 was sponsored by
the House Rules Standing Committee, chaired by Representative
Kott. Adopted as a work draft on 3/25/02 was a proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version L, 22-LS1595\L, Craver,
3/25/02.]
Number 1532
KRIS NOROSZ, Icicle Seafoods, testified via teleconference in
support of [Version L], which would allow Icicle Seafoods to
recover some of the costs for providing room and board for
employees in remote locations. This would also standardize the
practice used currently for nonremote locations where there are
other [housing options] available.
MS. NOROSZ addressed the concern regarding the amount of money
that might be deducted from an employee's wages. She offered an
example of [Icicle Seafood's] practice in Petersburg: employees
are charged $10 a day to stay in the bunkhouse, and $3.50 for a
hot, unlimited meal. She argued that one would be hard-pressed
to find a comparable deal anywhere for that price. The meal
plan for senior citizens in Petersburg is subsidized by the
federal, state, and local governments, she noted; this program
provides three portioned dinners a week for $3.50 a meal. She
argued that the price [Icicle Seafoods] charges employees for a
meal is "very, very reasonable," and indicated Icicle Seafoods
loses money each year [with the meal program].
Number 1652
MS. NOROSZ offered that [Icicle Seafoods] would follow a similar
pattern for its remote locations for a number of reasons. One
reason is that it is important for the employees to have a good
experience and return as experienced, seasoned employees. It
costs more to hire people who leave before the season is over
and to have to replace them. She said it is in the best
interest of both the employer and the employee to make sure that
"things are fair."
MS. NOROSZ disclosed that [Icicle Seafoods] is in competition
with other employers to find good workers, and therefore it
doesn't make sense to charge the employees too much for room and
board. She urged passage of [HB 504, Version L], which will
standardize the practice that [Icicle Seafoods] currently uses
in nonremote locations.
Number 1737
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD) or the Occupational Safety and
Health Administration (OSHA) periodically visit any of Icicle
Seafood's remote locations.
MS. NOROSZ replied in the affirmative, saying she believes the
DLWD is responsible for overseeing OSHA regulations in Alaska.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked how often this occurs.
MS. NOROSZ answered that she doesn't know, but offered to find
that information for the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if OSHA doesn't visit the remote
locations because the DLWD is in charge of overseeing OSHA
regulations.
MS. NOROSZ said she believes that is true.
Number 1787
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to an e-mail received from a
gentleman in Soldotna, reported that some canneries and
processors will sometimes only work the workers one to four days
a week. He argued that under HB 504, these workers could end up
owing the canneries for room and board. He inquired about
Icicle Seafood's hiring practices.
MS. NOROSZ reported that the nature of the industry in fisheries
is dependent on Mother Nature, and therefore it is hard for an
employer to say when the fish are going to arrive, and in what
quantities. She said [Icicle Seafoods] wants employees to get a
lot of work; as a result, it tries to not hire more employees
than needed for the season. The number of employees Icicle
Seafoods predicts it will need is based on the "run size
prediction" of the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G).
She offered that unfortunately Icicle Seafoods can't guarantee
workers that they will work a certain number of hours per week.
But when there is a smaller run, Icicle Seafoods tries to find
other jobs for its employees around the plant - for example,
doing maintenance. Regardless of whether someone is working,
that person still is eating meals, and she said she feels this
is a reasonable expense to charge employees.
Number 1884
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked if [Icicle Seafoods] outlines in the
contractual arrangement with an employee what the costs will be
so that an employee will know ahead of time.
MS. NOROSZ replied in the affirmative and said "everything is
spelled out." In further response, she relayed that Icicle
Seafoods requires that all employees speak and understand
English, although not necessarily read and write English. There
are also people available to ensure that employees understand
what they are being told.
MS. NOROSZ said it's expensive to go through a hiring process.
It is also expensive to have an unhappy worker wanting to quit
halfway through a season, because a replacement worker must be
hired. Thus it is important to have a thorough hiring process
at the beginning of the season to find the right people for the
right jobs, instead of replacing workers midseason.
Number 2026
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if a prospective employee signs a written
contract.
MS. NOROSZ responded in the affirmative. She explained that
[Icicle Seafoods] wants employees to sign a written contract so
that it can count on those employees for the duration of the
season.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD inquired if an employee working at a
remote location is entitled to return airfare if he/she has
decided to quit because there is a low run of fish and that
person isn't getting much work.
MS. NOROSZ explained that for an employee to get transportation
back, he/she must complete the contract. If [an employee] ends
the contract early, It is the employee's responsibility to
provide transportation back if that person decides to end the
contract early, or if that person is caught with drugs or
alcohol on the premises - which is strictly forbidden by the
contract - and is involuntarily terminated. Ms. Norosz pointed
out that not all of the processing occurs with salmon. There
are other species, some of which entail cooperative fishing, so
that the fish come in at a steady pace.
Number 2117
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said it was the intent of [the House] to
raise the minimum wage, but that [HB 504] seems "to give on the
right hand and take away on the left hand." He questioned the
benefit to a worker who would work for possibly three or four
days a week and still be required to pay room-and-board fees in
a remote area where there aren't other employment options.
MS. NOROSZ responded that every season is a little different.
If a run of fish is smaller than expected in a certain location,
[Icicle Seafoods] will downsize the operation and move workers
to another location if they want to keep working. If there
isn't enough work, employees can be let out of their contracts.
She offered that after a reasonable time, [if] ADF&G downsizes
the forecast [of returning fish], Icicle Seafoods would then
provide employees with other opportunities.
Number 2246
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked how many applicants are attracted to
the occupation because of overtime pay.
MS. NOROSZ responded that she thinks it is a "big lure." Few
other industries require as much overtime. Many employees like
working in remote locations because there aren't as many
distractions as some towns have, she said, and therefore they
won't spend as much money at stores or drinking establishments.
Ms. Norosz pointed out that Icicle Seafoods actually discourages
applicants from going to remote locations because if the
employee doesn't like it and wants to leave, it's not a good
situation for the employer or the employee.
Number 2318
MS. NOROSZ, in response to Chair Murkowski, reported that
employees in Petersburg are started at $7 an hour, and remote
employees are paid $6 an hour. As to whether there is any
difficulty in finding the number of employees needed, she said
it depends on the season and the current state of the job market
in Alaska and the Lower 48. She offered that three to four
years ago there was some difficulty attracting enough employees,
and the DLWD was "very helpful" in helping with that. The past
few years, it has been much easier to find employees.
TAPE 02-45, SIDE B
Number 2383
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked what the average retention rate is
for returning employees.
MS. NOROSZ offered to find out. She said regular wage
increases, as well as benefits, are given to employees according
to the number of hours they have worked.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Mastriano whether his office conducts
visits to remote locations.
Number 2325
RICHARD MASTRIANO, Director, Division of Labor Standards and
Safety, Department of Labor and Workforce Development,
testifying via teleconference, replied in the affirmative. He
reported that OSHA, under labor standards, does do "the shore-
based processing - we go out and do the shore-based processing."
The U.S. Department of Labor covers the [floating processors].
In further response, he said [a processor usually gets a visit]
about once a year unless a problem requires a follow-up visit.
Number 2290
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked if there have been complaints with
regard to employment practices in remote facilities.
MR. MASTRIANO answered that he receives a number of complaints,
but not very many are related to housing. The complaints are
with regard to return transportation, wages, and deductions from
wages. He reported that last year DLWD received 71 claims
statewide for various deduction problems, 20 of which were from
processors. In further response, he explained that usually when
there is a wage claim, an employee has signed a contract with
the employer and isn't getting enough work in a remote location.
An employee who quits must pay for transportation, as outlined
in the contract.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT told members that a statute deals with the
right to return transportation, and that it is also spelled out
in the contract. He said some of the other issues, such as not
being paid correctly for the amount of hours worked, aren't any
different from issues for workers elsewhere.
MR. MASTRIANO agreed.
Number 2162
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if DLWD is involved with complaints from
employees who don't feel they are being charged a fair price for
room and board.
MR. MASTRIANO responded that most processors charge about $10 a
day for room and board, which the department feels is
reasonable. If a complaint is received, the employer must
furnish a complete budget to show the department the costs to
operate and maintain that facility. A program in the C.F.R.
[Code of Federal Regulations] tells what expenses are allowable
without profit, which is what [DLWD] will look at. He hasn't
had that happen since becoming director, he said, and therefore
hasn't had to perform this procedure.
Number 2073
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to AS 23.10.380(a)(1), which
read in part, "(1) on or after the termination of employment for
a cause considered good and sufficient by the department, beyond
the control of the person, or on or after the termination of the
contract of employment or a renewal of the contract". He asked
whether, when an employee is fired, the employer must still
provide return transportation.
MR. MASTRIANO replied that there is a companion regulation that
goes along with that; he indicated that if an employee is
terminated for an unexcused absence, drinking on the job, or
fighting, the employer doesn't have to pay for return
transportation. However, if an employee is fired for anything
else, [the employer] must pay the return transportation.
Number 2010
DON ETHERIDGE, Lobbyist for Alaska State AFL-CIO, testified
before the committee in opposition to HB 504. He said [AFL-CIO]
sees HB 504 as the "tip of this iceberg," and although the
fisheries industry is in a slump, it shouldn't be exempted from
minimum wage.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if "organized labor" is aware of
the economic situation surrounding the seafood processing
industry, particularly with the regard to the importation of
foreign fish.
MR. ETHERIDGE replied in the affirmative. He said the [AFL-CIO]
is concerned for the [fishing] industry and the workers. He
offered that he knows a person who is a recruiter for a "fishing
group" that is about to go broke, and yet this person owns a new
house on Bainbridge Island in Washington and a brand-new house
in San Francisco. He stated, "He's a recruiter for them, so
they can't be all that broke."
Number 1879
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that the "integrated [fishing]
business" in Alaska encompasses the small gillnetter through to
the large processor. He speculated that the individual that Mr.
Etheridge had referred to is on the executive end of the
industry, and will be out of a job quickly if the industry fails
entirely. He said he can foresee the industry failing in the
next couple of years, particularly "after the ALF-CIO ... was
able to pass a petition to raise the minimum wage by 26
percent." He asked if some of the businesses that are
struggling financially deserve a break.
MR. ETHERIDGE responded that "every business in the world" could
use a break for one reason or another. He said he has worked
extensively in the commercial fisheries industry, from
commercial fishing to working in the canneries, and these
workers deserve the same wages as those in other industries.
Number 1829
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed public testimony. She spoke to
Representative Kott regarding the language in Section 1 that
provides that there is a written agreement with an employee in
order to take the deduction. She referred to page 1, line 7,
which allows for a deduction "based on a negotiated union
agreement or a written agreement with the employee". She
suggested that "at the time of hire" might need to be added as a
clarification. This would require the employer to disclose the
room-and-board deductions with the prospective employee before
work begins so that the employee knows what to expect.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed that should be added.
Number 1744
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to 8 AAC 15.160, subsection (e), and
said this states that the employer and employee have executed
the written agreement at the time of hire.
Number 1712
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved to adopt Amendment 1, on page 1, line 7,
to read, "based on a negotiated union agreement or a written
agreement entered at the time of hire with the employee". There
being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated a concern regarding any
subsequent amendments or changes "to that document." He offered
that the "courts would look at it only in the subject matter
that we're stressing here."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI agreed with Representative Rokeberg's concern,
mentioning an employee who is hired to work in one location and
then moved to another location because of a lack of fish.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that this employee could enter
into a new written contract.
Number 1660
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out there has been discussion that
[allowing the fishing industry] to deduct from wages will prompt
other industries to [request the same provision]. She said to
Representative Kott, "As I understand, what you are doing with
[HB 504] is codifying the language from regulations."
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said that is "pretty much true," and offered
that there is potentially an opportunity for another occupation
to perhaps tweak [the regulations]. He said, however, that the
statutes clearly indicate the commissioner can pass regulations
that will allow for the reduction from the minimum wage for
specific occupations. He said, "In the regulatory scheme of
things, what has happened is we've added a little provision
there that basically now separates occupation from remote to
nonremote." Currently, deductions can be made in nonremote
sites - for example, in Petersburg - but not in remote areas.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT suggested the occupation, not the location,
is the important factor. He remarked, "Our statute allows for
it, the feds allow for it, and the regulations allow for it in
part; they didn't quite go all the way. So they've carved out
this niche between nonremote and remote, and we're trying to
fill the void." In response to Representative Rokeberg, said he
would guess that because there is alternative public housing
available, Unalaska is a nonremote site.
Number 1500
ED FLANAGAN, Commissioner, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, (DLWD) responded in the affirmative to a question
from Representative Meyer regarding whether the department will
need to hire another person if the bill passes.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER questioned that, suggesting [the
department] is already going out to job sites to oversee OSHA
regulations.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN explained that [the department] tries to
do as much "cross-training" as possible, but there are
distinctions between programs, especially in the case of OSHA,
since it's 50 percent federally funded. He said a lot of this
would be kind of an audit function, and it wasn't the
department's intention to introduce a prohibitive fiscal note.
He said if there was a provision [in state statute] whereby if
[an employer] just charges $10 [for room and board], there
wouldn't be an audit. He explained that the reason for the
additional position on the fiscal note is because there are a
lot of remote facilities in Alaska, and an audit [in a remote
area] could be fairly labor-intensive.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the [$70,600] indicated on the
fiscal note represents the position and travel costs.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN reported that it is the "full position
cost." He deferred to Mr. Mastriano.
Number 1401
MR. MASTRIANO said, "Yes, it does." With regard to the [$9,300]
contractual cost on the fiscal note, he said that figure would
cover a desk, computer, and other office equipment.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN added that the figure should be listed
under equipment on the fiscal note.
Number 1375
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER restated his concern over hiring an
additional person if there already are people going to the
remote sites.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN responded, "Wage & Hour doesn't get in
nearly as often." He said OSHA does have scheduled inspections
and tries to get into the processing facilities at least once a
year, because it is a high-hazard industry. He explained that
the return-transportation issue does generate a lot of
complaints, even if employers are complying with the law. He
stated, "It's one of our last fully general-funded sections, so
there's no ... ability to pick up any additional tasks without
reflecting it in a fiscal note."
Number 1298
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether one visit a year to the
remote sites is anticipated.
MR. MASTRIANO explained that since it would be a new situation,
[the department] would probably go out and visit the sites -
particularly the outlying areas - because there is no history of
what to charge out there and what the operating costs are. In
each of those areas, unless the employer chose to charge $10 for
room and board a day, [the department] would have to go out and
get into [a business's] records or have them forwarded [to the
department], which businesses generally don't like to do. He
explained that [the department] would have to develop a
spreadsheet for calculating all the operating costs and making
sure [the cost for room and board] was reasonable. He said,
"More than likely, it would end up being more than $10, but we
would still have to go through the exercise."
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked if the investigation would only have
to be done once.
MR. MASTRIANO replied that the investigation would be done once
only if the cost didn't change. He offered that many factors
could lead to an increased cost, such as a rise in the price of
electricity or natural gas.
Number 1189
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if [the department] would have to do an
analysis of each [fishing business] to determine the fair value
of room and board before the employee and employer entered into
a written contract.
MR. MASTRIANO responded, "Yes, but we're complaint-driven".
Therefore, an audit would have to be done on each new complaint.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised that until a complaint was received,
there would be no audits.
MR. MASTRIANO replied, "Not unless the statute were passed, and
then we would probably have to do that on some of them, but ...
not until we got everybody in line with the new statute." He
offered that [an initial audit] would most likely be done in the
most remote areas to make sure those costs are reasonable, and
"then wait for the complaints to come in."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the OSHA inspectors can do
other jobs because they are federally funded.
MR. MASTRIANO replied in the negative and said, "We have a
strict guideline from Occupational Safety and Health
[Administration] as to what our folks can do." He explained
that the enforcement and consultation employees [with the
department] are separated and are not allowed to discuss where
they are supposed to go [to investigate].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to 8 AAC 15.160(d), asked if
[the department] already has the ability in nonremote sites to
deduct [room and board].
MR. MASTRIANO answered that if alternative public housing is
available and the employee agrees to stay at the employer's
place of business, then the deductions can be made.
Number 1038
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it would likely include most
of the larger communities.
MR. MASTRIANO replied that it would include communities such as
Kenai, Soldotna, Homer, or Ninilchik. He said the wage-and-hour
investigators try to make a visit in late May or early June, and
then again at the end of the season in September if there have
been a lot of complaints.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Mastriano where the 71
complaints he'd mentioned had come from.
MR. MASTRIANO explained that the figure was the total of
statewide complaints [the department] had received for
deductions. He said that is what the wage and hour
administration calls "150, ... wrongful deductions, and those
require investigations." These "wrongful deductions" require an
investigation and can vary; examples are a deduction for a bad
check, or after someone walked out on a meal.
Number 0933
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD began discussion of conceptual
Amendment 2. He said he is opposed to "the spirit of [HB 504]"
but understands that the fish processors have a problem. He
noted his concern over the wording on line 8, "a reasonable
cost", because this cost can vary throughout the state. He said
this wording might leave employers open to charge up to $25 [for
room and board], giving too much leeway to charge whatever they
deem is reasonable.
Number 0779
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 2,
to clarify "reasonable cost" on page 1, line 8, to specify that
amount to begin at $8 [per day] and to be adjusted [annually]
based on the consumer price index (CPI}. This amendment would
also state that employees would not have to pay [room and board]
for days they don't work.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered her understanding that [employers]
generally charge $10 a day for board, but that meals are extra.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said some charge [extra for meals], but
Mr. Mastriano had indicated some employers charge $10 a day for
room and board.
Number 0723
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO offered his understanding from the
testimony that the "accepted level is $10 a day." He stated a
concern with a worker's accepting a remote job with the notion
of working "significant hours," and then if the fish don't show
or there is a poor return, the worker will sit and wait until
the fish come in. Meanwhile, the person is only working two or
three hours a day and is being charged $10 a day for room and
board, and could possibly, at the end of the two- or three-week
slow period, end up owing money [to the employer]. He said he
would like to see some kind of protection for employees in a
situation in which they would owe money after they left because
of a lack of work.
Number 0617
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that Representative Halcro's
point is part of his concern also, and said he doesn't want to
see [employees leave] with a very small paycheck. He said there
are people who wait in an unemployment office and wait for
employers to call. If there is more than one employer looking
for workers, the prospective employee must decide where to work,
based on the pay and whether room and board is included. Once
the employee accepts a job, that person is "at the mercy of
Mother Nature." He said he knows people who haven't made much
money because they made the wrong decision but couldn't leave
because they couldn't afford return transportation.
Number 0516
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to 8 AAC 15.160[(e)], which
read:
Unless the employer and the employee have executed a
written agreement as described in (d) of this section,
at the time of hire, the employer is prohibited from
seeking to retroactively deduct the cost of board and
lodging as an offset against wages due upon
termination or wage deficiencies subject to collection
by the department.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG interpreted this to mean that the
department won't collect money from "this person, nor should the
employer." He said, "You can't charge him for more than he's
made." He asked Representative Crawford if this is the point of
[his amendment].
Number 0450
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD reiterated that he doesn't want an
employee charged for more than was earned, and wants the person
to have at least something to show for his/her time out there.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that this issue is partially
resolved in the regulations.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD added that if there is no work on a
particular day, an employee shouldn't be charged for room and
board.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he understands the concern, but
suggested it could be an accounting nightmare deciding who
worked on what day, and what kind of work a particular employee
did. He offered, "We could put a prohibition [whereby] there's
no way they can offset or deduct more than the wages earned by
the person. That way, he's protected." He asked if this is
what Representative Crawford is referring to.
Number 0355
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD said, "No. If I don't get to work on
Tuesday, then I shouldn't have to pay for room and board on that
Tuesday."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated, "But you ate."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained that it is part of the risk an
employer takes in sending employees out to a remote location.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated that the accounting could be
a real problem.
Number 0323
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD noted that this works in his line of
work, and said it should work for the fisheries industry also.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the fishing industry is in
financial trouble and that he doesn't want to add any accounting
costs. He offered that an employee who sat for two weeks, and
didn't work, shouldn't be charged.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded, "No, no. If I work four days
and get paid for four days, I shouldn't have to pay for seven
days' worth of room and board."
Number 0234
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT objected to conceptual Amendment 2. He said
there are risks employees must take when accepting employment in
a remote site. He noted from previous testimony that employers
don't want to let the employees sit idle, and that if there is a
poor fish return, then the employer may relocate the employee to
a nonremote area. He suggested the discussion was getting too
complex with regard to determining wages and the value [of room
and board]. He emphasized that there isn't a place in the state
where someone can eat as much as desired for $10 a day. He
said, "I'd be more than willing to compromise and go $15 a day
and no audits."
Number 0090
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected as well.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered that Representative Crawford had started
out with two issues. The first was the "reasonable cost"
concern. She said she didn't share Representative Crawford's
discomfort with that issue, and noted that Mr. Mastriano's
testimony indicated that [the wage and hour administration]
spends a fair amount of time determining the fair value and
reasonable cost. However, she concurred with Representative
Crawford's concern about the worker who is stuck in a remote
location.
TAPE 02-46, SIDE A
Number 0009
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered that if one location doesn't have a
large return of fish, it is beneficial to both the employer and
the employee to relocate to where there is more work. Noting
the concern about what can happen with employees who possibly
owe more money at the end of the day due to a lack of work, she
said she wasn't "so unopposed" to conceptual Amendment 2, and
suggested it is an area that needs to be worked out.
Number 0162
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD explained the changes he would be
willing to accept to conceptual Amendment 2: replace the word
"reasonable" with "$10 a day", and add "not have to pay for room
and board for days not worked". He clarified that he'd
originally indicated $8 to replace "reasonable", but would
consider changing that to $10.
Number 0234
CHAIR MURKOWSKI suggested having two separate amendments.
Conceptual Amendment 2 would provide language to the effect that
an employee wouldn't be required to pay for room and board for
days when wages were not earned.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT objected to conceptual Amendment 2. He
offered his belief that there had been no anecdotal evidence or
factual support in the testimony for the idea based on the
nonremote sites. He said this is the existing situation, and
employees aren't charged extra for days when they work 16 hours
and might eat four meals.
Number 0322
CHAIR MURKOWSKI explained that the way the regulations are now,
deductions from the wages can be made in a nonremote setting;
there is no allowance that depends on whether the employee is
working.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered that he hasn't heard any complaints
about the current regulation.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded that he has heard plenty of
complaints from his relatives and friends who have worked in
nonremote sites. He emphasized that part of the attraction of
working in a remote site is that an employee doesn't have to pay
room and board if the fish don't return and there isn't work.
Number 0401
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that the contract signed prior
to employment could stipulate whether [room and board would be
covered by the employer when there isn't work]. He argued that
[the legislature] shouldn't be writing contracts by statute. He
agreed with Representative Kott that there haven't been any
problems brought up in testimony about the current practice.
Number 0473
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD responded, "Under the present
regulations, they don't have the ability to write a contract to
take room and board out of remote sites; that's not there. This
bill is trying to give that right to the employer." He said he
is trying to "keep that from happening, or at least mitigating
the damage that it might do."
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that if there isn't enough work,
employees can choose to find other employment in larger,
nonremote sites, whereas employees in remote sites are stuck.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI requested a roll call vote on conceptual
Amendment 2, which she said would insert language such that if
the employee hadn't earned a wage on a given day, that employee
wouldn't be charged for room and board.
Number 0570
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT asked how the situation would be handled if
an employee had requested a day off and hadn't earned a wage,
and whether an employee would be paid who requested a day off
for illness.
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked for clarification, conveying his
understanding that most employees don't get a [scheduled] day
off in this industry.
Number 0708
MS. NOROSZ explained that people sign on to work for a period of
time when work is available; contracts vary with each company,
and she didn't know whether there was a uniform standard
throughout the industry. As to whether employees have scheduled
days off, she responded in the negative and offered an example
of an opening during the salmon season: the fishermen will fish
for two days and then bring the fish to the processing plant.
It could take three to four days to process the fish once they
are received, and maybe no fish will be delivered for another
day; so employees may have the day off or may end up doing
nonprocessing work like maintenance. During the day off, she
pointed out, employees are still being fed and housed.
Number 0803
MS. NOROSZ, in response to Representative Rokeberg, said [Icicle
Seafoods] tries to give everybody some work, rather than giving
one crew a ten-hour day and another two hours. At the end of
the season when the fish run is dwindling, she noted, the
company will try to reduce the workforce. She elaborated:
People could either go home or, if they wanted to find
other work with the company, we would try to move them
somewhere else where it has a longer season. ... The
State of Alaska has been very helpful in trying to
direct seafood workers when their season's ended into
another fishery, and even for another processor who
might be doing a species ... that's going into the
fall and winter.
Number 0900
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD offered an amendment to conceptual
Amendment 2, to have there be no charge for involuntary days
off. For a voluntary day off, the employee would still have to
pay for room and board.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that conceptual Amendment 2, then,
would be that an employee would not be charged room and board
for the days when he or she didn't earn a wage for an
involuntary day off.
Number 0966
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT referred to testimony and indicated he
objected because [the legislature] would be asserting itself
into managing a work schedule. He explained:
All we have to do is put ... one person on the line
for two hours ... [and] pay them $5.30 an hour, so
that'll give them $10.80. ... We subtract $10 from
his wages for room and board, [and] he's making 80
cents. That just satisfied your amendment and doesn't
do anything but clog up the whole cog ... with more
paperwork.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD countered, "It doesn't clog anything
because under [HB 504] they're going to charge them for the day
anyhow, whether he works or not. So if they get two hours'
worth of work, then that much the better."
Number 1022
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Crawford, Hayes,
and Murkowski voted for conceptual Amendment 2 [as amended].
Representatives Halcro, Meyer, Kott, and Rokeberg voted against
it. Therefore, conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a vote of 3-4.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT offered that the question brought up by
Representative Crawford about how much a processor should charge
an employee is a fair one. He said he would entertain an
amendment that says the processors cannot charge any more than
the daily average of what's being charged in nonremote sites.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG indicated the amount an employee will be
charged for room and board [should be in] the written agreement
before the employment begins, so that the prospective employee
knows the score going in.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT related his belief, after talking with
members of the fishing industry on several occasions, that the
amount to be charged for room and board is included in the
contract. He again suggested creating [an average] that doesn't
exceed what is being charged in nonremote sites. He asked Ms.
Norosz whether that concept is reasonable.
Number 1200
MS. NOROSZ replied that she doesn't know what other companies
are doing, but said what [Icicle Seafoods] is doing is very
reasonable, considering it loses money every year on meals. She
noted that food in remote areas is more expensive.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said she appreciated Representative Kott's
concern, but surmised that [the Wage & Hour section of the
Division of Labor Standards & Safety, DLWD] makes certain that
businesses aren't way out of line with what they're charging
employees for room and board. She stated support for
Representative Rokeberg's suggestion to make certain that the
written agreement clearly sets forth what those charges will be
for room and board before the employee begins working. This
would let prospective employees know exactly what they will be
charged prior to employment.
Number 1337
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT concurred, but said there may be some
potential for abuse "the other way." He stated a concern with
some migrant workers or immigrants who can't read or write
English. He noted that employers will need to keep their prices
reasonable to stay competitive in the industry.
Number 1407
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES offered to add a conceptual amendment that
would require the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee to
review the status of this legislation and the fishing industry
every two years. He suggested that in years when the fishing
industry is flourishing, the exemption might not be warranted.
In response to Chair Murkowski, he explained that he wasn't
proposing a sunset review, but a report to the committee every
two years.
Number 1482
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO referred to prior legislation that granted
an exception to wages for airline employees and volunteer ski
patrollers, and explained that there were warnings about the
exemptions' being "a slippery slope" because other industries
would ask for exemptions also. He said he doesn't think [HB
504] is a slippery slope because exceptions will come up and
need to be debated on their merits every year, whether for the
fishing industry or the airline industry. He said he wasn't
supportive of Representative Hayes's suggested conceptual
amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed and noted that nothing prevents the
next legislature from reviewing [the new law, if enacted] next
year instead of waiting for two years. He said requiring the
legislature to revisit it based on a report will be throwing
more paperwork on the shoulders of the [DLWD]. He suggested
that a sunset provision wouldn't be prudent at this point.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG also stated opposition to the conceptual
amendment proposed by Representative Hayes.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered that the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee might want to submit a letter of intent that
says the committee wants to revisit the issue in a couple of
years to see how the seafood industry is doing in general.
Number 1646
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES thanked Representative Murkowski for her
suggestion and announced that a letter of intent would satisfy
his concern instead of an amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT said the regulations apply to half of the
processors, but not the others. He argued that [HB 504] is "a
fairness bill."
Number 1712
CHAIR MURKOWSKI moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 3, to
clarify the language with regard to the written agreement
between the employer and the employee, to provide that it
"should clearly state the terms and conditions of employment
including the cost for board or lodging, which may be deducted
from the applicable minimum wage." There being no objection,
conceptual Amendment 3 was adopted.
Number 1745
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt conceptual Amendment 4,
to add a new Section 2 to provide an immediate effective date.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG explained that by the time [HB 504] is
passed into law, the fishing season will have already started.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI referred to a previous comment by Representative
Kott indicating this bill isn't tied to the minimum-wage
legislation [HB 56], which has an effective date of January 1,
2003. She said the current minimum wage of $5.65 would still be
in effect if [HB 504] had an immediate effective date, and
wouldn't change until January 1, 2003.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT restated that [HB 504] is an "equity issue"
[between remote and nonremote employees in the fishing
industry].
Number 1827
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES referred to prior testimony which indicated
that remote employees are paid $6 an hour and nonremote
employees are paid $7 an hour. He asked how conceptual
Amendment 4 affects these employees.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI clarified that the employee and employer would
be able to enter into the contractual agreement that allows for
the deduction of room and board this summer from whatever the
minimum wage was at the time the contract was signed.
Number 1897
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Halcro, Meyer,
Kott, and Rokeberg voted for conceptual Amendment 4.
Representatives Hayes, Crawford, and Murkowski voted against it.
Therefore, conceptual Amendment 4 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER suggested the fiscal note could be reduced
from [$70,600]. He said there shouldn't be a need for a new
full-time employee because the department is already doing at
least half of this work currently.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT agreed, saying he sees no justification for
the fiscal note in the "out" years.
Number 2009
CHAIR MURKOWSKI concurred and suggested that the House Finance
Committee "pick it apart."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG commented that he suspects Congress is
going to pass a minimum wage bill "sooner rather than later."
He said this is one reason he'd offered conceptual Amendment 4,
which creates an immediate effective date. He asked if the
minimum-wage increase would be immediate in Alaska if Congress
passed the minimum-wage bill.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied, "It would, but you're basically
negating the minimum wage for these people, so it doesn't
matter."
Number 2070
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to report CSHB 504 [version 22-
LS1595\L, Craver, 3/25/02, as amended] out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note.
There being no objection, CSHB 504(L&C) was moved out of the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 472-PAWNBROKERS/SECONDHAND DEALERS
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the next order of business, HOUSE BILL
NO. 472, "An Act relating to persons who buy and sell secondhand
articles and to certain persons who lend money on secondhand
articles."
Number 2132
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to adopt the proposed committee
substitute (CS), version 22-LS1519\J, Bannister, 3/19/02, as the
working document. There being no objection, Version J was
before the committee.
Number 2150
LAURA ACHEE, Staff to Representative Joe Green, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Green, sponsor of HB
472, explained that Version J addresses two concerns brought up
at the last hearing. One relates to tightening the definition
of a secondhand dealer so that garage sales and swap meets
aren't included. The other was brought up by a pawnshop owner
who felt he shouldn't have to list items that he'd paid $1 to
purchase. She said she'd worked with pawnbrokers and police
officers to come up with clearly defined guidelines for what
needs to be recorded: any item that has a serial number; any
item that has a resale value of $75 or more; or an item
presented in a lot of ten or more similar items, except for
books, in a seven-day period by one individual - for example,
compact discs (CDs) that can be stolen and resold easily.
Number 2219
MS. ACHEE noted another change in Version J: removal of the
requirement to have the name of the purchaser be recorded. She
explained that subsection 2(c) allows for records to be
maintained by computer and specifies that the dealer "shall use
a system that guarantees that a record cannot be eliminated
after entry". She pointed out that Section 6, added at the
request of the Anchorage Police Department (APD), requires that
all items that fall under the reporting guidelines be held for
30 days after the item is received. And Section 7 clearly
defines pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers.
Number 2285
CHAIR MURKOWSKI, referring to Section 6, noted that under AS
08.76.040 there are provisions for holding goods for a specific
period of time before selling them. She asked if [AS 08.76.040]
was revoked or repealed, or whether Section 6 is in addition to
the current statute.
MS. ACHEE conveyed her understanding that it would be in
addition to the existing statute. She said she believes the
current statute includes guidelines for holding items after
they've been pawned so that the person who pawned them has an
opportunity to come back.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI offered her understanding that AS 08.76.040 is
the "Disposition of unredeemed property" and will stay in
statute, and that Section 6 would be an additional requirement.
MS. ACHEE clarified, "Just items that are sold outright."
Number 2334
CHAIR MURKOWSKI mentioned that she thought the definition of
secondhand dealer was a person who "regularly engaged in" the
business of purchasing.
MS. ACHEE explained that the word "regularly" isn't included in
the actual statute. She said some other states' statutes refer
to people who go to swap meets, and how many times a year they
do so. She said she'd intentionally left the word "regularly"
out of [Version J] for clarity.
TAPE 02-46, SIDE B
Number 2350
DAVID HUDSON, Captain, Division of Alaska State Troopers,
Department of Public Safety, testified via teleconference,
noting that he'd spoken with Detective Bridges with the APD
today regarding [Version J]. He stated, "Certainly, I believe
that there's been excellent inroads made into the intent and the
purpose of [HB 472]."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked, "Does any department not do this?"
He offered that this issue "boils back to what things the state
should do and what things the state shouldn't do." He said he
doesn't understand the purpose of [HB 472], and asked whether
the changes made in [Version J] addressed his concerns from the
last hearing.
Number 2309
MS. ACHEE explained that Anchorage is the only place in Alaska
where pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers are required to report
at all. She said she wouldn't have encouraged [HB 472] to move
forward if there were opposition from any police department in
the state. She said the police departments "seemed very happy
to work with me on it."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES asked who pays for any additional costs to
police departments associated with passage of HB 472, and
whether it could be considered an unfunded mandate.
Number 2270
MS. ACHEE replied, "To a small degree, I think this could be
classified as an unfunded mandate for the pawnshop owners and
the secondhand dealers." She said the police departments that
are receiving the reports have the option of not doing anything
with those reports - and the cost would be zero - or they can
enter the reports into a database and, depending on how they
received [the reports], the costs would vary.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked about the effective date and how it will
affect a pawnshop owner in rural Alaska who hasn't been
reporting thus far; she noted that a testifier from Delta
Junction had raised this concern at the last hearing.
MS. ACHEE responded that the concern wasn't resolved in
[Version J]. She noted that the pawnshop owner in Delta
Junction, under state law, should have been recording every item
that came into the store, even if the owner wasn't reporting.
She offered that the issue of reporting would be to simply
provide the records that should have been kept up to date.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if pawnbrokers or secondhand dealers must
start submitting written reports as of the effective date, or if
they will be required to provide a full inventory of the store
[of items received before the effective date].
MS. ACHEE replied that "retroactive reporting" is not addressed
in HB 472.
Number 2160
CHAIR MURKOWSKI said the purpose of the statute is to make sure
that the goods coming into a pawnshop have not been stolen, and
a pawnbroker or secondhand dealer shouldn't have to report on an
item that has sat on the shelf for the last year and a half.
She surmised that beginning with the effective date, someone
would be required to submit records which, prior to this time,
that person might not have been obligated to submit. She asked
if this is the sponsor's intent.
MS. ACHEE replied in the affirmative, and noted that pawnshops
are required to have these records already, whereas secondhand
dealers haven't had to do this yet.
Number 2107
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Captain Hudson if a antique dealer
would be considered a secondhand dealer, by definition.
CAPTAIN HUDSON conveyed his understanding that some secondhand
dealers aren't obligated to report in Anchorage. He gave an
example of a business in Anchorage named Play It Again Sports:
prior to a change in ownership, it was required to report to the
APD; recently, the new owner and the city have questioned
whether it is necessary for the store to report.
Number 2046
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if a secondhand bookstore would be
required to report also.
CAPTAIN HUDSON deferred to the sponsor, but added that if one is
in the business of purchasing secondhand articles for resale,
then that would include bookstores and antique dealers.
MS. ACHEE said she'd discussed this issue with Detective
Bridges, who was unable to testify today; in the case of a
bookstore, most items are not going to fall under the guidelines
in Section 1 because [the item] won't [have a serial number] or
a resale value of $75. She mentioned that it is the same issue
with regard to antique dealers.
Number 1972
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered that he has been through antique
shops, and said it "would be a nightmare to try to inventory and
keep a record of." He said there could be a Coke bottle that is
worth more than $75 dollars. He said he has no problem with
pawnshops' reporting, but there could be some potential issues
with trying to regulate secondhand stores. He asked if this has
been done in the past.
MS. ACHEE replied that the Municipality of Anchorage did have
statutes regulating secondhand merchants. She said she has put
a lot of thought into this issue and agrees with Representative
Rokeberg that "we're getting into a lot of gray areas, and we're
getting into a lot of places where people who didn't have to
keep records or do reporting before are going to have to." She
noted that pawnshop owners whom she has spoken with have
expressed that secondhand dealers should be required to record
and report also. She said the $75 limit was a figure she came
up with after averaging out all the different recommendations
she'd received from pawnshops and police officers. She said
that figure is "open to change."
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated that he was uncomfortable with [HB
472] because of the unfunded mandate issue.
Number 1864
REPRESENTATIVE HAYES moved to report CSHB 472, version 22-
LS1519\J, Bannister, 3/19/02, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying zero fiscal note.
MS. ACHEE offered to work with Representative Rokeberg and his
staff on any concerns before HB 472 is heard in the House
Judiciary Standing Committee [which Representative Rokeberg
chairs].
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested with regard to "secondhand"
that either there should be exemptions or it should be tightened
up somehow.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI noted that current statutes don't define either
a pawnbroker or a secondhand dealer.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested it isn't appropriate to put
pawnbrokers and secondhand dealers "under the same regime." He
proposed that [Ms. Achee] consider that [before HB 472 is heard
in the House Judiciary Standing Committee].
Number 1795
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that there being no objection, CSHB
472(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI called an at-ease at 5:58 p.m.. She called the
meeting back to order at 6:00 p.m.
HB 443-TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING
CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced the final order of business, HOUSE
BILL NO. 443, "An Act retroactively extending the application
and licensing deadlines and amending the effective date of
certain provisions relating to regulation of persons who
practice tattooing and permanent cosmetic coloring or body
piercing; and providing for an effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO moved to adopt version 22-LS1525\L,
Lauterbach, 3/28/02, as the working document. There being no
objection, Version L was before the committee.
Number 1698
SHARRON O'DELL, Staff to Representative Vic Kohring, Alaska
State Legislature, testified on behalf of Representative
Kohring, sponsor. Ms. O'Dell informed the committee that in
2000 the legislature passed SB 34, which addressed health and
safety concerns for the tattooing and body-piercing industries
by placing those industries under licensing regulations under
the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers; established
qualifications and training requirements for license applicants
and regulations for shop licenses; and established application
deadlines as well as initial licensing dates.
MS. O'DELL explained that because of the deadlines [the Division
of Occupational Licensing, Department of Commerce and Economic
Development (DCED)] had no mechanism, grace period, or appeals
process for dealing with someone who'd missed the new
application deadline. Several qualified practitioners had
missed the new application deadline because they were unaware of
the new regulations. Therefore, HB 443 extends the transitional
license application date to provide those practitioners the
opportunity to apply for a transitional license. Ms. O'Dell
said the sponsor doesn't intend to change any qualifications or
regulations established in the passage of SB 34.
MS. O'DELL announced that the practitioners with which [she] has
spoken are all in favor of the regulations. The only complaint
surrounding SB 34 was that not everyone had received notice of
the new regulations, although the [division] had done its best.
Ms. O'Dell explained that [the division] developed its mailing
list from names of business licenses that it already had or
business licenses that had key words indicating connection with
the tattooing and body-piercing industries. The list was
developed from [DCED's] interested-party list, as well as that
from the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC).
Notices were also placed in the newspapers. However, some
practitioners never received their notices and didn't see the
notices in the paper, thus missing the original deadline date.
MS. O'DELL explained that [without this legislation] a qualified
practitioner who missed the July 1, 2001, deadline will have to
close the business and work for a competitor in order to obtain
a license. In one instance, there is only one practitioner in
the area, and therefore there is no one under which this
practitioner can train. Ms. O'Dell pointed out an unintentional
result of SB 34: a practitioner of many years may now have to
train under someone with a few years' experience. Therefore, HB
443 extends the original transitional license application date
to October 1, 2002. Furthermore, it includes language that
"freezes" the transitional qualification period to a period
prior to July 1, 2001, the original application date, which
means applicants would need to have qualified for the
transitional [license] by July 1, 2001.
MS. O'DELL addressed Sections 2 and 3 of HB 443, which deal with
the effective date of the licensing requirement and the related
regulations. This date had to be changed because the license
requirement couldn't be prior to the transitional license
requirement date. Ms. O'Dell noted that [the sponsor] has
worked closely with the Division of Occupational Licensing and
with DEC in order to establish dates that would resolve the
aforementioned problem without unreasonably delaying the safety
regulations of SB 34 or allowing new people into the industry.
Number 1437
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked how many people fell through the cracks
with [SB 34].
MS. O'DELL answered that 13 people were discovered through the
division and [the sponsor's office]; however, there may be more.
In further response, Ms. O'Dell said although the division isn't
doing anything extra with the notice for HB 443, there will be
additional notices in certain newspapers. Furthermore,
[Representative Kohring] has put out a news release for HB 443,
which will hopefully help. Ms. O'Dell acknowledged that some
folks might [not know about this]; however, HB 443 attempts to
address as many [as possible] of those who were unfairly missed
the first time.
Number 1352
MS. O'DELL, in response to Representative Meyer, said she didn't
know [how many tattoo and body-piercing businesses there are],
but noted that the division has said it has 2,600 [barbers,
hairdressers, tattooers, and body piercers] on its mailing list
for renotification.
REPRESENTATIVE KOTT recalled that a tattoer was placed on the
[Board of Barbers and Hairdressers].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked if the 12-month requirement refers to
practice in Alaska or anywhere. She recalled receiving a letter
from someone with a shop outside [the state] who was unable to
make the July 1 deadline due to work outside of Alaska.
MS. O'DELL clarified that this individual owns two shops, one in
Anchorage and one in Idaho; although the practitioners in the
Anchorage shop obtained their license, [the owner] can't return
to practice in his own shop because he can't license his shop,
since he isn't a licensed practitioner. In further response,
she said that under the qualifications established by SB 34, she
believes the 12-month practice requirement would refer to
practice in Alaska or under a licensed practitioner in a state
that has qualifications that meet those set forth in SB 34.
Number 1045
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, line 3, and asked if
the "June 30, 2001" date was maintained because of the
uncodified law in Section 3.
MS. O'DELL explained that it freezes the qualification date as
set forth in SB 34; individuals would have to have been
qualified for the license at the application deadline of July 1,
2001. In further response, Ms. O'Dell confirmed that the
current 12-month period wouldn't qualify for experience. She
said HB 443 doesn't intend to continue to extend the period for
the transitional license.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI surmised that the Division of Occupational
Licensing is fine with HB 443, as is the Board of Barbers and
Hairdressers and the tattooers and body piercers.
MS. O'DELL informed the committee that the board doesn't meet
again until October. Those on the board that "we" have spoken
with are in support of HB 443, provided that the qualifications
established under SB 34 are not changed.
Number 0933
MARY SIROKY, Manager, Information Education & Coordination,
Division of Statewide Public Service, Department of
Environmental Conservation (DEC), noted that she is the
legislative liaison for the department. Mr. Siroky explained
that under SB 34, the department was required to establish
standards for sanitation and cleanliness for tattooing and body
piercing, which it has done. She noted that the department
doesn't have a problem with HB 443, although it put forth a
fiscal note in order to renotice the regulations to be in step
with those regulations of [the Division of Occupational
Licensing]. Therefore, the regulations won't be implemented
until December 2002.
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked whether the department has $3,000 to
send out the notices without attaching a fiscal note.
MS. SIROKY answered that the department doesn't have any extra
money; furthermore, if proposed cuts are maintained, the
department won't have a program to inspect body-piercing and
tattooing shops. In further response, Ms. Siroky explained that
the $3,000 would pay for the public notice in four journals and
for postage for the mailing list. The original notice occurred
in nine newspapers, but since this is a second notice, the
number of newspapers in which the notice will run has been cut
back. Furthermore, the notice is provided on the public-notice
pages on the state web site.
Number 0787
MS. SIROKY, in response to Chair Murkowski, said she didn't know
how the 10-15 people slipped through, because notice was done in
nine major papers and sent to those on the mailing list, and a
press release was put out. In response to Representative
Rokeberg, Ms. Siroky said they'd looked through the Yellow
Pages.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI pointed out that many of those [who missed the
notices] are located in the Matanuska-Susitna area.
MS. SIROKY acknowledged that there was no public notice done
there. She assured the committee that this time there will be
public notice there.
Number 0642
TODD GIPSON, Two Moons Tattooing, testified via teleconference,
saying he'd spoken with many who knew these [regulations] were
going through. Many people had discussed getting things in on
time, while others said the state can't regulate this.
Therefore, Mr. Gipson asked if those who are filing [are those
who'd said the state can't regulate this industry].
CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that she didn't believe anyone knew who
had been lost through the cracks.
Number 0583
LAURA IVANOFF, Two Moons Tattooing, testified via
teleconference, informing the committee that she has spoken with
many of those who had difficulty with the deadline. From those
discussions, Ms. Ivanoff said [some believe] the State of Alaska
can't regulate tattooing and piercing. Furthermore, [some
believe] there is a grandfather right such that the Board of
Barbers [and Hairdressers] can't tell tattooers and piercers
what to do. When it has been explained that [the board and the
state] can [regulate], however, he said "we" [support] this
because of cross-contamination.
Number 0406
JOE SCHOOLCRAFT, Owner, Two Moons Tattooing, testified via
teleconference, echoing the testimony of Mr. Gipson and Ms.
Ivanoff in regard to the many people who don't believe [the
state] has the power to regulate [tattooers and body piercers].
Mr. Schoolcraft said he didn't believe [HB 443] was fair for
those who went [through the process under SB 34] and pushed for
this. "The industry needs to be cleaned up," he charged.
JEFF MACAMBER testified via teleconference, speaking briefly in
support of HB 443.
Number 0207
GAIL McCANN, Owner/Operator, The Electrolysis Clinic, testified
via teleconference. She explained that The Electrolysis Clinic
provides permanent hair removal and cosmetics; she said SB 34
and HB 443 impact more than those in the tattooing and body-
piercing industries. Ms. McCann announced that she is in favor
of passing HB 443 because she believes people should have the
opportunity to continue their livelihood regardless of why they
missed the original deadline. She related her belief that these
three industries - tattooing, body piercing, and permanent
cosmetics - need to have oversight. As the public becomes more
informed, she believes those who are incompetent and don't
follow the health standards will fall by the wayside.
TAPE 02-47, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. McCANN remarked that all [three industries] need to follow
the medically approved standards for sterilization so that
practitioners are protected against the spread of communicable
diseases. She urged support of HB 443.
Number 0121
KEVIN McKINLEY, Owner, Body Piercing Unlimited, testified via
teleconference. Although he said people have done a good job
trying to get everyone licensed, there is the possibility that
some of the smaller businesses fell through the cracks, since
this is the first time that this industry has been licensed.
Mr. McKinley said he would hate to see people use this licensing
[requirement] as a competitive tool in order to weed out [the
smaller businesses]. He said he feels [HB 443] is a good thing
for those who did miss the deadline. Furthermore, extending the
deadline for six months isn't going to hurt anyone's business.
Number 0244
JEFFERY MARTIN, Muttley's Tattoo Clinic, testified via
teleconference. He informed the committee that he hadn't
received notification of the license application until a month
after the deadline, even though he was on the mailing list;
therefore, he'd gone to Representative Kohring's office and the
meeting of the Board of Barbers and Hairdressers. Mr. Martin
explained that if HB 443 doesn't pass, then not only will he
lose his business, but four employees will lose their jobs. He
emphasized that he more than met the requirements prior to July
1, 2001. He also emphasized that he is only requesting an
extension of the application dates.
Number 0423
ANDY KOPCZENSKI, American Tattoo, testified via teleconference.
Mr. Kopczenski said that [HB 443] looks good and that a six-
month extension won't hurt anyone. In response to
Representative Kott, Mr. Kopczenski affirmed that he was on the
mailing list, was part of the inception of this application
process, and had received notification.
CHAIR MURKOWSKI closed public testimony.
Number 0577
REPRESENTATIVE MEYER moved to report CSHB 443, version 22-
LS1525\L, Lauterbach, 3/28/02, out of committee with individual
recommendations and the accompanying fiscal note. There being
no objection, CSHB 443(L&C) was moved out of the House Labor and
Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:45 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|