03/31/2004 03:27 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 31, 2004
3:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 391
"An Act relating to employers and to victims of crime."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 502
"An Act relating to dispensing opticians and dispensing optician
apprentices."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 311
"An Act requiring a subcontractor to obtain workers'
compensation insurance covering the subcontractor and the
subcontractor's employees and establishing responsibility of a
contractor for obtaining workers' compensation coverage for the
subcontractor and the subcontractor's employees if the
subcontractor fails to obtain workers' compensation coverage;
and providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 311 OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 391
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER MUST LET CRIME VICTIM OFF WORK
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HEINZE
01/20/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/04 (H) L&C, JUD
03/24/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
03/24/04 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
03/31/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 502
SHORT TITLE: DISPENSING OPTICIANS: BOARD & REGULATION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) HOLM
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) L&C, HES
03/31/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 311
SHORT TITLE: EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKERS' COMP
SPONSOR(S): LABOR & COMMERCE
05/08/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/08/03 (H) L&C
03/31/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JOHN BITTNER, Staff
to Representative Cheryll Heinze
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 391 on behalf of
Representative Heinze, sponsor of the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the sponsor of HB 502.
FRANK ROZAK, Secretary-Treasurer
National Association of Optometrists and Opticians,
Marblehead, Ohio
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that his association concurred
with some of the provisions of HB 502, but disagreed with
several sections and made suggestions for improvement.
LARRY HARPER, Member
Board of Dispensing Opticians;
Vice-Chairman
American Board of Opticianry (ABO);
Board Member
Contact Lens Society of America (CLSA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 502.
ROBIN WARD, Contractor;
Legislative Chair
Alaska State Homebuilders Association
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 311 and answered
questions.
PAUL LISANKIE, Director
Division of Workers' Compensation
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about HB 311.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-36, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:27 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Gatto, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Rokeberg, and Crawford were
present at the call to order. Representative Guttenberg arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 391-EMPLOYER MUST LET CRIME VICTIM OFF WORK
Number 0108
JOHN BITTNER, Staff to Representative Cheryll Heinze, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 391 on behalf of Representative
Heinze, sponsor of the bill. He explained that HB 391 gives
statutory penalties for employers who prevent their employees,
who have been victims of felonious crimes, from leaving work to
attend the court proceeding for which they are involved. It
does have exemptions for small businesses, he added.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Bittner to provide an example of what
this bill might do.
MR. BITTNER replied that the employer cannot prevent an employer
from attending a criminal proceeding relating to the crime at
which the victim has a right to be present, unless it would
cause the employer undue hardship to the business or they fall
into the small business category.
CHAIR ANDERSON gave an example of a person who wants to be
present at his sister's DUI hearing. He suggested that this
bill does not apply in that case.
MR. BITTNER replied that the only exceptions would be if the
victim was a minor or mentally impaired, then a person who is
not the victim could attend the court proceeding.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that it applies just to victims themselves.
Number 0344
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Bittner to talk more about
the employee being penalized by not being paid for the time off.
MR. BITTNER stated that they would not receive pay, just the
time off.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO asked about page 2, line 8 of HB 391, "has
suffered personal injury". He wondered if mental injury would
also apply.
MR. BITTNER said it would depend on whether or not it was a
felony, and he offered to find out more information about it.
CHAIR ANDERSON said he thought that personal injury meant just
that.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked Mr. Bittner to point out where
the bill addresses the responsibility that the employer has to
share with the employer, proof that they need to attend the
court hearings.
MR. BITTNER replied that in the case of this bill, a subpoena
would not be necessary.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if the House Judiciary Standing
Committee would be the appropriate place to address that issue.
She said that she could see it as a problem if left wide open
for that "one bad apple in the bushel" to abuse the situation.
MR. BITTNER said he would be happy to have language drafted that
would cover that issue.
CHAIR ANDERSON referred to page 2, subsection (c), where it
defines "penalize" as it applies to affecting the employment
status, wages, and benefits payable to the victim, which
includes demotion, dismissal and loss of pay or benefits. He
asked if Mr. Bittner interprets that as, "I'm not going to
terminate you, or dismiss you, or suspend you, but I am going -
if you're going to take two weeks off as a victim of a felony -
I am going to take all of your leave time."
MR. BITTNER said he is not sure if leave falls under benefits.
CHAIR ANDERSON gave an example where this might happen to a
small employer.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked if there is a precedent in law
already about such a situation. She said she thinks the
requirements in the bill regarding the employer are good but
that those regarding the employee need to be tightened up.
Number 0794
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if there is a limitation for the
length of the trial.
MR. BITTNER replied that there is, and he referred to page 1,
line 11, "an employer may limit the amount of leave an employee
may take if the employer would suffer undue hardship to the
employer's business or operations."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that that could be a very debatable
point.
MR. BITTNER agreed that it could. It would have to be decided
in court, he added. He said it was too difficult to include
undue hardship in the bill in a "broad blanket sense".
CHAIR ANDERSON gave an example of undue hardship where a person
is working in an auto mechanics shop with only two mechanics in
the peak season.
Number 0875
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN said it would be difficult to challenge an
employer on this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said that typically, even when an employee
is discharged, they still get their insurance coverage until the
end of the month.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM responded, "Not always."
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said all of the employees he has worked for
have allowed that. He opined that a person's insurance coverage
would still be in effect if they had to attend a court
proceeding and that it is not the intent of the bill to take a
person's benefits away. He wondered if the bill needs to
address some of the benefit issues.
MR. BITTNER said that Representative Gatto's question falls
under the pay and benefits question mentioned earlier. He
stated that he would get a legal opinion on that issue.
Number 0993
CHAIR ANDERSON stated his intent to bring [HB 391] back at a
later date with the answers to these questions included in it.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM noted that in the case of jury duty,
the employee has to give the employer proof of the jury duty
notice, for a leave request.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why the size of the business is
limited to six or more employees.
MR. BITTNER replied that it was felt that for a business any
smaller than that, the loss of one employee would cause an undue
hardship.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why the number six was used.
MR. BITTNER responded that that was a number determined by the
Legislative Legal and Research Services and Representative
Heinze's office.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, looking at the Legislative Research
Report, pointed out that it indicates that the Arizona statute
defines [and applies to] an employer with 50 or more workers.
He noted that 50 or more workers is a typical federal, standard
size of a large business versus a small business with less than
50 workers. He inquired of Mr. Bittner whether that number was
considered.
MR. BITTNER replied that while the language in the Arizona
statute is similar to the bill, [Representative Heinze's office]
felt that the actual, practical business concerns between
Arizona and Alaska are somewhat different. Alaska has more
rural areas and smaller businesses than Arizona does, he
explained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is a rational basis for
the "six figure" other than what has been said.
MR. BITTNER answered, "Other than trying to protect the largest
number of victims and the largest number of small businesses.
That was the happy medium we were going for and that is what we
felt this number would do."
Number 1116
CHAIR ANDERSON asked what the [Alaska State Chamber of Commerce]
thinks of this bill.
MR. BITTNER said that it had not weighed in yet.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to page 2, [line 9], and
questioned the meaning of "who is a victim by reason of the
person's relationship to a minor, incompetent, or incapacitated
person who has suffered personal injury or death from a felony".
He asked if the person is a victim because the injury or death
was to a family member and was caused by a felony. He wondered
if the intention in the drafting is that the personal injury was
also caused by a felony.
MR. BITTNER said yes.
CHAIR ANDERSON responded that it would drastically reduce the
number of employees who would apply for leave because the bill
addresses felonious cases only.
Number 1229
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG remarked that what the bill does is
takes the current statute that sets up a recourse for a victim
who has requested to participate in [court] proceedings or who
has been subpoenaed for the purpose for giving testimony, and
expands it to include the victim's right to no retaliation from
an employer for taking the needed time off of work. He asked if
that is the intention of the bill.
MR. BITTNER answered that that is part of the intention and the
other part is that the bill insures that the victim can attend
the whole proceeding, not just the part that they are required
or subpoenaed to attend.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, referring to page 1, line 10, "the
victim has the right to be present", asked if that right is
found in the constitution and in Alaska's statutes.
MR. BITTNER replied yes. The current statute AS12.61.010 says
that the victim has the right to be present during any
proceeding in the prosecution and sentencing of the defendant,
if the defendant has the right to be present, including being
present during testimony, even if they are going to be giving
testimony at a later date. "The problem with that is that the
coverage for employers of victims only applies to a certain
small aspect of this," he said. "There is no statutory language
that gives teeth to the earlier statute," he explained.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he is confused about whether it
covers both criminal and civil actions.
Number 1361
MR. BITTNER replied that it covers all felonious personal
injury.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said that the victim would be the
subject of a felonious injury. It says "court proceedings" so
there could be an issue if the victim was a witness, whether he
or she could participate in the court proceedings.
MR. BITTNER replied that Alaska is one of the few states that
allows for that.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "So they can sit in the courtroom
and watch the trail even though they're going to testify?"
MR. BITTNER said yes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Bittner if his testimony
stated that [HB 391] is a follow-up civil cause of action for
personal injury.
MR. BITTNER said he does not understand the question.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG clarified that if it was a civil action
they would be a party to the case and would want to be in
attendance.
MR. BITTNER replied that he does believe that they would be
covered under this law.
Number 1428
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that what Representative Rokeberg is
saying is in a case where someone is robbed and had their arm
broken, the defendant would be charged for a felony by the state
and then the victim would sue for injury, so it would become a
trial where it has dual purposes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG replied that is right. It would be a
civil case rather than a criminal case, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG discussed insurance coverage and
explained how it is based on how many hours are worked in a
month. In a situation where the victim is required to miss
work, he wondered if there is anything in the bill that could
address this issue.
CHAIR ANDERSON said that Mr. Bittner plans to check on this
issue. He summarized the issues that still needed to be
addressed regarding HB 391: leave time, insurance, benefits,
the number six for business size, and support by other groups
such as the Chamber of Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG suggested that the various types of
leave that an employer could require needs to be checked out,
also.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Mr. Bittner to bring the bill back at a
future date with those questions answered.
[HB 391 was held over.]
HB 502-DISPENSING OPTICIANS: BOARD & REGULATION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 502, "An Act relating to dispensing opticians
and dispensing optician apprentices."
Number 1575
REPRESENTATIVE JIM HOLM, as the sponsor, introduced HB 502. He
testified:
At the request of the Opticians Association of Alaska
I brought forth House Bill 502. House Bill 502
clarifies the education and training requirements to
become an optician in Alaska and it allows qualified
opticians from other states to practice here.
It sets out the requirements to fit and sell contact
lenses and this bill also transfers the optician's
apprenticeship program to the U.S. Department of
Labor. Currently, the amount of training does not
meet the threshold for the Department of Labor and so,
the state of Alaska needs to be put on a par with
other states and require a higher amount of training
than they do presently.
The current statute is unclear and inadequate. House
Bill 502 puts specific qualifications on the amount of
hours that an optician must have to qualify for both
spectacles and contact lenses. ... This legislation
raises the amount of hours that are required to at
least 4,000 hours of training to dispense eyeglasses,
and at least 2,000 more hours to dispense contact
lenses.
The distinction clarifies language and requires an
appropriate amount of training for the opticians in
Alaska to effectively serve the public.
This morning I received an email I wanted to share
with you, which I thought was quite interesting. The
person [Robin Marquiss, licensed optician] told me
that [original punctuation provided], "The
requirements for licensed opticians need to be
increased. In the state of Alaska, a hairdresser is
licensed after working 2000 hours or attending 1650
hours of a training school. Are we sending the
message that someone flying our airplanes or driving
our highways with the incorrect eyeglasses is less a
threat to the public than a bad haircut????"
I think the point is made that we need [to] maybe
change what we currently have as a requirement. I
believe it's 1,850 hours. In your packet you should
have the ... legislative audit [done by Pat Davidson,
CPA, 10/02/03] [which] recommends ... allowing the
sunset of the board of opticians [Board of Dispensing
Opticians], but it makes a clear distinction between
the amount of training required to dispense eyeglasses
and contact lenses.
In addition, in your packet are some requirements from
other states. ... When they talk about three years -
and you assume that somebody works 40 hours a week for
a year - they work at least 2,000 hours a year.
You're looking at 6,000 hours of requirement of
apprenticeship in order to be a licensed optician in
other states. Not all of them are the same ... most
of them are three years or thereabouts.
Number 1760
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to page 2, line 29, "Licensure by
credentials. A person with a valid license as a dispensing
optician from another state, territory, etc." He expressed
concern that Alaska might accept reciprocity from a state with a
low level of required hours.
REPRESENTATIVE HOLM replied that he could not speak to this but
he suspected there would be forthcoming testimony that could.
Number 1837
FRANK ROZAK, Secretary-Treasurer, the National Association of
Optometrists and Opticians, a trade group with several of its
members with stores in Alaska, including Sears Optical, Lens
Crafters, U.S. Vision, testified:
We concur with the primary recommendation of the
Legislative Budget and Audit Committee report, dated
October 2, 2003, to replace licensure with a
registration program. Why is that? In addition to
the reasons that they've outlined, and as a national
trade association, I can tell you that there are only
22 states which require licensure for opticians; 28 do
not, despite repeated efforts to convince legislatures
to do so.
The Departments of Health in Colorado, Kansas, and
Minnesota, in formal, written reports, advised against
the need to license opticians. They found no public
health or protection benefits; they found an adequate,
existing training, and numerous means for customer
redress of problems, and an economic disadvantage for
customers. That's a summary of those reports.
I was interested in the earlier conversation about the
legislation dealing with employees, and employers, and
court dates, and all the rest. On page 20 of the
legislative audit report it shows as of 2003, a total
of 107 dispensing opticians. Ladies and gentlemen, if
one of our licensed dispensing opticians had to go to
court for a couple of days, much less a couple of
weeks, we would be out of business, because there is a
huge manpower shortage in the state of Alaska for
licensed dispensing opticians.
Couple that with the board's recent new regulation
dealing with supervision - which, as I understand it,
contravenes the definition of supervision which the
legislature passed in 2002 - it makes it even more
restrictive. So who is the beneficiary? What happens
to the vision care consumer who orders a pair of
glasses, or wants to order a pair of glasses and
cannot, because the licensed dispensing optician is
not there because he or she is in court?
Unfortunately, we have a huge manpower problem for
opticians in the state of Alaska. I suspect part of
it is related to the rules, regulations dealing with
entry into the occupation and profession.
Number 1955
MR. ROZAK continued:
The House Bill 502 seems to ignore the Legislative
Audit and Budget Committee's report, and candidly, in
my judgment, heads down a totally opposite road. It
provides for more regulation rather than less.
Just quickly, I want to address the issue of contact
lenses. On February 4th, legislation which was passed
in the U.S. Congress, House Resolution 3140, entitled
the ... [Fairness to Contact Lens Consumers Act],
provided that a consumer, after a final fitting of
their contact lenses, shall be entitled to a copy of
their prescription. If any of us can believe it,
there are a number of states which prohibited the
consumer from getting a copy of his or her contact
lenses prescription, even after they paid for it.
It also allows non-licensed sellers, referring to mail
order contact lenses firms and Internet providers who
are not regulated or licensed in any jurisdiction, to
sell contact lenses. While this bill would require
2,000 hours of training - and that's in Section 3,
[subsection] (a), [paragraph] (2), at line 16 - for
the same persons to be able to sell contact lenses in
Alaska, and that would be after passing a written
exam.
Essentially, what we are doing is we are allowing
another competitor, a mail order contact lenses firm
or an internet provider, who's not licensed or
regulated at all, to sell contact lenses to Alaskan
consumers, but Alaska opticians and Alaskan optical
firms would have to have employees meeting a 2,000
hour requirement plus passing a written exam. That is
not a fair, nor level, playing field.
Number 2045
MR. ROZAK stated he believes HB 502 would contribute to the
current shortage of qualified [opticians] and provide less
competition to the current license holders. In order to meet
the needs of the average Alaskan family and be open on
Saturdays, holidays, and evenings, a licensed optician should be
on the premises of the business. However, without enough
opticians, such hours can't be provided. This isn't in the best
interest of the public, he stated.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Mr. Rozak how many optician
apprentices and trainees there are in Alaska.
MR. ROZAK, in response to Representative Crawford, related that
the Legislative Audit of the Board of Dispensing Opticians
specifies there are 191 optician apprentices and trainees in
Alaska. Mr. Rozak identified the key issue as the definition of
"supervision." He explained that if the [Board of Dispensing
Opticians'] definition was consonant with the legislature's
definition, which is based on the 2002 statutes, it would be
[acceptable]. However, the board's definition of "supervision"
essentially provides for on-site supervision. Therefore, if the
licensed optician isn't there, the apprentice is unable to
participate in any of the tasks related to opticianry.
MR. ROZAK reiterated that requiring apprentices to be supervised
by licensed dispensing opticians is the root problem, since it
limits the scope of work an apprentice can do.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed that he was confused and
asked, "If the licensed optician is not there, and you were just
saying that you are out of business if you don't have one, how
are these people not getting the training that they need, if
those opticians are actually there when your business is
operating?"
Number 2168
MR. ROZAK replied:
When the opticians are there, then the apprentice can
engage in those tasks and functions which the licensed
optician says that person ... can engage in. On the
other hand, if the licensed optician is sick, then
that licensed apprentice can't do anything that's
related to the dispensing of eyeglasses or contact
lenses unless the licensed optician is present. It is
a very difficult situation when a licensed optician in
one store gets sick. We try to have some extra
opticians that are on call or come from another store
that has higher volume in order so that we can stay
open.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented, "You have almost twice as
many apprentices coming on as you have licensed opticians today.
I don't know what your projected demand would be, but it sounds
like your apprentices are going to be taking care of the demand
in the future."
MR. ROZAK responded:
The problem is that there are a lot of apprentices -
despite intensive training efforts by the licensed
dispensing opticians, and candidly by the various
companies - who choose not to ever take the exam to
become licensed dispensing opticians, or have tried
and have failed for whatever reason, and have become
discouraged [and], therefore, remain as apprentices ad
infinitum.
We would like to open up several more stores, but
given the fact that there is a crunch in terms of
licensed dispensing opticians, ... we can't do it. We
would be unable to be open all store hours. ... There
are times during the day when customers cannot get
eyeglasses because the licensed optician is not there
and the apprentice is not permitted to engage in
optical dispensing unless the apprentice [optician] is
there.
Number 2275
In fiscal year 2000, a total of two opticians were
licensed. In fiscal year 2001, three; again three in
fiscal year 2002, and only four in fiscal year 2003,
despite the fact that there was an increase in the
number of apprentices during those years. It
demonstrates that apprentices don't necessarily become
licensed. That's the problem that we are
[experiencing], and we suspect others are, too.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD asked Mr. Rozak what the average wage
for a dispensing optician and an apprentice would be.
MR. ROZAK estimated that the average wage of an optician would
be in the $15 to $20 range and for apprentices would be paid
significantly less.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD expressed amazement at the small numbers
of apprentices that actually became licensed. He noted his
experience with ironworkers. [Tape ends mid-sentence.]
TAPE 04-36, SIDE B
Number 2401
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD continued discussing the ironworker's
apprenticeship and said, "We end up graduating more than half of
those at the end of their four years - they'll become journeymen
ironworkers."
MR. ROZAK admitted, "There's something terribly wrong when you
have 40 apprentices in the year 2000 and only two of them become
licensed. I suspect part of the problem is training, but ...
also ... the nature of the examinations and the perhaps the
scoring of those examinations. I don't know whether the
examinations are constructed and are valid."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated, "I feel like there's something
else underlying here that we're not seeing."
Number 2305
MR. ROZAK replied:
Someone other than myself said that sometimes
regulatory boards are guilty, sort of being like the
fox guarding the chicken coup. It certainly would not
surprise anybody that a particular occupation or
profession that controls a licensing board would want
to have lesser numbers of people licensed rather than
more, because it, in essence, creates competition for
those who've already got the license.
Number 2289
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there was a sliding scale of
responsibility that corresponded with the number of hours worked
in an apprenticeship program.
MR. ROZAK, drawing on his experience, explained that in the
first weeks of an apprenticeship, individuals are performing
basic tasks such as answering the phone and making appointments.
However, those individuals who have completed 75 percent of the
apprenticeship and who the licensed optician believes to be
capable of performing nearly all the tasks related to dispensing
and selling eyeglasses, are restricted from doing such tasks if
the licensed optician isn't present.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked what the National Association of
Optometrists and Opticians does to help apprentices pass the
examination.
MR. ROZAK replied that that is the individual responsibility of
each of the association's members. He stated, "As an
association, we do not have an education program, other than for
continuing education. We do not have an apprenticeship program,
per se."
Number 2218
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked what state Mr. Rozak is from, if
that state was one of the 22 states that did require licensure
of opticians, what position he holds in his association, and if
he finds anything in the bill that is relevant.
MR. ROZAK answered that he believes [the legislation] is
relevant. He informed the committee that he is from the State
of Ohio, which licenses opticians. He also informed the
committee that he serves as the secretary-treasurer of the
National Association of Optometrists and Opticians. Mr. Rozak
mentioned that in his "prior life" he was the vice president of
government relations for Cole National Corporation, which
operated the optical departments at [Sears, Roebuck and Co.],
Pearle Vision, and Target [Corporation} Optical Stores.
MR. ROZAK, turning to the legislation, opined that replacing the
current board-operated apprenticeship program with the United
States Department of Labor apprenticeship program is "a good
move." Furthermore, the licensure by credentials in Section 4
will hopefully add new dispensing opticians. Also, prohibiting
unlicensed persons from selling contact lenses of any type is
appropriate because doing so is dangerous. Mr. Rozak
highlighted that, irrespective of the number of hours [of
apprenticeship], one still has to pass an examination, which he
indicated should be the determinant of competency.
Number 2072
MR. ROZAK stated he does not believe there is any empirical
evidence to justify increasing the number of training hours from
1,800 [to 4,000 hours] for apprentices. He said that passing
the examination "should be the crucible in order to determine
competency."
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked Mr. Rozak to outline the basic
training for an apprentice and how their work is portioned out.
MR. ROZAK clarified that the person who grinds the lenses or
makes the contact lenses isn't licensed under this regulatory
scheme. Mr. Rozak opined that the most important lesson for an
apprentice or licensed optician is the ability to interpret a
prescription. However, the fitting is artistic and "in part
function".
Number 1918
LARRY HARPER, Member, Board of Dispensing Opticians, Vice-
Chairman, American Board of Opticianry (ABO); Board Member,
Contact Lens Society of America (CLSA), testified. He noted
that he is also past President of the Opticians Association of
Alaska; past President of the Opticians Association of America,
and served on the Board of National Contact Lens Examiners
(NCLE) for approximately nine years, a board that certifies
contact lens fitters throughout the United States. He stated:
My involvement in my profession started in 1973 with
the passage of this licensing statute and, while I
cannot claim to be the father of this legislation, I
was certainly in the delivery room when it got here.
I come here to testify today on behalf of [HB] 502
because I think it does a lot of things that will help
to clear up the statute, help to put it in agreement
with other statutes, namely the optometry statute. It
makes clear some of the changes that were made two
years ago.
Number 1849
There's enough questions that have been brought up
that really should be ... answered. ... The document
that I think Mr. Rozak is reading from is not up to
date, because in 2002, two years ago, this legislature
changed the requirements for optician's apprentices.
They also created a new category called an optician's
assistant. Now Mr. Rozak's client stores, and every
vendor of optical goods and services, has the right to
put as many of these optician's assistants into
function as sales associates or opticians delegated by
authority, and have no restriction on their
supervision, whatsoever.
If you read the statute carefully, it says the
definition of supervision, as it applies to
apprentices. What we are looking at in an
apprenticeship is a training supervision situation for
someone who wants to become a career optician. Quite
frankly, we found several years ago when my friend Jim
Rothmeyer and I were both appointed to this board,
that the setup that was ongoing as far as the
apprenticeship was absolutely horrendous ... The
training was absolutely horrible. We started to work
within the confines of the board; found that that was
not going to be the vehicle that we needed. We went
to the [U.S.] Department of Labor who has a whole
division and personnel setup to help people in
professions and trades in this type of situation.
MR. HARPER compared the previous, "horrible" apprenticeship
program with the current one that involves a distance-learning
program that's available statewide, with the practitioners
assuming the responsibility of supervision while training
apprentices. He noted, "Supervision has the same meaning as in
AS 08.71.240, and ... it has to do with admitted direction and
control as deemed necessary. There is nothing to do with
direct, on-premises, supervision.
MR. HARPER replied to the previous question about increasing
levels of responsibility, stating that the longer the
apprenticeship continues, the more responsibilities the
apprentice takes on. He cited government and trade association
studies as containing information that supports increasing the
hours of training for apprentices. He indicated that 1,800
hours is insufficient time to cover the necessary information in
an apprenticeship program, and noted that the Commission of
Opticianry (COA) accreditation [lists] government-approved
schools that require an associate degree program that is two
years in duration.
Number 1650
MR. HARPER testified:
Why take a program that has worked so very well for 31
years, even though it's got some inequities and
problems with it, and dismantle it, in order to get
what? Quite frankly, the wage difference from someone
who knows what they are doing and who is well trained
in full scope opticianry, yes, is going to knock down
that horrendously high wage of $15 to $20 a hour in
the state of Alaska.
Take the licensing away and they'll probably be making
$10 an hour or $12 an hour. If you were a
practitioner in the state of Alaska right now, you can
fill your whole establishment up with those level
knowledge people. There's not a thing stopping you
doing that. The legislature lowered the hours; they
lowered the requirements for supervision, so that we
would not interfere with a person's right to do
business in whatever modality they saw fit. This was
brought on, basically, by a burning desire on the part
of optometry to get licensed opticians - I shouldn't
say out of their offices - but not make it a
requirement in their offices.
Since then, the requirement has been 1,800 hours; it
has been to pass a distance learning program course
for spectacles and for contact lenses, and to
establish yourself with the examination criteria from
the American Board of Opticianry or the National
Contact Lense Examiners, if you so desire to become
licensed in contact lenses.
From that standpoint, I think we've got the mechanism
for producing the types of opticians that I think we
want helping our general eye care population.
Number 1548
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked where Mr. Harper lived and if he
was familiar with the legislative audit. She referred the
committee to page 6, where reference was made to the Board of
Dispensing Opticians' deficit of $22,000, and she asked Mr.
Harper how this deficit arose, and what had to happen to
eliminate that debt.
MR. HARPER, in response, stated his home is in Anchorage and he
was familiar with the legislative audit. He spoke to the
deficit:
Right now, ... in fiscal year 04, we have a $22,000
deficit. This started back in fiscal year 98. When I
was first appointed to the board, I was told that we
had a revenue problem. I went back and started
investigating what caused the revenue problem. I have
a lot of evidence - this is not the format to - but I
would be more than happy, believe me, more than happy
to share it with you.
We have a lot of hours that were attributable to our
personnel costs, that really simply, can't be
justified. I've got time sheets; I've got comparisons
to the optometry board. Quite frankly, oftentimes we
want to compare boards of like size. We have 107
licensed dispensing opticians - optometry is about the
same number, might be 110, might be 115, but they're
real close.
For example in 98, the first year we noticed that
there was a huge problem; our personnel costs for
running our board were $17,300. Optometry's that same
year were $7,300. That's a $10,000 difference.
Optometry holds two meetings a year. We hold one;
don't send anybody on travel; we don't eat lobster for
lunch when we do meet. We're sitting here saving
paperclips and staples and we couldn't figure out what
was going on with all these personnel costs.
Number 1485
MR. HARPER continued:
Fiscal year 99, $20,500 in personnel costs compared to
the Board of Optometry, which was $9,500. So, ...
there's an $11,000 difference. Interestingly enough,
we were told that our apprenticeship program used up a
lot of hours. So I went back to find out, well,
what's the breakdown. I was told that in fiscal year
99, ... the license examiner spent 168.75 hours on
apprentices. In fiscal year 2000 she spent 168.75
hours on apprenticeships. Now, the chances of those
two figures coming out identical one fiscal year
apart, doing very different tasks, to the decimal
point, uh, something's funny.
I believe that this deficit ... was construed and
created, not by our doing, not by the board's doing.
I think the way to handle it at this point, is that
what's done is done. We need to pay it off. We need
to pay it off through our license renewals, which are
now approaching $600 every two years, which ... on the
salaries that we're talking about, is a pretty good
chunk of change for a license renewal. We don't want
it to go higher.
If 502 is enacted, 95 percent of the division's
responsibility for maintaining the statute will go
away. What will happen is if, when someone wants to
apply for licensure with the state of Alaska, they
will send in an application that will have a checklist
and it's all been done by the Department of Labor.
They've got an issuance of completion of
apprenticeship from the Department of Labor. They're
going to have their ABO certificate, their NCLE
certificate, if they're applying for a contact lense
license, they're going to have all the documentation
of their hours and everything and the state goes boom,
boom, boom. They get a fee for doing that, so even
that is not going to be part of the fiscal note as far
as the ongoing maintenance of the board. That fee
covers those activities. So our license renewal fee
really will be going almost 100 percent paying down
this deficit.
Quite frankly, if everything is put in order, then we
won't have the expenses that we've had. ... I was
talking recently with our current license examiner,
which I never cease to miss an opportunity to praise;
she's just a model of efficiency. She expects to
spend less than 3 percent of her time now on our
board, working to maintain that license.
[The gavel was passed to Vice-Chair Gatto]
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said to Mr. Harper, "You made a
statement of 'lots of evidence of' - and then stopped yourself.
Could you fill that in with one word?" She also noted he had
used the phrase, "This is not the forum to discuss".
MR. HARPER commented that it seemed as though they were changing
license examiners every other year and as soon as they
understood their job they were changed.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM repeated her question.
MR. HARPER stated, "Padding the timesheet."
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked where Mr. Harper thought the
correct forum to deal with this was.
MR. HARPER stated he would be happy to show her the evidence he
has. He noted it would take time to go over the evidence and he
agreed to present a copy to Representative Dahlstrom.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM stated he had insinuated improper
actions and asked if he thought there should be an investigation
conducted by someone outside the Board of Dispensing Opticians.
MR. HARPER said he could not speak to an investigation. He
said:
I just wanted to know why and what we can do to bring
that workload down so that we can afford this -
whatever level of service we agree is appropriate -
for this board. There were archive projects going on.
There were things that we didn't ask for. And the
other thing, I know that you folks have a budgeting
program. Well, we have our one meeting a year for the
state board that's also called our budgeting meeting.
That's when we get a bill from the state that says,
"This is what you spent last year. Figure out how to
pay for it." Our budgeting process involves "now that
you've seen what you owe, do you want to send anybody
to any meetings? Is there anything special that you
need or want?" And the answer is, "No, no, no, we
don't want to spend any more money." So we got hit
really hard during the lawsuit that was mentioned by
Mr. Rozak.
Many state's attorney generals got involved in it with
Johnson & Johnson and the American Optometric
Association supervision and so on and so forth. ... We
paid an incredible amount of money to the Department
of Law in 2002 and in 2003 and I can give you the
exact figures where it was averaging around $2,000 a
year. Contractual expenses went up to ... $9,000 and
$9,300 those two years so we got clobbered again, just
about the time we were starting to make headway paying
down our deficit.
Number 1072
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said, "You referred to 'she' several
times. Is 'she' no longer with your agency or with your
organization, whoever that may be?"
MR. HARPER replied that she is no longer with their
organization.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM asked, "Is your understanding that
'padding time sheets' is an illegal activity? It's a yes/no."
MR. HARPER replied:
What I would say is that I don't know that it belongs
on our board's tab. I don't know where it belongs,
but I don't feel that the Board of Dispensing
Opticians was where that hour entry should have been
made.
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM repeated her last question.
MR. HARPER replied, "I don't know whether it is or not. I can't
render an opinion on that."
VICE CHAIR GATTO recommended that Mr. Harper make an appointment
with Representative Dahlstrom to discuss this issue.
[Gavel is returned to Chair Anderson]
Number 1003
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Harper to explain to the
committee why he is recommending changing the hours from 1,800
to as much as 6,000.
MR. HARPER replied that in 2002 it was 6,000 hours and had been
since 1973. He felt it was extraordinary when the hours were
reduced to 1,800, a number that does not allow, in his opinion,
time to construct an adequate apprenticeship program. He spoke
about the Department of Labor's [U.S.] national guideline of,
3,000 hours for a basic optic's format. He felt this was weak
because it did not address training for contact lenses or
additional training in anatomy and physiology. The cumulative
opinion of his board is that 6,000 hours is adequate for
training in full scope opticianry.
Number 0863
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG requested that Mr. Harper respond to the
recommendation of the audit regarding termination of the board.
He also asked what the equivalent of licensure by credential
would be - what the interpretation of the board is with regards
to the equivalent training acceptable from another state.
MR. HARPER replied that it had been the board's continuing
policy to issue licensure by credential. They looked at
different state's requirements which generally were 6,000 hours,
or more. He pointed out that Texas, a voluntary registration
state, requires four years of training for a total of 8,000
hours.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the increase in hours would be
an impediment to licensure for people coming into the state.
MR. HARPER pointed out that it would not be, and added that in
Alaska it's not required to have a licensed optician on duty.
The proposed regulations address the supervision of an
apprentice in the profession. He noted that the number of
apprentices is 199, but he said he believes this to be very
inaccurate since it included assistants. He hoped that when the
apprentices reregister with the U.S. Department of Labor, the
listing would be more accurate.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG reiterated his question regarding
termination of the Board of Dispensing Opticians.
Number 0664
MR. HARPER replied that he thought this statute functioned best
with a board since it created a higher responsibility for board
members to manage the licensing issues. He predicted that this
bill would result in many regulatory changes as a result of
termination of the board.
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that HB 502 would be held over in the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 311-EMPLOYER RESPONSIBILITY FOR WORKERS' COMP
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 311, "An Act requiring a subcontractor to
obtain workers' compensation insurance covering the
subcontractor and the subcontractor's employees and establishing
responsibility of a contractor for obtaining workers'
compensation coverage for the subcontractor and the
subcontractor's employees if the subcontractor fails to obtain
workers' compensation coverage; and providing for an effective
date."
Number 0560
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD introduced HB 311 on behalf of the Labor
and Commerce Committee and testified that HB 311 ends the
exemptions for sole proprietors or owner/operators, requiring
them to have workers' compensation insurance. In the past
liability had been shifted to the general contractor with the
workers' compensation carrier billing the general contractor for
the unpaid premiums.
REPRESENTATIVE Holm summarized, "What this bill does is it makes
sure that all sole proprietors and independent contractors not
only have workers' compensation for themselves, but for their
employees. Nobody gets out of that requirement."
CHAIR ANDERSON gave an example of a contractor hiring a
subcontractor who was not covered by workers' compensation, and
though the subcontractor was not injured, an audit by [the
Division of] Workers' Compensation resulted in the Division
charging a fee to the general contractor to cover the
subcontractor. He said, "So, basically, this is making sure
that the contractor doesn't have to pay that, if the
subcontractor purposefully didn't have workers' compensation."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied, "If I understand this
correctly, it makes the general contractor pay attention to
whether their subcontractors are covered, so that everybody pays
their workers' compensation bill. It doesn't allow anybody to
escape .... A lot of people have been working and haven't been
paying their workers' compensation premiums. We all see the
problems with workers' compensation. The costs are going up."
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that there was a Chamber of Commerce
representative and Home Builders Association representative in
the audience. He said he believes this proposed bill could
allow the contractor to say, "Hey, ... you're not coming on and
I'm not going to hire you until you get workers' compensation so
I don't get dinged at the end of the year when there's an
audit." He stated, "So, that's a good thing - it's helping both
sides."
Number 0252
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD put forward a specific example:
A number of years ago we build this big cow barn out
at the Palmer Fairgrounds. It was a company that got
the contract to do that called Century Construction
(ph). ... They hired a subcontractor that I worked for
to erect the steel. They also had a bunch of people -
they called them subcontractors, independent
subcontractors - to do a lot of the welding and
miscellaneous steel. ... All these guys were
employees. The Labor Department would have ruled them
an employee, the courts would have ruled them an
employee, because they showed up in the morning at the
time the general contractor said. They did their work
under the supervision of a foreman for the general
contractor.
They [Century Construction] were trying to save on the
costs by not carrying worker's compensation on these
so-called subcontractors. Each and every employee
they had out there weren't employees of Century
Construction; they were sole proprietors. One of
those guys did get hurt and it was a bad injury that
cost a lot of money, and it ended up that Century
Construction folded up and left the state.
I don't want to see that sort of thing happen here
again, where Alaskan workers are being taken advantage
of by fly-by-night contractors that are trying to
skirt the system so that they can undercut legitimate
contractors that live and work here year in and year
out.
Number 0048
ROBIN WARD, Contractor and Legislative Chair for the Alaska
State Home Builders Association, testified that about five years
ago she belonged to a task force composed of stakeholders from
all over the insurance and construction industries. This
taskforce tried to solve the problem of workers' compensation
for sole proprietors. She stated she will not hire a sole
proprietor on her job sites because of the exposure. She stated
she hires sole proprietors as employees to make sure they are
covered under her policy. She noted that she recently
discovered two electricians on one of her job sites who did not
have workers' compensation because they'd chosen to "opt out"
under the licensing law.
TAPE 04-37, SIDE A
Number 0001
MS. WARD testified:
There is an insurance policy that is available for a
sole proprietor to [for] special insurance, that no
matter how much they make, they're cap and their
insurance premium is capped at $20,000 per year. So,
it is available, [it is] not inexpensive, but it
certainly is something that they can roll into their
costs. It would create a level playing field for all
of the sole proprietors and the prime contractors,
along with protecting people who are actually working
on the jobsite. The Alaska State Home Builders
Association does support this legislation.
CHAIR ANDERSON requested clarification on the insurance policy
available to sole proprietors.
MS. WARD said, "It is a special premium for [a] sole proprietor
that is a capped premium. It's the same premium. It is capped
at $20,000 of the income based on your classification. So, it's
the same to everyone. You can decide how much money you want to
make, but it would be a set premium, a cost of doing business
every year."
Number 0144
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD commented:
You know, $20,000 makes a lot of people gasp. To give
you an idea of what it costs for an ironworker to
erect iron, what the workers' compensation cost is
there, it will run from $80 per $100 of payroll up to
maybe $118 for every $100 of payroll. So, $20,000
would be really, really cheap insurance for the
ironworking industry.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked if it was mandated that the sole proprietor
get this insurance or could the sole proprietor negotiate with
the contractor for coverage.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied that he could negotiate with the
contractor.
MS. WARD clarified:
No, it's $20,000 in income. That's not the cost of
the premium. ... Your premium is based on what your
classification is; it's capped on the income of
$20,000. Even if you made $80,000 that year in gross
income, your premium would only be based on a $20,000
income. It [the premium] could be anywhere from a
couple hundred dollars a month - normally most of them
run in most classifications like tile layers or
flooring, carpentry, that sort of thing, are probably
going to run between $300 and $3500 per year.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Ward to refresh the
committee's memory as to why this bill didn't pass previously.
MS. WARD believed the failure to pass was primarily due to
legislative time constraints but also recalled one Senator who
had concerns because he had a constituent who was a sole
proprietor. She stated, "The task force went through every
option we could think of. This is the only option that really
takes care of this issue."
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the possibilities for some kind
of waiver or "opt out" provision, possibly a statutory "opt out"
for a sole proprietor where they could choose the "opt out" and
not be subject to a claim against the general contractor, if
these possibilities had been exhausted.
MS. WARD replied:
It still would be subject to a claim against the
general [contractor]. We worked with the Division of
Workers' Compensation; we looked at the laws very
carefully. ... The workers' compensation law really
sways to the benefit of an employee and even with
every type of legislative "opt out" waiver, we could
not find a way that it would address this issue by
just making sure they had some kind of a policy.
CHAIR ANDERSON noted he had asked the Chamber of Commerce
representative and the AFL-CIO [American Federation of Labor and
Congress of Industrial Organizations] representatives if they
wanted to testify and both declined at this time to do so.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Lisankie what he thought the
proper public policy should be. He asked, "Should we not allow
actual small business operators to not be covered and then not
have the right to seek a claim under a general's [general
contractor's] policy, if there's a contractual agreement to that
affect? Would that be against what we think the public policy
should be for workers' compensation?"
Number 0538
PAUL LISANKIE, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, responded:
It appears that there are kind of competing policy
elements in the workers' compensation Act [Workmen's
Compensation Acts] right now. It would appear to me
that you could address it either way. If it's a
problem, and people are saying that it's a problem, it
starts by letting people "opt out". This [HB 311]
addresses it in the way of saying ... no, they cannot
"opt out" while they're engaged as a subcontractor.
My assumption, just listening to the conversation, is
as long as that sole proprietor is just working on a
project for a homeowner, or something like that, where
there is no general/subcontractor relationship; they
could continue to "opt out".
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said, "It's kind of hard to turn on and
off a premium they have to pay periodically if you're going to
have coverage. Or, can you buy job specific policies?"
MR.LISANKIE replied he did not know the answer to that question
but he would inquire at the Division of Insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated he understood and approved of the
concept of the bill, but he wondered if he, as a sole proprietor
for 30 years who had never had this type of insurance, could
"opt out" without affecting the bill's intent. He continued:
If you were a subcontractor in a home building
situation and you weren't covered by a policy now, you
currently, under the statute, could make a claim
against the general's policy, if there's injury. ...
The subs would go bare and they'd make claims against
the general. It would seem to me if they had a clear
contractual obligation for the sub to "opt out", and
he couldn't make a claim under the statute.
Number 0775
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG stated a concern:
If a subcontractor could be covered under the
contractor's clause, that's one thing. But the
contractor not being responsible for the
subcontractor's workers' behaviors, you might have a
high-risk claim pool and you might not want to do
that. The general contractor, whose employees are
responsible to him, might have a very good workers'
compensation history and not want to be affiliated
with a subcontractor who has a really bad history of
accidents.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the general contractor could
not hire a subcontractor and require him by contract to have a
policy.
MR. LISANKIE replied:
If I understood Ms. Ward's testimony, her personal
preference is to do just that. But, if I understand
correctly the history of this, that there's the mere
possibility that someone could choose to make a claim
against the general that is motivating the insurance
industry ... to audit and pass that cost along to the
general contractor, just on the theory that they might
do it. ... The objective is to just take the guesswork
out of the system, strip the sole proprietor of the
opportunity to "opt out", at least when they're being
a subcontractor ...
My understanding is that there would be additional
people who are covered, so, from our perspective, it
would be one less person to worry about.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated his concern about the definition
of a subcontractor and noted that there is a licensure provision
for specialty contractors who typically are subcontractors. He
asked Ms. Ward if she could clearly define a subcontractor, in
particular a subcontractor with a license.
Number 1161
MS. WARD replied, "Yes, that's exactly it. We don't hire anyone
who isn't a specialty contractor and on their license they have
"opted out" of workers' compensation." ...
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that there's another House bill delineating
some aspects of specialty contract services.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG wondered if HB 311 had general
applicability outside of the building trades.
MS. WARD replied that this issue is most prevalent in
residential home construction.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked Ms. Ward if she thought there was a need
for an amendment.
MS. WARD replied, "Absolutely, we'll certainly look at that."
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD stated that when there's a subcontractor
in the building trades or for a trucking company, this bill
would change the relationship to the general contractor. But
that when someone is acting as a sole proprietor, such as
Representative Rokeberg had mentioned, they would not be
required to get worker's compensation insurance. He continued:
I think that as long as you leave an "opt out"
provision, then we haven't fixed the problem. That's
what this bill is about. The very guts of the bill is
to do away with an "opt out" provision for independent
subcontractors and sole proprietors...
CHAIR ANDERSON stated he relies on that judgment and asked Ms.
Ward if she could rely on this interpretation.
MS. WARD testified:
Yes, because it's our understanding and [has] always
been our understanding, that this only pertains to a
licensed specialty contractor who works for a general
contractor. If a sole proprietor wants to work for
homeowners or has negotiated with a prime contractor
to pay this for them, they are allowed to do this.
This is only to protect the situation where a licensed
specialty contractor works for a general licensed
contractor.
Number 1196
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG noted that they could make a conceptual
amendment to require that the subcontractor additionally be a
specialty contractor, however, he said this would narrow the
applicability of the statute.
MS. WARD responded:
I'm not in favor of narrowing the scope that it says
absolutely that it is a licensed specialty contractor
because I think, and one of the problems that we're
having right now, is more and more of our specialty
contractors aren't getting licensed and they are
working unlicensed. We're trying to encourage people
to be licensed and have their bond and their workers'
compensation.
Number 1250
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN moved to report HB 311 out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
Hearing no objections, HB 311 was reported from 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
5:20 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|