02/11/2009 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB85 | |
| HR5 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HR 5 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 85 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 11, 2009
3:18 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative John Coghill
Representative Lindsey Holmes
Representative Bob Lynn
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 85
"An Act extending the termination date of the State Board of
Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED HB 85 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 5
Opposing any federal legislation that seeks to eliminate the
private election phase of union recognition campaigns or that
seeks to impose compulsory and binding arbitration on employers.
- HEARD AND HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 85
SHORT TITLE: EXTEND BD ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
01/26/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/26/09 (H) L&C, FIN
02/11/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HR 5
SHORT TITLE: OPPOSING FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOHNSON
01/30/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/09 (H) L&C
02/11/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff
Representative Kurt Olson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff for the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee, presented HB 85 on behalf of the sponsor.
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor
Division of Legislative Audit
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented auditor findings and
recommendations and answered questions on the AELS Board audit
recommendations.
CRAIG FREDEEN, PE, Mechanical, Board Member; Vice-Chair,
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors (AELS)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 85.
TERRY SCHOENTHAL, Member
Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC); and the American
Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 85.
HARLEY HIGHTOWER, Architect Member, Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers, and Land Surveyors (AELS)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion on HB 85.
BURDETT LENT, Landscape Architect Member
Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors (AELS)
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion on HB 85.
FRANK RAST, P.E.; President
Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion on HB 85.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as prime sponsor of HR and
answered questions during the discussion of HR 5.
ROD BETIT, President
Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 5.
MICHAEL HUFF, Task Force Director
American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)
Washington, D.C.
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 5, and answered
questions during the discussion on HR 5.
ROBERTA BROOKS, Business Representative
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HR 5.
JOHN BROWN, Retired
Operating Engineers
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HR 5.
DENNIS KNEBEL, Business Representative
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HR 5.
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director
Alaska Trucking Association, Inc.
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HR 5 and answered
questions during the discussion of HR 5.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:18:14 PM
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:18 p.m. Representatives Buch,
Chenault, Coghill, Lynn, and Olson were present at the call to
order. Representative Neuman and Representative Holmes arrived
as the meeting was in progress.
HB 85-EXTEND BD ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS/SURVEYORS
3:18:21 PM
HOUSE BILL NO. 85, "An Act extending the termination date of the
State Board of Registration for Architects, Engineers, and Land
Surveyors; and providing for an effective date."
3:18:42 PM
KONRAD JACKSON, Staff, Representative Kurt Olson and the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee, explained that HB 85
would extend the Board of Registration for Architects,
Engineers, and Land Surveyors (AELS) for eight years. He
related that the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee (LB&A)
recommended the AELS board should be extended from June 2009 to
June 30, 2017.
3:19:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for clarification of the bill's
purpose.
3:20:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked the auditor to explain the three
recommendations contained in the legislative audit, Audit
Control Number 08-20058-08.
3:20:47 PM
PAT DAVIDSON, Legislative Auditor, Division of Legislative
Audit, Alaska State Legislature, explained to members that
various boards and commissions throughout the state are under
sunset laws, which means the boards have specific termination
dates associated with them. The Division of Corporations,
Business, and Professional Licensing (DCBPL) within the
Department of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development
(DCCED) regulate most of the licensing boards that are subject
to sunset provisions. She further explained that the
Legislative Audit Division is required under law to review the
board's activities and specific criteria to determine if the
board is operated in the public interest. As a result of its
audit, the Legislative Budget & Audit Committee (LB&A) reviewed
and approved the legislative audit that determined the AELS
Board is operating in the public's best interest and its
termination date should be extended. Based on the LB&A's
review, the DCBPL also recommended the board should be extended
for eight years, which is June 30, 2017.
3:21:55 PM
MS. DAVIDSON detailed that in the course of the audit review,
auditors identified three areas for improvement. First, the
auditors found that the AELS board had been hampered by unfilled
vacancies. The LB&A recommended to the Office of the Governor
that appointments should be made timely. She related her
understanding that appointments have been made, although the
legislature has not yet confirmed the AELS board appointees.
MS. DAVIDSON explained that the auditors analyzed the finances
of the AELS Board. By law, all boards are required to be
financially self-sufficient, meaning the fees collected through
licensing actions should cover the operating costs. She offered
that the auditors discovered a surplus generated over the past
few years for the AELS board. The auditors recommended that the
DCBPL reduce the AELS fees and the DCCED concurred with the
recommendation.
MS. DAVIDSON offered the third audit recommendation, which was
for "a little better housekeeping" as it refers to obtaining the
required paperwork when issuing licenses to limited liability
corporations (LLC) and limited liability partnerships (LLP).
She explained that certain documents were missing from applicant
files. She highlighted that the problem was not considered
pervasive, but the problem needed to be corrected. The DCCED
agreed to the changes, she stated.
3:23:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether reductions in fees
have been identified.
MS. DAVIDSON answered that the AELS board's finances are
reviewed at the end of each alternate fiscal year. When the
LB&A recommends fees should be reduced, the DCCED sets the fees
in consultation with the board. She offered that a few
professions are licensed by the AELS board, and that several
examinations are administered for the professions. The LB&A
does not identify which fees should be reduced, just that the
DCCED should make an assessment. She noted that if a large
regulatory project is forthcoming or pending, the department may
reduce the fees less than if overall expenditures are
anticipated to be static.
3:34:49 PM
CRAIG FREDEEN, P.E.; Vice-Chair, Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS), Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), began his
testimony by stating that he works for PDC Engineers in
Anchorage and has served on the AELS Board since 2004. He
explained that the AELS board has been following the issue of
Canadian licensure very closely, including meeting with the
professional engineers of Canada, who are referred to as a
"P.Eng". He advised that the P.Eng's have given presentations
to the AELS Board and have attended regional and annual meetings
of the National Council of Examiners for Engineering and
Surveying (NCEES) for many years. The interest has increased
due to the proposed gas pipeline, he stated. He related that he
is a registered mechanical engineer and cannot speak to
architects' and landscape architects' involvement. In May, some
board members hope to attend the upcoming Western Zone meeting,
the regional meeting of the NCEES, pending travel approval,
which will be held in Banff, Canada. He emphasized that the
Canadian engineers are very interested in obtaining comity with
Alaska and other states.
MR. FREDEEN explained that the methodology for Canadian
licensure differs from the United States (US). He characterized
the Canadian process as more of a journeyman process for
licensure, while the US relies on four years of education,
experience, and two examinations, the Fundamentals of
Engineering exam (FE) and the Professional Engineering exam (PE)
for licensure. Thus, the models do not mesh well, he opined.
He related that the AELS has relaxed its licensure rules to
allow Canadians to waive the FE exam, which is the exam taken as
a college senior or right out of college. The process for
licensure includes that engineering applications must take the
PE examination approximately four years later. He further
related that much discussion needs to take place to determine
solutions for the PE license requirement in Alaska.
Additionally, he expressed concern that the AELS board has for
Alaskan engineers seeking licensure in Canada. He offered that
some states such as Nevada and Texas accept comity licensure,
but Alaska is not yet ready to take that step.
3:46:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his concern, which is to ensure
that discussions continue. He said he hopes that the AELS board
will share any conclusions it reaches with the legislature. He
said the legislature might ask why other states can offer comity
licensure, yet Alaska cannot. He highlighted that the
legislature could introduce a bill to focus dialogue on the
reciprocity issue. He expressed interest in figuring out how
Alaska's qualifications for engineering can fit into the
journeyman process of Canadian licensure so that Alaskan
engineers can work in Canada.
CHAIR OLSON asked if a trade group was working on the licensure
issue.
MR. FREDEEN said he did not believe so. He mentioned that
members of US licensure boards have been in discussion with
representatives of the Canadian licensure board. He explained
that the AELS board chair, Mr. Brownfield, has attended several
meetings with respect to licensure.
3:47:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL opined that presents a classic example of
why the AELS board should not be extended to 2017 and possibly
the legislature could "ratchet that back" to force a discussion
on comity.
3:48:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether the professional
associations are international organizations.
MR. FREDEEN answered yes, that the AELS board is a member of the
NCEES for engineering, the National Council of Architectural
Registration Boards (NCARB) for architects, and the Council of
Landscape Architects (CLARB) for landscape architects. He
stated that each state's licensing board is a member of the
national organization. He explained that the national
organizations own the exams, and that member boards attend
annual and regional meetings to discuss issues such as
international licensure. He pointed out that various agreements
between nations exist to allow licensed design professionals to
work in the U.S. and other countries. He highlighted that
countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) belong to the
Washington Accord. The agreements sort through issues such as
dissecting the degree programs offered by foreign universities
to ensure that the candidates have met the minimum standards for
education as well as any other requirements for the licensure
process. He stated at the international level "we're not there
yet" with respect to international licensure for engineers.
However, the NCEES is offering the licensure examinations in
foreign cities such as Cairo, Egypt and is working to offer more
locations for engineers to take engineering examinations
overseas.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to whether any collaboration
effort exists to meld licensure for reciprocity.
MR. FREDEEN explained that each state makes its own regulations
and statutes for comity licensure. While some discussions occur
at the national level to ensure that licensing requirements are
the same, differences still exist. He opined that other
countries still need to work out comity equivalency from nation
to state on a state-by-state basis. In the meantime, engineers
from other countries must obtain licensure by comity by meeting
Alaska's requirements, just as engineers from other states must
do so. He emphasized that restrictions on degrees obtained from
other countries do not exist. Thus, every engineer in the world
has a process to obtain licensure in Alaska, but minimum
qualifications must be met to ensure public safety. He related
his understanding that a "straight across, one-for-one"
licensure process does not exist.
3:52:44 PM
CHAIR OLSON opined that the committee would like reciprocity so
that Alaskan engineers can also obtain licensure, particularly
with Canadian licensure. He offered the committee's assistance.
MR. FREDEEN expressed concern that currently when Canada issues
a license to an Alaskan engineer that the license name for
foreign license is different, although he could not recall the
designation. He mentioned that the title for foreign engineers
is a foreign P.Eng. Mr. Fredeen highlighted that the P.Eng
title is reserved solely for Canadian engineers, while Canadians
registered in Alaska are issued the title professional engineer
(P.E.) just without differentiating them from Alaskan P.E.'s.
CHAIR OLSON reiterated his offer for legislative assistance to
the AELS board on reciprocity between the U.S. and Canada.
3:55:05 PM
TERRY SCHOENTHAL, Member, Alaska Professional Design Council
(APDC), and the American Society of Landscape Architects (ASLA),
explained that the state has licensed landscape architects since
1998. He related that currently 49 states license landscape
architects. Since 1998, landscape architects have held a
temporary non-voting position on the AELS Board. He explained
the rationale for this is that not many landscape architects are
licensed in Alaska as compared to the other design
professionals. However, ten years has passed and the landscape
architect member is still a non-voting ex-officio temporary
member. He surmised that this status may be the only one of its
type among all the state's licensing boards. He acknowledged
that licensing of landscape architects will continue when the
temporary non-voting landscape architect membership on the AELS
board disappears on June 30, 2009. However, since landscape
architects will continue to be licensed, members representing
other professions will make determinations on qualifications for
licensure without input from a landscape architect.
MR. SCHOENTHAL, expressed concern that a licensed landscape
architect has volunteered his/her time on the AELS board during
the past ten years, which represents substantial time and effort
taken on his/her part. Yet, the landscape architect board
member never had the opportunity to vote on any issues that came
before the AELS Board. He applauded and commended the service
of the two volunteer landscape architects who have served in
that capacity for ten years. He opined that it may be
beneficial to the state to have a licensed landscape architect
board member review landscape architect applications for
licensure.
3:57:50 PM
MR. SCHOENTHAL, in response to Representative Holmes, answered
that changing the non-voting temporary member to a permanent
AELS member would require a statute change. He offered that in
2005, a bill passed the legislature that extended the temporary
non-voting position until 2009.
CHAIR OLSON explained that the committee used the legislative
auditor's recommendations when preparing HB 85. He related that
four years ago the legislative auditor recommended the landscape
architect for membership on the AELS board, but that
recommendation was not made in current legislative audit report.
3:58:40 PM
MR. SCHOENTHAL provided additional history of the landscape
architect that in 2004 the LB&A's audit report recommended that
the landscape architect should be a voting position. He
highlighted that in 2007, the AELS board recommended to convert
the temporary landscape architect position to a full voting
position. He mentioned that the APDC, an umbrella organization
of design professionals, voted to support the landscape
architect position as a full voting member of the AELS board at
its January meeting. He stressed that at a minimum the
landscape architects in Alaska would like to see the AELS board
maintain a non-voting landscape architect position on the board.
However, the landscape architect and other design professionals
fully support making the temporary landscape architect member a
full voting position of the AELS board.
3:59:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH expressed interest in the cost or additional
resources required to make the non-voting landscape architect a
permanent member of the AELS Board. He related that some
committee members do not know the practical aspects and
structure of the licensing boards.
MR. SCHOENTHAL answered that the AELS board is entirely self-
sufficient, in that the professions cover all its costs through
biennial licensure fees. He further explained that other
professionals subsidize the landscape architects since fewer
landscape architects are licensed. He highlighted that the
state does not cover the AELS board's costs or subsidize the
board. Thus, the request to maintain the existing landscape
architect board member on the AELS board would not entail
additional funding.
4:01:40 PM
HARLEY HIGHTOWER, Architect Member, Board of Registration for
Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS), Department of
Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED), stated that
he is a licensed architect who resides in Anchorage. He said he
has served on the AELS Board for four years. He offered that
the architects fall under the jurisdiction of the NCARB,
consisting of 53 member board member jurisdictions, including
all 50 states plus other jurisdictions including Puerto Rico,
and Guam.
MR. HIGHTOWER explained that NCARB is working with Canada. He
stated he serves on a national NCARB subcommittee that writes
and updates the qualifying examination. He offered that the
NCARB has Canadian membership, as well, and Canadians also take
the U.S. licensure examinations. He further explained that the
accrediting board also has accredited some Canadian
universities. Additionally, the NCARB is currently negotiating
with European companies and Asia for cooperative agreements and
collaborates with various countries for comity licensure and
parity in licensing standards, he mentioned.
4:03:17 PM
MR. HIGHTOWER, in response to Chair Olson, answered that
Canadian architects have reciprocity in Alaska. He highlighted
that the NCARB is further along with reciprocity in Canada than
with other countries.
4:03:34 PM
MR. HIGHTOWER, in response to Representative Buch, stated that
Canada appears to be open to working with Alaska. He offered
that currently Canada has more engineering work than it has
engineers. Therefore, Canada is more open to reciprocity, he
opined.
4:05:15 PM
BURDETT LENT, Landscape Architect Member , Board of Registration
for Architects, Engineers and Land Surveyors (AELS), Department
of Commerce, Community, & Economic Development (DCCED) explained
that he is a licensed landscape architect in Anchorage. He
offered that the landscape architects work cooperatively with
Canada and that Canadians are also members of their national
organization, CLARB. Thus, Canadian landscape architects are
subject to the same licensing requirements as U.S. landscape
architects, he advised.
FRANK RAST, P.E., stated he is the current president of the
Alaska Professional Design Council (APDC), an umbrella
organization of design professionals. He explained that the
AELS board works to ensure the safety of Alaskans by ensuring
that design professionals are qualified. He said he agrees with
Representative Neuman that the legislature can remand the
licensing board if the board is not operating within the desires
of the legislature. He opined that the AELS Board is the best
vehicle to ensure engineers, architects, and land surveyors
outside of Alaska who perform work within Alaska meet standards
that protect the public health, safety, and welfare of Alaskans.
He suggested that in any profession unethical people will work
outside their practice and jeopardize the public health. Thus,
it is critical to have a licensing board, he noted. He
reiterated that the LB&A audit indicates that the design
professionals pay the AELS board expenses through their license
fees. In fact, he advised a surplus currently exists for the
AELS board since licensed AELS members have paid more in fees
than total AELS board expenses in the past few years. He
offered his willingness to pay fees to ensure continued
professional competency in Alaska.
4:08:35 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one wished to testify,
closed public testimony on HB 85.
4:09:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN moved to report HB 85, Version 26-LS0420\A
out of committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, HB 85 was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
CHAIR OLSON offered his belief that the issue of the landscape
architect membership on the AELS Board was not included as a
legislative audit recommendation and the matter should be
introduced as a separate bill.
4:10:43 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:10 p.m. to 4:13 p.m.
4:13:11 PM
HR 5-OPPOSING FEDERAL EMPLOYEE FREE CHOICE ACT
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would
HOUSE RESOLUTION NO. 5, Opposing any federal legislation that
seeks to eliminate the private election phase of union
recognition campaigns or that seeks to impose compulsory and
binding arbitration on employers."
4:13:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CRAIG JOHNSON, Alaska State Legislature,
explained that HR 5 is a resolution directed to Washington D.C.
to state opposition to pending federal legislation which is
referred to as the "Employee Free Choice Act." He related that
members of this body swore an oath to uphold and defend the
constitution of the State of Alaska. He offered that Alaska is
one of the few states in the union that has a privacy act in its
constitution. He opined that acts such as the Employee Free
Choice Act (EFCA) clearly violate the freedom of privacy. He
offered his belief that it is time to use that clause to protect
businesses in the state. He pointed out that a new bill is not
currently before the Congress. He highlighted three areas that
seem to be present in most of the bills of this type that would
fall into the category of "employee free-choice" bills.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON related that some bills that fall into
the category of "employee free choice" and remove the secret
ballot from the process of selecting union representation. He
offered a scenario in which someone asks a group of employees if
they want to join a union and once a simple majority is reached,
the opportunity for a "secret ballot" evaporates. He recalled
during his childhood, he was asked to put his head on his desk
at school while his teacher explained the process for a secret
ballot. He opined that people all have a right to cast a secret
ballot, without threat or recourse. He emphasized the secret
ballot represents a basic American premise. He said, "This does
away with that."
4:16:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON stated the second thing that an "employee
free choice act" would do is to allow the federal government
undue access to Alaskan business. He related that once cards
have been signed, within 30 days the federal government will
require mandatory binding arbitration, without any negotiations.
Further, if one does not abide by the EFCA, the employer can be
fined up to $20,000. He surmised that if the union or
organizing body does not abide by the EFCA, no penalty provision
would apply. Therefore, the EFCA violates the constitution in
terms of privacy, presents an undue burden to bring in the
federal government for binding arbitration, and is "very one-
sided." He stated that copies of HR 5 will be sent to Alaska's
Congressional Delegation and will ask them to oppose any similar
legislation. This resolution also encourages the governor to
fight and defend Alaska's constitution and the U.S. Constitution
at every opportunity. He stressed that HR 5 will send the
message to Washington D.C. that the legislature will protect and
defend the constitution. He reminded members of their sworn
oath of office. He further emphasized his desire to keep the
federal government out of Alaska.
4:18:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN related his understanding that pending
legislation at the federal level would not allow people to vote
in secret, no matter what the issue is, although he said he
thought this had to do with unions.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed that the resolution relates to the
process of organizing unions. He explained the process to
organize does not allow people to cast ballots and cast votes to
determine an outcome to lead to the next step for union
representation. He opined that since unions have burgeoned by
over 400,000 people in the past year that the current system
does not stifle unions' growth.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH pointed out his understanding that HR 5 does
not eliminate the opportunity to form a union.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that under the current law, "we
would still have that." He stated under the "Employee Free
Choice Act (EFCA)" that right to privacy would be removed, a
requirement for binding arbitration would be added, and would
become the way of organizing unions. He referred to HR 800, in
members packets, which he said is a bill that is working its way
through the Congress.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked for specific clarification.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON referred to page 3 of HR 800, which he
read, "The arbitration panel shall render a decision settling
the dispute and such decision shall be binding upon the parties
for a period of 2 years..." He said he was not certain this is
the specific provision he had in mind. However, he opined that
the EFCA eliminates the right to vote. He related that
employees are given cards in a public manner and once the
organizers receive 50 percent plus 1, binding arbitration is
triggered. He related that absent the binding arbitration that
a private vote would occur.
4:23:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his understanding that the
opportunity for an election still exists. He asked in the event
of a certified election at the worksite how the election is
eliminated.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON answered that an election would be
eliminated in the "card check" process. He explained that
employee is subject to public pressure to sign a card to join
the union. Once a simple majority is reached, it triggers
binding arbitration and an election, including a private ballot
is eliminated.
4:23:45 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH offered the "card check" as representing
only one option. He reiterated his understanding that another
option exists under current law that also allows employees the
option to hold an election.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON reiterated that under the "card check"
process, that an election would not be held. He stated the
proposed resolution would remove the option of "card checks"
which would eliminate a private ballot election.
4:24:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his understanding that HR 5 would
eliminate options for employees.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed, if that means employees would not
have the privacy offered under a "secret ballot." He pointed
out that small businesses are targeted by union organizers. He
offered a scenario in which 11 of 20 people in a company "sign a
card" that the vote is eliminated and binding arbitration is
triggered. The binding arbitration process takes two years,
during which time the federal government dictates the wage and
benefits the employer will pay, he opined. He emphasized that 9
people in the described scenario will not have a "say in what to
do" and would never get a chance to vote on the matter.
4:26:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN recalled the 20 person employee scenario
Representative Johnson described. He related his understanding
that under legislation like proposed HR 800, that the person
would sign their card in private.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON described the ballot process that would
consist of the employee receiving a ballot that asks whether the
employee wants to join a union and he/she would check "yes or
no" in the privacy of a ballot booth. He contrasted the ballot
voting process with the "card check" in which the person signs a
card, and is subject to everyone knowing how he/she voted and
from pressure by the employer and the union.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON, in further response to Representative
Neuman, explained that under current law, employees cast ballots
in voting booths and how they vote is private. Under proposed
HR 800 and similar legislation, the employee would not have that
right.
4:28:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked for further clarification. He related
his understanding that binding arbitration does not occur unless
the management and union still cannot reach an agreement after
120 days.
REPRESENTATIVE JOHNSON agreed. He said he stands corrected. He
agreed that binding arbitration would take place after
negotiations.
ROD BETIT, President, Alaska State Hospital & Nursing Home
Association (ASHNHA), stated that he represents the Alaska State
Hospital and Nursing Home Association (ASHNHA), which consists
of 27 private, federal, state, and tribal health care facilities
located throughout Alaska. He expressed concern that
legislation such as HR 800 might pass at the federal level. He
reiterated that the ASHNHA shares the three concerns that one of
the sponsors of HR 5 mentioned in his testimony. He said, "We
would like to go on record that we strongly support this measure
and urge its passage out of committee." He offered that if
necessary, the chief executive officers of ASHNHA members are
also willing to testify and provide first-hand their concerns.
4:31:00 PM
MR. BETIT, in response to Representative Buch, stated that
ASHNHA consists of nursing homes that serve the medically
fragile that don't require hospital-level care, but need skilled
nursing care. Thus, about half of the hospitals and five free-
standing nursing homes are also members. In further response to
Representative Buch, Mr. Betit stated that physicians employed
by hospitals would fall under the highest level professional
health care person that works for ASHNHA members.
4:32:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked whether nurses are employed by ASHNA.
MR. BETIT ventured that his organization is the largest employer
of nurses.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to the level of health care
offered for its retired nurses.
MR. BETIT answered that health care benefits for retired nurses
depends on the facility. He related that some benefit plans
fall under the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) system,
others are private facilities.
4:32:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH opined that most nurses do not have health
care as a condition of their retirement. He opined that needs
to be addressed. He emphasized that providing adequate health
care for nurses is important to him.
MR. BETIT offered to provide the information to Representative
Buch about health care benefits for retired nurses.
MICHAEL HUFF, Task Force Director, American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC), stated that the American Legislative Exchange
Council (ALEC) is the nation's largest non-partisan organization
for state legislators. He offered ALEC's strong support for HR
5. He mentioned that ALEC's members previously adopted a
similar resolution two years ago on this issue. He offered the
biggest issue relates to the issue of the secret ballot. He
referred to the steps for a union recognition campaign, which
are outlined in the National Labor Relations Act of 1935 (NLRA),
the primary law governing relations between unions and employers
in the private sector. He mentioned that the NLRA was drafted
in its current form in 1947. First, employees will sign a card,
and once 30 percent of the employees have signed the card, a
secret ballot election is held, similar to elections for
candidates that are elected in the United States. He emphasized
the reason for this is to free employees from harassment and
intimidation, as well as to find out the true intent of the
voter. Once the election is held, by a majority vote, then the
workplace is unionized.
4:35:51 PM
MR. HUFF related that currently when these elections are held,
that 60 percent of the time the unions prevail. Election rates
have remained constant since 1996, according to data statistics
recorded by ALEC, under the Clinton and Bush Administrations.
MR. HUFF said that what pending federal legislation would do is
to remove the secret ballot of the election and would solely use
the "card check" method. He reiterated that ALEC believes that
removing the secret ballot would expose employees to harassment
and intimidation. He offered testimony from the Congressional
hearings during the 1935 process that changed the NLRA Act to a
secret ballot. He related specific testimony that said that for
the last 14 years as a result of labor laws, ill conceived and
disastrously executed, the American working man has been
deprived of his dignity as an individual, has been cajoled,
coerced, and intimidated on many occasions, and beaten up. He
mentioned that testimony was written in 1947 when the federal
act was changed. He offered his belief that passing HR 5 would
be a strong stand and statement that Alaska supports the right
of workers to vote by secret ballot.
4:38:33 PM
ROBERTA BROOKS, Business Representative, stated that she is a
business representative for the International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers (IBEW) local 1547 in Anchorage. She stated
that she has strong opinions with HR 5. She referred to page 2,
lines 23-29 of HR 5, regarding binding arbitration. She offered
her belief that the two clauses do not accurately describe what
happens at the bargaining table when the parties attempt to
negotiate a contract. She mentioned her 13 years of experience
with IBEW, and her primary duties of negotiating and
administering collective bargaining agreements. During that
time, she offered that she is responsible for the vast majority
of first agreements with newly organized employers. While
contracts were often obtained, frequently frustrating
circumstances arose between the employers and employees that
lasted for years as a result of not obtaining a final agreement.
She offered her belief that when both parties negotiate, that
the parties' knowledge that an independent third party will
review the negotiations which creates an atmosphere in which the
employer and the union each strive to achieve a reasonable
negotiation. She opined that the atmosphere helps parties
develop arguments that "pass the red face test."
4:41:14 PM
MS. BROOKS referred to the language in HR 5 that states that
binding arbitration is fundamentally unconstitutional and said
"with all due respect that is simply not the case." She opined
that every day in Alaska and the US, people use independent
third parties to resolve disputes that they cannot resolve on
their own. She further stated that the use of independent third
parties such as judges and arbitrators are helpful in resolving
disputes in an amicable fashion. She reiterated that knowledge
that an independent decision maker will make a final
determination also helps to motivate parties to present
reasonable proposals that will ultimately achieve a collective
bargaining agreement. She concluded by stating that one of the
purposes of the NLRA is to prevent labor strikes and
interruption of interstate commerce. She further opined that
having binding arbitration at the end of the process encourages
and promotes that process, not undermine it.
4:42:40 PM
JOHN BROWN, Retired, Operating Engineers, stated that he spent
15 years working as a business representative and organizer. He
indicated that he was involved in many campaigns to create a
union in the workplace. Mr. Brown offered labor history, such
that the NLRA was created since commerce was being disrupted, in
some instances across whole industries. As a result of the
NLRA, collective bargaining became the official labor relations
policy in the US, he opined. He reiterated that prior to
passage of the NLRA, that labor relations did not work and the
result was that it hurt business and workers. Over the past 70
years, the NLRA still requires both parties to negotiate with
the purpose of reaching an agreement. Unfortunately, he
related, penalties do not exist in the law for not reaching an
agreement. Thus, employers have learned ways to avoid being
reasonable and do not come to the table in good faith to reach
agreements, he surmised.
4:44:30 PM
MR. BROWN stated that currently, for whatever reason, the
economy is not working, which has placed workers in
circumstances similar to when the NLRA was enacted. He opined
that the economic situation is due to imbalance between wage and
profits. He offered his belief that wages have not kept up with
inflation for almost 40 years. He acknowledged that two sides
exist, the seller and the buyer. Mr. Brown further opined the
EFCA is an attempt to bring back balance to the workforce. He
said, "And for those that say we're trying to take away a free
election, that is not true." He noted that if 30 percent of the
employees want an election, they can call for an election, which
won't change under the proposed legislation. He agreed with Ms.
Brook's observation that binding arbitration's advantage is that
both parties know they must be reasonable in their negotiations.
Currently, the employer can withdraw recognition from the union
when 51 percent of his/her employees sign an open petition. He
concluded his testimony by emphasizing that the employer can
require his/her employees to attend campaign meetings while they
are being paid, which he opined does not represent a fair
election.
DENNIS KNEBEL, Business Representative, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), stated that he has
been an organizer International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (IBEW), Local 1547 for almost five years. He described
a scenario in which he had been asked, in 2007, by mechanics in
a busing company about representation by the IBEW. He related
that he subsequently met with day and night shift workers at
Denali National Park and Preserve. He related that by the end
of two meetings he had obtained 100 percent of the
representation cards signed by the employees. He offered that
employees were upset about working conditions such as paying for
their own tools, specific to the company buses, and food and
lodging expenses that the company required its employees to pay.
He pointed out most employees resided in Southcentral or in the
North Star Borough. Additionally, employees paid for room and
board during the time they were in their home districts on their
days off. He stated none of the employees previously had been
members of the IBEW, although some had been union members. He
said he returned to Anchorage and contacted the employer,
advised the employer of the signatures, and asked for voluntary
recognition of the union. The company decided to hold an
election under the NLRA in 45 days. He further opined that
prior to the election, the company held one-on-one meetings and
spread rumors that some employees were secretly employed by the
IBEW and would receive an increase in their pension if the union
prevailed.
MR. KNEBEL related that the IBEW lost the election 8 to 8. He
opined an employee related that he had asked the employer why he
claimed to be a union member when he was not. He said, "He just
shrugged his shoulders," and decided not to answer the question.
He further explained that the following spring he was re-
contacted by the employees with the same issues, and additional
issues to add to their complaint, including heath care issues.
He stated that one year later the group voted for IBEW
representation. He mentioned that the employer and union are
still undergoing contract negotiations. He emphasized tactics
are so common that the union has an acronym for them, "TIPS,"
which stands for threaten, intimidate, promise, and spy. He
stressed that HR 5 does not address issues faced by workers
trying to band together for a better future. Instead, he
surmised, the resolution is designed to support the current
broken system that ignores the wishes of working Alaskans and
gives the power to the company.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how many elections Mr. Knebel has
personally been involved in organizing.
MR. KNEBEL answered that he has been involved in organizing
about a dozen requests for union representation.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH inquired as to the number of instances that
the IBEW prevailed.
MR. KNEBEL related that the IBEW prevailed in about 75 percent
of the time, although contract negotiations are still underway
with some. In further response to Representative Buch, Mr.
Knebel answered that the employers always threaten and
intimidate employees.
4:52:05 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association,
Inc. read a prepared statement:
The Card Check or the Employee Free Choice ACT (EFCA)
is one of the most contentious issues to appear in the
labor/management arena for many years.
The secret ballot is one of the most treasured an
envied rights that Americans possess. The EFCA will
take away the right of employees to use the secret
ballot to make the decision whether to organize in the
workplace. While many of our member companies work
with collective bargaining units in their place of
business, many do not. This is not a referendum on
whether there should be collective bargaining units
but the method by which votes are taken to make that
decision. We believe that the current mechanisms
operate fairly giving each employee the right to make
their decision in private without any undue influence
from either the organizers or the employers.
Secondly, this bill introduces the federal government
into the contract negotiation process. This bill
provides that if the parties cannot come to agreement
within a specified time period, a government employee
presides over binding arbitration and that government
employee can impose his/her decision on the employer
and the bargaining unit for a period of up to two
years. It is impossible to believe that a government
arbitrator can have sufficient knowledge of the
industry and/or the specific issues in that specific
workplace to make an educated decision. Additionally,
there is nothing either party can do to change the
arbitrator's decision for the two year period.
There are a number of other issues involved in the
EFCA, but we feel that these two issues alone are
sufficient to support this resolution.
On behalf of our members, we urge you to vote yes.
4:54:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NEUMAN asked how many paid union lobbyists are in
the room. He answered that he counted eight.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH answered that lobbyists better be in the
room since their job requires them to follow issues of
importance to their members.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN remarked that it might be more appropriate
to count constituents in the audience.
CHAIR OLSON announced that the bill would be held over. He
noted that the committee would take additional public testimony
on HR 5.
4:56:58 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:56 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| good2.wmv |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| Feb 11 Packet Information.doc |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 HR 5 |
| HR5 01 Bill ver R.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 02 Employee Free Choice Act of 2007 (color).pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 03 Congress HR 800.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HB85 ver A.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Sponsor Statement.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85-CED-CBPL-02-09-09.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 LBA Audit Summary #08-20058-08.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 LBA Audit Report #08-20058-08.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 Mark Davis Letter of Support.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HB85 LA Aug 07 mtg excerpt.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HB 85 |
| HR5 04 Bureau of Labor Statistics 2008 Union membership.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 05 McGovernonEFCA.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 06 Al Sharpton against EFCA.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 07 Richard Epstein Unconstitutional.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 08 US Chamber response.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 09 Restaurant Workers.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 ALEC Issue Alert.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 Aves Thompson - Written Testimony Opposing Card Check 02112009.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
|
| HR5 Letter of Support AK Prosperity.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |
| HR5 Letter of Support NFIB.pdf |
HL&C 2/11/2009 3:15:00 PM |
HR 5 |