01/30/2023 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB46 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2023
3:15 p.m.
DRAFT
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jesse Sumner, Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Ashley Carrick
Representative Zack Fields
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Josephson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to the definition of 'employer' for the
purposes of the State Commission for Human Rights."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act allowing child care providers that receive state aid to
organize and collectively bargain with the Department of Health;
and establishing the child care provider fund."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) L&C, JUD
01/30/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
01/25/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/23 (H) L&C, STA, FIN
01/30/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 13, as the prime sponsor.
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"HB 13: Applicability of Human Rights Commission," on behalf of
Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
ROBERT CORBISIER, Executive Director
Alaska State Commission on Human Rights
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 13.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 46, as the prime sponsor.
BLUE SHIBLER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Association for the Education of Young
Children.
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
PEARL BROWER, PhD, CEO
Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
CHRISTINA EUBANKS Executive Director
Hillcrest Children's Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff
Representative Zack Fields
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 46, on
behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:15:09 PM
CHAIR JESSE SUMNER called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. Representatives Wright,
Fields, Prax, Saddler, Ruffridge, and Sumner were present at the
call to order. Representative Carrick arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
CHAIR SUMNER appointed Representative Ruffridge as vice chair of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 13-APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
3:16:05 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the first order of business would be
HB 13, "Applicability of Human Rights Commission."
3:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 13. He stated that the state of
Alaska has had a Human Rights Commission since 1963. The Human
Rights Commission does not have jurisdiction over non-profit
organizations. He said that according to Legislative Research
Services, it is unclear why this is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the Human Rights Commission
was created during a time in which there was work being done to
eliminate discrimination based on factors such as race and
ethnicity. He said that the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) acts as a "parent organization" and generally
covers larger employers. The EEOC pays a fee to the Human
Rights Commission to handle some cases that it normally would.
He reiterated that HB 13 would give the Human Rights Commission
jurisdiction over non-profit organizations. He said that the
Human Rights Commission operates by investigating meritorious
claims of discrimination and then trying to conciliate both
sides of a case to keep the case from going to court. The
agency can take cases to court if a reconciliation agreement is
not reached.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in 2018, the commissioners
that had been appointed by then Governor Bill Walker supported
the change that would be made by HB 13. Last fall,
commissioners appointed by Governor Mike Dunleavy agreed with
the previous commissioners.
3:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON said he believes the bill is necessary
to address a "gap" in jurisdiction. If a person is
discriminated against for housing or employment, they are able
to take their claims to the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission
(AERC), but there are people in other parts of the state that do
not have such an opportunity if they work for a non-profit
because the Human Rights Commission lacks jurisdiction. He
noted that only nine states lack protections for non-profit
employees, and approximately 50 cases were not "screened in" by
the Human Rights Commission due to a lack of jurisdiction.
3:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many cases the Human Rights
Commission deals with per year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was unsure, but Robert
Corbisier, the Executive Director at the Alaska State Commission
for Human Rights, would be able to answer later.
3:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE declared a potential conflict, as his
wife serves as a commissioner on the Human Rights Commission.
CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Ruffridge.
3:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in the 2021 report from the
Alaska Human Rights Commission, there was a peak of 1,733 cases
in the highest year, 405 of which were found to have a basis.
In 2021, the number dropped to 674, which he believes could be
related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3:27:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the number of
cases for 2021.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that there were 674 inquiries
in 2021, 139 cases that were found to have basis, 119 cases that
were taken in, and 106 complaints filed.
3:27:43 PM
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson,
Alaska State Legislature, provided a PowerPoint presentation
titled "HB 13: Applicability of Human Rights Commission" on
behalf of Representative Josephson, prime sponsor. He added
that the proposed legislation would amend AS 18.80.300 sub-
section (5) to amend the definition of employer to include non-
profit organizations, which would give the Human Rights
Commission jurisdiction over them in discrimination cases.
3:29:19 PM
MR. SCHROEDER moved to slide 2 and stated that the EEOC is the
federal equivalent to the Alaska State Commission on Human
Rights (ASCHR), created by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 to deal with employment-related discrimination. He noted
that the EEOC covers employers with 15 or more employees, while
the Human Rights Commission covers any employer with at least
one employee. He continued to slide 3 and said that ASCHR was
created in 1963, adding that Alaska is one of only nine states
that does not include non-profit organizations under the
jurisdiction of its human rights commission. Moving back to
slide 2, he said that municipal level human rights commissions
such as the Anchorage Equal Rights Commission and the Juneau
Human Rights Commission (JHRC) have non-profit organizations
included under their jurisdictions.
MR. SCHROEDER added that while there are other commissions with
the ability to cover non-profit organizations when it comes to
employment discrimination, it is still important for ASCHR to
gain jurisdiction over those types of cases. The location of
the non-profit organization matters, so a resident of one area
would be unable to go to the human rights commission of their
municipality if the non-profit organization was located in
another area. He said that there are areas of Alaska with
significant numbers of non-profit employees that would not have
a municipal commission to go to if they faced discrimination.
3:34:08 PM
MR. SCHROEDER returned to slide 3 and said that ASCHR has had a
legislative goal to gain jurisdiction over employment related
discrimination cases for four consecutive years. On slide 4, he
gave a brief overview of what the bill would do, saying that it
would change the definition of "employer" in AS 18.80.300 sub-
section (5) to include non-profit organizations, with exceptions
for religious, fraternal, and social non-profit organizations.
3:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked if Representative Josephson could
give a specific example of an instance in which this bill would
be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was unable to give an
example due to cases dealing with non-profit organizations being
dispensed with because of a lack of jurisdiction. He added that
Mr. Corbisier may be able to give an example.
3:37:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Representative Josephson if he had
reviewed any of the minutes from the original bill that created
ASCHR in order to better understand why the makers of the bill
did not include non-profit organizations from the beginning.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that he was informed by
Legislative Research Services that due to the age of the
measures, the records are limited and there are no minutes
available to provide context to why that may be the case. He
said that he was informed by Legislative Research Services that
records prior to 1990 are difficult to find, if they can be
found at all. In response to a follow-up question, he said that
he could try asking his father, who was a legislator at the
time, why that was the case.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the same definition of employer
is used at the municipal and federal level, but not the state
level.
MR. SCHRODER answered that the definitions vary, as well as the
exceptions to those definitions. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier
as having a more complete answer to the relation in definitions.
3:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK asked what the rationale is for excluding
religious and fraternal organizations, and what the definition
of a fraternal organization would be.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that HB 13 covers an area of
the law that is "evolving"; as an example, he said that he would
not want to require churches to ordain female clergy if that
went against their religious beliefs. He said that the Boy
Scouts of America would be an example of a social or fraternal
organization, and although they have since reversed their
position, there was a case in which they were not required to
have an Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ)
Scout Leader. He said that the bill ultimately reflected the
language that the commissioners have requested.
3:45:37 PM
ROBERT CORBISIER, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission on
Human Rights, stated that ASCHR enforces Article 1, Section 3 of
the Alaska State Constitution, which is the section that
provides for civil rights. He said ASCHR is the legislature's
implementation of that constitutional provision. He said that
ASCHR has jurisdiction over employment, public accommodations,
the sale and rental of real property, credit and financing, and
government practices cases, as well as retaliation cases, which
he said often stem from one of the previous types of cases. He
noted that the Fairbanks Diversity Council and the Juneau Human
Rights Commission are advisory councils without the ability or
resources to enforce decisions. He noted AERC is the only other
entity in Alaska that has the ability and authorization to
implement and enforce decisions. He stated that this gap means
that small non-profit organizations of fewer than 15 employees
would not face accountability for discrimination.
3:49:02 PM
MR. CORBISIER stated that ASCHR receives reimbursement from the
EEOC for taking cases that are co-jurisdictional. The
commission does not keep track of the cases that it screens out.
He said that ASCHR is not a punitive agency, and its goal is to
make victims whole and work with the respondents to create an
enforceable non-discrimination policy that complies with state
and federal laws. In 2022, ASCHR received 814 cases, 184 of
which had basis, 164 of which were taken in formally, and 134 of
which were signed and investigated.
3:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX declared a potential conflict of interest as
his sister in-law serves on the ASCHR board.
CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Prax.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked if the EEOC would take cases dealing
with a non-profit organization if that organization had 15 or
more employees.
MR. CORBISIER answered that it would and added that EEOC refers
all employment cases in which the employer has 15 or more
employees to ASCHR or AERC, if the employer is in Anchorage. If
that employer is a non-profit, Mr. Corbisier must inform the
EEOC that ASCHR cannot take the case. In response to a follow
up question, he answered that he is unsure why the threshold for
EEOC is 15 employees but speculated that it is related to the
size of cases the federal government wants to address.
3:55:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation on the
jurisdictional gap present in employment discrimination cases.
MR. CORBISIER answered that AERC's jurisdiction is similar to
that of ASCHR's, but AERC has explicit jurisdiction over cases
involving LGBTQ discrimination as a protected class. He said
AERC also has jurisdiction over non-profit organizations that
are located within the Municipality of Anchorage, while EEOC has
jurisdiction over employers with 15 or more employees, including
non-profit organizations. He added that both organizations
would have jurisdiction over cases involving government
employers. In response to a follow-up question, he said that
ASCHR covers employers with any number of employees, excluding
non-profit organizations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the cost of running ASCHR
and its budget.
MR. CORBISIER answered that ASCHR has a budget of just over $2
million. He added that this is roughly what it costs to repave
a mile of road.
3:58:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the reimbursement per case
to ASCHR from the EEOC and the associated costs with taking on
those cases.
MR. CORBISIER answered that ASCHR has the capacity to accept
more cases without additional cost to the State of Alaska. He
added that most of the cases being rejected were rejected
because they were "obviously" non-jurisdictional and ASCHR did
not want to give "false hope" to the people making those
complaints. The COVID-19 pandemic caused the number of cases to
decline due to less people working and an increased amount of
remote work; the number of cases have increased since things
started returning to normal. In response to a follow-up
question, he said that the amount of reimbursement could be up
to $800 per case, and that 45,000 employees could be affected by
the change in jurisdiction. He confirmed that it would not
cause an increase in cost to the state's general fund.
4:03:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Corbisier about the
difference between the original version of the bill and the
commission's adopted resolution language.
MR. CORBISIER answered that the language used in the
commission's resolution relied more on the religious exemption
provided for in regulation. He confirmed that the bill's draft
did not change the religious exemption language and removed the
word "club."
4:05:38 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that HB 13 was held over.
4:05:51 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:05 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
HB 46-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
4:08:22 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the final order of business would be
HB 46, "CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING."
4:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, as prime sponsor, gave a brief history on
the background for the bill. On slide 2, he stated that the
problem in the childcare field is low wages and benefits leading
to a shortage of childcare workers, adding that the COVID-19
pandemic has increased the shortage of adequate childcare.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 3,
highlighting a report that employment in childcare has decreased
by 7 percent, contrasting with the number of people who want to
return to work following the pandemic. On slide 4, he
highlighted a report that 2 more childcare centers in Juneau,
Alaska, have closed, and there are none in Valdez, Alaska.
4:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS advanced to slide 5, stating that he
believes that the inadequate amount of childcare in Alaska is
playing a part in the issue of outmigration from the state. The
greatest number of people leaving the state are young people of
working age. He turned to slide 6, stating that 11 other states
have implemented some form of childcare employee collective
bargaining.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 7, stating
that the goals of HB 46 are to give childcare workers a "living
wage" in order to increase the supply of childcare. He said
that it should be done in a way that keeps the prices from
increasing, as many families cannot afford to pay more for
childcare. He added that public policy on childcare should
remain "flexible" to allow the sector to continue to work with
the state government on the best possible solutions.
4:14:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS continued to slide 8 and stated that major
Alaska employers are raising their concerns about the lack of
adequate childcare in Alaska. Childcare was one of the top
three issues that the Alaska Chamber of Commerce heard from its
member employers.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS concluded by explaining how the bill
works. He said that if the bill were passed, the Alaska
Department of Labor and Workforce Development would conduct an
election asking all childcare workers if they wished to engage
in sectoral bargaining with the state. If they were to vote
affirmatively, they would create or join a union to negotiate
with the state for wages and benefits. He added that the bill
would also establish a childcare trust fund.
4:17:37 PM
BLUE SHIBLER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Association
for the Education of Young Children, stated that there have
always been issues with childcare shortages due to childcare
"not being a very good business model." The cause of this is
that childcare centers have only a single source of revenue, and
they can only charge so much before families cannot afford it.
She said that prior to the pandemic, it was possible to find
childcare employees that would do the work because they enjoyed
it, but rising costs of living are causing more people to face a
choice between having a job they enjoy and having a job that
pays more. All of Juneau's childcare centers have the capacity
to care for more children, but do not have enough employees to
increase enrollment. She described the current business model
for childcare as a "market failure" and childcare as a "public
good" and asserted that the solution would be state government
investment into the childcare sector.
4:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired about the organizations that Ms.
Shibler's organization represents.
MS. SHIBLER explained that the Southeast Alaska Association for
the Education of Young Children provides different support
mechanisms to childcare providers rather than representing them.
In response to a follow up question, she said that the majority
of the money going to childcare centers is from the parents
paying tuition, although there are subsidies available for those
with lower incomes.
4:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked for an explanation of Ms.
Shibler's meaning when she labeled the lack of childcare as a
"market failure."
MS. SHIBLER explained that as a business, no profit is made and
a worthy wage is not provided. She contrasted that with a
traditional business in which goods or service costs could be
raised to close the gap; however, childcare business cannot do
that because parents can't pay.
4:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE sought to confirm that a state subsidy
would be the only way for businesses to survive. He asked where
the state would receive an injection of cash for that purpose.
MS. SHIBLER answered that childcare centers are unable to pay
high wages or make a profit. In other businesses, it is
possible to raise the prices to reflect a rise in costs to the
business, whereas childcare centers are unable to because it
would become unaffordable for families. She concluded that the
lack of ability to make a profit means fewer people attempting
to start a childcare center as a business. In response to a
follow-up question, she said that she believes that the
childcare sector needs subsidies to remain operational, and she
observed that the issue of lacking childcare is being
acknowledged in other states and at the national level.
4:27:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the issue of low profits and
wages in childcare is a new or existing problem.
MS. SHIBLER answered that it has been an ongoing problem in her
20 years of experience working in childcare. The increase in
the cost of living has exacerbated the problem. In response to
a follow-up question, she said that childcare prices are
generally similar across the sector and largely paid for by the
parents.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what role the state Department of
Health would play in funding childcare.
MS. SHIBLER said the Department of Health receives block grants
from the federal government and is responsible for deciding on
the best usage of that money in regard to childcare.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the percentage of the cost
that the federal government is taking on for childcare in
Alaska.
MS. SHIBLER answered that the federal money used in the
Childcare Assistance Subsidy Program pays childcare providers on
behalf of parents that qualify for assistance. Other money is
used for training purposes, but the federal money is not able to
be used for increasing wages or benefits for childcare workers.
She concluded that she was unsure of the amount of money from
the federal grants contributed towards wages.
4:32:29 PM
PEARL BROWER, PhD, CEO, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC),
stated that workplaces across the state are facing shortages,
and a lack of childcare is making it more difficult for people
to return to work. She said that one of the reasons her family
moved from Utqiagvik, Alaska, to Anchorage was because of the
difficulty finding childcare in Utqiagvik. She continued that
the lack of childcare availability causes economic instability
for families, leaves children at a higher risk of neglect, and
makes it difficult for employers to fill all of their available
positions.
4:36:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether UIC is a for-profit
organization.
DR. BROWER answered that it is. In response to a follow-up, she
said that even if the corporation were to provide childcare
benefits to employees, there would not be enough childcare
providers to care for every child.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that the solution may require an
increase in the cost of childcare, either paid for by the state
or by private employers as a benefit to their employees.
4:39:03 PM
CHRISTINA EUBANKS, Executive Director, Hillcrest Children's
Center, stated that finding employees has been a continuous
issue in her 20 years working in childcare. Childcare is one of
the lowest paying professions in the state, causing high levels
of turnover. She said that she believes it is important for the
industry to have a voice in how the money from federal grants
for childcare is being spent due to that having a direct impact
on the operations and cost of childcare centers.
4:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked what is preventing childcare centers
from raising their prices.
MS. EUBANKS explained that nothing is preventing price
increases, and that prices have already increased. There is an
expected price increase of 6-10 percent this year. She said
that the consequences of this is that childcare is becoming
affordable only to parents with high incomes.
4:42:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked why the providers do not raise
prices to allow them to pay higher wages.
MS. EUBANKS emphasized that raising prices would make childcare
unaffordable for many families.
4:44:44 PM
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of HB 46 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section l: This section amends AS 23.05.360(t) to allow
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency board in the Department
of Labor & Workforce Development the authority to include
workers in the child care sector for the purpose of
holding hearings. This is a conforming change to
language added in Sec 4.
Section 2: This section amends AS 23.05.370(a) to direct
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency to serve as labor
relations agency for workers in the child care sector
covered by the new language added in Sec. 4.
Section 3: This section amends AS 23.05.380 to give
Department of Labor & Workforce Development the authority
to update regulations pertaining to collective bargaining
rights for workers in the child care sector. This is a
confonning [sic] change to language added in Sec 4.
Section 4: This section amends AS 23.40 to give child
care providers the right to self-organize, join, or
assist an organization to bargain collectively and engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. This
section prohibits the Department of Health from engaging
in unfair labor practices, and it provides a process for
investigation and conciliation of complaints. This
section also provides definitions.
Section 5: This section establishes a child care provider
fund as a separate fund in the state treasury. This
section also establishes a child care stakeholder group
to recommend disbursements from the fund.
4:47:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS addressed earlier questions from
Representative Saddler and Representative Prax, adding to the
previous answers that not investing in childcare would create an
environment in which only those with high incomes would be able
to afford childcare. The result is that people are pushed out
of the workforce and economic capacity decreases. He reiterated
that the bill would create a childcare trust fund to allow the
State of Alaska to invest more in childcare as other places in
the world do.
4:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what role the Department of Health
would play in collective bargaining and who would end up paying
for it.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said the model was similar to the higher
education trust fund. He continued that subsidized slots do not
cover the entire cost of tuition at a childcare center and
childcare centers end up passing that cost on to the other
parents who can pay.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a breakdown of the costs of
childcare paid for by families and the grants from the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS explained that at the childcare centers
his family uses, subsidized slots are available, meaning that
the state pays for the childcare of children whose parents
qualify. He added that some other states have expanded the
levels for which parents can be eligible for childcare subsidies
in order to make childcare more affordable for a wider range of
families and therefore increase the number of people working.
4:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed concern that the bill would result
in continuously expanding eligibility for the subsidy, comparing
it to the current issues facing Medicare.
4:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK sought confirmation for whether home-
based childcare providers would be covered by the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that all licensed providers would
be covered, including home-based providers.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK commented that the bill could be useful
in the effort to retain childcare workers.
4:55:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE asked if it was possible for HB 46 to
cause prices to increase for some parents if the subsidy was not
expanded.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that the goal was to keep prices
down for parents. He continued that his belief is that
childcare providers should be a greater part of the discussion
because they have the best idea of how to serve the families for
which they provide childcare. The bill would create a framework
to give childcare providers a greater voice rather than
mandating a certain wage be paid to childcare employees. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that there is not
currently a specific dollar amount to be placed into the
childcare trust fund that would be created under HB 46.
4:59:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how much of childcare is paid for
privately versus how much is paid for by the government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recapped that the vast majority was paid
for privately by parents, with some per-child subsidized slots
paid for using government funds. In response to a follow-up
question, he stated that the idea behind the trust fund was to
give childcare providers a greater say in how the federal grants
were used because they have a better idea of how those funds
would be most effective.
5:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked what the amount of money received
from the federal grant block is per year.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that he is unsure but would
follow up with an answer at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT explained the "for the wage" campaign and
asked whether the bill was related to it in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that he is unfamiliar with the
campaign.
[HB 46 was held over.]
5:02:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:02 p.m.