Legislature(2025 - 2026)BARNES 124
04/28/2025 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| Board of Marital & Family Therapy | |
| HB193 | |
| Board of Marital & Family Therapy | |
| HB192 | |
| HB161 | |
| Board of Marital & Family Therapy | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 192 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 193 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 161 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 28, 2025
4:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Zack Fields, Co-Chair
Representative Carolyn Hall, Co-Chair
Representative Robyn Niayuq Burke
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Julie Coulombe
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Ashley Carrick
Representative David Nelson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Alaska Real Estate Commission
Susan Wilcox - Soldotna
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives
Lori Lindsay - Soldotna
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
Board of Marital & Family Therapy
Chantal Cohen - Anchorage
- CONFIRMATION(S) ADVANCED
HOUSE BILL NO. 193
"An Act establishing a paid parental leave program; relating to
unemployment benefits; relating to the collection of child
support obligations; and relating to the duties of the
Department of Labor and Workforce Development."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 192
"An Act relating to the payment of unemployment compensation
benefits; relating to a penalty for late unemployment benefit
payments; relating to inflation adjustments to unemployment
benefit amounts; relating to an insured worker's availability
for work; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 161
"An Act relating to minimum paid sick leave requirements; and
providing for an effective date."
- HEARD & HELD
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
Holly Steiner - Palmer
Stacia Miller - Valdez
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 193
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; PAID PARENT LEAVE
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HALL
04/15/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/15/25 (H) L&C, FIN
04/16/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/16/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/23/25 (H) L&C AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
04/23/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/23/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/25/25 (H) L&C AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
04/25/25 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/28/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 192
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EISCHEID
04/14/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/14/25 (H) L&C, FIN
04/25/25 (H) L&C AT 9:00 AM BARNES 124
04/25/25 (H) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
04/28/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 161
SHORT TITLE: PAID SICK LEAVE EXEMPTION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) RUFFRIDGE
03/28/25 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/28/25 (H) L&C, FIN
04/14/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/14/25 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
04/16/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
04/16/25 (H) Heard & Held
04/16/25 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
04/28/25 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
ACTION NARRATIVE
4:27:25 PM
CO-CHAIR CAROLYN HALL called the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee meeting to order at 4:27 p.m.
Representatives Coulombe, Burke, Fields, and Hall were present
at the call to order. Representatives Saddler arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
^BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES
BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES
^BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
4:28:48 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the first order of business would
be confirmation hearings on the governor's appointees to various
boards and commissions.
4:29:03 PM
}LORI LINDSAY, MD, Appointee* Board of Certified Direct-Entry
Midwives* Soldotna, Alaska* Testified as an appointee to the
Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives.{ testified as an
appointee to the Board of Certified Direct-Entry Midwives. She
stated that she had been practicing for 36 years and has lived
in Soldotna for the past 8 years. She further stated that she
had a strong interest in providing pre- and post-natal care in
supporting both the mother and the child. She further stated
that she had travelled internationally to promote and teach
midwifery, stating that she had taught a variety of subjects,
including bleeding after birth, preeclampsia survival, and
helping newborns breathe.
CO-CHAIR HALL invited questions from committee members.
4:30:24 PM
}SUSAN WILCOX, Appointee* Real Estate Commission* Soldotna,
Alaska* Testified as an appointee to the Real Estate
Commission.{ testified as an appointee to the Real Estate
Commission. She stated that she has lived in Alaska for 46
years, primarily in Kenai and Soldotna. She stated that she was
retired and identified her past work experience, including
service to the cities of Kenai and Soldotna and the State of
Alaska. She stated that she has volunteered on many boards,
including Alaska's Junior (indisc.) Board , and her local United
Way board. She noted that there was so southcentral peninsula
representation on the Real Estate Commission. She stated that
she could bring her prior public service and knowledge of boards
to the Real Estate Commission.
CO-CHAIR HALL invited questions from committee members.
[The confirmation hearings were set aside and brought back
before the committee later in the meeting.]
HB 193-UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS; PAID PARENT LEAVE
4:32:01 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 193, "An Act establishing a paid parental leave
program; relating to unemployment benefits; relating to the
collection of child support obligations; and relating to the
duties of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development."
4:33:09 PM
}JEN GRIFFIS, Vice President of Policy & Advocacy* Alaska
Children's Trust (ACT)* Anchorage, Alaska* gave a PowerPoint,
titled "House Bill 193: Unemployment Benefits; Paid Parental
Leave Analysis & Modeling."{ began her presentation on slide 2
of a PowerPoint, titled "House Bill 193: Unemployment Benefits;
Paid Parental Leave Analysis & Modeling," and gave a brief
outline of the presentation, which read [original punctuation
provided]:
Comparative Policy Analysis
Alaska H.B. 193 Bill Analysis (Prenatal-to-3 Policy
Impact Center)
Cost Modeling Comparison
2023 Microsimulation Model on Worker Leave (US Dept.
of Labor)
State-Level Program Variation
Features of State Paid Family Leave Programs
(Bipartisan Policy Center)
DR. GRIFFIS gave an overview of the comparative policy analysis
shown on slide 3, which, she stated places HB 193 into context
with the 14 other statewide paid leave programs that currently
exist. She explained that the comparative policy analysis
covered four areas: purpose of leave, duration of leave, wage
replacement, and the funding mechanism.
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 4, and gave an overview of the cover
purposes under HB 193 and comparison to other states with
similar legislation, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 193
Paid parental leave for bonding, used within 12 months
Other 14 States
bonding leave, caring for loved one with serious
health
condition, worker's own serious health condition
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 5 and gave an overview of duration of
leave under HB 193 and comparison to other states with similar
legislation. This read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 193
26 weeks of paid leave
Other 14 States
between 7-12 weeks, with 12 weeks being most common
parent who gave birth can stack medical and family
leave
DR. GRIFFIS gave an overview of wage replacement under HB 193
and comparison to other states with similar legislation, shown
on slide 6, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 193
maximum weekly benefit of $675
Other 14 States
maximum weekly benefits range from $900-$1,681
DR. GRIFFIS gave an overview of the funding mechanism under HB
193 and comparison to other states with similar legislation,
shown on slide 7, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
House Bill 193
.15% of employee wages
Other 14 States
employee wages - 3 programs
employer wages - 1 program
split - 10 programs
employee contributions range from .35% to 1.3%
employer contributions range from .26% to .75%
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 8, explaining that she was
transitioning to the cost modelling comparison. She gave an
overview of the cost modelling under HB 193, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Estimated Revenue
.15% of employee wages = $18.9 million
Cost of the Program
26 weeks of bonding leave = $30 million
As currently written, the revenue in HB 193 is not
sufficient to fund the paid leave program.
DR. GRIFFIS further explained that the estimates were made
using 2020 wage data scaled for wage growth in Alaska
between 2020 and 2025.
4:38:29 PM
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 9, drawing committee members'
attention to a table graph representative of different potential
policy adjustments to HB 193, labeled "Moving the Policy
Levers." She explained that the wage replacement under HB 193
could fund an eight-week bonding leave program or a six-week
bonding or caregiving/family leave program. She further
explained that the two additional models shown on the table
could be funded by .30 percent of employee wages instead of the
currently proposed .15 percent.
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 10, drawing committee members'
attention to a table graph, labeled "Adjusting the Wage
Replacement," noting that the table was representative of the
impact of the adjustment of wage replacements on individual
benefits and the percentage of wages required to fund the
program. She noted that as wage replacement increases, the
percentage of wages needed also increases. She further noted
that, at a 50 percent wage replacement, it was unlikely that the
program would be accessible for Alaska's lowest-income workers.
DR. GRIFFIS spoke to the fourth example on the slide, a two-
tiered system. She explained that tiered models make programs
more accessible to lower-income workers without increasing the
total cost of the program. She noted that tiered models are
very common in paid leave programs.
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 11, and identified the similarities
and differences between HB 193 and similar legislation enacted
in other states, which read [original punctuation provided]:
What's the same?
all cover bonding, caregiving, and medical leave
most cover leave for military deployment needs
most split cost between employer and employee
What's different?
coverage of safety leave to support victims of
domestic violence varies
number of weeks for each type of leave varies
DR. GRIFFIS moved to slide 12, and concluded her presentation,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
The variations in state-level program design
demonstrate the opportunities Alaska has to utilize
various policy levers to develop a comprehensive paid
leave program that meets the needs of Alaska's
families, communities, and businesses.
DR. GRIFFIS concluded by thanking committee members for their
time and invited questions.
4:42:40 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the definition of bonding
leave, family leave, medical, military deployment needs, and
safety leave.
DR. GRIFFIS responded that bonding leave, also called parental
leave, was leave taken upon birth, adoption or foster
replacement of a child. She defined medical leave as leave
taken by one typically for one's own health as defined by the
federal Family and Medical Leave Act. She defined family leave
as leave taken to care for a family member and their serious
medical condition. She noted that there is state variation on
the definition of a "family member." She explained that safety
leave typically references leave taken in situations related to
domestic violence, stalking, or assault.
4:44:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER requested a specific definition of safety
leave.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER additionally requested more information
regarding military deployment leave.
DR. GRIFFIS stated that she would follow up with the committee
with additional information about safety leave and military
deployment leave. She noted that military deployment leave was
related to caregiving needs that a family might experience
related to military deployment.
4:45:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked whether employers are required to
keep employees while the state is providing paid parental leave.
She queried what happens in other states and how the leave might
intersect with private businesses.
DR. GRIFFIS replied that it varied state-by-state. She
explained that some states give employees the option to opt-out
if the employee feels that they already have adequate coverage.
Further, she explained that the timeline and program
qualifications queried by Representative Coulombe was a "policy
lever" and determined by the legislators. She further noted
that typically, one must be employed for a set period of time
before qualifying for a leave program. She remarked that, with
a comprehensive statewide program such as HB 193, eligibility is
determined by whether an employee has paid into the statewide
program and could still theoretically switch jobs within the
state. She noted that it differed from qualifying through an
employer, as an employee would have to remain in that profession
to maintain eligibility. She stated that there was more
opportunity to qualify for a program like HB 193 without being
tied to a specific job.
4:48:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether other states allow
different parents to take leave in sequence. He further asked
if there was limit to the number of people who could qualify.
DR. GRIFFIS replied that it was dependent on how family was
defined, which varied state-by-state. She stated that how far
that leave might extend was dependent on how family was defined.
She further responded that stacking parental leave is allowed,
meaning that both parents, if eligible for the program, would
each qualify for their own "bucket of parental leave".
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how far leave extends to family
members.
DR. GRIFFIS repeated that it would depend on how each state
defines family. She offered an example, stating that if a child
had a serious medical condition post-birth, a grandparent might
be able to take leave to care for their grandchild, dependent on
what state. She further explained that bonding leave is
typically limited to two parents, or those in parental roles.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER said that he was curious what was done in
other states.
4:51:23 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS opined that it was pretty normal for parents to
take sequential leave in other states and nations.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER clarified that he was referring to
members of the family other than parents, such as grandparents.
4:52:13 PM
}PALOMA HARBOUR, Budget Manager* Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DOLWD)* Juneau, Alaska* Answered questions during
the hearing on HB 193.{ introduced herself for the public
record.
4:52:22 PM
}LENNON WELLER, Economist* Department of Labor & Workforce
Development* Juneau, Alaska* Answered questions during the
hearing on HB 193.{ introduced himself for the public record.
4:52:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE noted that the presentation stated that
other states use both employer and employee wages. She offered
her understanding that Alaska could not use employer wages.
MS. HARBOUR replied that the legislature could create a new tax
on employers to fund the program, in addition to the
unemployment tax already collected.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked for confirmation that the tax
under HB 193 was different from the current unemployment
insurance (UI) tax on employers.
MS. HARBOUR confirmed that was her understanding of the proposed
legislation.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE referred to slide 7 of the PowerPoint,
citing "employee contributions range from 0.35 to 1.3." She
noted that HB 193 was suggesting an employee contribution of
0.15 and asked if an increase to 1.3 in employee contribution
would be "too much."
MS. HARBOUR replied that, currently, there was a maximum in
statute on employee contribution and explained that, in order to
increase the employee contributions to 1.3, the legislature
would need to add a separate tax.
REPRESENTATIVE COULOMBE asked for clarification that the
legislature could not take any more than 0.15 of employee
contributions out of the trust fund to remain solvent.
MS. HARBOUR clarified that currently the trust is collecting
more revenue than it needs to cover benefit costs. She
explained that currently, DOLWD could take in less revenue to
the trust fund and take in revenue to the program proposed under
HB 193 and still remain solvent. She noted that there was only
so much employee contribution currently available.
4:55:10 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested that, in addition to the 0.15 employee
diversion, the legislature could allow [DOLWD] to push the
employer contribution into the trust fund below 1.0 and divert
the difference into a parental leave fund. He additionally
suggested that, when the UI trust fund is solvent, the
difference could be diverted into the parental leave fund.
MS. HARBOUR responded that scenario would be feasible.
4:56:12 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS suggested an amendment to HB 193 to allow the
funds to "build up" for a year and give the department the
ability to calculate allowable leave annually. He suggested
delegating authority to DOLWD to determine that length of
allowable leave under HB 193 with a ceiling. He said that
ideally the fund for the parental leave program would grow over
time.
MS. HARBOUR replied that, dependent on how the statute was
written, the Legislature could determine the length of a leave
program. She stated that she did not have current data on how
many employees would qualify for the proposed program under HB
193.
4:57:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BURKE queried the results of a stress test on the
UI trust fund.
MS. HARBOUR replied that [DOLWD] did an analysis down to 0.4
percent, based on experience rating. She stated that, upon
completion, she would follow up with the analysis for the
committee.
4:59:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked whether benefits would differ based
on how long a person had been employed.
MS. HARBOUR offered her understanding that it did not matter how
long an employee had been working or how much they had given in
contributions.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the minimum qualifications.
CO-CHAIR HALL deferred to Mr. Walsh.
5:00:17 PM
}TRISTAN WALSH, Staff* Representative Carolyn Hall* Alaska State
Legislature* Juneau, Alaska* Answered questions on behalf of
Representative Hall, prime sponsor of HB 193.{ answered
questions on behalf of Representative Hall, prime sponsor of HB
193. He offered his belief that the qualifying period under HB
193 was identical to unemployment insurance, which required
applicants to earn $2500 total in four of the five previous
quarters of employment. He stated that he would double-check
and follow up with the committee.
5:01:05 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL referred to page 3, line 17 for the answer to
Representative Saddler's question. She cited, "An employee who
is paid at least $2,500 in wages during at least two of the
calendar quarters of the employee's base period is eligible to
receive paid parental leave beginning the first day of absence
from work for a qualifying purpose under AS 23.10.715."
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that HB 193 was held over.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
^BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES
BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECT-ENTRY MIDWIVES
^BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
5:02:09 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the next order of business would be
the confirmation hearing on the governor's appointee to the
Board of Marital & Family Therapy.
5:02:40 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 5:02 p.m. to 5:06 p.m.
5:06:18 PM
}CHANTAL COHEN, Appointee* Board of Marital & Family Therapy*
Anchorage, Alaska* Testified as an appointee to the Board of
Marital & Family Therapy.{ testified as an appointee to the
Board of Marital & Family Therapy. She began her testimony by
stating that she was a licensed marriage family therapist and
supervisor, and a licensed professional counselor (LPC)
supervisor. She stated that she applied because she believed it
was important to ensure the highest level of the care for the
public as a clinician. She additionally stated that she applied
because of her belief in the importance of giving back to her
community.
CO-CHAIR HALL invited questions from committee members. After
ascertaining that there were no questions, she moved to the next
agenda item.
[The confirmation hearing was set aside and brought back before
the committee later in the meeting.]
HB 192-UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
5:07:45 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 192, "An Act relating to the payment of
unemployment compensation benefits; relating to a penalty for
late unemployment benefit payments; relating to inflation
adjustments to unemployment benefit amounts; relating to an
insured worker's availability for work; and providing for an
effective date."
5:08:21 PM
}REPRESENTATIVE TED EISCHEID* Alaska State Legislature* Juneau,
Alaska* As prime sponsor, presented HB 192.{ as prime sponsor,
presented HB 192. He began his presentation on the second slide
of a PowerPoint [included in the committee file], titled "HB
192: Unemployment Benefits," which read [original punctuation
provided]:
The mission of Alaska' state unemployment insurance
program is to:
Provide temporary wage replacement for individuals who
lose a job through no fault of their own; to protect
employers against the dispersal of a trained workforce
while temporary shutdowns are necessary; to facilitate
reemployment; and to help stabilize the economy.
REPRESENTATIVE TED EISCHEID noted that HB 192 was particularly
important in the face of federal layoffs, changes in the size
and scope of the federal government and workforce, and massive
departures in Alaska due to education funding issues and pension
benefit issues. He asserted that unemployment insurance is a
unique safety net for Alaska residents. He explained that, due
to federal requirements, payroll taxes paid by employers are put
into the UI trust fund. He explained that Alaska additionally
puts taxes collected from Alaska workers into the trust fund.
He stated that, because contributions are required to be a
percentage of individual workers' salaries, the contributions
are essentially inflation-proof. He also noted that funds
deposited into the UI trust fund can only be used to pay for
unemployment benefits, which protects the fund from
reappropriation. He further explained that, because Alaska
Statute (AS) sets the payment amounts for insured workers and
because the weekly benefit table in AS is not adjusted annually,
there is no comparable inflation-proofing effect in the payments
issued to workers claiming unemployment insurance.
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID referred to the third slide and gave an
overview of the benefits of unemployment insurance (UI), which
read [original punctuation provided]:
Unemployment insurance helps Alaskans bridge the gap
between jobs and helps ensure they are able to
successfully get back to work after periods of
unemployment.
In calendar year 2024, 19,651 Alaskans (or about ` out
of every 50 Alaskans) qualified for and received as
least one unemployment insurance weekly benefit
payment after being separated from employment
Employer and employee contributions organically
increase over time as wages increase, yet unemployment
benefit payouts have not increased in sixteen years
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID stressed that unemployment
insurance was not a handout and was not intended to
function as a replacement salary.
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved to the fourth slide and began
to describe the provisions under HB 192, which read
[original punctuation provided]:
Increases the weekly benefit amount that qualifying
unemployed Alaskans receive for the first time since
2009.
5:14:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved through the fifth, sixth, and
seventh slides and continued to describe the provisions under HB
192, which read [original punctuation provided]:
Increases the weekly supplemental allowance that
qualifying unemployed Alaskans receive for each of up
to three dependents, for the first time since 2009.
Implements an annual unemployment benefit adjustment,
and ties the benefit adjustment increment to the
average percentage of increase of the urban Alaska
Consumer Price Index over the most recent three-year
period
Requires timely payment of benefits to ensured workers
on weeks that include a holidy
Requires DOL&WD to issue prompt payment to
unemployment recipients following successful appeal of
a denied claim
Requires that payments to insured workers continue
uninterrupted in instances where additional
information is requested but the claimant is unable to
reach the call center
Removes a one-week waiting period at the beginning of
the benefits period and extends the benefit period to
cover the week or weeks prior to receiving a first
paycheck upon reemployment
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID moved to the eighth slide and final
slide and explained the unemployment insurance trust fund,
which read [original punctuation provided]:
The Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund pays out
benefits when an insured worker successfully applies
for unemployment
The parameters for use of the UITF are spelled out in
Federal Law (Section 3304(a)(4) of the Federal
Unemployment Tax Act), and require that states use
UITF funds only for paying UI benefits
In FY2024 the UITF brought in $165.9 million in
revenue and only paid out $43.5 million in benefits
In September 2024, the UITF balance was $724.4
Million, or $186.2 Million more than the statutory
target reserve ratio of 3.3% of taxable wages
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID concluded by stating that HB 192
was a common-sense piece of legislation that would protect
Alaska residents and "safeguard the economic wellbeing of
Alaska's workers, families, ... community, and ...
economy."
5:17:42 PM
}MEREDITH TRAINOR, Staff* Representative Ted Eischeid* Alaska
State Legislature* Juneau, Alaska* Gave sectional analysis on
behalf of Representative Eischeid, prime sponsor of HB 192.{
gave sectional analysis [included in the committee file] on
behalf of Representative Eischeid, prime sponsor of HB 192,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. Amends AS 23.20.340(d) to require timely
payment of weekly benefits during weeks
that include a holiday, and implements a penalty
payment requirement for late payments to
eligible insured workers;
Section 2. Amends AS 23.20.340(f) to require a 24-hour
payment deadline for payments
determined to be due to successful claim appellants
where said payments had been withheld
while the individual's claim underwent the appeal
process;
Section 3. Adds a new subsection to AS 23.20.340 that
requires the department to develop a
contingency plan for occasions when the call center
volume is exceeded, and requires timely
payment of weekly benefits for claimants who are
unable to reach the claim center as requested
in response to their weekly claim filing;
Section 4. Amends AS 23.20.350(d) to inflation-proof
the weekly benefit amount table
established in statute;
Section 5. Amends AS 23.30.350(f) to inflation-proof
the established dependent benefit
allowance established in statute;
Section 6. Adds a new subsection to AS 23.20.350 to
include an annual weekly benefit amount
adjustment based on the urban Alaska Consumer Price
Index for the prior three years;
Section 7. Amends AS 23.20.360 to begin the reduction
of benefits following a period of
unemployment as of the week the insured worker
receives first payment of wages; requires the
insured worker to provide accurate documentation of
the date of return to employment, and
provides a mechanism for recovery of any overpayment
to the Unemployment Trust Fund;
Section 8. Amends AS 23.20.375(a) to eliminate the
waiting week period between an insured
worker's initial claim for benefits and receipt of
initial claim payment;
Section 9. Amends AS 23.20.378(a) to allow an insured
worker to claim unemployment benefits
during a limited period of travel provided either: the
insured worker was permitted to work
remotely during their base period of employment, or
the insured worker has accepted an offer of
work that begins after the period of travel, and they
provide documentation that an earlier start
date was unavailable.
Section 10. Amends AS 23.20.378(c) to remove the
waiting week credit period from statute.
Section 11. Amends AS 23.20.378 by adding a new
subsection that allows the department to
collect information about a worker's remote work
history when the worker files a benefit claim;
Section 12. Amends AS 23.20.379(a) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
voluntary separation and discharge for misconduct;
Section 13. Amends AS 23.20.379(b) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
insured workers who have not met the requirements for
unemployment benefit payment;
Section 14. Amends AS 23.20.379(e) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
insured workers discharged for commission of felony or
theft;
Section 15. Amends AS 23.20.382(a) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
vocational training or retraining courses;
Section 16. Amends AS 23.20.382(b) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
the insured worker's participation in training and
retraining approved under U.S. code;
Section 17. Amends AS 23.20.382(d) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
the insured worker's participation in training and
retraining approved under the Workforce
Investment Act of 1998;
Section 18. Amends AS 23.20.383(a) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
stoppage of work during labor disputes;
Section 19. Amends AS 23.20.520(7) to remove the
waiting week credit from statute relating to
the definition of "claimant";
Section 20. Repeals AS 23.20.375(b) and AS
23.20.520(22).
Section 21. Sets an effective date of July 1, 2025.
5:22:13 PM
}PALOMA HARBOUR, Budget Manager* Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DOLWD)* Juneau, Alaska* Answered questions during
the hearing on HB 192.{ answered questions during the hearing on
HB 192. She spoke to the indeterminate fiscal note associated
with the proposed legislation.
5:23:43 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for the definition of the waiting
week creditas it was mentioned in Sections 10 and 19 of the
sectional analysis. He asked what would happen if the "waiting
week" were to be abandoned.
MS. HARBOUR explained that Alaska required a "waiting week,"
which was the first week that a claimant files with the state.
She emphasized the importance of the "waiting week" and spoke to
the way it served to identity verification. She said that an
individual would have to wait a certain amount of time before
they could be paid for a claim, which was currently a six-week
waiting period.
5:30:12 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL opened public testimony on HB 192.
5:30:28 PM
}LAURA STATS, representing self* Juneau, Alaska* Testified in
support of HB 192.{ testified in support of HB 192. She began
her testimony by sharing her experience in speaking with federal
employees who were impacted by the current presidential
administration's actions and emphasized the importance of
federal employees in the state. She said that the proposed
legislation would not cost the state any extra money and
encouraged the committee's support of HB 192.
5:32:42 PM
}MICHELLE BITTNER, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 192.{ testified in support of HB 192.
She spoke to the challenging job market that currently existed
for all workers due to the uncertain economy, federal layoffs,
and stock market downturns. She shared an anecdote about her
son who worked in construction wherein he was let go due to the
lack of available work for him and spoke to the way that HB 192
would address the problems she had just spoke to.
5:36:04 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 192.
5:37:18 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EISCHEID noted that the core legislative intent
of HB 192 was to work to increase the current unemployment
insurance benefit payout which had been stagnant since 2009. He
said that the proposed legislation would offer a variety of
reforms and offered that HB 192 could be amended in future
hearings.
5:38:59 PM
MS. TRAINOR commented that the waiting week period removal was
not with the intention of a person being paid before approval.
She said that the waiting week period would begin after an
individual was approved for unemployment benefits.
5:42:04 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that HB 192 would be held over.
HB 161-PAID SICK LEAVE EXEMPTION
5:42:17 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 161, "An Act relating to minimum paid sick leave
requirements; and providing for an effective date."
5:42:39 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL opened public testimony on HB 161.
5:43:01 PM
}LAURA STATS, representing self* Juneau, Alaska* Testified in
opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161. She
asserted that HB 161 constituted government overreach. She
reported that Ballot Measure 1 was supported by 58 percent of
Alaska voters in 2024. She stated that Ballot Measure 1 was
scheduled to go into effect in July of 2025. She asserted that
HB 161 was introduced on the assumption that voters were unaware
of what they were voting for regarding Ballot Measure 1. She
asserted that HB 161 would overpower freedom of speech. She
encouraged committee members to vote no on HB 161 and "protect
due process."
5:45:34 PM
}BRADEN GARRET, Operations Manager* Whistle Hill* Soldotna,
Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in support of
HB 161. He stated that Whistle Hill was comprised of five
businesses, with two more scheduled to open in June of 2025. He
stated that, without HB 161, many small businesses will face
increased costs from Ballot Measure 1. He asserted that if
Ballot Measure 1 passes as is businesses running on "razor-thin"
margins would close. He asserted that HB 161 was meant to
alleviate rising costs that businesses were facing. He asserted
that some businesses would lay-off employes, cut hours, increase
costs to consumers, or close and illustrated his point with some
anecdotes about small businesses. He urged committee members to
vote yes and consider the implications of voting no on HB 161.
5:48:40 PM
}PAUL THOMAS* Owner, Alaska Cache Liquor* Juneau, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 161.{ He stated that as a small
business owner, he runs all aspects of his small business,
including payroll, accounting, ordering, stocking, hiring &
firing of employees, et cetera. He asserted that, without HB
161, Ballot Measure 1 would be burdensome to his small business.
He stated that he anticipated hits to his employee profit-
sharing plan and asserted that sick leave for a "true small
business" would be harmful to it.
5:50:27 PM
}HEIDI HEINRICH, Co-Owner* Lucky Wishbone* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 161.{ She stated that many businesses
across the country continue to suffer from the aftermath of the
COVID-19 pandemic. She further asserted that Alaska-owned small
businesses suffer the most, with high shipping costs where
businesses often receive lower-quality products.
5:52:32 PM
}GENE WHITE, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in
opposition to HB 161.{ He stated that he was a retired
electrician and worked in construction. He provided an anecdote
about injuring himself on the job and shared his understanding
that the proposed legislation would not help those working in
trades like himself. He discouraged the committee's support of
the proposed legislation.
5:54:52 PM
}ANNETTE MARLEY, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161.
She stated that she had been involved in public health since
1995. She urged the committee to vote against HB 161, noting
that it would exclude businesses with 15 to 50 employees from
paid sick leave. She encouraged committee members to consider
benefits of paid sick leave, including: reduction of the spread
of infectious diseases, shifting of healthcare from emergency to
outpatient settings, decreased likelihood of injury at work, et
cetera.
5:57:59 PM
}MICHAEL CERVANTES, Owner* The Banks Alehouse* Fairbanks,
Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in support
of HB 161. He stated that, were HB 161 not come to pass, his
restaurant would absorb an expense of approximately $21,000, the
equivalent of one full-time employee. He said that small
businesses should "continue to thrive, not shut their doors."
6:01:22 PM
}SHANNON CARROLL, Director* Government Affairs, Trident
Seafoods* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{
testified in support of HB 161. He stated that Trident Seafoods
has been operating in Alaska since 1994 and spoke to her
understanding that Ballot Measure 1 would not impart any
benefits upon businesses, employees, or fishermen in the state.
He emphasized the need for enough workers to process the
fisheries needs of the state.
6:03:42 PM
}APRIL COOLEY, President* Cooley's Tax & Accounting Inc.*
Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified
in support of HB 161. She stated that her business has been
operating for 13 years and serves 30 to 40 small businesses in
Alaska. She identified the sick pay provision as her primary
concern of Ballot Measure 1. She noted that many of her clients
have dynamic pay structures. She shared concerns regarding the
costs of compliance and administration. She said that there was
nothing in current statute to define how sick pay was
administered.
6:05:53 PM
}NICOLE KIMBALL, Vice President* Pacific Seafood Processor's
Association* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{
testified in support of HB 161. She explained that Pacific
Seafood Processor's Association (PSPA) processes seafood for
communities across the state, noting that the majority of their
20,000 plus workers across the state are seasonal. She stated
that she was testifying primarily in support of the seasonal
employee exemption for sick pay HB 161.
6:08:56 PM
}SARAH OATES HARLOW, President* Alaska CHARR* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in support of HB 161.
She spoke to the annual income of over $3 billion dollars from
the hospitality and food services industry in Alaska. She said
that profit margins have been in the 1-2 percent range after the
Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic and said that she could not
continue to deflect increased costs to consumers.
6:12:29 PM
}ABBY FREDRICK* Director of Communications, Silver Bay Seafoods*
Juneau, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in
support of HB 161. She raised her concern that the proposed
legislation could increase overhead costs for businesses and
cause operational challenges for small businesses.
6:14:46 PM
}ADRIENNE SWEENEY, AJ's Old Town Steakhouse* Homer, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in support of HB 161.
She spoke to the enormous pressures and supply chain issues that
have battered small businesses in Alaska since the COVID-19
pandemic. She said that the paid sick leave mandate did not
account for the realities that small businesses were faced with.
She said that it was difficult for small business owners to make
decisions about eliminating vacation pay or part-time employees
and encouraged the committee's support of the proposed
legislation.
6:17:17 PM
}COREY BOYD, Co-Owner* Senders* Fairbanks, Alaska* Testified in
support of HB 161.{ testified in support of HB 161. profit
margins. He said that small businesses would not be able to
raise consumer prices enough to accommodate mandated paid sick
leave and would have to cut operational hours.
6:19:39 PM
}LAILE FAIRBAIRN, President* Locally Grown Restaurants*
Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in
support of HB 161. He said that his business already provided
paid time off with a 401k retirement and health insurance. He
said that Ballot Measure 1 did not take into account small
businesses or the hospitality industry. He said that
restaurants with less than 50 employees do not have the
resources to provide sick leave.
6:22:28 PM
}ALICIA AMBERG, Executive Director* Associated General
Contractors of Alaska* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support
of HB 161.{ testified in support of HB 161. She said that the
impacts of the new paid sick leave requirements would be
sweeping and emphasized the lack of regulations surrounding the
implementation of mandatory sick leave.
6:23:50 PM
}LAURA MCDONNELL, Owner* Caribou Crossing* Juneau, Alaska*
Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in support of HB
161. She said that HB 161 was designed to support family owned
small businesses in Alaska and spoke to the difficult nature of
the sick leave requirements mandated by Ballot Measure 1.
6:25:50 PM
}JULIE CLEATON, Board Member, Alaska Public Health Association*
Wasilla, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{ testified in
support of HB 161. She emphasized the importance of paid sick
leave in Alaska and urged support of sick leave without a cash-
out option.
6:27:42 PM
}MICHAEL FLINT, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161. He
said that the proposed legislation was "offensive" to voters who
already approved Ballot Measure 1. He asserted that companies
and small businesses could afford to offer paid sick leave to
their employees. He emphasized the importance of worker's
benefits like paid sick leave and discouraged the committee's
support of HB 161.
6:29:16 PM
}REBECCA OWENS, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161.
She said that the greed of businesses did justify the burden of
offering employee benefits and discouraged the committee's
support of HB 161.
6:30:51 PM
}JOELLE HALL, President* Alaska AFLCIO* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to
HB 161. He said that the intent of the proposed legislation was
to undo the will of the voters in the previous election. He
asserted that HB 161 was "constitutionally dubious" and
discouraged the committee's support of HB 161.
6:32:38 PM
}TRISTIAN SAMMONS, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to
HB 161. He said that he was "appalled that restaurant owners
would allow employees to come into work sick" and emphasized the
importance of paid sick leave. He discouraged the committee's
support of HB 161.
6:34:38 PM
}SCOTT CRASS, representing self* Fairbanks, Alaska* Testified in
opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161. He
said that the proposed legislation would erode public trust in
the electoral system in Alaska.
6:35:51 PM
}ABEL BULT-ITO, representing self* Fairbanks, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161. He
said that Alaskan parents shouldn't have to choose between
losing a day of pay to stay with their sick child or going into
work. He said that the proposed legislation would remove
workers benefits for those most likely to not already have
employee benefits and discouraged the committee's support of HB
161.
6:37:54 PM
}GARRETT SAVORY, representing self* Fairbanks, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161. He
said that he did not want to consume food prepared by sick
workers and emphasized that he did not like the manner in which
the proposed legislation was "pinning citizens against small
businesses."
6:38:59 PM
}BRONSON FRYE, President* Building & Construction Trade Council*
Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified
in opposition to HB 161. She said that the proposed legislation
sought to weaken the existing employer benefit laws and
discouraged the committee's support of HB 161.
6:41:15 PM
}DONOVAN RUSSONIELLO, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska*
Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to
HB 161. He said that paid sick leave was an item that made
Alaska a more attractive state to work in and said that it was
"essential" for working families in Alaska. He emphasized that
many working Alaskans did not have time to call into the current
committee hearing because they were working, while the
industries supporting the legislation were able to testify.
6:44:01 PM
}VINCE BELTRAMI, representing self* Cooper Landing, Alaska*
Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to
HB 161. He argued that HB 161 was tantamount to repealing
Ballot Measure 1 and said that the exemption for employers with
less than 50 staff members effectively repealed Ballot Measure
1. He discouraged the committee's support of HB 161.
6:46:30 PM
}DONNA PHILLIPS, representing self* Girdwood, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161.
She said that people should not be spreading disease at work and
said that only after the COVID-19 pandemic did nurses begin to
stay home from work when they were feeling under the weather.
6:48:26 PM
}LAURA BONNER, representing self* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified
in opposition to HB 161.{ testified in opposition to HB 161.
She argued that a higher minimum wage and mandatory paid sick
leave should apply to all employers in the state.
6:50:19 PM
}PATRICK FITZGERALD, Political Coordinator* Teamsters 959*
Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in opposition to HB 161.{ testified
in opposition to HB 161. He said that the policies of Ballot
Measure 1 had not yet been implemented and spoke to the numerous
benefits on workers that employer's benefits offer.
6:51:50 PM
}HEIDI SORRELL, Executive Director* Soldotna Chamber of
Commerce* Soldotna, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{
testified in support of HB 161. She said that she would not be
able to hire seasonal staff if HB 161 were not to become law and
said that Ballot Measure 1 mandated paid sick leave without
clear guidelines. She said that businesses had no way to verify
if employees were actually sick and spoke to the thin profit
margins that small businesses in Alaska operate under.
6:53:42 PM
}CAROLINA STACEY, Owner, Lucky Wishbone & Owner* Kindred Spirits
Coffee* Anchorage, Alaska* Testified in support of HB 161.{
testified in support of HB 161. She said that the increased
cost to small businesses that Ballot Measure 1 put onto small
businesses in Alaska was unsustainable and urged the committee's
support of HB 161.
6:55:52 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL, after ascertaining that there was no one else who
wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 161.
6:55:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS passed along comments on behalf of Mr. Dan
Sumner.
[HB 161 was held over.]
6:56:15 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL discussed amendment deadlines for various
legislation.
^CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
CONFIRMATION HEARING(S):
^ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
ALASKA REAL ESTATE COMMISSION
^BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECTY-ENTRY MIDWIVES
BOARD OF CERTIFIED DIRECTY-ENTRY MIDWIVES
^BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
BOARD OF MARITAL & FAMILY THERAPY
6:57:06 PM
CO-CHAIR HALL announced that the final order of business would
be the confirmation hearings on the governor's appointees to
various boards and commissions.
CO-CHAIR HALL stated that the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee has reviewed the qualifications of the governor's
appointees and recommends that the following names be forwarded
to a joint session for consideration: Lori Lindsay, Board of
Marital & Family Therapy; Susan Wilcox, Alaska Real Estate
Commission; and Chantal Cohen; Board of Certified Direct-Entry
Midwives. She said that signing the report regarding
appointments to boards and commissions in no way reflects an
individual member's approval or disapproval of the appointee,
and the nomination is merely forwarded to the full legislature
for confirmation or rejection.
6:57:29 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
6:57 p.m.