Legislature(2019 - 2020)GRUENBERG 120
03/05/2020 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
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 | |
| HB169 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| *+ | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON MILITARY AND VETERANS' AFFAIRS
March 5, 2020
1:10 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Laddie Shaw, Co-Chair
Representative Chris Tuck
Representative George Rauscher
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Steve Thompson, Co-Chair
Representative Chuck Kopp
Representative Ivy Spohnholz
Representative Sharon Jackson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 169
"An Act relating to occupational licensing fees for low-income
workers and military families; relating to licensing of
individuals with criminal records; relating to apprenticeship
programs; relating to the minimum wage; relating to lobbying;
and relating to municipal occupational licensing fees and
requirements."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 169
SHORT TITLE: OCC. LICENSING; MIN. WAGE; LOBBYING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) EASTMAN
05/14/19 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/14/19 (H) MLV, L&C, JUD
03/03/20 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
03/03/20 (H) -- MEETING CANCELED --
03/05/20 (H) MLV AT 1:00 PM GRUENBERG 120
WITNESS REGISTER
NATHAN SIMPSON, Staff
Representative David Eastman
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 169 on behalf of
Representative Eastman, prime sponsor.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As prime sponsor, answered questions during
the hearing on HB 169.
BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director
Alaska Policy Forum
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 169.
HALEY HOLIK, Senior Fellow
Foundation for Government Accountability
Austin, Texas
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the hearing on HB 169.
ACTION NARRATIVE
1:10:13 PM
CO-CHAIR LADDIE SHAW called the House Special Committee on
Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting to order at 1:10 p.m.
Representatives Tuck, Rauscher, and Shaw were present at the
call to order.
HB 169-OCC. LICENSING; MIN. WAGE; LOBBYING
1:10:49 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW announced that the only order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 169, "An Act relating to occupational licensing
fees for low-income workers and military families; relating to
licensing of individuals with criminal records; relating to
apprenticeship programs; relating to the minimum wage; relating
to lobbying; and relating to municipal occupational licensing
fees and requirements."
1:11:19 PM
NATHAN SIMPSON, Staff, Representative David Eastman, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 169 on behalf of Representative
Eastman, prime sponsor. He informed the committee HB 169 would
waive initial occupational licensing fees for members of low-
income families, veterans, military members, and military
spouses. Since the occupational licenses often prevent folks
from doing the work they are hired to do, HB 169 would make the
initial entry into the workforce smoother and easier, he said.
Licenses would still need to be renewed, he added. The average
fee is $400, and about 45 occupations are licensed with the
state, he said.
1:13:25 PM
MR. SIMPSON said Section 1 of HB 169 would require the
Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development
(DCCED) to waive initial fees for those who met the requirement.
He noted another eligible group would be former military
members. Section 3 would prevent denial of the waiver based on
an arrest that did not result in a conviction and allowed an
applicant to appeal a denial of a license based upon the prior
conviction of an applicant, he said. Section 4 would require
the department to issue an occupational license to an applicant
who has completed at least up to eighth grade, has successfully
completed an apprenticeship approved by the U.S. Department of
Labor, and has passed the appropriate licensing examination.
The applicant must be at least eighteen years old and have
completed all hours necessary for license training, he added.
Section 5 would prevent municipalities from disregarding HB 169,
so everyone in the state would have equal access. Section 6
would prevent municipalities from enacting a minimum wage that
differed from the state's minimum wage calculated in statute, he
stated. Section 7 would prevent municipalities from enacting or
enforcing laws or regulations that related to HB 169 unless they
were in place prior to the effective date of the legislation.
Municipalities would also be prohibited from hiring lobbyists
who would provide lobbying services for municipal licensing
boards or agencies, he said. Section 8 would add new language
related to lobbying addressed in Section 7, he concluded.
1:15:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed the purpose of HB 169 was to offer
relief to those trying to get into their trades and professions.
Regarding Section 6, he asked if a municipality wanted to have
its own "mini Davis-Bacon Act" [federal law that governs the
minimum wage rate to be paid to laborers and mechanics employed
on federal public works projects] and, thus, allow electricians,
for example, to make $2 more per hour than what the state would
allow, why such a limitation would exist and what its purpose
was when it came to occupational licensing.
1:16:28 PM
REPRESENTATIVE DAVID EASTMAN, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor of HB 169, answered that the minimum wage was enforced
by the state, and while it was not a frequent complaint that
municipalities were changing that language, the intent was that
every Alaskan have the same minimum wage so that an increase was
not at a disadvantage to some.
1:17:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said that did not seem to deal with
occupational licensing, and the goal should be to get people
into higher-paying jobs.
1:17:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said if people were already employed in
their fields, then it would be fitting to focus on their
obtaining better positions, but HB 169 focused on those new to
the workforce who were facing barriers to entry. If a
municipality had a higher minimum wage, then that would also be
considered a barrier to entry to someone who was trying to get
his/her first license, he related.
1:18:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said he did not see how a higher wage would
be a barrier for someone wishing to enter a trade.
1:19:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked how many people HB 169 would help
and whether it was a good solution.
1:19:32 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that Legislative Research Services was
checking how many military and low-income families would be
affected by HB 169.
1:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN added that military families often had
lower incomes than their private sector counterparts due to
having to move repeatedly. He added Alaska had higher than
average occupational licensing costs, and HB 169 would help
reduce them.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for a description of the
relationship between minimum wage and occupational licensing.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that a person hired on to a new
job had to start at the level appropriate for his/her skills and
experience. The lower the person was on the occupational
ladder, so to speak, the more a higher minimum wage would be out
of his/her reach, he explained.
1:22:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW asked whether there was a concern with
occupational licensing requirements that might make a difference
in terms of waiving the fee.
1:23:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that whether the restrictions
were appropriate was an ongoing discussion, but HB 169 addressed
the ability of unemployed people to obtain jobs.
1:24:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Section 4 would add new
requirements on obtaining licensure and whether there was a list
of exempted occupations available.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied he would provide it as well as
additional information on the apprenticeship program.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Section 4 had been added to
reduce a requirement or add a requirement, because there was new
language regarding age and education level.
1:26:09 PM
MR. SIMPSON replied that Section 4 referenced the waiver; low-
income people who qualified for the waiver would have had to go
through the apprenticeship program, be eighteen years of age,
and have gone through eighth grade.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN added that the initial requirement had
been modified for the purpose of allowing individuals to use the
apprenticeship program. Age requirements were meant to
alleviate concern that people would be taking advantage of the
program, he added.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK stated that electricians were required to
get occupational licenses as apprentices, so he did not know how
that step could be skipped unless occupations were exempt.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered that if someone had completed an
approved apprenticeship program, then the apprenticeship was
considered adequate to meet initial licensing requirements and
an occupational license should be issued.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether there would be a grandfather
clause for someone who was currently in an apprenticeship
program but had not yet completed eighth grade.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied one need not have completed an
apprenticeship program to obtain a license, but this was just
another way that it could be done. He added that for a lot of
careers there was no apprenticeship program and one could just
apply for the license.
MR. SIMPSON clarified HB 169 would require the department to
issue the license if a person qualified for the waiver and had
taken the necessary steps for his/her chosen occupation.
1:30:48 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 1:30 p.m. to 1:31 p.m.
1:31:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked whether a reduction percentage
would be acceptable for those who may qualify, in lieu of total
relief.
1:32:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered he would support anything that
helped reduce the barriers and made it easier for the families
in question.
1:32:35 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW announced that the committee would hear [invited
testimony].
1:32:55 PM
BETHANY MARCUM, Executive Director, Alaska Policy Forum,
imparted to the committee as early as the 1950s very few
companies were covered under occupational licensing laws, but by
the year 2000 studies found 20 percent or more of workers were
subject to these laws. One reason for growth was the desire for
consumer protection, she related. She said there was no proof
that consumers were the driving force behind obtaining licenses.
Instead consumers rely more heavily upon ratings and reviews.
Some jobs necessitated health and safety protocols to protect
both workers and consumers, she said, but licensing was only one
type of oversight the government was able to employ to protect
health and safety, and generally the most onerous. Random
inspections, bonding, and certifications were other types of
less burdensome oversights, she imparted. Data also showed
licensing did not protect health and safety in the real world,
she said. Ms. Marcum concluded that her research shows that
licensing and its corresponding cost mostly served to restrict
employment opportunities. Waiving initial licensing fees was a
good first step, she said.
1:36:02 PM
MS. MARCUM related that sometimes when veterans left military
service their experience translated into civilian careers, but
in many cases it did not. She related her own experience did
not translate. She suggested paid apprenticeships may result in
more Alaskans achieving gainful employment.
1:37:17 PM
HALEY HOLIK, Senior Fellow, Foundation for Government
Accountability, opined that military families and low-income
families, many of whom have little to no choice in relocation,
and for whom starting over is a way of life, should not have to
pay the government to work. She added that families would be
able to use the money that would otherwise go toward licensing
fees for groceries or bills, and she opined that the government
should not profit from individuals working to free themselves
from government dependency.
1:40:17 PM
MS. HOLIK related that those who had completed apprenticeships
earned higher starting wages and experienced higher employment
rates compared with those who had not completed apprenticeships.
She added that most people learned best by "doing." Paid
apprenticeships allowed individuals to take home a paycheck
while building experience, she stated.
1:41:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK said there may have been a drafting error in
Section 4 regarding fees being waived and the apprenticeship
program.
1:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that Section 4 was separate, and
there would be a waiver of initial fees distinctly different
from granting occupational licenses. He added that Section 4
dealt with minimum requirements to instruct the state to grant
licenses. If someone obtained a license, then that person would
also qualify to have the fee waived, he said. If a millionaire
went through the apprenticeship program, that person would not
qualify, he said.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked how it would be determined someone was
a millionaire and would not be able to have his/her fee waived.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN answered the fee waiver was to be granted
to veterans having served in the military, their spouses, and
low-income families.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked whether Section 4 was a new minimum
requirement and therefore not conditional on the fee waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN confirmed this and added that Section 4
did not eliminate the apprenticeship program.
1:45:01 PM
MR. SIMPSON reiterated that HB 169 would ensure that if someone
had taken the necessary steps outlined therein, then the
department would be obligated to issue an occupational license.
1:45:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked for confirmation that the
apprenticeship in Section 4 was not conditional on a waiver and
that no matter what a person's income that person would have to
follow Section 4.
1:46:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN replied that any apprenticeship program
could take place outside the requirement in Section 4, but if
the state had the power to grant the license without discretion,
then the requirements under HB 169 must be met.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK asked where this was in HB 169 because it
did not appear to be tied to the fee waiver.
REPRESENTATIVE EASTMAN said it was a separate section and not
tied to the waiver, but it was the hope someone may be able to
take advantage of both.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK confirmed Section 4 applied to those not
seeking a fee waiver.
1:48:02 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW expressed his support for HB 169.
1:48:29 PM
CO-CHAIR SHAW announced that HB 169 would be held over.
1:48:38 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting was
adjourned at [1:48] p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB0169A.PDF |
HMLV 3/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 Sponsor Statement 2.25.20.pdf |
HMLV 3/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |
| HB 169 Sectional Analysis v. A 2.25.20.pdf |
HMLV 3/5/2020 1:00:00 PM |
HB 169 |