Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/25/2002 02:35 PM Senate L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR & COMMERCE COMMITTEE
April 25, 2002
2:35 pm
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Ben Stevens, Chair
Senator Alan Austerman
Senator Loren Leman
Senator John Torgerson
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
All Members Present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 212(L&C)
"An Act requiring a subcontractor to obtain workers' compensation
insurance covering the subcontractor and the subcontractor's
employees and establishing responsibility of a contractor for
obtaining workers' compensation coverage for the subcontractor
and the subcontractor's employees if the subcontractor fails to
obtain workers' compensation coverage; and providing for an
effective date."
MOVED SCSHB 212(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 252
"An Act renaming the Alaska Human Resource Investment Council as
the Alaska Workforce Investment Board and relating to its
membership; repealing the termination date of the state training
and employment program; relating to employment and training
activities; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 252(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 504(L&C)
"An Act relating to the wages of people working in the fisheries
business; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 504(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 38(L&C)
Relating to urging the United States Congress to pass terrorism
risk protection legislation.
MOVED CSHJR 38(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 443(L&C)
"An Act retroactively extending the application and licensing
deadlines and amending the effective date of certain provisions
relating to regulation of persons who practice tattooing and
permanent cosmetic coloring or body piercing; and providing for
an effective date."
MOVED CSHB 443(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
CS FOR HOUSE BILL NO. 182(FIN) am
"An Act relating to certain vehicles, including motorcycles and
trailers; relating to the registration, bonding, and other
regulation of motor vehicle dealers; relating to the registration
and other regulation of certain motor vehicle buyers' agents;
relating to acts and transactions involving vehicles, including
trailers, and to the acts and practices of certain persons and
entities involved in vehicle transactions, including trailer
transactions; relating to consumer protection for used vehicle
buyers; amending Rule 3, Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure; and
providing for an effective date."
MOVED SCSHB 182(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
HB 212 - No previous action to consider.
SB 252 - See Labor & Commerce minutes dated 2/14/02 & 4/18/02.
HB 504 - No previous action to consider.
HJR 38 - No previous action to consider.
HB 443 - No previous action to consider.
HB 182 - No previous action to consider.
WITNESS REGISTER
Ms. Rebecca Gamez, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 252.
Mr. Mike Shiffer, Program Coordinator
Workforce Investment Office, State Training and Employment
Program (STEP)
Department of Labor Workforce Development
3301 Eagle St. Ste. 106
Anchorage AK 99503-8569
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on SB 252.
Mr. James Wakefield
Balance of State Workforce Investment Board
17325 Pt. Lena Loop Rd.
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported SB 252.
Ms. Linda Sylvester
Representative Pete Kott
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HB 504.
Ms. Stephanie Madsen, Vice President
Pacific Seafood Processor's Association
213 3rd Street #104
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 504.
Mr. John Brown, President
Central Labor Council
AFL-CIO
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 504.
Mr. Darryl Tseu
Inland Boatman's Union of the Pacific
Vintage Business Park Ste. 201
Juneau AK 99801
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 504.
Commissioner Ed Flanagan
Department of Labor & Workforce
Development
PO Box 21149
Juneau, AK 99802-1149
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 504.
Ms. Barbara Huff Tuckness
Teamsters Local 959, State of Alaska
Anchorage AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 504.
Representative Joe Hayes
State Capital Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor HJR 38.
Ms. Sharon O'Dell, Chief of Staff
Representative Vic Kohring
State Capitol Bldg.
Juneau AK 99811
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 443.
Ms. Gail McCann
Owner, Electrolysis Clinic
532 Lee Drive
Fairbanks AK 99709
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 443.
Mr. Joe Schoolcraft
Two Moons Body Piercing and Tattooing
POB 1136
Soldotna AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 443.
Mr. Todd Gipson
Two Moons Body Piercing and Tattooing
44720 Sterling Hwy.
Soldotna AK 99669
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 443.
Mr. Jeff Martin
Muttleys Tattoo Clinic
224 N. Yenlo Ste. 3B
Wasilla AK 99654
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 443.
Mr. Andy Kopczenski
American Tattoo
HC 89, Box 259
Willow AK 99688
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HB 443.
Mr. Don Whattley
Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
No address provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 182.
Mr. Mark Mueller
General Motors
Detroit MI
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 182.
Mr. Stan Hurst
Chrysler Corporation
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 182.
Ms. Kerry Hennings, Driver Licensing
Division of Motor Vehicles
Department of Administration
3300 Fairbanks St.
Anchorage AK 99503
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HB 182.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 02-24, SIDE A
Number 001
HB 212-WORKERS' COMP:CONTRACTORS & SUBCONTRACTOR
CHAIRMAN BEN STEVENS called the Senate Labor & Commerce Committee
meeting to order at 2:35 pm and announced HB 212 to be up for
consideration.
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't see any reason to have a retroactive
effective date and moved to change it to January 1, 2003. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR DAVIS moved to pass SCS HB 212(L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN objected. SENATORS DAVIS, TORGERSON, and
STEVENS voted yea; SENATORS LEMAN AND AUSTERMAN voted nay and SCS
HB 212(L&C) moved from committee.
SB 252-EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING PROGRAM/BOARD
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced SB 252 to be up for consideration.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved to adopt amendment #1.
22-GS2052\F.5
Craver
2/10/03
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR TORGERSON
TO: CSSB 252( ), Draft Version "F"
Page 15, lines 13 - 23:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Page 30, line 14:
Delete "sec. 57"
Insert "sec. 56"
Page 30, line 16:
Delete "secs. 1 - 47"
Insert "secs. 1 - 46"
Page 31, line 7:
Delete "48" in two places
Insert "47" in two places
Page 31, line 8:
Delete "sec. 48"
Insert "sec. 47"
Page 31, line 9:
Delete "Section 48"
Insert "Section 47"
Page 31, line 10:
Delete "Section 52(a)"
Insert "Section 51(a)"
Page 31, line 11:
Delete "secs. 55 and 56"
Insert "secs. 54 and 55"
He explained that it deletes the language that has lapsed since
the Alaska Technical and Vocational Education Fund. A legal
opinion says it's problematic if they keep it. He explained that
basically the money is available for them to take whenever they
want and they can't dedicate it to another source.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the lapsed funds automatically go back
into the general fund.
SENATOR TORGERSON answered, "It doesn't do anything. It leaves
them right there."
There were no objections and amendment #1 was adopted.
SENATOR TORGERSON asked his staff, Mary Jackson, to explain
amendment #2.
MS. MARY JACKSON, Staff to Senator Torgerson, said this
references subsection 6 in the study.
The department says that they are going to be able to
respond to the questions that were posed by this
committee previously. If in fact, that is the case,
then you would be able to go forward and delete item 6
from your study. The same applies for the next
amendment. That next amendment references the study,
section 8.
She referred to page 29 of the CS, line 14.
The department believes essentially that the reports
that they are providing on an annual basis encompasses
this and already gives you that information. What the
audit suggested was that a review of this program in
the context of the new federal legislation should be
undertaken. And that, frankly, was the intent of #6 and
it may just be that some tweaking of the language is
necessary so the department has a comfort level with
what is necessary. There is a new federal program; it
needs to be reviewed in the context of what the STEP
currently provides and that was the intent of #6 - is
that they provide facts that support the need for the
State Training and Employment Program.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved amendment #2.
22-GS2052\F.1
Craver
2/10/03
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR TORGERSON
TO: CSSB 252( )
Page 29, line 14:
Delete all material.
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
There were no objections and it was adopted.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved amendment #3.
22-GS2052\F.2
Craver
2/10/03
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR TORGERSON
TO: CSSB 252( )
Page 29, line 14, following "program;":
Insert "and"
Page 29, line 17:
Delete "; and "
Insert "."
Page 29, lines 18 - 19:
Delete all material.
SENATOR LEMAN asked why this language was being deleted.
MS. JACKSON said the Department would give them information today
that would answer his question on #8.
MS. REBECCA GAMEZ, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, said
she Mr. Mike Shiffer, Program Coordinator for the Workforce
Investment Office that administers the State Training and
Employment Program (STEP), would explain the amendments that
would delete 6 and 8.
MR. SHIFFER explained:
Regarding the decision to request that we delete #6, we
feel that the annual report that is produced in
coordination between the Department of Labor and the
Alaska Human Resource Investment Council, that details
the performance of the STEP program on an annual basis,
speaks to the issues about the on-going need for
supporting the State Training Employment Program. It is
the state's most successful job training program. It's
the only program that the state actually contributes
dollars towards the job-training program. So, all other
job training dollars are federal funds. Between the
two, as well as the fact that the program has funded
over the last 10 years over 10,000 people in receiving
training services, we feel that there is clear and
ample evidence that there is a need for the STEP
program. We have the most recent draft of the FY2001,
which continues to demonstrate that the STEP program
continues to meet the performance measures that have
been laid out for it. We would, therefore, move that
item 6 is not necessary given all this other work that
is going on.
MS. GAMEZ said they have draft copies of the most recent STEP
report that had not officially been adopted by the Human Resource
Investment Council.
MR. SHIFFER continued to explain item 8.
The question relates to the issue about the difference
between public institution funding and the apparent
increase in union training. We have recently completed
our report to you, Senator, in which you asked us last
week about that. We believe that report satisfactorily
explains how the funds have been distributed between
FY'97 and FY'00. It demonstrates that while there was
an increase in FY 2000, that reflected an anomaly and
when we compare across all of the years, you don't see
a typical shift to the union programs. It just happened
significantly in one year.
MS. GAMEZ said that is covered under question #1 in the
April 24 letter that was delivered to the committee.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there were any objections to amendment
#3. There were none and it was adopted.
SENATOR TORGERSON moved amendment #4.
22-GS2052\F.4
Craver
2/10/03
A M E N D M E N T
OFFERED IN THE SENATE BY SENATOR TORGERSON
TO: CSSB 252( ), Draft Version "F"
Page 28, line 31:
Delete "2003"
Insert "2004"
He was reluctant to offer it, however, because he wasn't sure
that he agreed with the Department that this is the best program
we have in the state.
It needs to be looked at. We do this every year - go
into this program and we find problems with it. It's
not the only general fund money that we spend in the
state on training. It's far from it. As a matter of
fact, it's not even general fund money that we're
spending on the training program. Their total
allocation is $3 million or $3.4 or something. So,
there's a lot more money besides this. But at any rate,
the audit clearly brought out some problems within the
program that need to be looked at and they need to be
looked at in the shortest time frame possible…
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there were any further objections to
amendment #4. There were no further objections and amendment 4
was adopted.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said another technical amendment was needed to
delete the word "Investment" throughout the bill wherever it says
"Alaska Workforce Investment Board".
SENATOR TORGERSON asked why.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said that it was requested by the Department.
MS. GAMEZ explained:
As I spoke with you last week, under the Workforce
Investment Act, the protocol of names has changed. So,
instead of having service delivery areas, they now have
local workforce investment boards and the Human
Resource Investment Council (HRIC) voted in one of
their meetings that it be changed to the Alaska
Workforce Board. They thought the acronym could have
been a little too interesting…
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if the federal act has now dropped the
word "Investment".
MS. GAMEZ replied:
No, the federal act is still the Workforce Investment
Act, but the local areas, so there's the
Anchorage/MatSu Local Workforce Investment Board and
then there is the balance of State Goal Workforce
Investment Board and the HRIC Council thought the
Alaska Workforce Board would be a better acronym than
the Alaska Workforce Investment Board because of some
of the plays on the acronym.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN objected. SENATORS TORGERSON, AUSTERMAN, and
STEVENS voted nay; SENATORS DAVIS and LEMAN voted yea; and the
amendment failed.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said they would take testimony from the public
now.
MR. JAMES WAKEFIELD, Juneau realtor, said he supported the STEP
program.
I am taking this time away from my business to testify
because I believe that job training is an integral part
of economic development and a healthy economy. I also
serve as the Chair of the Balance of State Workforce
Investment Board for the same reason. I am here
representing the Board today. In fact, we're somewhat
frustrated that we're even here discussing this issue.
STEP has trained 13,000 Alaskans since 1989 and we
believe it should have become a permanent program some
time ago. If there are occasional issues to be
addressed, it can always be tweaked without having to
go through a complete reauthorization every couple of
years. If you do not make it a permanent program, at
least reauthorize it for four years as recommended in
your audit. We work under limited administrative
dollars and when staff has to spend expensive time
continually defending the program, that is time taken
away from providing those services. Providers and
businesses are always wondering if that program will be
around for another year and if this is the vehicle to
commit their energies towards if it is going to be gone
next year.
Alaska is facing a problem, as is the rest of the
nation, of a graying of the workforce, especially in
our construction and resource industries. STEP has a
good track record of training in these industries. We
are also facing the rapid changes in technology that
requires that businesses today need to continually
retrain incumbent workers to remain competitive. STEP
does not require expenditure from the general fund, as
you are aware. It comes from employee contributions to
the U.I. trust fund. Using U.I. funds to get people
back to work where they contribute rather than draw
down on unemployment insurance resources always makes
good business sense. Employers must have skilled
applicants to choose from in filling their jobs.
Incumbent worker training is a big issue in the private
sector and if businesses can retain employees rather
than laying them off, it not only benefits the
businesses, it benefits the local economy and the trust
fund.
STEP has been a vehicle for increased outreach by
apprentice programs in rural areas giving the local
residents opportunities for higher paying construction
jobs that used to go to outsiders. You have already
heard a couple of the success stories, like Hyder,
where over half of the eligible workforce in town has
been trained and is working in their new bottling plant
and Nome where locals are being trained and employed to
assemble fuel storage plants for rural Alaska. There
are numerous stories like this involving not only major
corporations, but small mom and pop businesses.
As we talk to other entities across the nation on what
they're doing in employment training, we tell them
about the program that we're doing here and some of the
stories and we've been encouraged to apply for national
recognition on some of these - because they are so well
received.
Our Board did a customer survey this year - the Balance
of State Workforce Investment Board survey, with a
mailing of over 900 surveys to STEP participants all
over our area, which encompasses the entire state
within exclusion of Anchorage and the MatSu. These
Alaskans confirmed an extremely high level of
satisfaction with STEP services. Over 87% of them
indicated that they were satisfied on a level of 7 or
better on a 10 point scale and 70% marked in 9 or 10 on
the satisfaction of the services. Over 94% of these
Alaskans said they would recommend STEP to family and
friends. STEP works and the people who have
participated in the program are satisfied with the
services.
The only concern our Board has at this time, and we are
working with staff to address this issue, and that is
the process - we in the private sector become easily
frustrated with paperwork. The Board has asked the
staff to try and streamline the process to minimalize
the paperwork and still have the oversight that is
necessary for publicly funded funds. I thank you for
your time and ask you to strongly consider these issues
I have addressed today.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON said they took out the lapsed funding language
and it's still in the title so that needs to be taken out. He
moved on page 1, line 3, to delete "providing that lapsing
employment assistance and training program account funds may be
appropriated to the Alaska Technical and Vocational Education
Program." There were no objections and it was so adopted.
CHAIRMAN TORGERSON moved to pass CSSB 252(L&C) from committee
with individual recommendations and accompanying fiscal note.
There were no objections and it was so ordered.
HB 504-WAGES FOR WORKERS IN FISHERIES
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 504 to be up for consideration.
MS. LINDA SYLVESTER, Staff to Representative Pete Kott, explained
that HB 504 addresses wages for fisheries. It is not connected to
the minimum wage increase, but it came about in discussion on the
telephone with different businesses when the minimum wage was
beginning proposed to go up to $7.15 per hour. They complained
that they had valid reasons for exemptions. Statutes has nothing
for most situations, but there is a section of the Wage and Hour
Act that clearly addresses the fisheries business. She read from
AS 23.10.085 (c):
It provides that the regulations may permit deductions
by an employer from the minimum wage to employees for
the reasonable cost as determined on an occupation
basis of furnishing board or lodging if board or
lodging is customarily furnished by the employer and
used by the employee.
She said that clearly fits the fisheries business, which
customarily provides board and lodging for its employees.
Typically most of those businesses are remote and the locations
don't have alternative public board and lodging. The enabling
regulation of the statute she just read requires that based on a
written agreement an employer can take deductions if: 1.
Alternative public board and lodging facilities are accessible to
the work sight and the employee has declined to use such
facilities; 2. The board and lodging facilities of the employer
are customarily furnished by the employer and used by the
employees; and 3. The cost to the employee for the use of the
board and lodging facilities is reasonable and without profit to
the employer.
They decided that the regulation was either improperly drafted or
was being misinterpreted.
She explained that they are taking the fisheries business out of
the statute and putting them in their own statute where they can
make deductions for room and board.
Further, the Fair Labor Standards Act includes a test saying the
cost of the room and board has to be reasonable and it can't
profit the employer. They have deleted that language and inserted
up to $15 per day for every eight-hour day that the employee
works. It is all spelled out in a contract the employee signs at
the beginning of the work season. They feel that there is ample
security that the employee has a choice from the get-go whether
or not they wanted to work in a fish camp. "The choice is there
at the time of hire."
MS. SYLVESTER said there was a court case in Juneau decided by
Judge Weeks in 1999 that stipulates the exact same thing that
they are arguing in regulation 88AC151609d). It should be read as
allowing board and lodging deductions in the following
circumstances:
1. If alternative public facilities are available, then (d)(1),
which requires alternative board and lodging, is applicable and,
therefore, (d)(1), (d)(2) and (d)(3) must be satisfied; and
2. If there are no public alternative facilities available, then
(d)(1) does not apply and (d)(2) and (d)(3) must both be
satisfied.
She said this case is being appealed and is in the Supreme Court.
At least one court has determined that it's very clear that the
legislature intended for the Department of Labor to look at all
of the occupations, whether remote or in an urban area, if they
provide room and board, that it's fair for them to come up with
some kind of mechanism to receive payment from its employees for
that. "It's a situation where the fishing industry isn't in a
position any longer to absorb all of the costs."
MS. SYLVESTER said this is not a "bail out" for the industry, but
a clarifying of the intent of the statutes from the very
beginning of the state of Alaska.
MS. STEFANIE MADSEN, Vice President, Pacific Seafood Processors
Association, said they had been in existence since 1914 and
supported HB 504. It is a tool that allows them to adapt to the
ever-changing economics in the seafood processing industry.
The seafood processing industry is diverse. We have
salmon processors that operate for 4 - 6 weeks; we have
ground-fish plants that operate 10 - 11 months out of
the year; we have remote sites; we have non-remote
sites; we're very diverse. The regulations as presented
already make a differential between remote operators
and non-remote operators. The non-remote operators have
been allowed to deduct room and board for some time.
Some do; some don't. Some charge $8 and some charge
$10; some rebate at the end of the season; some don't.
What we're asking you today is to provide those remote
operators the opportunity to deduct room and board to
again be flexible in adapting to the ever-changing
economics.
I would add a little bit of information about the
seafood processing industry. We're very labor
intensive. We have a lot of entry-level positions and
those are truly the positions that we're talking about
today. We have been described as one of the last entry
level employers around. You can come to the seafood
industry without any work history and without any
education and have a job on what has been termed the
slime line. If you do your work, you have incremental
increases, either by contract or by hours.
MS. MADSEN said it was possible that there was a misunderstanding
that every processor would go out there and charge $15 or more if
they can demonstrate costs to every employee that they have, but
that won't happen, because the market is going to drive what they
are able to pay employees. Most every processor has a
differential and pay different wages. They deduct differently and
provide different benefits because they are among themselves
competitors and also competitors with the Lower 48 to attract
employees. Just by passage of this bill doesn't mean that they
are going to be able to go out and do what the bill says they are
allowed to do. "All we're asking for today is the ability to have
some flexibility in how we can control the efficiency and the
expenses of our operations.
SENATOR DAVIS asked how many people she represented.
MS. MADSEN replied that she represents 11 of the major seafood
processing companies and that there are about 300 including mom
and pop operations.
SENATOR DAVIS asked what made the difference between the mom and
pops.
MS. MADSEN replied out of their 11 employees, four or five of
them are in the top 100 employers in the state.
MR. JOHN BROWN, President, Central Labor Council (AFL-CIO), said
he was sympathetic to the industry problems, but felt strongly
that they should not be looking to the lowest paid, hardest
working people in our state to try and bail it out. Fifty
thousand people signed a petition in the state last year to raise
the minimum and this bill seeks to reduce the minimum wage for
people who are the least able to absorb it. "Please don't pass
this bill. It's wrong."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked within the definition of the fisheries
business that this bill affects how many of those workers does he
represent.
MR. BROWN replied that he didn't represent any of those workers.
Fairbanks doesn't have any fish processors that he knows of.
I represent working people everywhere. That's what the
AFL-CIO does. They don't just represent their members.
These are the people who have the least voice of any
worker because they don't have representation. That's
why they can depend on the state and federal government
to pass laws that keep them from being further
exploited by the work that they do.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN explained that part of the bill talks about the
only way that they can deduct this is if it's in a written
agreement with the worker or a union that has an agreement and
asked if that wouldn't lay the burden back on the employee to
decide.
MR. BROWN replied:
Think to yourself how much choice someone in their
position has in negotiating whether or not they are
going to pay the company for their room and board or
not. I mean, here is a person who is unemployed and the
job he is seeking is paying minimum wage. How much
power has that individual got to negotiate the fact
that the company is going to pay his room and board?
They virtually have no power there. They are at the
mercy of whoever is offering them a job. She can talk
about the market all she wants, but the fact is that
unemployment is on the rise; it's been on the rise.
It's leveling out now, but there's lots of people out
there looking for work and lots of young people looking
for work. That doesn't mean that we should stand back
and let them be paid less than minimum wage. In my
opinion slaves were better off than people working for
minimum wage. They had a roof over their head; they had
clothes to wear - a lot of them…
TAPE 02-24, SIDE B
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he had done a lot of work in the seafood
business and didn't consider them slaves. "If I sign a contract
that this is what I'm going to do, does that mean I'm a slave?"
MR. BROWN responded that he was saying the type of lifestyle that
someone can live making minimum wage is nowhere close to what I
think is fair. "A slave at some point in our countries' history
was better off than someone who is working at minimum wage right
now as far as what they are able to afford."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN rebutted that they sign a contract that says
they are accepting the fact that they are going to pay room and
board and he fails to follow his logic.
MR. BROWN retorted that they sign a contract because they need a
job. "They need some income; they don't have any income at this
point."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN replied, "A lot of us need jobs now and then.
We walk down the street until we find one that pays what we can
afford."
MR. BROWN responded, "If we get the right opportunity, we do,
sir, but a lot of us have a lot better opportunity than others…"
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if he heard about the court case Ms.
Sylvester mentioned.
MR. BROWN said he heard that it is being appealed to the Supreme
Court.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said the decision out of the First Judicial
District in Juneau said that the statute currently does not
prohibit deductions for board and lodging costs when an employee
at remote sites where alternative public facilities are not
available.
MR. BROWN said he is not an attorney, but this is not what he
thinks is right.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if he would have the same cause for other
people who work around the state at minimum wage.
MR. BROWN replied yes.
I would make the same argument for anyone who is
working for minimum wage. I spent quite a considerable
amount of my own time collecting signatures to get an
increase in the minimum wage on the ballot. I believe
there needs to be a minimum wage. People at that end of
the wage scale need protection from government and
that's why I did it.
MR. DARRYL TSEU, Inland Boatman's Union of the Pacific, said
although the intentions of this bill are well meaning, it leaves
some of his members with some concern.
The real victims right now are fishermen in Alaska and
our fishery workers as well. We question whether this
bill will actually help our fishermen who supply the
fish in the first place. Fish processors are controlled
by the market and unfortunately takes the value of a
captain's catch. To hope that this bill would assist a
crippled fishing industry may not be totally true. It
doesn't take time browsing through the current events
to find corporate profits getting in the way of doing
what's right in the newspaper…
He said their concern is also that deductions could be higher
than $15 per day if the employer demonstrates to the department
that the cost to employee is reasonable. He challenges the fact
that a company can be trusted to do the right thing especially
with today's economy and global competition. "The company store
mentality was wrong in the 19th Century in plantations and it's
still wrong in 2002."
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't see any connection this bill has to
making fishermen victims. He said:
If you reduce the overhead to the seafood processor,
arguably that money is available to pay fishermen. If
you increase the overhead, there's less money available
to pay the fishermen. This bill, instead, probably
protects fishermen rather than makes them a victim.
MR. TSEU replied that his thinking was when a company dictates
the price of fish and how much it's able to pay to process it,
there's no way to say that's what their true expenses are.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said he referred to plantations.
MR. TSEU said he had discussions in the hallway on this bill and
part of his family history came out that his great grandfather
and grandfather both worked on sugar cane plantations in Hawaii
and they signed a seven-year contract to provide the labor and
they were also supplied the housing, but they had to pay for it.
They were forced to buy everything from the company store. After
a seven-year stint it was evident that they couldn't make a
living wage and couldn't get out of their contract because they
couldn't find any place else to move.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked if his union agrees with the Central
Council that anybody who is working a minimum wage should be
provided room and board.
MR. TSEU said he didn't think that was the intent of what Mr.
Brown was saying. He felt at this point if he was living on a
minimum wage, he would not be able to live. People he knows in
town working for a minimum wage need to have two jobs. That
concerns him, because then they are not there with their children
where they should be at night.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said it was hard for him to understand why the
unions haven't been pushing for room and board for every person
who works for minimum wage.
MR. TSEU said at first glance at the bill, he would say that $15
dollars is not much for the cost of living, but there is no limit
to it. There is also language that allows other fish processors
in areas where there other alternatives to other housing and he
has no problem with that. There is a choice.
SENATOR LEMAN said it might well be that it would cost the
employer $30 or $40 per day to provide room and board, but they
also have to compete for workers and if they raise the fee and
the market place doesn't go there, they're going to have a tough
time getting enough workers.
MR. TSEU said, "It might not be correct for companies to get
together and set a price, but we all know that kind of thing
happens."
MS. SYLVESTER said that there is one inaccuracy. There is a limit
of $15 and the Department of Labor is the watchdog agency. They
would have to okay anything in excess of $15.
COMMISSIONER ED FLANIGAN, Department of Labor and Workforce
Development, said that about three weeks ago this committee moved
the minimum wage increase bill and he thought it was unfortunate
that they are here today as a result of it to undercut that
increase for a large percentage of the people that it's intended
to help.
There has been a lot of historical distortion in terms
of what the legislative and statutory history is here.
In 1959 it's true, the legislature did give the
department the option to adopt regulations allowing for
the room and board. In 43 years since statehood through
eight administrations, I think it is, three different
political parties, the policy of the department, which
was only then in 1985 promulgated in regulation, was
that you don't charge for room and board in a situation
where there is no alternative and it is exactly for the
old company store type situations. In the analogy that
Senator Leman mentioned earlier - your father - the
whole crux there - he had the option of going home to
have a sandwich. If he was in a remote area, and maybe
it was remote at that time, I don't know, but right now
there are many processors where this does not apply and
that is those where there are viable alternatives - and
sometimes that viable alternative is a city campground,
but there are other options; there's usually other
employers.
It has been the policy of the State of Alaska for 43
years that if you're in a remote site, your employer
cannot charge you for room and board if there are no
alternative facilities available. The court case
reference is not exactly on point, because that is a
situation, as I understand it, where we are not a party
to that lawsuit in the Silver Bay, Globe and Diaz suit.
That was a deduction that didn't reduce the wages below
minimum wage. So, it's not the same as we're talking
about here. I only got some - we could play dueling
depositions. I will make available to the committee
some that came to me through my office from the
plaintiff's attorney from Mr. Wilson's boss and the
then Commissioner Jim Robison. I will make that
immediately available to the committee. So, again, that
case isn't exactly on point…
With regard to other statements that were made, the
$15, the way the legislature reads now - at one point
in its progress through the House, it just said they
may deduct $15 and basically by statute said that was a
fair amount. In that case, $15 would just be agreed
upon. We wouldn't have any enforcement role. As it
reads now, it says $15 or a reasonable amount and then
we are supposed to, as Ms. Sylvester said, enforce the
reasonable amount. But we're supposed to do it with a
$0 fiscal note. I think you have in your packets a
fiscal note, which we will offer at every opportunity
whether it gets approved or not, because this is not
without cost. If this was a larger division and we had
more wage and hour personnel as we do in some cases
with indeterminate fiscal notes, we would give it a $0.
But this will generate work. There are approximately 40
on a list that we keep for OSHA inspection purposes. We
have 80 shore side processors; 40 of them would fall in
the remote category - about half. For those any
employee could make a complaint and allege if the
employer did go over $15 that it generated a profit or
wasn't a fair rate, didn't really actually reflect the
costs and it would be a real pain in the butt. It would
be a major audit; you'd have to look at their fuel
costs and every other thing. So there would be a cost
and that's why we have a very moderate fiscal note -
since they made the $15 change in there, but there is a
cost nonetheless and we won't have the people to
enforce it so it will just generate more problems. I
think it is important, not today thankfully, but in
other committees we've heard about how it's all college
students. Well, as I'm sure Senator Austerman and
Senator Leman and probably all of you know, that's
about 20 years out of date. There are adults working
out there in those processing plants. We only have age
data for Alaska residents from the Permanent Fund, but
the median age of Alaskan residents that work in the
canneries as cannery workers, not managers, is 32 years
of age. So, we're not talking kids. Sure they make
money in overtime, but if you're working in a plant
where it's 80 hours a week and you're getting, let's
say after the increase should it go through, you get
$7.15 and hour. Well, for working 80 hours a week,
you're getting the princely sum of $715 a week…
So, if you take $15 per day, which is not a lot to
charge for room and board, admittedly, that's $105 per
week. So that basically in large part negates the
minimum wage increase by $1 an hour on the person's
wage.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN pointed out that this bill isn't waiting
for the minimum wage increase to take effect; it's to take effect
immediately in the misguided belief that we've got to deliver
this no cost to us relief to the industry by doing it on the
backs of the workers.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS interrupted to say with existing law, 40 out of
the 80 plants are not allowed to deduct for room and board and
then asked what the other 40 plants do.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied that it varies from plant to plant.
At the Icicle Plant in Petersburg they have a bunkhouse and the
worker can elect to stay in the bunkhouse and they are charged
$10 per day. They have a kitchen and meals were available for
$3.50 per meal. It really is voluntary, because people have
options. In the remote sites they can say it's voluntary because
there is an agreement, but there really aren't options.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if the guys who work in a rural area where
there are other facilities are allowed to deduct for the room and
board.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied that they are.
SENATOR LEMAN said in Petersburg it probably cost more than $300
per day to rent a place to stay, plus it would cost at least $10
a day for meals if someone were living on their own. In that case
they are probably getting a good deal compared to what the
alternative might be.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said that is true, but it is customary to
pay $1 more per hour in those places where they are able to
charge. "Of course, that brings this whole issue up is that we
have to be raising the floor which is a viable function of
government."
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if there was a regulation that says a
campground is an alternative to qualified housing.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied that wasn't in regulation.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said, "You're using the fact that the
alternative to live in a campground is validated to say that they
can charge in an urban area where there's alternative housing."
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said that people have other options besides
that.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said they are all choosing the campground
instead of the other option.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN responded that they're not all choosing it.
He said no one had challenged this regulation until this suit and
it will be interesting to see how it plays. "But again, that did
not reduce the wage below minimum wage."
He concluded saying that he thought this was bad policy and he
works with the fishing industry and is aware of the problems. He
has spent most of five summers in the disaster areas, but when
times are good, the processors and the fishermen make more money.
"These line workers make in the remote sites a nickel or ten
cents more than minimum wage. They don't go up when things get
better. They make what they make and that's why we have a wage
floor."
He also noted that with the exception of one very small
fishermen's organization, there has not been to date any
testimony from fishermen in support of this bill.
I don't know that they agree with Senator Leman's idea
that any extra dollar the processor gets is going to be
automatically distributed to them in the form of a
higher price.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked what was the unemployment rate for
processing and was it easy for them to get people to work.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied that it has gotten easier this year
and last year. Two or three years ago it was real tough. He said
that Icicle Seafoods did everything they could to hire people in
state, but there just weren't the people. He called his
counterpart in Texas to vouch for Icicle and told them that the
labor law up here would take care of Texan workers. But this year
he said that job orders are up in the seafood area from what they
were told to expect prior to last year.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN said it appears to him that there is a
competitive element out there and he's not sure this will even be
used.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said there would be at least a couple or
three major plants that will use it. They do alien labor
certifications for roe techs and supervisors and special
positions.
Basically, the way the immigration law works, if you
make a job undesirable enough, then it's 'Katie, bar
the door.' You can bring in people from anywhere
including other countries and I think that's what we're
going to be looking at if we beat down the conditions
for the low-wage workers in the canneries.
SENATOR LEMAN said he didn't suggest earlier that the money
available would automatically go to fishermen. "I said it would
be available for distribution."
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said he stood corrected and apologized.
SENATOR LEMAN said, "If you increase the cost to processors, it's
certainly not available to pay the fishermen."
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said he wouldn't dispute that.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS commented that if you could get fishermen and
processor together to agree on anything, you would have
accomplished something that he has yet to see achieved in life.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN agreed.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS said AS 23.10.080 - Powers and Duties of the
Division - says, "The director shall investigate, ascertain wages
and related conditions on standards of employment of any employee
in the state, etc." and then lays out how they are to
investigate.
AS 23.10.085 - Scope of Administrative Regulations - AS
23.10.085 (c) Regulations may permit deductions by an
employer from the minimum wage applicable to employees
for the reasonable cost as determined by the director
on an occupation basis of furnishing board or lodging
if board or lodging is customarily furnished by the
employer and used by the employee.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN responded:
Yes, sir, and the key word is 'may'. Regulation 'may.'
I believe if the legislature at that time wanted to
make that law and I don't know what it was - if it was
a compromise or something, because in 1959 something
else was happening. We were first having the Alaska
minimum wage, which was 50 cents over the federal of
$1.00…If the legislature meant to make that law, they
would have put it in statute. And again I'm the
thirteenth commissioner that has interpreted things
that way.
MS. BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, Teamsters Local 959, said that there
was a letter from Jerry Hood regarding this particular issue and
it probably addresses in a nutshell where they are at. She also
noted that they represent a little over 7,000 workers with the
state and different industries around the state with the
exception of at sea processors, but that is not why she is here.
It's not a union issue; it's a worker issue. It's about
some, whether my numbers are right or wrong, and I
would love to be proven differently, the $11 billion at
sea fishing industry as a whole comes to this state, to
this capital, and makes a request of the House and the
Senate legislative body to reduce existing minimum
wage. We're not talking about an increase in the
minimum wage here; we're talking about an existing of
which for some of these folks…some of these start out
at $6 an hour. Granted, some others are paying minimums
of $7.50 an hour already and I would assume would not
attempt at this point to reduce even further, and don't
believe legally they probably could, unless they
unilaterally went in and reduced what they are offering
to pay and I don't know that to be the case. But, we
come to the table and as I understand this bill will be
moving out of committee - and we would request that it
not move - that there be some due consideration to the
public policy statement that is being set here. And it
goes back to the working people of the state.
I've been told that these people - most of them don't
even work in the state and in fact most of them don't
even work in this country. Why are you guys concerned?
Again, these people come to this state, they do work in
this state and they leave and we had one - down in
Mexico - who did used to work here who makes more money
now working in Mexico in one of their hotels working
eight hours a day versus the 16 hours a day they used
to work here. Now, from my perspective in the labor
industry that's kind of a sad state of affairs in and
of itself, when these people can make more money in
Mexico.
The state of Alaska in some respects was built on the
backs of the men and women that work here. Some of you
have worked in the industry. Some of you have worked
for the at sea processing company, of which Trident, I
believe, is one of the companies here. I guess we come
to the table more looking at the public policy that's
being set here, not only for the corporations. From a
short-term perspective, maybe this $11 billion industry
does need some assistance out there, but the analogy
that was used by some individuals in comparison, it's
almost like taking our state fiscal plan or lack
thereof or the alleged crisis and say we're going to
cut the legislators per diem to go towards that fiscal
gap. It is so out of this world it's not going to make
any difference. We've been told that this is going to
save this $11 billion fishing industry $5 million.
Well, when you take the $5 million, it is a savings. I
guess if my employer quit paying me, they would save
some money, also. I wish everyone would think about
what we're doing here. It's not about the $15 per day.
That's not what it's about - whether it was $5 per day.
It's the fact that these people, these minimum wage
people are going to have this money taken out of their
pocket in lieu of room and board. And what are we
talking about room and board. Those of you who've been
on these ships, I don't believe we're talking about big
rooms; in fact, I believe most of the rooms have at
least 4 - 10 per camp. They've got little beds that
they're sleeping in. They're working 16 hours a day;
they get to hopefully sleep in the bed for a couple of
hours and then they come back and charge. It's a bigger
public policy here.
MS. TUCKNESS said that in the several committees this bill has
been heard in not one worker who has testified in favor of this
bill. This impacts many people who work here, but don't live
here. She said it's like the oil industry on the North Slope
where workers are provided very nice rooms and some of the best
food in the state. They do not get charged. Granted there are
different expectations and different skills required, but she is
not asking that they increase wages, but that they look at the
fairness and application and the impact it will set from a long-
term public policy for this state.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN added that at-sea processing is a little
different than shore based and he didn't know if this bill even
applies to the at-sea processor.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN inserted that it would apply to floaters in
state waters, but not the at sea factory processors.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN asked the other two unions if the concept is so
important, why haven't they done anything about the McDonalds
workers of the Subway workers or the processors that work in
Kodiak already that make minimum wage.
MS. TUCKNESS responded that she believed that he is comparing
apples and oranges. The McDonalds in her area in Anchorage
doesn't pay minimum wage. If they would pay minimum wage, they
couldn't get people to work there. From an industry perspective,
this particular industry, separate from the McDonalds…
SENATOR AUSTERMAN interrupted saying that there are minimum wage
workers in the state of Alaska other than in the seafood
industry.
MS. TUCKNESS responded that she believed there were some in the
restaurants and some folks have actually compared this to the tip
credit bill. On one hand they make minimum and they get tips,
then you turn around and take the money out of the tips to help
cover any potential increases in that area. The concept there is
somewhat similar.
I guess from our perspective from where these fishing
locations are at, it boiled down to choice. And my
understanding…is when that came out, and actually it
came about addressing employees that were being charged
by some of these companies for room and board when they
quit. And this was back 15 years ago, some of the
industry was going back and taking money out of these
people's pockets. They ended up with no paychecks. It
was at that time…how this particular regulation came
about.
TAPE 02-25, SIDE A
MS. HUFFTUCKNESS continued:
The Department of Labor at the time stepped back. We
have to do something; there needs to be some sort of
balance or a leveling of the playing field. So, in
those areas where there was housing or choice, then
that choice was given to the employee. It was either
one or the other and in those areas where there was not
available or alternative housing, then the room and
board was picked up. Under this particular bill, what
it says now is that anybody out there can charge room
and board whether you have available housing elsewhere
and the employee is able to make that choice, whether
it's in a tent or 10 or 15 of them get together in a
house or live in an apartment. Their living conditions
I do not believe would be commensurate to any of us
sitting in this room. It is a different life style, but
simply because they made a choice in that particular
life style, is it okay - and I guess you guys will
ultimately make that public policy - to take room and
board, whatever that amount is out of these minimum
wage people's pockets, simply because of where they're
at in the industry and what they are doing so that
there is some savings? Are there other alternatives?
Are there some other things that maybe this industry
can do in this short-term crisis? Because I do not
believe that it is a long-term crisis here, if indeed
it's a crisis. That has not been proven either.
SENATOR DAVIS said she wanted to get the following comment on
record:
I think it is very poor timing for this bill to come
forward regardless of who supports it and who does not
support it in the sense that you have people coming and
wanting to take money that might be an increase in
minimum wage and we don't even have it. It's going to
be on the ballot in November if we don't pass something
that would be acceptable… but there is no guarantee
that the minimum wage will increase…
SENATOR DAVIS said she also had a possible amendment to the bill
and asked if she could bring it up at this time.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS told her to go ahead.
SENATOR DAVIS said testimony from a representative of the
processors was that room and board fee would be around $8 now and
moved to delete where it says the department would be able to
review a grant for an increase above $15, language on lines 10 -
13.
MS. SYLVESTER said that was added because originally it was just
$15 dollars a day, the implication being that that was
reasonable.
But in the urban areas if there is alternative public
board and lodging, the department makes the
determination whether it's $15 or $20 per day on a
case-by-case basis. If we cap it at $15, then we're
potentially damaging the businesses that are located in
urban areas that already have determinations this
summer. Icicle Seafoods has $10 for board and $3.50 per
meal. Their determination is much higher than $15, so
we would be rolling them back.
SENATOR DAVIS said she wanted to the department to comment on
that and asked where, as Ms. Sylvester indicated, does it say in
the bill that they wouldn't be charged if they worked less than
eight hours.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS noted it was lines 5 and 6.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN said the proposed amendment would go back
to the House Labor and Commerce Committee CS. In putting the $15
without requiring the department to verify or certify higher
expenditures that did moot our fiscal note.
I mean, if you took this amendment, it would moot the
fiscal note that you're probably not going to adopt,
but you should, because you're just giving an unfounded
mandate to the department. So, that would remove one of
my arguments against the bill. There will be audits.
Right now we very rarely have audits on the places
where they are able to charge, because the costs are
kept low. But we're going to open up a whole new venue
involving thousands of employees and, again, maybe most
of them will go $15 or less, but the ones that go more,
it will generate a lot of complaints and a lot of
workload and backlog…We are opening up a new area of
complaint that we have to investigate when we have to
take thousands of workers that right now are not
required to pay their room and board and will be
charged.
SENATOR DAVIS asked if those places that have alternatives for
room and board already able to charge more than $15?
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN replied that is correct.
SENATOR DAVIS said she thought this bill was designed to help
areas where there was no alternative housing.
COMMISSIONER FLANAGAN explained initially the bill specifically
mentioned remote processors and when they took out the work
"remote" and put in "$15", they caught up the ones that are
currently able to charge. A possible amendment would be to
delineate remote processors and no more. "That would moot our
fiscal note, because we would be in terms of enforcement actions,
where we are now…"
CHAIRMAN STEVENS declared a conflict saying that he has passed
employment history with the fisheries business and has a company
that dose services for companies that qualify under fisheries
business.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN objected.
SENATOR LEMAN moved that he be allowed to abstain from voting
because he sometimes fishes, but doesn't make much money at it.
"It's conceivable that I could loose money, if the seafood
processors have to pay more overhead."
SENATOR AUSTERMAN objected.
SENATOR DAVIS moved the amendment so they could vote on it.
SENATORS AUSTERMAN, LEMAN, and STEVENS voted nay; SENATOR DAVIS
voted yea; and the amendment failed.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to pass CSHB 504(L&C) and the
accompanying fiscal note from committee with individual
recommendations. There were no objections and it was so ordered.
HJR 38-TERRORISM RISK PROTECTION LEGISLATION
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HJR 38 to be up for consideration.
REPRESENTATIVE JOE HAYES, Sponsor of HJR 38, said the whole point
of the resolution is to address issues concerning 9/11 and
liability insurance. There was an $877,000 increase in different
insurance policies as a result of 9/11. The effects of such an
enormous loss has taken its toll on the insurance industry and
the American economy. Several of the reinsurance carriers are
declining to offer insurance that covers terrorism now at all and
others are increasing their rates tremendously. He noted that the
aviation industry has particularly been hit hard going up in
Alaska 20 - 200% and the number of companies willing to offer
insurance in Alaska has decreased more than a dozen to
approximately six. One company has also issued non-renewal
notices regarding workers compensation claims in Alaska and
several others are publicly considering following suit.
HJR 38 recommends passage of the Terrorism Risk
Protection Act legislation, currently in the United
State Senate. The Terrorism Risk Protection legislation
has already passed the House; it was H.R. 3210 and this
resolution urges Congress to create a viable solution
to the uncertainty of insurance risk currently faced in
America. If a solution is not found in America,
Americans are left with limited coverage, the effects
of a natural disaster or terrorist attack could be
devastating the American people and to Alaska and its
economy as a whole.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to pass CSHJR 38(L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was
so ordered.
4:10 - 4:27 pm - at ease
HB 443-TATTOOING AND BODY PIERCING
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 443 to be up for consideration.
MS. SHARON O'DELL, Chief of Staff for Representative Vic Kohring,
said in 2000 the legislature passed SB 34 to address safety and
health issues with the body piercing and tattoo industry by
bringing them under the licensing requirements of the Barbers and
Hairdressers Board. The qualifying application deadline was set
in statute, but didn't allow the department any kind of grace
period or an appeal process. Because of that there were qualified
practitioners who were already in business that will have to go
out of business because they missed that qualifying application
date. The practitioners they have talked to are in favor of the
regulations set forth in SB 34, but even though the department
did their best to notify everyone that would be affected by the
new regulations, some people just got left out. They are trying
to address that problem with those businesses that will have to
otherwise close. They would have to go through the process of
finding another practitioner who has gotten their license to get
them through the training period. It could be difficult to even
find someone in their area who is willing to take them on. This
is an unintentional result of the law that went into effect in
2000.
HB 443 does two things. It doesn't change any of the regulations
or the qualifying date set forth in SB 34. It extends the
transitional license application date to July 1, 2002 and extends
the license requirement date to December 1, 2000. There is a
fiscal note for the renotification because the DEC regulations
that have been adopted will go stale in October in this year
requiring renotification.
MS. GAIL MCCANN, Owner of the Electrolysis Clinic in Fairbanks,
supported HB 443. She is one of the individuals who would be
impacted by the bill not being passed. If it didn't pass, it
would definitely affect her livelihood and her ability to
continue offering her service. She uses a tattooing technique for
permanent and corrective cosmetics working with burn survivors,
as an example, who have gone as far as they can with
reconstructive surgery and want to take their improvement in
appearance a step farther. Many times a burn survivor will have
lost their facial hair - eyebrows and eyelashes and she can
tattoo those features. She said people with surgically corrected
cleft palates were another example of clients she served.
MR. JOE SCHOOLCRAFT, Two Moons Body Piercing and Tattooing, said
the tattooing community is small and he found it hard to believe
that some people didn't know about this. He thought if a person
missed the deadline that through the tattooing community they
could find someone who could reach out and help them. The test
has to do with sanitation and nothing with technique.
MR. TODD GIPSON, Two Moons Body Piercing and Tattooing, opposed
HB 443. He thought the interested parties should keep on top of
the laws and what's going on.
MR. JEFF MARTIN, Muttleys Tattoo Clinic, supported HB 443. He
said he is in transition and somehow missed the application time.
He has three employees who are affected as well.
MR. ANDY KOPCZENSKI, American Tattoo, said he had been in this
business for 22 years. He said he does the same thing that Ms.
McCann does about 10 times a week. He opposed this bill. The
fiscal note that goes with it comes out of the general fund,
which is his money. He didn't want to be charged for people "not
getting their homework done."
MR. KOPCZENSKI said, "This is another way to charge me for the
guy next door."
SENATOR LEMAN moved to pass CSHB 443(L&C) from committee with
individual recommendations. There were no objections and it was
so ordered.
HB 182-MOTOR VEHICLE SALES AND DEALERS
CHAIRMAN STEVENS announced HB 192 to be up for consideration.
MS. MAY ERICKSON, Staff to Representative Murkowski, explained
that this bill began last session and has gone through a lot of
work and is in a form that is supported by all parties.
It is a comprehensive motor-vehicle act that addresses
the relationship between motor-vehicle dealers and
manufacturers and perspective auto buyers by providing
guidelines to protect dealers and consumers from abuses
within the automobile industry. The bill creates a
platform for a dispute resolution between manufacturers
and motor vehicle dealers with regard to franchise
disagreements and brings agreements made between
manufacturers and dealers under jurisdiction of Alaska
courts. The bill sets forth uniform processes to
transfer, terminate, or convey franchise agreements.
Protections are also provided against replacement by
manufacturers of new competing dealerships within too
close a proximity to a current dealer's market area and
provides uniform guidelines when designating successors
in the case of death or incapacity of franchisees. The
bill also provides meaningful protection for auto
buyers by imposing safeguards regarding deceptive
advertising, price comparisons and availability of
advertised items. The bill also states that a dealer
must, when obtaining a used motor vehicle from an
individual consumer, make reasonable inquiry of the
seller and the seller must provide in writing the
condition of that vehicle including the vehicle's
accident and repair history. The dealer then provides
that statement to a prospective purchaser of the
vehicle. Dealers must also disclose if the vehicle was
purchased from an auction or wholesaler (Just inserted
on the House floor and passed unanimously).
MR. DON WHATTLEY, Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, supported
HB 182.
MR. MARK MUELLER, General Motors, supported HB 182.
MR. STAN HURST, Chrysler Corporation, supported HB 182.
MS. KERRY HENNINGS, Division of Motor Vehicles, said they also
support HB 182.
MS. ERICKSON said that she forgot one thing, an amendment by
Representative Dyson, that would allow a person to sell 10 used
motor vehicles per year and still not have to register as a
dealer. After doing research, she found that five is the correct
amount and asked if they would consider amending the bill to
reflect that. She explained that five vehicle is set out in
federal law and is also recommended by DMV and the AG's office as
well.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if Representative Dyson raised the number
from 5 to 10 on the floor.
MS. ERICKSON replied yes, but he was thinking that many people in
the Valley buy used cars quite frequently for family members, fix
them up and turn them over, but there is an exemption for that
kind of transaction for family members.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS asked if it was okay with Representative
Murkowski.
MS. ERICKSON replied that she was fine with it.
4:50 - 5:00 - fire drill
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved on page 4, line 19 to delete "new or 10
used". There were no objections and it was so ordered.
SENATOR AUSTERMAN moved to pass SCS HB 182(L&C) from committee
with individual recommendations. There were no objections and it
was so ordered.
CHAIRMAN STEVENS adjourned the meeting at 5:05 pm.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|