02/09/2008 01:30 PM Senate LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HJR25 | |
| SB120 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HJR 25 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | SB 120 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 9, 2008
1:32 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Johnny Ellis, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Bettye Davis
MEMBERS ABSENT
Senator Lyman Hoffman
Senator Con Bunde
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Senator Joe Thomas
Representative Crawford
Representative Olson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25
Urging the United States Congress to support the freedom to
choose unions.
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 120
"An Act relating to the calculation and payment of unemployment
compensation benefits; and providing for an effective date."
MOVED CSSB 120(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HJR 25
SHORT TITLE: SUPPORTING RIGHT TO FORM LABOR UNIONS
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) HARRIS
05/10/07 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/10/07 (H) STA
05/12/07 (H) STA RPT 3DP 1NR 2AM
05/12/07 (H) DP: GRUENBERG, DOLL, LYNN
05/12/07 (H) NR: JOHANSEN
05/12/07 (H) AM: ROSES, COGHILL
05/12/07 (H) STA AT 9:00 AM CAPITOL 106
05/12/07 (H) Moved Out of Committee
05/12/07 (H) MINUTE(STA)
01/28/08 (H) TRANSMITTED TO (S)
01/28/08 (H) VERSION: HJR 25
01/30/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/30/08 (S) L&C, STA, FIN
02/07/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/07/08 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
02/09/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 120
SHORT TITLE: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
SPONSOR(s): LABOR & COMMERCE
03/14/07 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
03/14/07 (S) L&C, FIN
03/22/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
03/22/07 (S) Heard & Held
03/22/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/24/07 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
04/24/07 (S) Heard & Held
04/24/07 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
04/26/07 (S) L&C AT 4:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
05/02/07 (S) L&C AT 5:30 PM FAHRENKAMP 203
01/17/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/17/08 (S) -- MEETING CANCELED --
01/22/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
01/22/08 (S) Scheduled But Not Heard
02/05/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
02/05/08 (S) <Bill Hearing Canceled>
02/09/08 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
PETER FELLMAN
Staff to Representative John Harris
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Commented on HJR 25 for the sponsor.
VINCE BALTRAMI, President
Alaska AFL-CIO
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25 and CSSB 120(L&C), version
L.
TOM BRICE
Alaska District Council Laborers
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25.
DENNY DEWITT, Alaska Director
National Federation of Independent Business
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Opposed HJR 25.
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25 and SB 120.
SENATOR JOE THOMAS
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supported HJR 25.
DANA OWEN
Staff to Senator Ellis
Alaska State Capitol
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained provisions of the CS for SB 120.
PAULA SCAVARA, Special Assistant to the Commissioner
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Neutral position on SB 120 except for
Sections 1 - 8, which she supported.
JAMES WILSON, Unemployment Insurance Actuary
Research and Analysis Section
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Supplied information on SB 120.
BILL KRAMER, Chief
Unemployment Insurance
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on SB 120.
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO
State Chamber of Commerce
Anchorage, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Could support CSSB 120(L&C) if it were
revenue neutral.
DENNY DEWITT, State Director
National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB)
Juneau, AK
POSITION STATEMENT: In general supported the direction SB 120
was going, but really wanted it to be revenue neutral.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR JOHNNY ELLIS called the Senate Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 1:32:16 PM. Present at the call to
order were Senators Stevens, Davis and Ellis.
HJR 25-SUPPORTING RIGHT TO FORM LABOR UNIONS
1:33:47 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced HJR 25 to be up for consideration.
PETER FELLMAN, staff to Representative John Harris, sponsor of
HJR 25, said there is no doubt that unions and corporate labor
is a hotly debated subject, and both sides are right to some
degree. It's easy to show that corporations have intimidated,
harassed and threatened employees who have considered joining
unions. Examples of that exist today. On the other hand it's
easy to show that past unions have engaged in some of the same
tactics. "It's history."
He said there are good examples of honorable companies that pay
fair wages and treat their employees fairly and with good
benefits. Unions have also negotiated good, fair contracts for
people that needed representation.
MR. FELLMAN stated:
Members of the committee, you know, if we lived in a
perfect world and people gave a fair days work and
received a fair wage for that work, we wouldn't have
this debate. Our concern on the other hand is for the
working people. You know, some of those folks may not
have the ability, the capability or the tools at hand
to make sure that they can support themselves, and
that they will have support from their employer or
their employee relations.
1:36:53 PM
He related how the Iron Workers Union taught his son a good
trade and that he admires what the labor unions do for people.
On the other hand, he is a small business owner and he has never
been in a situation where he has had someone come to him with a
concern and because he didn't address it, threaten him with
union activity. Going through that process would be very serious
and stressful for him.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if he supported the resolution.
MR. FELLMAN answered yes.
VINCE BALTRAMI, President, Alaska AFL-CIO, said President Bush
has threatened to veto this resolution if it passes Congress.
The reason it was introduced is because the National Labor
Relations Board (NLRB) elections are largely perceived to be a
broken process. A lot of misconceptions exist about what the
bill would do, but it doesn't take away the right for a group of
people to have an election (secret ballot) if they so choose.
On the other hand, he explained, the National Labor Relations
Board process is not like any other election process that people
go through when they go to the polls, go behind a booth and
check a box for a candidate or bond. That never has the same
kind of coercion or negative outcome associated with casting
that ballot.
1:40:49 PM
MR. BALTRAMI explained the way union elections work now is when
employees sign an authorization card and put the election
process in motion, if it's successful, that gives them the right
to have a labor organization sit down with them and negotiate a
contract. When the petition has been filed and a campaign has
begun, however, is when a lot of things start happening - like
discrimination, firing and intimidation. It's very unlike what
happened when the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) was first
put into place in 1935. The Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is
an attempt to try to put a little more control back into the
hands of the employees for whom the NLRA was created.
He explained that under National Labor Relations Board (NLRB)
procedure, it takes more than 30 percent of employees signing an
authorization card to get the process of going. The EFCA says if
more than 50 percent of the employees sign authorization cards,
that, in fact, is the election. Upon verification of the
signatures, the employees would sit down with the employer who
would be committed to bargaining with them. Today, after a
successful election, employees can go for years without getting
a contract through the employer's stalling tactics.
If this bill passes, it would require the employer and the union
to come to an agreement within 120 days; if they didn't, it
would go to mediation or arbitration. He said if 30 percent of
employees still wanted a secret ballot election, it would still
be available under this bill.
1:44:34 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he understands that no one can force an
employee to vote one way or the other in a secret ballot; that
is democracy at work. He asked him to explain, however, how
signing an authorization card in front of someone was an
improvement on the system.
MR. BALTRAMI explained that today if people want to have an
election to get organized, at least 30 percent of them have to
sign the authorization cards. People who sign those cards do so
willingly, but the difference that this bill makes is that it
says those signatures could constitute the election. When he was
a union organizer, he related that he wouldn't go forward with a
petition without at least 60 or 70 percent of the employees
signing authorization cards because intimidation tactics would
be used against them.
He said voting to organize is not like any other secret ballot
election process. People are not subject to any kind of
intimidation, harassment or firing for regular elections, but
all those tactics are used today in almost every single NRLB
election process.
MR. BALTRAMI stated that the authorization card process the EFCA
would allow is one that a lot of employers have lived up to
voluntarily. Cingular Wireless is the biggest example, where if
a majority of its employees at any property sign these
authorization cards, Cingular recognizes that and goes
immediately to the bargaining process.
SENATOR STEVENS said that Mr. Baltrami didn't answer his
question and repeated, if an employee has to sign a card in
front of a union representative, the element of secrecy has been
lost.
MR. BALTRAMI explained that authorization cards have been
voluntarily signed by employees and given to the union organizer
the same way since 1935 and that won't change.
1:49:30 PM
TOM BRICE, Alaska District Council Laborers, supported HJR 25.
He explained that sometimes people view the unions as an outside
entity coming in, but that is not true. The employees,
themselves, are signing a petition saying they want a contract.
CHAIR ELLIS asked if his understanding was the same as Mr.
Baltrami's, that nothing would change about revealing peoples'
identities.
MR. BRICE answered that the point Mr. Beltrami was trying to
make is once those cards are signed and presented to the labor
relations board, the employer has an idea who has signed them.
The employer can then try to get those cards thrown out or talk
with those employees in closed door sessions and use certain
tactics to influence that employee's voice. In 1992/93, the
Fairbanks Fred Meyer's did that to its workers when they tried
to organize. Just recently in Juneau, Wal-Mart had closed-door
meetings where employees were required to come in and sit down
and listen to three or four hours of anti-union propaganda. They
were paid for the time, but people who did not attend weren't
hired. He said that having a signed card serve as the vote would
minimize that length of time the employer has to try to
influence an employee's decision.
1:52:50 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he still had trouble understanding what is
wrong with having a secret election.
MR. BRICE answered the point is that after the cards are signed,
there is no secrecy. The employer has the ability to know who
those employees are and can try to unduly influence them through
intimidation and coercion. The EFCA says if over half the
employees have indicated by signing a card they want to join a
union, then they have made their voice heard and that serves as
the election. Employees should be able to go straight to
negotiations at that point.
1:54:37 PM
MR. BALTRAMI added when the authorization cards are given to a
union organizer, they are sealed and go to the NLRB. The names
of the people who signed the cards are not revealed, but they
can be discovered when the company provides a list of those
employees to the board to confirm that they are, in fact,
employees in the proper bargaining unit.
1:56:33 PM
DENNY DEWITT, Alaska Director, National Federation of
Independent Business, said he didn't understand the full context
of HR 800, but he had some concerns with moving away from the
secret ballot. His concern was that currently, 30 percent or
more of the employees can sign an authorization card and then
can have a secret ballot election. But many folks, when
presented with a card, might get a little pressure from
colleagues to sign the card. However, when they have a secret
ballot option, they can truly reflect on how they believe an
issue ought to go. That's why elections traditionally are by
secret ballot.
As he understands it, Mr. DeWitt said, this measure makes 50
percent of employees publically signing an authorization card
the election. It's another bit of pressure that is also
inappropriate. He thought it was appropriate for 51 percent of
Cingular's employees to sign cards and then go to negotiations,
and the law wouldn't need to be changed.
Another concern he had was that the bill had a lot of things in
it that no one knew about and going forward with that was just
poor public policy.
2:00:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD said he used to work as a union
organizer and many times he was able to get 75 - 80 percent of
employees on non-union jobs to sign the cards, but the actual
NLRB vote would be delayed so that people could be worked on.
People who were union supporters were laid off or fired and the
vote would be delayed so long that the job would be over before
the election happened. In all his years as a union organizer, he
stated that he was never able to actually get to the point of
having an election.
2:01:58 PM
SENATOR STEVENS said he understood that, but asked if there is
recourse other than changing the law if someone is fired because
he wanted to unionize.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD replied that he was fired for trying to
organize by the company that was expanding FedEx at the airport.
He actually got a few weeks back pay about three years later,
because he had proof of what happened, but all the other people
who sided with the union didn't get anything.
SENATOR THOMAS said that most people discuss the authorization
card with their significant other or another colleague before
signing it. He found that the timeframe it takes to get to the
election the real concern, because that is when there is usually
a fair amount of intimidation by the employers.
2:05:18 PM
He knew of that happening at Prudhoe Bay when an election time
was set. Then the only way to appear you were not in favor of
unionization was to not show up on the day of the election.
There is a great disparity between the number of people who sign
the authorization cards and the number who actually show up to
vote.
2:07:34 PM
CHAIR ELLIS closed public testimony and held the bill for
further consideration.
SENATOR DAVIS said she supported HR 800 and wanted to know where
it was now and why it wasn't referred to the Speaker of the
House.
2:08:32 PM
MR. FELLMAN answered that HR 800 passed the House, but not the
Senate. He would have to check on why this resolution wasn't
referred to the Speaker of the House.
SENATOR STEVENS said he was concerned that HJR 25 covered other
issues that hadn't been discussed.
MR. FELLMAN commented that was not his understanding.
CHAIR ELLIS set the resolution aside.
SB 120-UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BENEFITS
2:12:16 PM
CHAIR ELLIS announced SB 120 to be up for consideration. He
recapped that they had an entire year of stakeholders' hearings
before this session on this issue, and Governor Palin just
announced some stunningly good news for employers about the
rates over the next few years. It's a really good time to make a
modest increase in benefits, which was his goal. Last Saturday
the committee had a work session that resulted in a revised
committee substitute, CSSB 120(L&C), 25-LS0622\L. He asked Mr.
Owen to review it for the committee.
2:14:08 PM
DANA OWEN, staff to Senator Ellis, recalled that the previous CS
discussed in the Saturday work session was trying to balance
some equities. On one hand, the unemployment insurance benefits
had not been changed in 10 years, and the need to raise them was
widely recognized. However, employers regarded the unemployment
benefit structure as costing them more than it needed to.
Employer groups offered suggestions about how costs could be
brought down for them.
The CS they discussed on Saturday attempted to do that in two
ways. First, the CS shifted about $2-million of tax liability
from employers over to employees; an additional cost savings to
employers of approximately $5.4 million was found by denying
benefits to employees who had been fired for misconduct. During
and subsequent to that meeting, the committee heard vigorous
testimony from labor that denying that benefit would cause a
greater hardship and would give employers the incentive to abuse
the system by firing people for misconduct unjustly.
2:16:21 PM
They looked for other ways to retain the total of $7.4 million
tax benefit to employers. Two options were suggested; one was to
raise the minimum wage in the base period that it takes to
qualify for benefits. Version L deletes the provision denying
benefits to those fired for misconduct and retains the provision
shifting the tax burden from employers to employees by amending
the percentages. Currently employers pay 80 percent and
employees pay 20 percent. Version L changes that to 73 percent
paid for by employers and 27 percent paid for by employees. That
shifts an approximate aggregate of $7 million from the employers
onto the employees. Another $.8 million in savings to the
employer was found by raising the minimum amount necessary to
qualify for benefits from $1000 to $2500.
MR. OWEN said the savings of $7.4 million in the previous CS for
the employer increased to $7.8 million in Version L.
2:18:28 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked him to explain raising the minimum from
$1000 to $2500.
MR. OWEN explained that current law says you have to have earned
a minimum of $1000 in each of two quarters to qualify for
benefits; the CS raises that minimum to $2500.
CHAIR ELLIS said updating the $1000-minimum seemed like a good
idea to him because it was established a long time ago, and
$2500 seemed like a reasonable figure. He explained that
everyone thought that under the suggested dismissal provision no
one would be ever laid off again. They would be dismissed for
conduct, and the appeals process is a hassle as well as time
consuming. That seemed to be a show stopper for this
legislation, so he decided to leave it out and give more
significant benefit to the employers without significantly
impacting the employee. He didn't know how he could be any more
fair or impactful in a positive way to the employees.
MR. OWEN said some states raise the minimum amount to qualify
regularly with either an escalator clause or as a routine, but
Alaska hadn't raised it since 1970.
CHAIR ELLIS said if this bill passes, Alaska would still be
below the middle of the pack among other states for average
weekly benefits.
2:24:14 PM
PAULA SCAVARA, Special Assistant to the Commissioner, Department
of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD) said she is also the
legislative liaison. She offered to answer questions.
CHAIR ELLIS asked her to explain the 73/27 percent split between
employer and employee and trying to save money for employers
without harming anyone's interest significantly. He also asked
her to put the cost savings into context, especially since
Governor Palin announced the system was being changed on the
federal level to show savings anyhow.
MS. SCAVARA deferred to Mr. Wilson for the answer.
2:25:18 PM
JAMES WILSON, Unemployment Insurance Actuary, Research and
Analysis Section, Department of Labor and Workforce Development
(DOLWD), said over the last few years Alaska has been enjoying
lower-than-average tax rates and in the last three years they
have come down significantly. Figures from 2008 show they were
the lowest employer tax rates in 30 years. Unemployment and the
cost of the program are both at low levels and he sees that
trend continuing. He said the bill attempts to increase the
maximum benefit amount. The existing schedule qualifies workers
for an increased benefit of $2 per each $250 increment; this
bill adds additional steps on top of that schedule. The last
modest benefit increase was in 1997. He said that Alaska has
fallen further down the ladder in past years at being able to
replace wages compared to other states. This bill would move
Alaska up more toward the center.
2:29:31 PM
MR. WILSON explained that it increases the benefit maximum to
$370; it also increases the cost per worker for the average
employer from $470 to $548. It would take until 2013 for that
cost to work its way into the financing system, a result of the
WBA increase. The new CS dropped the disqualifying issue. Also
the tax share was changed significantly in the new CS from 80/20
employer/employee contribution to 73/27, a $7 million shift.
MR. WILSON said the proposal to raise the minimum qualifying
wage from $1000 to $2500 was a modest increase that would result
in $.8 million of savings, an additional savings to the employer
of $5 per worker.
2:32:48 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked how many employees did not reach the $1000
minimum and how many won't reach the $2500 minimum.
MR. WILSON answered that approximate 1466 claimants were between
the $1000 and $250, and he didn't have a number for those who
weren't able to reach the $1000 point.
2:34:05 PM
CHAIR ELLIS asked if the department would get an updated chart
on employer figures for the committee.
MS. SCAVARA replied she didn't have enough time to put the
charts together for today, but she would have it ready later in
the week. She asked Mr. Wilson to comment on how much the
employer pays now compared to the changes in the bill.
MR. WILSON explained that under the proposal, by 2013 the full
cost of the benefit increase to employers would be $548 per
worker. Factoring in the change of going from 80/20 to 73/27
would make that go down to $498. The employee portion alone,
with the WBA increase by 2013, would amount to $157, which is
essentially what they are paying currently. That would go up to
$197. These numbers are before factoring in the $.8 million that
would result from changing the minimum qualifying wage from
$1000 to $2500. He speculated it would amount to about $1/hr.
increase on the employee side.
CHAIR ELLIS asked Ms. Scavara to "do a commercial" about the
confidentiality provisions in this legislation and explain how
important it is for the state to comply with federal law.
MS. SCAVARA responded that sections 1-8 conform state law to
federal law; without them, the state would be sanctioned by the
U.S. Department of Labor for millions of dollars.
2:38:49 PM
SENATOR STEVENS asked if something is happening on a national
level for people who are fired for misconduct and if other
states successfully address the issue of denying benefits to
those people.
2:40:09 PM
BILL KRAMER, Chief, Unemployment Insurance, Department of Labor
and Workforce Development (DOLWD), explained that the current
law puts the responsibility on the employer to show that there
was actually misconduct in connection with the work. Simple
incompetence on the job does not rise to misconduct and a worker
wouldn't be denied benefits. Typically an employer has to show
that a policy was explained and that the worker understood it -
like for drinking or drugs or treating customers rudely.
He said 45 or 46 other states disqualify benefits indefinitely
if someone is discharged for misconduct in connection with their
work. The person is denied indefinitely or until he goes back
into the workforce and earns wages and gets laid off again.
Alaska's current statute denies benefits to people who are
discharged for misconduct for six weeks from the date of the
discharge. Their benefits are reduced by three times the weekly
benefit amount, and they are ineligible for any federal
extensions that may be available.
SENATOR STEVENS commented that this bill basically says the
state is going to deal with people who are fired for misconduct
and that will cost $5.4 million, but it is going to deny 1460
people benefits who earn between $1000 and $2500. Denying those
benefits saves $.8 million, but the state is losing $5.4 million
by giving benefits to people who have been fired for misconduct.
He wasn't sure this was where the state wants to go.
MS. SCAVARA said the department didn't draft this bill.
SENATOR STEVENS asked her why the misconduct language shouldn't
be deleted.
MS. SCAVARA replied that the department is neutral on the bill
after the first 8 sections, and it will follow whatever policy
decisions the legislature makes.
2:46:26 PM
SENATOR DAVIS said she appreciated some things in the bill, but
she also understood where Senator Stevens was coming from.
CHAIR ELLIS remarked that this bill would not change the status
quo for misconduct dismissal.
2:48:05 PM
VINCE BALTRAMI, President, AFL-CIO, said he was not happy with
some of the compromises in SB 120 because he didn't want to see
anything that was more punitive to the employees. He saw some
punitive things in light of the fact that the employers got such
a break on their taxes. However he supported this bill because
he didn't think they could do much better at this point.
2:49:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD said sometimes it's hard to tell
who is at fault when someone is fired. He has been fired a
number of times for his union organizing activities. And while
he got back wages for it, they came two or three years down the
road. Other states have found that the misconduct provision
gives employers the incentive to fire people when the job is
almost finished rather than laying them off. Six weeks is a
pretty severe penalty as it is, and he didn't want the state to
go to a longer penalty and give an unscrupulous employer that
additional incentive to fire people.
WAYNE STEVENS, President/CEO, Alaska State Chamber of Commerce,
said he appreciated all the efforts made on this issue. He
pointed out that while the rates have virtually stayed the same,
the taxable amounts have increased every year for the employer.
Since 1996 the taxable amount to the employer and the employee
has gone from $24,400 to $31,300. He said the state is in a
period of low unemployment, and as a result the contributions to
the trust fund have gone up. He saw no benefit to employers
other than that the draw on the fund has been reduced; so this
notion that perhaps employers are getting an unfair advantage
was not correct. He encouraged them to make SB 120 revenue
neutral, because he understood the need to make the change.
2:54:30 PM
SENATOR STEVENS moved to adopt CSSB 120(L&C) version L. There
were no objections and it was so ordered.
2:55:01 PM at ease 3:03:06 PM
3:03:10 PM
DENNY DEWITT, State Director, National Federation of Independent
Business (NFIB), commented that he appreciated their efforts on
this issue also. He said the NFIB has not been supportive of
employees being charged more nationally, and this moves more in
that direction and away from eliminating benefits for workers
discharged for cause. He wanted something as close to revenue
neutral as possible, and appreciated changing the $1000 to
qualify for benefits to $2500. In general, he said that he
supported the direction in which the bill was going, but he also
wanted to look at it more closely and get back to the committee
with a more coherent response.
3:05:06 PM
CHAIR ELLIS recapped and asked for further testimony.
3:05:58 PM
SENATOR DAVIS moved to report CSSB 120(L&C) version L from
committee with individual recommendations and updated and
attached fiscal notes.
SENATOR STEVENS said he didn't object to moving it on to
Finance, and he recommended that it would be amended because he
was still concerned about people being fired for misconduct and
the additional 1400 people being denied benefits who make
between $1000 and $2500.
CHAIR ELLIS saw no further discussion or objection and the bill
moved from committee. There being no further business to come
before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 3:07:40 PM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|