02/28/2008 09:00 AM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SJR12 | |
| SB276 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SJR 12 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 276 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | SB 208 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | SB 218 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
SENATE STATE AFFAIRS STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 2008
9:02 a.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Senator Lesil McGuire, Chair
Senator Gary Stevens, Vice Chair
Senator Hollis French
Senator Lyda Green
Senator Con Bunde
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 12
Opposing proposed changes to the interpretation of the Passenger
Vessel Services Act of June 19, 1886, by the United States
Department of Homeland Security, Bureau of Customs and Border
Protection, affecting cruise itineraries of foreign-flagged
vessels transporting passengers to ports in Alaska.
MOVED CSSJR 12(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
SENATE BILL NO. 276
"An Act relating to project labor agreements."
HEARD AND HELD
SENATE BILL NO. 208
"An Act relating to sexual assault."
SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
SENATE BILL NO. 218
"An Act relating to use of child safety seats and seat belts."
WAIVED OUT OF COMMITTEE
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: SJR 12
SHORT TITLE: CRUISE SHIP PORT TIMES: JONES ACT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) THERRIAULT
01/16/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/16/08 (S) STA
02/26/08 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
02/26/08 (S) Scheduled but Not Heard
02/28/08 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
BILL: SB 276
SHORT TITLE: STATE CONSTRUCT'N PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) BUNDE
02/15/08 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/15/08 (S) STA, L&C
02/28/08 (S) STA AT 9:00 AM BELTZ 211
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented SJR 12.
WAYNE STEVENS, President
State Chamber of Commerce
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SJR 12.
JEREMY GEISER, President
Juneau Chapter
Alaska Travel Industry Association
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SJR 12.
CHIP THOMA
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided suggestions for SJR 12.
DON HABEGER, Regional Vice President
Royal Caribbean
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SJR 12.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff
to Senator Therriault
Alaska State Legislature
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions regarding SJR 12.
VINCE BELTRAMI, President
Alaska AFL-CIO
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Questioned aspects of SB 276.
JEFF ROBINSON, Division Manager
Service and Installation
Klebs Mechanical
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SB 276.
JEFF ALLING, President
Alcan Builders General Contracting
Fairbanks AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SB 276.
REBECCA LOGAN, President
Associated Builders and Contractors of Alaska
Anchorage AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke in favor of SB 276.
BARBARA HUFF, Director
Governmental and Legislative Affairs
Teamsters local 959
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Spoke to the history of SB 276.
ANTHONY SIVERTSEN
Juneau AK
POSITION STATEMENT: Asked questions about SB 276.
ACTION NARRATIVE
CHAIR LESIL MCGUIRE called the Senate State Affairs Standing
Committee meeting to order at 9:02:15 AM. Senators French,
Bunde, and McGuire were present at the call to order. Senators
Green and Stevens arrived later.
SJR 12-CRUISE SHIP PORT TIMES: JONES ACT
9:02:44 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SJR 12.
SENATOR BUNDE moved to adopt the committee substitute (CS) to
SJR 12, labeled 25-LS1292\E, Kane. Hearing no objection, Version
E was before the committee.
SENATOR GENE THERRIAULT, Alaska State Legislature, said SJR 12
opposes proposed changes to the interpretation of the Passenger
Vessel Services Act of 1886 by the U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (DHS), which would affect the cruise itineraries of
foreign-flagged vessels transporting passengers to Alaska. In
November, DHS published a new interpretation requiring all
foreign-flagged cruise ships to spend at least 48 hours in a
foreign port, spend at least 50 percent of the time that is
spent at U.S. ports at foreign ports, and require passengers to
depart at a foreign port. The industry brings a million
passengers to Alaska each year, and this new interpretation will
mean 158 fewer voyages and 349,000 fewer passengers. It will
result in a loss of $222 million that supports Alaska businesses
in coastal communities and beyond. The public comment period is
closed so the statement will not be officially submitted into
the public record, but a decision has not been rendered. The CS
makes it clear that Alaska opposes the interpretation, but if it
is adopted, SJR 12 asks that Alaska be exempted.
9:06:05 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if this interpretation was developed because
of some problems with foreign-flagged cruise ships going to
Hawaii and spending a few hours in Mexican ports.
SENATOR THERRIAULT said the new interpretation does spring from
a problem in Hawaii. American-flagged ships provide intra-island
service, and "over time the large cruise ships that seasonally
come to the state of Alaska, some of them were going from the
West Coast over to Hawaii, around the islands, and to avoid the
problem with the old ruling, they would then go to Mexico, touch
base at a port there overnight, and then go back to the West
Coast." That is what triggered this. The determination
continually refers to the Hawaiian market, and at the end it
refers to any cruise itinerary, thereby sweeping in Alaska.
9:08:02 AM
WAYNE STEVENS, President, State Chamber of Commerce, said his
board supports SJR 12. It is on record opposing the proposed
criteria to determine if foreign-flagged passenger vessels are
in violation of the Passenger Services Vessels Act. While
intended to solve a problem in Hawaii, the interpretation isn't
limited to Hawaii and could be interpreted to include cruise
runs to Alaska from Seattle or San Francisco. This is one third
of the cruises coming to Alaska. It will not affect ships from
Vancouver, B.C. The loss of ships will be devastating to
Alaska's communities and delicate economy. The interpretation
could be in effect for the 2008 summer season. The loss of jobs,
revenue, and taxes will be crippling. If cruise ships spend 48
in foreign ports and 50 percent of port time in foreign ports on
round-trip voyages from Seattle to Alaska, it will make the
existing seven-day itineraries impossible. The only alternative
will be for ships to spend less time in Alaska and more time in
Canada. The proposed changes are a significant departure from
industry practice and not an interpretation of existing
regulations. These proposed changes will affect all tourism
communities. Cruise passengers typically fly from Alaska to
connect to the ships. The solution to a problem in Hawaii will
be of significant detriment to Alaska and its cruise industry.
9:11:14 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked what the chamber is doing nationally to
influence the regulation writers in Washington D.C.
MR. STEVENS said the chamber has been commenting.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked about the chances of success.
MR. STEVENS said there is potential to get it overturned.
SENATOR BUNDE asked about Seattle losing business, and if
Washington State is doing anything.
MR. STEVENS said he believes they are commenting.
9:12:35 AM
JEREMY GEISER, President, Juneau Chapter, Alaska Travel Industry
Association, said he is also the manager for Gastineau Guiding.
If a third of the port calls are lost in Juneau, his company
will lose one third of its business including some year-round
jobs. All of those jobs will go to British Columbia. The
proposed interpretation will impact the communities, visitor
services, and indirect businesses. Each organization stands to
suffer economic hardships, and the resolution will send an
important message.
CHIP THOMA, Juneau, said all the cruises that emanate from
Vancouver are legal, but the Seattle ones are illegal under the
Passenger Services Act. The complication can be solved by
Vancouver building more dock spaces and taking over the entire
trade. The problem with the Seattle-based cruises is that once
they leave Seattle, they don't spend any time in Canadian waters
until they come back and provide an eight-hour tour of Victoria.
The ships then go back to Seattle. That is the token stop. The
San Diego trade stops in Ensenada, Mexico, in the middle of the
night for a few hours. He said he supports the resolution, but
it should be more focused. On line 6, of page 1, instead of
saying the cruise ship industry, it should say the Port of
Seattle. On line 8, after "cruise ships", it should say "cruise
ships from Seattle".
9:16:41 AM
DON HABEGER, Regional Vice President, Royal Caribbean, Juneau,
said the industry is on the record in opposition to the proposed
regulations. The best trade organization for getting cruise ship
messages out is "our membership" and the Association of American
Port Authorities. They say the rule would drastically restrict
vacation options for cruise passengers, and they specifically
mention Alaska. It would limit cruise markets to itineraries
with a single U.S. port of call, driving all Alaska business to
Canada and Hawaii business to Mexican Ports. It will eliminate
Key West Florida, and numerous East Coast and Gulf ports of
call. He said there is a controversy in the Hawaiian market. He
comes from the foreign-flagged side of the industry, and they
have a different niche in that market. The foreign-flagged
cruises to Hawaii are 14-15 days long and have a different
clientele. The U.S.-flagged ships in Hawaii are typically seven
nights. He thinks there is room for both in Hawaii. The proposed
regulation will drastically change the business in North
America. He supports the resolution.
9:19:47 AM
SENATOR FRENCH asked if the governor received an answer to her
letter sent in December, 2007.
HEATHER BRAKES, Staff to Senator Therriault, Alaska State
Legislature, said she believes she has not.
SENATOR BUNDE moved to report the CS to SJR 12, labeled 25-
LS1292\E, from committee with individual recommendations and
attached fiscal note(s). There being no objection, CSSJR 12(STA)
passed out of committee.
SB 276-STATE CONSTRUCT'N PROJECT LABOR AGREEMENT
9:21:03 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE announced the consideration of SB 276.
9:21:42 AM
SENATOR BUNDE moved to adopt a committee substitute (CS) to SB
276, labeled, 25-LS1247\M. Hearing no objection, Version M was
before the committee. The bill represents a fairness issue, he
said. His mother-in-law was a single mother working as a
waitress. She belonged to a union, paying her small dues out of
her tips. She visited him in Alaska for about six months. Her
union contract had a proviso about a break in service, so when
she retired she never received any benefits. There is something
similar in Alaska. There are people working under a labor
agreement who are not union members, but they are required to
pay into the union retirement and benefit plan.
9:23:46 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said these non-union workers never have access to
that money. It benefits the union retirement plan, because it
provides funds that will never be drawn on, but it is not fair
to the laborer. This is substantial money, like $40,000 worth of
benefits accumulated by someone working on the Alaska pipeline.
He spoke of a worker who passed away and his wife couldn't
collect because he hadn't been a union member. The gas line will
have $17 per hour that the employer pays into a benefit package,
and a non-union worker will never get that benefit. It isn't
fair. SB 276 gives employees the option of the union plan or
their current employer's plan. Non-union employees will have
benefits available if they never join the union and are covered
by the non-union employer plan. If that person joins the union,
the benefit contributions can be placed in that program.
9:27:16 AM
VINCE BELTRAMI, President, Alaska AFL-CIO, Anchorage, said he
applauds Senator Bunde for looking out for all employees who may
work under the terms of a project labor agreement (PLA). He said
he is not opposed to the bill but has recommendations. The
notion that PLAs discriminate against non-union workers is a
fallacy. Most non-union workers have realized superior benefits
that are offered by a joint labor management trust fund. Once
they realize how good the benefits are, they stay on with the
unions after the project is completed. Representative Mike Kelly
has a companion bill in the House, and he provided a press
release that identified three primary fringe benefits that he
said would discriminate against non-union employees working
under a PLA: health, training, and pension plans. Contrary to
claims bandied about by non-union employers and by
Representative Kelly's press release, the fringe benefit plans
that are offered under PLAs do not discriminate against non-
union employees. The medical plans are often superior. In a
typical plan an employee becomes a participant as soon as the
minimum qualifying requirements have been met, which is 300
qualifying hours and usually not more than a month and a half
when on a seven/ten schedule. It is no different from what a
long-time union member would need to qualify. Unlike typical
non-union plans, participants build up an hour bank that can
cover them with the good medical plans for as much as a year
after the project is completed, because that hour bank has been
built up. Typically coverage under non-union plans end with the
termination of the employee.
9:30:23 AM
MR. BELTRAMI said contributions that make participants eligible
for training are available to union and nonunion members if that
contribution is being made on their behalf. That entitles them
to OSHA training, HAZWOPER [hazardous waste operations and
emergency response], CPR, first aid, and any other skill-
specific upgrade training that many of the union training
programs provide. He doesn't know of any comparable training
programs in the non-union sector. The question that often
arises, and what probably was the impetus for SB 276, is the
pension contributions. Universally, defined benefit plans
require five years of vesting -- not ten years, as it was under
TAPS. At this point, the gasline project may not last long
enough for a participant to vest. "However they would vest if
the project was longer than that and they worked on it."
Accordingly, labor expects the licensee or whoever is
negotiating the terms of the PLA to bring up alternatives to
defined benefits. Many of the unions offer both defined benefit
and defined contribution plans. He fully expects the unions to
agree to a hybrid that allows fully-vested union members to
continue with their existing plans and an option for something
like is being suggested in this bill. The slippery slope is in
oversimplification of this element by a simple declaration of
benefits by the employee. The unions will fully agree to allow
its plans to be open and examined by all parties. The same must
be true of any non-union employers who work on the project and
who have some type of fringe benefit plans that they want to
have be considered for the project. Some non-union plans have
comparable benefits but many do not. Fraudulent plans are
difficult to navigate and leave employees without the benefits
that they thought they were getting.
9:32:57 AM
MR. BELTRAMI said it is imperative that the benefit options meet
the level of scrutiny that the union sponsored plan gets. Not to
include that type of provision would be a disservice to the
employees and contrary to what it seems the bill is trying to
accomplish. Another slippery slope is the precedence this bill
would set. He hasn't seen a legislative body legislate things
that are always mandatory subjects of collective bargaining.
"Will the legislature go on to negotiate more terms in other
collective bargaining agreements?" If this body moves in that
direction - although it might not pass legal muster -- it would
seem to be a subrogation of the duties assigned to others and a
proclamation that the legislature is ready, willing, and able to
take on more than it is typically faced with. But he is glad to
see the legislators looking out for the best interest of Alaskan
employees - "I do it everyday, and we don't just do it for our
members. Our concern and involvement over things like minimum
wage, unemployment insurance, and other issues demonstrates that
organized labor works hard on issues that do benefit working
Alaskans other than our union members." He urged the committee
to make sure that SB 276 protects employees who are not union
members to the same level as the union members who will go to
work under the terms of a PLA. He asked for amendments to
Sections 36.30.405 (b) 1, 2, and 3 to assure that employs will
get the same level of benefits as those provided to the typical
union members.
9:35:16 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked what amendments he wants.
MR. BELTRAMI said he doesn't have a specific proposal, but he
asked for the plans to meet the same level of benefits that
exist under union plans.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if health, training, and pension all need to
be equal.
MR. BELTRAMI said certainly -- whatever the prevailing wage
package is. The fringe benefits need to be equal. Some plans
provide legal benefits. If a benefit plan is approved that is
contrary to the union, it has to be at least as good, so that
those who opt for it have the same coverage.
9:36:19 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked why he is concerned about that. "If I as an
employee choose to put my contribution somewhere else -- and why
you would care."
MR. BELTRAMI said, "We represent employees whether they're
members of our union or not. If you're going to go down this
slope and try to negotiate benefits…." Workers are essentially
deciding they want non-union benefits, not union benefits, so
they need to be comparable. They need to protect the employee in
the same way. The pension needs to be legitimate and approved,
and the training benefits need to be comparable.
SENATOR GREEN said, regarding vesting, Mr. Beltrami is comparing
something with a future with something without. If employees are
not going to get long-term benefits by contributing to the union
pension, wouldn't they want to put it in their existing plan?
9:37:41 AM
MR. BELTRAMI said he doesn't disagree, but if it is a defined
contribution plan, which is a mandatory subject of bargaining,
"anybody will be able to say -- from the employers' perspective
- we want this plan to be considered. We have agreed, in other
collective bargaining agreements, to have plans like that." But
the plan needs to be legitimate and recognized.
SENATOR BUNDE said retirement plans are covered under federal
regulations, so requiring a legitimate plan is already covered.
MR. BELTRAMI said he has seen some that are not legitimate and
that skirt ERISA [federal Employee Retirement Income Security
Act], and they have been problematic for non-union employees
working on Davis-Bacon jobs to be able to actually get the
benefit that they have been promised.
SENATOR BUNDE said maybe the title of the bill should be changed
to make it pro-choice. He said he can pick and choose state
health benefits. Not everyone wants the same coverage, "and I'm
suggesting that this bill should allow employees that choice."
He asked if there have been abuses of the union pension plan in
Alaska, like there have been nationally.
9:39:46 AM
MR. BELTRAMI said he saw a letter that came from Brian Miller of
Arctic Lights Electric where he makes that claim related to TAPS
- that people were left out of their benefits, and there was a
class action suit that spurned pension reform across the
country. It changed a lot of 10-year vesting to 5-year vesting.
The suggestion in the letter was that this cash went to the
union, which is inaccurate. The cash never goes to the union -
that would be a violation of ERISA -- it goes into union
management-operated joint trust funds that have all been
reformed to ensure that employees don't have that kind of abuse.
That was settled 30 years ago. Once it was settled the money was
distributed to the participants. People came to Alaska from
other parts of the country and never worked long enough to vest.
He said the I.B.E.W. set several million dollars aside in those
benefits when the suit came along. Once it was settled, the
money was distributed to those participants as was expected. He
is not aware of anything that goes on today under project labor
agreements or any other collective bargaining agreement where
employees are not entitled to the benefits they've earned. It
would be a violation of ERISA.
9:41:22 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said, so, "the concept would be that the benefits
program that would be offered that's non-union would meet the
same thresholds as the union."
MR. BELTRAMI said the language is too vague and subject to
challenges, because it won't do all it should do to protect
employees who might choose those options. The part about the
labor representative who negotiated the PLA should be corrected.
It is not the labor representative; it is the labor management
trust fund.
SENATOR BUNDE said it is a trust fund managed by the union.
MR. BELTRAMI said, "And the employers." He serves on the Alaska
Electrical Pension Trust Fund, and there are five union-
appointed trustees and five employer-appointed trustees. That is
the oversight of the trust; it is not the union.
MR. BELTRAMI said it is apparent that there are several
technical issues that need to be addresses. The bill in its
present form won't do what it tries to do.
9:43:56 AM
JEFF ROBINSON, Division Manager, Service and Installation, Klebs
Mechanical, Anchorage, said Klebs is the largest mechanical
contractor in Alaska. Project labor agreements place an unfair
financial disadvantage on workers who have not been subject to a
collective bargaining agreement prior to the project. They force
workers to make contributions to plans knowing full well they
will not receive the benefits. It is unethical. His employer
makes contributions to benefit plans on behalf of its employees
that range from $27,000 to $34,000 annually per worker. What
workers can make those kinds of contributions, especially those
that do not benefit them? His employer would never sign a PLA
because of that. There are smaller Alaskan contractors who might
sign an agreement on a large project, and so there are many
Alaska workers who would suffer that hardship. Many temporary
rural workers will never get vested and never see a dime of
their pension money. The most common vehicle used by open-shop
contractors is the 401K, which is what Krebs has, and that money
always belongs to the employees. If a worker leaves, the money
goes with him or her. The bill is great for both union labor and
open-shop contractors because it gives the worker the choice. It
has always been the union's assertion that it wants to do what
is best for the worker. SB 276 gives the worker the choice and
is a good compromise so that workers on large construction
projects receive the full benefit of their compensation package.
9:47:17 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said competition is good for business. Mr.
Beltrami suggested that all plans be the same. He asked if
having the option of different plans will provide competition,
and perhaps will put pressure on Krebs to change its plan to be
more competitive.
MR. ROBINSON said it could. He doesn't see how two plans could
ever be truly compared. It should be the workers' choice to
evaluate both plans and pick. Trying to make them the same would
be impossible to administer.
JEFF ALLING, President, Alcan Builders General Contracting,
Fairbanks, said he has between $5 million and $25 million worth
of work annually. PLAs discourage bidding by non-union
contractors for many reasons, including the negative financial
impact for an employer regarding pension, health and insurance.
Employers may have to double pay. There is a legal risk to not
contribute to the regular pension plan through the employees who
work on a project while contributions are made on their behalf
to union pension plans. The legal risk of suspending health
coverage while transitioning to another plan is substantial.
Benefit contributions for different crafts that he employees can
range anywhere from $13.00 to $18.00 per hour. Making double
payments makes a contractor uncompetitive in the bidding process
if it is non-union. Employees who sign on to a PLA and make
contributions to a union pension plan subject themselves for
withdrawal liability - meaning a contractor can be on the hook
for any future liabilities of a union plan. AGIA requires that
the licenses use Alaskan contractors to the maximum extant
possible, and it requires a PLA. These contradict each other. SB
276 is a good first step in removing one of the burdensome terms
of a PLA that keep contractors from bidding.
9:51:37 AM
SENATOR BUNDE asked if he continues a longstanding employee's
benefits if he or she goes to work on a PLA, while being forced
to make payments into the union plan.
MR. ALLING said that is correct. He has to follow the Davis-
Bacon prevailing wage program. A carpenter is paid $31.93 per
hour with a benefit package of $17.25 per hour. It brings the
total to $41.98. With workers compensation, Social Security and
other things, it costs him $60.00 per hour to put a carpenter in
the field. His company has been in business so long, it has
long-term employees who have chosen to stay because his company
provides a good package. "We are fair to them and they are very
comfortable working with us." They have chosen not to become
union members. If Mr. Alling is forced into a PLA he will be
non-competitive. To take care of his employees, his costs per
hour will be $77.25 as opposed to the $60.00 per hour that a
union contractor can use in bidding the same project. "That
would be union contractors from anywhere in the country. It
would give them a competitive advantage over my company." The
bill is good for the worker because it gives the worker the
option. He just had a PLA at Fort Greely, and he saw license
plates from every state brought up by union contractors.
9:54:40 AM
REBECCA LOGAN, President, Associated Builders and Contractors of
Alaska, said standard PLAs crafted in Alaska already give the
union the right to audit the books of the non-union contractors
that participate. Mr. Beltrami had mentioned adding that
provision, but it is already there. Any time a non-union
contractor signs onto a PLA they give the union a right to audit
all of their books. She is not opposed to comparable plans,
because they would be for contractors who work on the pipeline.
CHAIR MCGUIRE asked if that language could be worked on.
MS. LOGAN said something can be worked out. Mr. Robinson was
right that it would be hard to have an apples-to-apples
comparison of pension, health, welfare, and training. There are
so many ways that people train, she noted. There could be some
broad language.
SENATOR GREEN said her training program could probably be
comparable if she got as much from the state.
MS. LOGAN said, "We choose not to." The employers pay their own.
9:56:58 AM
SENATOR GREEN asked if she is saying that after the review of a
private employers plan, the union can refuse an employee from
coming on. "It's just a review - they can't reject."
MS. LOGAN said Mr. Beltrami was asking that the plans be
qualified under ERISA, and that's fair.
SENATOR GREEN asked if she really wants that in statute.
MS. LOGAN said she is open to suggestions.
SENATOR FRENCH said it sounds like the real money is in the
pension contributions; "that's where you go from $50.00 per hour
to $67.00." Perhaps there won't be an apples-to-apples
comparison, but workers need to make an informed choice, like
knowing whether they need to take five years to vest, for
example. A little more language is needed to ensure a worker can
make an informed decision. Mr. Beltrami said he is in favor of
the bill in general because it is pro-worker, "but it just
sounded like there just needs to be a little more disclosure …
at that moment that you make that decision that can have such
huge ramifications." He said he worked three years for an oil
company that had a five-year vesting plan. Whatever he
contributed to that oil company is gone forever. He was young
and didn't know any better. "When a vested non-union worker
steps into a PLA world, he's got an extremely important decision
to make."
9:59:43 AM
SENATOR BUNDE said he doesn't think the bill anticipates that a
union member would opt out of a union program. That may not be
possible. He doesn't want the bill to even suggest that
alternative. The options are only for the non-union people. But
he agrees with having more information available.
MS. LOGAN said there is a lot of discussion about what can be
done, but that is not the same as what will be done. In a PLA
often the terms are struck, and the majority of the people
covered by that will be left out of the negotiations. It is
appropriate the state is in this role as a market participant,
"that they can protect those people who don't get to participate
in the negotiations."
SENATOR BUNDE said Mr. Beltrami said the state shouldn't get too
involved in collective bargaining, and he is right except the
legislature and public employee unions are deeply involved
"because we have to fund the results of the bargaining."
10:01:22 AM
BARBARA HUFF, Director, Governmental and Legislative Affairs,
Teamsters local 959, said she had intended not to testify until
an electric company referred to the teamsters in a letter sent
to the Senate. She felt it was important to go on record,
"because what we're doing is living 30 years ago." There was a
class action suit that cost the teamsters "millions and millions
and millions of dollars." It came out of the pension plan - not
out of the teamster's general fund. It was not a cash cow. This
happened 30 years ago, she emphasized. Under ERISA there were
some drastic changes in federal law as a result of the lawsuits.
The teamsters had the deepest pockets. Everybody else fell in a
similar category. The teamsters negotiated a PLA with the owners
anticipating that if there will be a gasline, there will be
those particular managing companies who will ultimately decide
who the "subs" will be. "It is not our job to negotiate," or to
have a bill drafted here. "I'll use the convention center;
introduce a bill down here that says - and the unions are
pushing this - so that we can designate - or by law designate --
who those subcontractors are going to be on that project." That
goes back to that successful contractor who goes through a
selection process. This bill is attempting to piecemeal specific
areas of law that are mandatory subjects of bargaining.
MS. HUFF said, "We go through the negotiating process with
whomever that particular designated employer or employers … on a
project labor agreement, and we're very much aware of that."
Thirty years ago decisions were made and folks were impacted.
"Nobody talks about the health benefits that these individuals
all had; they walked in, they had free prescriptions, they had
free hospital care, they had everything that was given to them
under our negotiated health benefit plan." Nobody talks about
that or the recreation centers and medi-vac planes to take care
of workers that the union represented "during those particular
times." There were some very good things. "Yes, we were taken to
court. Yes, we went through that process, and we paid millions
and millions and millions of dollars back." They now moved on
and have negotiated many collective bargaining agreements and
represent thousands of workers around Alaska. Negotiating fair
and reasonable agreements is their job. "We want to make sure
the workers are protected and that they are knowingly offered a
benefit package that, indeed, they can survive." Vesting is five
years. The teamsters have collective bargaining agreements with
employers who have pension plans under the teamster plan, and
there are some that actually have employer plans. That is a
decision that is made when the collective bargaining agreement
is negotiated and brought back to the employees with an up or
down vote.
10:06:01 AM
MS. HUFF said, "We are open; we are transparent." It is not 30
years ago, and she wants to move forward and work together. The
teamsters don't want to make the same mistakes. They sold their
recreation centers, hospitals, and jet airplanes and now they
just represent the employees, which is the job the members want
them to do.
10:07:08 AM
ANTHONY SIVERTSEN, Juneau, said he worked under Davis-Bacon
wages for a paving company. He worked with commercial off-shore
fishing companies all the way to Hawaii and asked if he was
"paying into this."
SENATOR BUNDE said he is not aware that they were under a PLA.
MR. SIVERTSEN asked, "Who is paying for this fund that's coming
in … the money to give the worker the choice? Who's paying for
that, the union?"
CHAIR MCGUIRE said the discussion is about project labor
agreements - a very specific type of contract. The bill is
proposing that a worker would be given a choice of benefit
contributions going to the union or to some other plan. "If you
weren't under a project labor agreement, then the bill doesn't
apply to you."
10:09:40 AM
CHAIR MCGUIRE said SB 276 will be set aside.
There being no further business to come before the committee,
Senator McGuire adjourned the meeting at 10:09:53 AM.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|