Legislature(2009 - 2010)
2009-04-19 House Journal
Full Journal pdf2009-04-19 House Journal Page 1135 SB 1 The following, which was advanced to third reading from the April 18, 2009, calendar (page 1092), was read the third time: CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 1(FIN) "An Act increasing the minimum hourly wage; and providing for an effective date." Representative Petersen moved and asked unanimous consent that CSSB 1(FIN) be returned to second reading for the specific purpose of considering Amendment No. 1. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 1 was offered by Representatives Petersen and Gardner: Page 1, lines 3 - 13: Delete all material and insert: "* Section 1. AS 23.10.065(a) is amended to read: (a) Except as provided under (b) of this section and as otherwise provided for in law, for work performed on or after January 1, 2010 [2003], an employer shall pay to each employee wages at a rate of not less than the wage established in this subsection [$7.15 AN HOUR] for hours worked in a pay period, whether the work is measured by time, piece, commission, or otherwise. An employer may not apply tips or gratuities bestowed upon employees as a credit toward payment of the minimum hourly wage required by this section. Tip credit as defined by the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 as amended does not apply to 2009-04-19 House Journal Page 1136 the minimum wage established by this section. The minimum hourly wage under this subsection is $7.85 an hour for work performed on or after January 1, 2010; however, for work performed in years after December 31, 2010, the minimum hourly wage under this subsection is the greater of (1) $1 more an hour than the federal minimum wage; or (2) $8.60 an hour for work performed on or after January 1, 2011, and $9.45 an hour for work performed on or after January 1, 2012; thereafter, the department shall, by regulation, not later than September 30 of each calendar year, adjust the minimum hourly wage established in this paragraph for inflation effective for the following calendar year; the adjusted minimum hourly wage shall be the most recent wage under this paragraph adjusted for 100 percent of the rate of inflation based on the Consumer Price Index for all urban consumers for the Anchorage metropolitan area, compiled by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, United States Department of Labor; the department shall round the adjusted minimum hourly wage up to the nearest one cent; the adjusted minimum hourly wage shall apply to work performed beginning on January 1 through December 31 of the year for which it is effective, and the first adjustment takes effect January 1, 2013. * Sec. 2. This Act takes effect January 1, 2010." Representative Petersen moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 1 be adopted. Representative Olson objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 1 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 1(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 1 YEAS: 17 NAYS: 23 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 2009-04-19 House Journal Page 1137 Yeas: Austerman, Buch, Cissna, Crawford, Doogan, Gara, Gardner, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Herron, Holmes, Kawasaki, Kerttula, Lynn, Petersen, Salmon, Tuck Nays: Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Edgmon, Fairclough, Foster, Gatto, Harris, Hawker, Johansen, Johnson, Joule, Keller, Kelly, Millett, Munoz, Neuman, Olson, Ramras, Seaton, Stoltze, Thomas, Wilson And so, Amendment No. 1 was not adopted. Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that CSSB 1(FIN) be returned to second reading for the specific purpose of considering Amendment No. 2. There being no objection, it was so ordered. Amendment No. 2 was offered by Representatives Tuck and Gardner: Page 1, line 7: Delete "and thereafter" Page 1, line 8, following "wage": Insert "for the calendar year beginning January 1, 2010, and not less than $1.10 an hour more than the federal minimum wage after December 31, 2010" Representative Tuck moved and asked unanimous consent that Amendment No. 2 be adopted. Representative Olson objected. The question being: "Shall Amendment No. 2 be adopted?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 1(FIN) Second Reading Amendment No. 2 YEAS: 16 NAYS: 21 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 3 Yeas: Buch, Cissna, Crawford, Doogan, Gara, Gardner, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Herron, Holmes, Kawasaki, Kerttula, Lynn, Petersen, Salmon, Tuck 2009-04-19 House Journal Page 1138 Nays: Austerman, Chenault, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Edgmon, Foster, Gatto, Harris, Hawker, Johansen, Johnson, Joule, Keller, Kelly, Neuman, Olson, Ramras, Seaton, Stoltze, Thomas, Wilson Absent: Fairclough, Millett, Munoz And so, Amendment No. 2 was not adopted. CSSB 1(FIN) was automatically in third reading. Representatives Ramras and Gara moved and asked unanimous consent that they be allowed to abstain from voting because of a conflict of interest. Objection was heard, and the members were required to vote. The question being: "Shall CSSB 1(FIN) pass the House?" The roll was taken with the following result: CSSB 1(FIN) Third Reading Final Passage YEAS: 35 NAYS: 5 EXCUSED: 0 ABSENT: 0 Yeas: Austerman, Chenault, Cissna, Coghill, Dahlstrom, Edgmon, Fairclough, Foster, Gara, Gatto, Gruenberg, Guttenberg, Harris, Hawker, Herron, Holmes, Johansen, Johnson, Joule, Kawasaki, Keller, Kelly, Lynn, Millett, Munoz, Neuman, Olson, Petersen, Ramras, Salmon, Seaton, Stoltze, Thomas, Tuck, Wilson Nays: Buch, Crawford, Doogan, Gardner, Kerttula And so, CSSB 1(FIN) passed the House. Representative Johansen moved and asked unanimous consent that the roll call on the passage of the bill be considered the roll call on the effective date clause. There being no objection, it was so ordered. CSSB 1(FIN) was signed by the Speaker and Chief Clerk, and returned to the Senate.