Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
01/24/2017 01:00 PM House MILITARY & VETERANS' AFFAIRS
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB2 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 2 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 2-PRIV EMPLOYER VOLUNTARY VET PREFERENCE
1:06:04 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated the only order of business would be HOUSE BILL
NO. 2, "An Act relating to a voluntary preference for veterans
by private employers."
CHAIR TUCK, as prime sponsor of HB 2, commented that the
proposed legislation would allow the State of Alaska to use an
optional veteran hiring preference under Section 11 of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964. The waiver in Section 11 grants preference
to veterans, so long as they are authorized under federal,
state, and local law. Currently 37 states allow this for
private employers, and all states and territories allow this for
public employees. He stated that employment for returning
veterans can be difficult, and two thirds of veterans define
finding a job as the greatest challenge in the transition from
military to civilian life.
CHAIR TUCK paraphrased from the fourth and fifth paragraphs of
the sponsor statement, which reads as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
As of November 2016, the National Bureau of Labor
Statistics show the jobless rate for young male
veterans aged 18-24 still exceed their civilian
counterparts (239,000 veterans aged 18-24 were
unemployed versus 159,000 of their civilian
counterparts).
The military discharges 160,000 active duty service
members and approximately 110,000 reserve and National
Guard service members each year. According to the
Defense Manpower Data Center 2015 data, over 2,000
military personnel returned to Alaska upon separation.
CHAIR TUCK added that Alaska has the highest number of veterans
per capita, and has long prided itself on being a leader in
supporting veterans and active duty members. Alaska's great
businesses are willing and able to assist veterans in their
employment endeavors. He declared it is time to extend the
opportunity for employers in the private sector to adopt a
veteran hiring preference policy. He informed that the bill has
support from the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) and the
National Federation of Independent Businesses (NFIB).
1:09:27 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, asserted that HB 2 clarifies that nothing in AS
18.80, the chapter protecting various persons from unlawful
discrimination, "is intended to prohibit a private employer from
granting an employment preference." She explained the bill says
that if employers would like to offer this preference, they may.
It is not a requirement, but a voluntary option. She reiterated
that 50 states do this for public employees; 37 states now do
this for private employers.
1:11:29 PM
CHAIR TUCK opened public testimony on HB 2.
1:11:44 PM
PATTY WILBANKS, Owner, Polar Marine Alaska, LLC, testified in
support of HB 2. She reiterated that 37 other states already
provide legislation similar to the proposal. She stated that
she has wondered why Alaska hasn't offered something like this
before, because she thinks it is a great benefit to our
veterans. With federal hiring freezes, veterans will need this
more with private employers. She drew on her previous
experience as a colonel, stating that she wants to see young men
and women coming out of the military getting a step up. This
preference would show support from the community, state, and
country. She commented on the great benefit to the employer who
want to reach out the veterans but is worried about showing
preference to one group. She endorsed the voluntary aspect of
the proposal, with it being a benefit to the veterans and
employers.
1:14:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked what kind of small business Ms.
Wilbanks owns, and what kind of hiring she does.
MS. WILBANKS answered that her business in Anchorage installs
radar and electronic systems for boats. She's been in business
for three years, and she stated she can see that her business
would want to reach out to veterans' groups for hiring.
1:16:15 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), stated that the department endorses HB
2. He said that HB 2 would, on an optional basis, remove a
limitation on private employers that is not set on public
employers.
1:17:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if an employer currently can hire
whomever he/she wants to employ, as long as he/she isn't
discriminating based on race or other protected categories.
MR. DOEHL responded that in other in states' case laws, it was
found that one cannot create a special category or hiring
preference based on a veteran's affiliation without specific
authority.
1:18:03 PM
CHAIR TUCK added that under HB 2, employers could advertise for
veterans to apply.
1:18:24 PM
STEVEN WILLIAMS, Employment Security Analyst, Division of
Employment & Training Services Department of Labor & Workforce
Development (DLWD), affirmed Chair Tuck's statement and
clarified that employers can advertise that they encourage
veterans to apply.
1:19:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the department would prosecute an
employer who advertises that he/she prefers veterans and
institutes such a hiring practice.
MR. WILLIAMS stated that the department would not prosecute, the
department does not enforce or regulate policies "like that."
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if anyone would prosecute the
employer.
MR. WILLIAMS stated he was not sure, but would do research and
follow up.
1:19:46 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated that HB 2 also protects the employer from
civil suits.
1:19:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Doehl if the department plans
to support all bills that will come before the committee.
1:20:19 PM
MR. DOEHL responded that they will analyze each bill
individually on merit to determine whether or not it is
appropriate to express support, and in addition, will get
approval from the Office of the Governor before speaking in
support of a bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the department's current support
is predicated on that analysis.
MR. DOEHL stated this is correct - based on the department's
analysis of HB 2, it thinks it's worthy of support.
1:21:26 PM
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison, U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), testified in support of HB 2. He stated that
2,004 Alaskans separated from active reserve and National Guard
duty last year. These veterans are coming back with skill sets
previously paid for by federal tax dollars. He stated the issue
has been advocated for by the National Conference of State
Legislators (NCSL), is now in 37 states' statutes, and is being
heard in Alaska and New York this session.
1:23:28 PM
VERDIE BOWEN, Director of Veterans Affairs, Office of Veteran
Affairs, Department of Military & Veterans Affairs (DMVA),
stated that he is responsible for helping 74,000 veterans and
their 150,000 dependents in Alaska understand and secure the
benefits earned through service to the nation and state. The
department operates a number of programs to support veterans
returning to civilian life after military service and to help
them find meaningful employment. The department supports all
efforts to help veterans make successful transitions back to
civilian life and find jobs that are financially adequate and
personally fulfilling. He stated that the department helps find
employers who support military responsibilities such as: drill
weekends, annual training, and federal activations. Mr. Bowen
opined that HB 2 would be a useful tool in smooth transitions
from military to civilian life and would allow employers to
preferentially hire veterans to take advantage of their
technical, vocational, academic, and leadership skills attained
while serving the nation.
MR. BOWEN stated that veterans' experiences, maturity, teamwork,
loyalty, and civic mindedness make them great employees. He
said HB 2 would allow employers to find and hire employees who
will be steadily reliable workers, and will best serve those who
hire them. The office does not anticipate a fiscal impact other
than positive effects from hiring, and anticipates no impact on
private sector employers.
MR. BOWEN noted that HB 2 defines "veteran" as "a person who was
honorably discharged from service in" the following [found on
page 1, lines 7-12, which read as follows]:
(1) the armed forces of the United States;
(2) a reserve unit of the armed forces of
the United States;
(3) the Alaska Territorial Guard;
(4) the Alaska Army National Guard;
(5) the Alaska Air National Guard; or
(6) the Alaska Naval Militia.
1:25:49 PM
MR. BOWEN disclosed his understanding that the sponsor is
considering an amendment to extend the ability of employers to
grant voluntary employment preference to personnel actively
serving in good standing in the guard and reserve components.
Guard and reserve components employed in Alaska's communities
possess the same qualifications and offer employers the same
advantages as veterans; therefore, the department approves of
offering these service members the same preferential hiring.
The department has an issue with the existing statute regarding
equality in providing preference. The reserve component does
not have a set time of service, but the National Guard does. He
cited [AS 39.25.159(f)(3)], which gives the definition of a
member of the National Guard, as follows:
(3) "member of the national guard" means a person
who is presently serving as a member of the Alaska
National Guard and who has at least eight years of
service in the Alaska National Guard;
MR. BOWEN clarified that this statute reflects that a member
must have served eight years before receiving the benefit under
this bill. He suggested the language should read:
"member of the national guard" means a person who is
presently serving under honorable conditions or has
been released under the same conditions while serving
the Alaska National Guard.
The change would give those who serve in the National Guard and
reserve components the same access to benefits. Mr. Bowen
relayed the department's belief that members of the Alaska State
Defense Force possess many of the same qualities and skills as
veterans and represent a pool of attractive employees. The
department also believes employers are inclined to selectively
hire people with military training and teamwork experience, and
that employers should be able to extend hiring preference to
members or veterans of the Alaska State Defense Force. He
explained that the defense force does not issue discharge
documents the same way active components do today, but does have
means of documenting service and identifying members in good
standing. The department believes HB 2 offers another way to
smooth the transition from active duty service to civilian life,
helps maintain strong employer/employee relationships for the
National Guard and reserve components, adds strength and pride
to the Alaska State Defense Force, and serves the needs of
Alaska employers at the same time. Mr. Bowen stated that DMVA
and the Office of Veteran Affairs fully supports HB 2. He
referred to the second paragraph of a letter written by Craig
Campbell, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Employer Support of the Guard and Reserve (ESGR) is a
Department of Defense program established in 1972 to
promote cooperation and understanding between Reserve
Component Service members and their civilian employers
and to assist in the resolution of conflicts arising
from an employee's military commitment.
MR. BOWEN stated that ESGR understands the unique talents and
skills Guard Reserve Service members can bring to a civilian
workforce.
1:29:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if there have been many cases
where employers would have needed this bill.
MR. BOWEN stated that he is not aware of any instance wherein an
employer has gotten into trouble because a bill like this has
not been in place. He offered his opinion that if the bill was
in place, then there would be an increase of employment in
highly skilled jobs.
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked if the proposal would be another
"tool in your bag" to continue to work with the veterans.
MR. BOWEN stated that is correct - the department is adding more
tools to the employers' bag to hire more qualified people.
1:31:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH asked if it's possible to see the effects
on veteran unemployment brought about by similar legislation
passed in the 37 states.
MR. BOWEN stated that it would be difficult to track, because
the department does not know what percentage of the commercial
workforce is providing this preference in each participating
state; therefore, it would be hard to quantify the number to a
true, concise figure.
REPRESENTATIVE PARISH stated he sees the ability to grant this
preference without a threat of future lawsuits as a protection
to employers.
1:32:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked to what degree private veteran
preference laws have "moved the needle" in veteran hiring.
1:33:41 PM
MR. SAN SOUCI stated that it's almost impossible to know the
exact effect on veteran hiring. He mentioned that Walmart and
other corporations have been supportive of similar legislation.
Empirically showing a relationship would be hard. The
legislation is a protective stance.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER stated he generally supports HB 2. He
said he is curious what the effectiveness of moving from public
employers to private employers would be. He asked which sector
of Alaska's economy Mr. Bowen suspects will be most affected by
the legislation.
1:35:06 PM
MR. BOWEN stated his belief that the biggest impact on hiring
would likely be in the oil fields. There are small companies in
the oil fields that would like to offer this preference, but are
currently unable to do so. Employers come into ESGR daily to
seek assistance in offering this preference.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER applauded ESGR as an organization, and
stated he would be pleased if this advantage could be used in
the oil fields.
1:37:51 PM
RUSSELL BALL testified in support of the HB 2. As a small
business owner and employer for over 30 years, he stated that he
has always worried about the risk of civil lawsuit for showing a
hiring preference. Veterans have been some of his best
employees due to their discipline, troubleshooting, logical
thinking, and they are a good pool from which to recruit new
employees. He expressed his desire for more veterans to submit
resumes for consideration to his business. He emphasized that
the transition from military to civilian life is often scary and
could be overcome more easily with the understanding that
veterans are preferred by some employers. He stated that as a
small employer, he would never offer a preference unless it was
protected as this bill would do. He mentioned that Alaska wants
to hold onto the best talent in the state. The legislation is a
form of gratitude for those who have served, and an
acknowledgement of their skills and service.
1:41:36 PM
DAVID DEMENNO, Owner, Alaska Land Clearing Inc., offered his
support of HB 2. He stated that he currently has three veterans
working for him. The military develops job skills and life
skills to be used by veterans later on in the private work
place. He offered his impression that compared to other
employees, the veterans he employs are always on time, take
charge, ask questions, pick up things fast, are familiar with
heavy equipment, get the project done, and are good at working
independently. Leadership skills of veterans are superior to
others in the workplace; veterans take pride in their work. He
stated he tries to do whatever he can to hire a veteran, because
they are an asset to the company. He mentioned a successful
project at Fort Richardson working with and training a
battalion. He stated his belief that the legislation will
greatly benefit the state of Alaska.
1:44:54 PM
CHAIR TUCK closed public testimony on HB 2.
1:45:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER addressed instances within the bill
where "general discharge" appears under "honorable discharge
conditions." He said he would like to make the language for
consistent.
MR. BOWEN stated that the wording should be "under honorable
conditions," which would cover general and honorable discharges
and would open up a veteran to all the benefits out there,
including the federal side of [the U.S. Department of Veterans
Affairs]("the VA").
REPRESENTATIVE RAUSCHER asked for clarification whether all
three instances in the bill should utilize the same language.
MR. BOWEN agreed.
1:47:20 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER referenced AS 36.30.321(f)(3)(B), which
defines a veteran as an individual who "was separated from
service under a condition that was not dishonorable." He asked
Mr. Bowen if he is recommending the language be changed to
"other than dishonorable".
MR. BOWEN stated that the term "other than dishonorable" is the
phrase the federal government uses to establish benefits. In
this case the bill is attempting to establish a benefit reserved
only for those satisfactorily discharged from the military,
therefore the best language would be "under honorable
conditions", which covers general discharge and honorable
discharge. That language would match the language used on
military forms.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER repeated his question.
MR. BOWEN answered yes, and said he would use the term "under
honorable conditions", which covers general and honorable
discharges.
1:50:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked what circumstances a person would be
discharged with a general discharge as opposed to an honorable
discharge. She asked if there are circumstances "not ... so
benevolent" that would lead to a general discharge as opposed to
an honorable discharge.
MR. BOWEN offered examples of general discharges, which include:
Not passing a skill level or [physical fitness] test, failing
weight standards, committing minor drug offenses, receiving a
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) citation or speeding ticket,
and being late to formation or deployment. He stated there is a
gambit of things that lead to a general discharge.
1:53:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked if the change in language presented
by Mr. Bowen would allow an employer to see the difference
between a general and honorable discharge.
Mr. Bowen answered that discharge form will stipulate the reason
for discharge, and the employer would be able to see that.
1:54:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE REINBOLD reiterated that HB 2 is an act related
to a voluntary preference for veterans. The bill does not
prohibit [a hiring preference], but doesn't mandate anything.
1:55:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked Mr. Bowen if the phrase on page 1,
line 7, "the armed services of the United States", includes
National Guardsmen of any state.
MR. BOWEN responded he does not know, but can research the
answer.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if, under HB 2, someone's time
served with another state's National Guard would apply likewise.
1:56:28 PM
CHAIR TUCK responded that the committee would look into
Representative Saddler's question and possibly expand the bill
to also include active members of the National Guard. Chair
Tuck asked if Representative Saddler had a preference.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER expressed no preference, but stated that
it's important to clarify all conditions.
1:57:23 PM
MR. DOEHL responded that the bill's language would encompass
service in any other state or territory, as interpreted pursuant
to Title 32 of United States Code. He stated his belief that
the eight-year term is a different discussion.
1:58:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX asked how one could interpret that the
bill includes service in all states, when the bill only lists
Alaska.
1:58:57 PM
CHAIR TUCK offered his understanding that Mr. Doehl was
responding to a potential amendment to include members of the
National Guard.
MR. DOEHL confirmed that is correct.
CHAIR TUCK offered that the language would be corrected before
an amendment would be offered.
1:59:58 PM
CHAIR TUCK stated HB 2 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB002 Sponsor Statement 1.22.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Sectional Analysis ver A 1.20.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Fiscal Note MVA-COM 1.22.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WHA 1.22.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Supporting Documents-Letter DoD 1.20.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Supporting Document-Vet Hire Preference One Pager 1.20.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Supporting Documents-2015 NCSL Update-Giving Veterans Hiring Preference 1.23.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Supporting Documents-NCSL Legisbrief Giving Veterans Hiring Preference 1.20.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Supporting Documents-2017 NCSL LegisBrief Veterans Hiring Preference Update 1.23.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |
| HB002 Suporting Document-Letter ESGR 1.24.17.pdf |
HMLV 1/24/2017 1:00:00 PM |
HB 2 |