Legislature(2017 - 2018)GRUENBERG 120
02/14/2017 03:00 PM House STATE 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 | |
| HB91 | |
| HB3 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 91 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 3 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 3-NATL GUARD LEAVE/REEMPLOYMENT RIGHTS
3:40:25 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS announced that the final order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 3, "An Act relating to the employment
rights of employees in the state who are members of the National
Guard of another state, territory, or district of the United
States."
[Before the committee was committee substitute (CS) for HB 3
(MLV).]
3:40:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK presented HB 3, as prime sponsor. He
relayed that HB 3 would allow for employment rights of employees
of the state who are members of the National Guard of another
state, territory, or district of the United States. He
paraphrased from the Sponsor Statement, which read [original
punctuation provided]:
House Bill 3 seeks to correct a deficiency in
employment protections for Alaskans who are serving in
the National Guard. This is a nationwide effort to
ensure those who serve their nation for all 50 states
when called to duty - regardless of their service
location - will have reemployment rights to their
Alaskan civilian job after completing the various
critical duties when called by a governor for state
active duty.
The National Guard is a hybrid state-federal entity.
While National Guard members are subject to federal
call to duty by the President of the United States,
they can also be called up for state active duty by
the Governor to respond to state emergencies such as
fires, tornadoes and floods.
The federal law Uniformed Services Employment and
Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) protects members of
the Army or Air National Guard when they are called
away from their civilian jobs for federal service.
However, USERRA does not apply when a National Guard
member must leave their job for state active duty. If
National Guard members are to have reemployment rights
after state active duty, it must be through state law.
Alaska currently has a law that applies to employment
protections to the public and private employees.
However, it is explicitly limited to members of the
Alaska Army or Air National Guard. There are several
Alaskan residents who serve in the National Guard of
another state. These Alaskans currently do not have
the reemployment protections for their employment.
By passing House Bill 3, we will extend the employment
protections to Alaskans who are serving in any
National Guard. The Department of Defense has
identified this legislation as a key quality of life
issue and is actively seeking to make this policy
change across the nation. So far, 28 other states have
passed similar legislation and 3 other states are
taking it up this session.
3:43:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for an explanation as to why an
Alaskan would be serving in another state's National Guard and
not Alaska's. He also asked how many people would be impacted
by HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded that there are many Alaskan
workers, who live and raise families in Alaska, but are members
of the National Guard in other states. He asserted that if
those guard members are called back to the state in which they
serve, then HB 3 would enable them to resume their employment in
Alaska upon return, like a Guard member who was called to serve
oversees by the President of the United States.
3:44:38 PM
KENDRA KLOSTER, Staff, Representative Chris Tuck, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Tuck, prime sponsor of
HB 3, relayed that recent data from the U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD) identified 33 individuals in Alaska who serve in
the National Guard in 19 other states. She conceded that this
number is the result of self-reporting, and there may be more.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for clarification on how this
situation occurs. He asked if someone, who served in the
National Guard of another state and moved to Alaska, would have
the opportunity to transfer his/her National Guard affiliation
to Alaska.
MS. KLOSTER responded that there is a process for transferring
to another state's National Guard, and some members are called
back to the original state of service before the process is
complete.
3:46:27 PM
ROBERT DOEHL, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Military &
Veterans' Affairs (DMVA), cited reasons why members of the
National Guard would be living in one state and performing guard
duty in another. He explained that often the civilian
professional personal life of a guard member "gets out of sync"
with his/her military career. He relayed that this situation
occurs most often with students, military spouses, and those
with civilian careers requiring frequent work out of state. He
stated that for professional reasons, guard members go out of
state to get training and experience that cannot be obtained in
Alaska. He added that this situation also occurs due to the
time it takes to get into the Alaska National Guard (ANG). He
contended that when he moved to Alaska, getting into ANG was an
11-month process. He mentioned that guard members leave the
state for professional development. An Alaska guard member may
start his/her career Outside in a position not available in
Alaska, which would make him/her far more valuable to ANG upon
return.
MR. DOEHL related three personal examples in which his military
career was out of sync with his personal life. After graduating
from college, he moved to another state for a job while
continuing to "drill" in his original state. After getting off
active duty and finishing law school, he continued to affiliate
with the [Army] Reserve in the Midwest while living in
Washington, D.C., to finish command tour of the unit and
transition for two years. When he moved to Alaska and was in
the process of transferring to ANG, he continued to travel to
Newport News, Virginia, to command a unit and maintain pilot
proficiency.
MR. DOEHL noted the money spent by the United States training
him as a military pilot, which was "well into six figures." He
also noted the money saved because he maintained his pilot
proficiency in another state while he was in the process of
joining the Alaska Air National Guard (AK ANG). He offered that
"cross-state affiliation" may be common Outside, where one can
drive across three states in an hour; however, for the guard
member living in Alaska, the time, distance, and cost factors of
an Outside National Guard affiliation highly incentivizes
finding a path into ANG. He emphasized that DMVA supports HB 3
because it would be conducive to developing a professional
militia in Alaska; it would allow a continuity of service for
those Alaskans whose life plans require them to move Outside for
a period; and it also would incentivize new Alaskans to remain
engaged with the military from a prior affiliation, until they
can become a member of ANG. He concluded that maintaining the
participation and readiness of these guard members supports
recruitment, saves money, and provides for a more capable
National Guard serving Alaskans.
3:50:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked if there are employers who won't take
back employees who have been serving in the National Guard in
another state.
MR. DOEHL answered that since there is currently no mechanism in
place to address this situation, no incidents have been brought
to the attention of DMVA. He mentioned that USERRA protects
[the employment of] guard members who have been mobilized for
periods of service for federal duties. He mentioned that most
state active duty is of short duration; however, in the case of
[the after effects of] Hurricane Katrina, guard duty lasted for
months, resulting in difficult decisions and adverse actions by
employers.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked for confirmation that currently there
are no guard members who have been denied the opportunity to
return to his/her job. He suggested that HB 3 was introduced to
be proactive and not to address any current situations.
MR. DOEHL responded that is correct.
3:52:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL asked if a member of the National Guard
serves one weekend per month and two weeks per year. He asked
if a guard member, who is currently living in Alaska but is a
member of another state's National Guard, flies back to that
state with that frequency.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK responded yes.
MR. DOEHL answered that the bare minimum participation averages
one weekend per month and two weeks of continuous training. He
offered that National Guard duty has not been at that "bare
minimum" level of training since [the terrorist attacks of
September 11, 2001]. He added that in his case, to maintain
flight proficiency, monthly and twice monthly training periods
were required. He said that depending on the military
occupational skills, some guard members can go out once a
quarter for six days to fulfill the training requirements rather
than monthly, to save time and expense. He added that there are
already federal protections in place for drill weekends and
annual training. He asserted that HB 3 would apply to state
active duty for specific disasters and state needs.
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL mentioned that he didn't realize there was
so much specialized training associated with the National Guard.
He offered that by joining other states that allow the
[employment] protection, Alaska would increase the number of
guard members joining ANG, as opposed to maintaining their
membership in another state's National Guard. He suggested that
a guard member from another state would move to Alaska and keep
up his/her out-of-state National Guard membership until he/she
could transition to ANG.
MR. DOEHL responded that the protections [in HB 3} would allow
an individual to continue to participate with an Outside
organization. He maintained, however, that travel time and cost
incentivize affiliation in ANG for those guard members and added
that Alaska is the best place to train.
3:56:18 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS opened public testimony on HB 3.
MARK SAN SOUCI, Regional State Liaison, U.S. Department of
Defense (DoD), testified that 28 states are providing the
protection that would be offered in HB 3 and three other states
have introduced legislation. He offered the example of an
Alaskan resident, who is a member of the National Guard in
Washington or Oregon, being called up for 30 days to fight a
forest fire. He suggested that without the protection that
would be offered under HB 3, he/she might be fired because of
his/her absence. He mentioned that DoD addressed this as a key
issue three years ago. He reiterated that there are 33 self-
reported guard members in Alaska serving in 19 other states. He
went on to list the states: Alabama, Arkansas, California,
Florida, Hawaii, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Nevada, New York, Oregon,
Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, and West Virginia. He added
that these guard members are serving in the other states either
for professional development or because they are in the process
of transferring to ANG. He concluded that the intent of HB 3 is
to protect those Alaskans who are doing that "good duty" of
serving in the National Guard in other states.
3:59:44 PM
CHAIR KREISS-TOMKINS closed public testimony on HB 3.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP asked if HB 3 would apply to people who
work two weeks on and two weeks off in Alaska and are members of
a National Guard in another state.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK replied yes, because their place of
employment is in Alaska. The proposed legislation would apply
to Alaskan employers.
REPRESENTATIVE TUCK mentioned that HB 3 was amended in the House
Special Committee on Military and Veterans' Affairs meeting [of
2/2/2017] to insert a new subsection (h) under Section 3, which
states that there would be an exemption for the reemployment
rights of a guard member "if the employer's circumstances have
changed, making employment impossible or unreasonable, or the
employment would impose any undue hardship on the employer." He
asserted that this amendment created a balance: making sure
that a National Guard member, serving honorably, would have the
ability return to his/her job if it didn't create any hardship
on the employer at the same time.
[HB 3 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB003 ver D 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Sponsor Statement 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Memo of Changes 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Fiscal Note DOLWD 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Fiscal Note MVA 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Supporting Document-Letter Dept of Defense 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |
| HB003 Supporting Document-Dept of Defense One Pager 2.7.17.pdf |
HSTA 2/14/2017 3:00:00 PM |
HB 3 |