Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
03/15/2021 06:30 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
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 | |
| HB100 | |
| HB132 | |
| HB45 | |
| Confirmation Hearing(s):|| Alaska Workers' Compensation Board|| Board of Chiropractic Examiners | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 45 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 45-WORKERS' COMP. AND CONTAGIOUS DISEASES
8:46:43 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 45, "An Act relating to presumption of
compensability for workers' compensation claims related to
contagious diseases; and providing for an effective date."
8:47:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor of HB 45, provided a refresher about the bill's
provisions. He stated that the bill's origins stem from the
COVID crisis and Amendment 5 [on the House floor] to [Senate]
Bill 241. He said the provision of [Senate] Bill 241 being
spoken about here was in effect until 11/15/2020. It offered,
some might say, generous incentives to first responders to
report to work as they normally would, and that only in times of
a disaster declaration there would be a strong presumption that
if they came down with the disease, in this case SARS COVID-19,
it would be covered by workers compensation. He said HB 45 is
in some respects less generous than Amendment 5 in that it does
allow for a rebuttable position to be taken by the employer upon
clear and convincing evidence that the employee did not in fact
contract the disease at work, but still there is the presumption
of compensability. Also, he noted, HB 45 expands the class of
workers, principally in the area of grocery store employees and
teachers in childcare facilities.
8:49:22 PM
ELISE SORUM-BIRK, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson,
sponsor of HB 45, reviewed a memorandum written on the
representative's letterhead providing answers to the questions
that were posed by committee members during the bill's [first
hearing on 3/5/21]. Regarding the question about the definition
of grocery store, she stated that it is the only statutory
definition of grocery store in Alaska statute. She advised that
a new, more inclusive definition could be drafted by Legislative
Legal Services if the committee saw fit. Regarding
Representative McCarty's question about whether an emergency
could be statewide, regional, or local in nature, she said it
can be any of those as per AS 26.23.020(c) of "the Disaster
Act," which outlines how a governor goes about declaring a
disaster emergency and that the governor must "indicate the
threated or affected area".
MS. SORUM-BIRK related that the sponsor was asked to supply the
statutory definitions of disaster and the section for how the
governor can declare disaster emergencies. She said there are
separate sections in the Disaster Act, and the one referenced in
HB 45 is the governor's power to declare a disaster emergency.
[The Disaster Act], she continued, includes a definitions
section that has several definitions of disaster. The
definition in AS 26.23.900(2)(E) is an outbreak of disease or a
credible threat of an imminent outbreak of disease that the
commissioner of the Department of Health and Social Services, or
a designee of the commissioner, [certifies to the governor].
The list of things that can be considered a disaster emergency
is very long, she noted.
MS. SORUM-BIRK addressed Representative Kaufman's question about
whether an employer might be opened to liability by having one
of its employees receive workers' compensation. The sponsor's
answer, she said, is that under Alaska statute, workers'
compensation files and medical records are kept confidential and
are not considered public records. If something becomes an
issue of litigation, those records might be released and become
more public. Regarding Representative Kaufman's concern that
employers might discriminate against employees in high-risk
categories, she cited a publication by the Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission (EEOC) that was originally published
during the H1N1 pandemic of 2009 and which the EEOC updated for
COVID. She informed the committee that the short answer is no
but added that it is more complicated than that. Bringing
attention to page 3, she explained that if something raises to a
certain level of threat the employer can then ask for certain
things to be revealed that weren't able to be revealed
otherwise, which is why it isn't a straight no.
8:54:42 PM
MS. SORUM-BIRK discussed Representative Kaufman's inquiry as to
shared costs to the business communities. She drew attention to
the analysis of HB 45 by the National Council on Compensation
Insurance (NCCI) that modeled infection rate scenarios of 5, 15,
and 25 percent, and used a mortality rate of 0.5 percent. Given
Alaska's real infection rate at the end of December [2020] was
about 5.9 percent and the mortality rate was 0.4 percent, she
said the model for a 5 percent cost scenario is probably the
most accurate for Alaska. There are different caveats, and it
isn't a perfect fit into the model, she continued, but the
NCCI's estimate for a 5 percent infection rate was $2 million in
overall workers' compensation costs.
MS. SORUM-BIRK examined the implications for paid sick leave and
how that might interact with the workers' compensation system,
which was another question brought up by Representative Kaufman.
She related that directors Scott Jordan and Charles Collins both
explained to her that since workers' compensation is designed
really to be an exclusive remedy, the first money out is payment
for workers' compensation. She said workers' compensation is
based on 80 percent of a worker's average weekly wage when a
worker is out. She noted that, interestingly, the State of
Alaska calculates what the remaining 20 percent would be so that
the employee is made whole. Using that 20 percent from [a state
employee's] leave allows [a state employee] to stay current with
benefits. She added that other employers might do it slightly
differently than does the state.
8:56:53 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ remarked that the memorandum is very thorough
in its detail and very useful.
MS. SORUM-BIRK spoke to Representative McCarty's request for
more details on the data, costs, and number of claims in Alaska.
She said Director Collins followed up with some numbers via
email, and while she wouldn't state them all, the number of
COVID-related cased opened as of [3/12/21] was 2,483.
8:57:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON inquired whether HB 45 is retroactive in
covering previous iterations back in December.
MS. SORUM-BIRK replied that there are two effective dates, a
retroactive date and an immediate date. Under the retroactive
clause, she explained, anyone previously covered last spring by
[Amendment 5 on the House floor to Senate Bill 241] would be
covered retroactively to November 15 [2020]. She noted that
this would be first responders and medical professionals who
lost this incentive when the initial emergency declaration
expired. For the new groups of employees, she said, there is an
immediate effective date.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON observed that the sponsor's statement
says, "An employer could only rebut a claim by producing clear
and convincing evidence that an employee infection was not work
related." He asked what the sponsor would consider to be "clear
and convincing evidence." For instance, whether the sponsor
would consider an example to be a Facebook post of the person
partying without a mask.
MS. SORUM-BIRK deferred to the sponsor to speak to evidentiary
standards.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON confirmed it could indeed be something
like a Facebook post. He explained that if a claim were to get
very expensive, an employer may want to depose people to find
out where the claimant could have contracted the disease other
than the place of employment. For example, in Anchorage,
patients brought to the hospital by paramedics are tested for
COVID, thereby tracing it in most circumstances. According to
the attorney he spoke with at the Municipality of Anchorage who
is mitigating some of the other ones, they can trace it to the
patient and then the assumption is made, and the claim is paid,
that the paramedic delivering the patient to the hospital
contracted it from the patient. There are other cases, he
continued, where the narrow language in Senate Bill 241, which
isn't exactly mirrored in HB 45, is being challenged and so the
lawyers are battling in those cases. He deferred to Director
Collins to provide further detail.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON posed a hypothetical scenario of a store
worker who doesn't get infected at the store but goes home to
someone who is asymptomatic and unknowingly spreading the
infection. He asked whether that would technically fall under
workers' compensation under HB 45.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that in this scenario there is
a chance that the employee would receive benefits. He said the
benefits would be limited in that there must first be a declared
disaster of infectious disease, and typically the extent of that
disaster is going to be 30 days unless the legislature extends
it. This benefit is important, but it is constrained, he said.
Typically, it will not be utilized because it won't be available
on the facts before (indisc. rustling of microphone).
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said that while he doesn't like to play
the "what if" game, it is also good to game play to find out
whether this would count for someone who isn't infected at the
grocery store but rather at home.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that Director Charles Collins is
online and could address Representative Nelson's question about
clear and convincing evidence.
9:03:13 PM
CHARLES COLLINS, Director, Division of Workers' Compensation,
Department of Labor and Workforce Development (DOLWD), responded
that the question is somewhat complicated. He explained that if
the employer decided there was a possibility the disease was
contracted outside the course of normal business, the employer
could controvert it and have a hearing before an industry of
labor and hearing officer panel, at which the employee and the
employer would bring their evidence. He said it is a very
complicated question in that three people in an adjudication
setting must be convinced of the merits of [the employer's]
case, just as with every injury in workers' compensation where a
"controversion" comes into play.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON asked whether he could talk off-line with
Director Collins to get more background information.
MR. COLLINS replied yes, he is always available to assist.
9:04:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN inquired about how responsibility is
assigned. He stated that in the previous example of emergency
medical technicians (EMTs) and a COVID positive patient, the
EMTs are wearing protective equipment and are in a controlled
circumstance. It sounds like it would be assumed the EMTs
caught it at work, he said, when they may have caught it while
out at the bars the night before. He asked whether, in a
situation of there being a COVID positive person where someone
works, it would be assumed the worker caught it at work.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON replied that under Alaska's current
workers' compensation statutes without HB 45, a person can try
to make a claim that he or she contracted an infectious disease
by exposure at the workplace. He said it is more challenging
than it would be under HB 45 because the worker must prove that
the conditions of his or her employment are substantially
different from the ambient background that everyone lives in and
therefore the worker is susceptible to contracting the disease
at that place of employment. For example, he continued,
according to documents in the committee packet presented by Ms.
Sorum-Birk, it is now common knowledge that more police officers
have died from COVID exposure than any other disease they've
suffered from or being shot, and it is known that this is
certainly true in the medical community. It is also known that
personal protective equipment (PPE) and other barriers and
safety precautions may be insufficient.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON continued his answer. He stated that
part of this is a policy call - wanting people to go to work
without fear to save [the public's] loved ones - so the bill
tries to identify who are the essential workers and offer them
this protection. He recalled last week's testimony by Mr.
Collins that only $850,000 had been spent and noted that it has
now just eclipsed $1 million based on the data provided by Ms.
Sorum-Birk. However, he pointed out, this is spread over
730,000 Alaskans and, if he is remembering correctly, only 1 in
12 people who have contracted COVID in Alaska are believed to
have gotten it at work. He further said that that 1 in 12 would
include a librarian who would not be an essential worker, and so
HB 45 limits the group. Additionally, he continued, many of the
people who filed claims simply went to get a COVID test and were
told they're negative, and this is a workers' compensation
claim. To be really understood, he added, the numbers must be
investigated and peeled back.
9:08:52 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ [opened public testimony on HB 45.]
9:09:14 PM
JAKE METCALFE, Executive Director, Local 52, Alaska State
Employees Association (ASEA), testified in support of HB 45. He
noted that ASEA, Local 52, represents approximately 8,000 hard-
working public employees who deliver the critical services that
Alaskans rely upon every day. He pointed out that last year,
essential workers, including ASEA's members, were asked to put
themselves and their families at risk to keep Alaska running by
ensuring critical services continued. Public employees are
asked to rise above and go beyond to keep the lights on, keep
the roads cleared, ensure public water is clean and safe, and
that children and families in need are cared for. This year was
no different, the pandemic caught everyone off-guard, he
continued. Organizations across the country realized that
pandemic preparedness was not in many people's rule book and the
State of Alaska was no exception. As organizations and
governments worked hard to respond to the novel coronavirus
pandemic, the essential workers never stopped working.
MR. METCALFE stated that the pandemic Alaskans stumbled through
revealed numerous gaps in the safety net cast for Alaska's
working people. He said HB 45 would help fill one of the holes
in Alaska's safety net by providing a remedy for frontline
workers and their families if they contract a pandemic disease.
Several ASEA's members, especially those working in corrections
and 24-hour facilities like the Pioneer Home and McLaughlin
Youth Center, have personal stories they can share about their
working conditions and exposures to the virus. These dedicated
Alaskans, he stressed, are being asked to take major risk to
keep Alaska running. He requested that legislators think about
those workers and pass this important bill so that those risks
are met with some relief for the worker and the worker's family.
MR. METCALFE further specified that HB 45 is critical in
ensuring that Alaska is taking care of the essential workers who
are taking care of Alaskans. This bill, he added, is just one
step that will fill a gap that became too wide and too consuming
as essential workers fell ill with little to no relief.
Families should not be forced to choose between their health and
safety and earning a living. While HB 45 can't protect
dedicated essential employees against contracting the disease,
it will offer them relief they will need if they do suffer from
a pandemic illness. He urged that HB 45 be passed.
9:12:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ thanked the members of ASEA who routinely
work in tough conditions, especially this year given there were
COVID outbreaks in several of Alaska's prisons. She noted that
ASEA members also kept Pioneer Home residents safe.
9:13:07 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ retroactively opened public testimony.
9:13:17 PM
CHARLES STEWART, Chair, Local 52 Probation and Parole Officers,
Alaska State Employees Association (ASEA), testified in support
of HB 45. He stated he is before the committee in support of HB
45 using his own personal experience with a contagious disease
COVID. He said he tested positive for COVID at the end of
December and was exposed at work. He knows this, he continued,
because he was so afraid of getting COVID, given his age and
health issues, that he only went to work and home every day.
His girlfriend worked from home and did not leave their house
for the same reasons. They ordered all their food from the
grocery store and had it delivered to their home.
MR. STEWART stated that all peace officers, firefighters, EMTs,
and paramedics experience possible exposure to contagious
diseases daily in their types of employment and working
conditions, and they never know what they will walk into each
day. He stated that HB 45 would support these workers and give
them some peace of mind that they would not have to worry about
all the other personal leave for medical reasons in case there
is another health issue in the future.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ thanked Mr. Stewart for his testimony and his
work.
9:15:11 PM
PAUL MIRANDA, President, Alaska Professional Firefighters,
testified in support of HB 45. He stated he is an engineer
paramedic with the Anchorage Fire Department at Station 14 in
northeast Alaska. He thanked the committee for working on this
important issue and related that this issue is important to all
the men and women in Alaska who serve their communities as first
responders and frontline essential workers. On behalf of the
500 members of Alaska Professional Firefighters, he offered
strong support for HB 45.
MR. MIRANDA pointed out that firefighters and emergency medical
services (EMS) personnel place themselves in harm's way when
caring for patients in uncontrolled environments, such as a
patient's home or the back of an ambulance. He said these
professionals are not afforded the opportunity to work in a
controlled environment with properly ventilated rooms and other
protective measures. First responders, along with other
frontline essential workers, are at much higher risk of exposure
to contagious disease due to the nature of the work, and
therefore are much more likely to contract certain illnesses
through the course of their work than individuals in other
career fields.
MR. MIRANDA recounted that at the beginning of the COVID-19
pandemic many [fire] departments in Alaska struggled to obtain
adequate levels of PPE to sufficiently protect their first
responders, putting them at further risk of exposure to the
[COVID] virus. Due to the nature of emerging infectious disease
outbreaks or pandemics, he continued, there are many unknowns at
the beginning until scientists have time to figure out the
nature and characteristics of disease transmission.
MR. MIRANDA noted that while it can be difficult to pinpoint
exactly where an exposure to an illness came from, it is known
that Alaska's first responders and essential workers are out on
the frontlines being potentially exposed each time they go to
work. He related that first responders take an oath to protect
life, property, and the environment throughout their career. He
said it is critical that Alaska's first responders and frontline
essential workers know they are protected and that the state
will have their backs so they can focus squarely on the oath
they promised to keep. He reiterated that the Alaska
Professional Firefighters strongly supports HB 45. He urged the
committee to support the bill as well.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ thanked Mr. Miranda for his testimony and
thanked the members of Alaska Professional Firefighters for
their work.
9:18:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN surmised the aforementioned firefighters
have sick leave.
MR. MIRANDA replied that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked what the driving need is for HB 45
if someone is already covered by sick leave.
MR. MIRANDA explained the notion is that if someone contracts a
disease such as [COVID] through the course of their employment,
the individual should not be burdened with using his or her own
sick leave, if they have it. It should be covered by the
employer, he continued, if the individual contracts the disease
during his or her course of normal duties.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN stated that a person may not want to use
his or her sick leave [for COVID], but that's what it's for. He
said he still isn't convinced when someone is covered by sick
leave. He stated that when he has gotten sick with a typical
cold or flu, most of the time he probably caught it at work.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON responded that this is a pandemic where
the lucky ones are asymptomatic or only affected for 3-5 days,
while others are on ventilators or at the hospital. He said the
three basic things [in HB 45] are that the employee would need
to use his or her sick leave, the employee would have full
medical rather than be subject to deductibles and co-pays, and
the employee would receive a spendable weekly wage, which
doesn't often amount to much, but the employee would get
something rather than no weekly wage. He further noted that for
an employee who is a "long-hauler" and sick for months and
months, it's meaningful to have that rather than to have a sick
leave bank that is expired.
9:21:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON recalled previous statements about it
being difficult to pinpoint whether the infection came from work
or elsewhere. He said that is where he has a quandary.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ requested Mr. Collins to speak to the process
for determining whether there is employer responsibility.
MR. COLLINS explained that as with any workplace injury the
employee has the responsibility of turning in his or her
paperwork and the employer always has the rebuttable evidence to
bring forth as to whether [the injury did happen at work]. A
disease might not be quite as straight forward as a slip and
fall, he continued, but there certainly is the possibility that
it could be rebutted. The employer could controvert or deny the
claim and the employee would then be forced to go to a hearing
to prove his or her case.
9:23:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY recounted that while doing graduate work
he drove an ambulance in Los Angeles. It was during the start
of the AIDS epidemic, so he was dealing with bloodborne
pathogens and fluids. But, he continued, airborne pathogens are
being talked about here. He asked Mr. Miranda whether in this
industry it is correct that there are always airborne pathogens.
MR. MIRANDA answered that's correct.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked how Mr. Miranda and the industry
differentiate whether someone's illness from airborne pathogens
was acquired on the job or not.
MR. MIRANDA responded that he thinks the nature of this pandemic
has opened people's eyes to some of those things. [Paramedics]
have personal protective equipment for respiratory protection
that are now being worn in most of the departments in Anchorage
during every interaction with patients. As far as
differentiating previously, he said he thinks it was a little
easier to trace because it wasn't in the middle of a global
pandemic. When [a paramedic] took someone to the hospital with
a respiratory illness, the hospital followed up, and that
exposure could be easily traced to the workplace, whereas COVID-
19 is different.
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY posed a scenario in which an employer is
doing due diligence to make sure the workplace is safe, such as
having masks and protective equipment. He asked at what point
does it becomes an infraction or a claim to the employer.
MR. COLLINS replied that that is an extremely good question for
which there probably is not a definitive answer. He said
firefighters already have a presumption of coverage for certain
diseases under AS 23.30.121, which speaks directly to that and
is a bit of a carveout. He explained that for certain
carcinogenic airborne particles that may cause certain lung
diseases, firefighters have a presumption that allows them
greater access to workers' compensation than, say, a
construction worker who burns things all day long and is exposed
to the same materials but would not be covered because it is a
much steeper incline for that construction worker to prove that
it's a workplace injury. He stated that moving the needle of
the presumption opens the gate a little bit wider to what is a
workplace injury, whether it is an airborne disease, blood-based
pathogen, or something else. That is a discussion for the
committee to have, he said. He offered his opinion that he
thinks extreme care must be taken about how wide that floodgate
is opened.
9:28:31 PM
MR. MIRANDA returned to the initial question asked of him by
Representative Kaufman. He said Representative Josephson's
answer to that question was very accurate - this is not
necessarily just for those folks who might have minor symptoms
and miss a couple days of work. For example, he related, one of
the firefighters contracted COVID while at work at a busy
station, it was well documented, it was at the beginning of the
pandemic when this person responded to many COVID positive
patients, and this person is having long-term significant
symptoms from COVID. He said that speaks to the need for this
bill specifically and these pandemic situations that can have
long lasting effects on employees.
9:29:57 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ closed public testimony on HB 45.
9:30:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER moved to adopt Amendment 1 to HB 45,
labeled 32-LS0304\B.3, Marx, 3/13/21, which read:
Page 2, following line 14:
Insert a new subparagraph to read:
"(I) employee of a farmer's market;
(J) employee of a vendor who sells products
directly to consumers at a farmer's market;"
Reletter the following subparagraph accordingly.
Page 2, line 17:
Delete "(A) - (H)"
Insert "(A) - (J)"
Page 2, following line 23:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(4) "farmer's market" means a seasonal
market
(A) operated under the sponsorship of a
community organization; and
(B) the main purpose of which is to provide
an opportunity for producers to sell agricultural
products directly to consumers;"
Renumber the following paragraphs accordingly.
9:30:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON objected for purposes of discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER explained Amendment 1 would add "employee
of a farmer's market" and "employee of a vendor who sells" at a
farmer's market. She said the amendment uses the Alaska
Administrative Code's existing definition for farmer's markets.
She stated that adding these occupations to the list originally
covered in HB 45 on page 2 is in line with the rationale for
including grocery store workers, which is to ensure that peace
of mind is provided to those Alaskans who are essential workers
making sure the public has access to food in the time of a
pandemic. Farmer's markets, she noted, are an increasingly
important venue for food procurement in Alaska. They were
thrust into the pandemic response conversation this past year
when they weren't initially included in the list of operations
permitted to be open during the temporary lockdown in Anchorage.
After discussions with local leadership and with food-focused
stakeholder groups, the importance of farmer's markets to food
access and to local economies including Alaskan farmers and food
vendors was recognized and farmer's markets was added to the
list of operations that should stay open. She said Amendment 1
seeks to make sure farmer's market workers delivering the same
important services as grocery store workers are protected.
9:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON spoke to his objection. He said he knows
farmer's markets are prevalent, especially in east Anchorage.
He recalled earlier statements about the importance of keeping
people covered for what they must do and if they have contact
with COVID. But, he continued, a warning was given of not
casting this net too wide. He stated that including an employee
of a farmer's market and an employee of a vendor who sells at a
farmer's market is too wide and he is uncomfortable with it.
9:33:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN stated he is struggling with the scope
and potential impacts of the bill, and Amendment 1 is a nuance
of a bigger picture about which he is concerned. He said HB 45
allows to whom the bill applies to be defined in the future by a
commissioner, so there is no real scope of applicability.
Getting Amendment 1 in the bill would be one thing, he
continued, but it wouldn't solve his concerns of greater
potential in the future of how this could be defined outward.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ inquired whether Representative Kaufman is
saying Amendment 1 dramatically expands the applicability in the
bill. She said she is not reading the amendment that way.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN replied not [Amendment 1], but the
amendment doesn't address his concern.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ offered her understanding that Representative
Kaufman has concerns with the underlying bill, not necessarily
the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN responded that the amendment doesn't go
far enough in respect to his concern.
9:34:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER offered her appreciation for there still
being questions and further discussions on HB 45. She said
Amendment 1 simply looks at the occupations covered, and if the
committee is interested in protecting essential workers who are
ensuring the public has access to food resources in the time of
a pandemic during a disaster declaration, then it is an easy
connection that these employees are just as important as grocery
store workers.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that unique about farmer's markets and
those who sell produce at markets are that they can only operate
during a very limited time frame. It's an attempt to ensure
Alaska's farmers have a market for their produce and Alaskans
have access to fresh produce, which Alaskans have not always
had. If this can help keep Alaska's farmer's markets open and
people working during that timeframe, it is a positive thing.
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN said he loves Alaska's farmer's markets
and noted that they are held outdoors, so the inherent risk is a
bit lower for some but not all.
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER agreed with some but not all. She pointed
out that some markets are in partially enclosed pavilions.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ stated that the objection to Amendment 1 is
maintained.
9:36:09 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Schrage, Snyder,
Fields, and Spohnholz voted in favor of Amendment 1.
Representatives Nelson, Kaufman, and McCarty voted against it.
Therefore, Amendment 1 was adopted by a vote of 4-3.
9:36:56 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ explained that final action on the bill
cannot be taken without Co-Chair Fields being [physically]
present, and therefore the committee would take up the bill
again on [3/17/21].
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 45 was held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 132 v. B 3.10.21.PDF |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 45 Amendment #1.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Sectional Analysis 2.24.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Sponsor Statement 2.24.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Version A.PDF |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Presentation 3.2.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 Fiscal Note DOLWD-WC 1.22.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 - testimony received as of 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 background document- Division of Workers' Compensation- Effects of Covid 3.3.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 background document- Division of Workers' Compenstion- COVID-19 WC Year End Report Final 3.3.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 background document- NCCI- AK HB 45 Analysis 3.3.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/5/2021 3:15:00 PM HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 45 supporting document - research, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |
| HB 100 v. A.PDF |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 supporting document - UA presentation.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 letters of support, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 supporting document - DOL AWIB Flow Chart.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 supporting document -TVEP Annual Report FY20.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 supporting document - UA Results Overview.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 FN - DOLWD-WIB, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 FN - DEED, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 FN - DOLWD-WD, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 FN - DOLWD-UI, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 132 FN DOR, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 FN DOLWD-WH, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 FN DOLWD-WIB, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 100 presentation, 3.13.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM SFIN 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 132 Sectional Analysis v. B 3.12.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 Sponsor Statement 3.12.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM SEDC 3/11/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 PowerPoint 3.12.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 Letter of Support - ASHNA 3.11.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM SEDC 3/11/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB 132 Letter of Support - Matsu Borough School District 2.24.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM SEDC 3/11/2022 9:00:00 AM |
HB 132 |
| HB 100 UA Presentation 3.15.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM HL&C 3/17/2021 5:45:00 PM SFIN 5/3/2021 9:00:00 AM SFIN 5/14/2021 1:00:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 Bill Presentation 3.15.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM HL&C 3/17/2021 5:45:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 100 Supporting Document - FY22 Proposed Distribution 3.15.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM HL&C 3/17/2021 5:45:00 PM |
HB 100 |
| HB 45 responses to House Labor and Commerce committee questions 3.15.21.pdf |
HL&C 3/15/2021 6:30:00 PM |
HB 45 |