Legislature(2023 - 2024)BARNES 124
01/30/2023 03:15 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 | |
| HB13 | |
| HB46 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 46-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
4:08:22 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 46, "An Act allowing child care providers that
receive state aid to organize and collectively bargain with the
Department of Health; and establishing the child care provider
fund."
4:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, as prime sponsor, gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Raising Wages and Benefits for Child Care
Workers (HB 46)" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
He provided a brief history of HB 46. Moving to slide 2, he
stated that the problem is that the child care sector has low
wages and few benefits, and this has resulted in a shortage of
workers. He added that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the
shortage of adequate child care.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 3, which
showed a report which related that employment in the child care
sector has decreased by 7 percent. On slide 4, he highlighted a
report which shows that 2 more child care centers have closed in
Juneau, while there are none in Valdez.
4:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS advanced to slide 5, expressing the belief
that the inadequate amount of child care in Alaska is playing a
part in the outmigration from the state. He added that the
greatest number of people leaving the state are young people of
working age. He turned to slide 6, stating that 11 other states
have implemented some form of collective bargaining for child
care employees.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 7, stating
that the goals of HB 46 are to give these workers a "living
wage" in order to increase the supply of child care. He advised
that many families cannot afford to pay more for child care, so
this should be done without increasing prices. He added that
public policy on child care should remain "flexible" to allow
the sector to continue to work with the state government on the
best possible solutions.
4:14:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS continued to slide 8, pointing out that
major Alaska employers are raising concerns about the lack of
adequate child care in Alaska, and child care is one of the top
three issues for the Alaska Chamber of Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS concluded by explaining how the proposed
legislation would work. He explained that the Alaska Department
of Labor and Workforce Development would conduct an election
which would ask whether child care workers would engage in
sectoral bargaining with the state. If it is voted
affirmatively, a union would be created to negotiate with the
state for wages and benefits. He added that the bill would also
establish a child care trust fund.
4:17:37 PM
BLUE SHIBLER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Association
for the Education of Young Children, provided invited testimony
on HB 46. She expressed the opinion that there have always been
issues with child care shortages. She explained that this is
because child care centers do not have "a very good business
model." These centers have a single source of revenue, with the
charge being limited to what families can pay. She suggested
that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible to find
employees who would do the work because they enjoyed it;
however, rising costs of living have forced a choice between
having an enjoyable job or a higher-paying job. She pointed out
that Juneau's child care centers have the capacity to care for
more children, but there are not enough employees to increase
enrollment. She described the current business model for child
care as a "market failure," and she described child care as a
"public good." She asserted that the solution would be
investment by the state into the child care sector.
4:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired about the organizations that
Southeast Alaska Association for the Education of Young Children
represents.
MS. SHIBLER explained that the association provides support
mechanisms rather than representation. In response to a follow-
up question, she said that the majority of the money child care
centers receive is from the parents' tuition. She added that
there are subsidies available for families with lower incomes.
4:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE requested an explanation of the label
"market failure" concerning child care centers.
MS. SHIBLER responded that, as a business, no profit is being
made and a worthy wage is not provided. She contrasted this
with a traditional business where goods or service costs could
be raised to close the gap; however, child care businesses
cannot do this because parents would not be able to pay.
4:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned whether a state subsidy
would be the only way for these businesses to survive. He
questioned where the state would receive an "injection of cash"
for this purpose.
MS. SHIBLER answered that child care centers are unable to pay
high wages or make a profit. In other businesses, it is
possible to raise the prices to reflect a rise in business
costs, whereas child care centers are unable to do this because
it becomes unaffordable for families. She concluded that the
lack of ability to make a profit means fewer people attempt to
start this business. In response to a follow-up question, she
expressed the belief that the child care sector needs subsidies
to remain operational. She observed that the issue is being
acknowledged in other states and at the national level.
4:27:31 PM
MS. SHIBLER, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Saddler, answered that, in her 20 years of
experience, the issue of low profits and wages has been an
ongoing problem, and the increase in the cost of living has
exacerbated the problem. In response to a follow-up question,
she said that child care prices are generally similar across the
sector and largely paid for by the parents. She answered that
the Department of Health (DOH) receives block grants from the
federal government and is responsible for deciding on the best
usage of this money in regard to child care. She continued that
the federal money used in the Childcare Assistance Subsidy
Program pays providers on behalf of parents who qualify for
assistance. Other money is used for training purposes; however,
federal money does not cover increasing wages or benefits for
workers. She expressed uncertainty concerning the amount of
federal money going towards wages.
4:32:29 PM
PEARL BROWER, PhD, CEO, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC),
provided invited testimony on HB 46. She stated that workplaces
across the state are facing shortages, and this has made it more
difficult for parents to return to work. She said that one of
the reasons her family moved from Utqiagvik to Anchorage was
because of the difficulty finding child care. She continued
that the lack of available child care causes economic
instability for families, leaves children at a higher risk of
neglect, and makes it difficult for employers to fill available
positions.
4:36:28 PM
DR. BROWER, in response to Representative Prax, stated that UIC
is a for-profit organization. In response to a follow-up
question, she said that even if the corporation were to provide
child care benefits to employees, there would not be enough
child care providers to care for every child.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that the solution may require an
increase in the cost of child care, either paid for by the state
or by private employers.
4:39:03 PM
CHRISTINA EUBANKS, Executive Director, Hillcrest Children's
Center, provided invited testimony on HB 46. She stated that
finding employees has been a continuous issue in her 20 years of
working in child care. She suggested that this is one of the
lowest paying professions in the state, which causes a high
level of turnover. She expressed the belief that the industry
should have a voice in how federal grants for child care are
being spent. She argued this because of the direct impact on
the operations and cost of child care centers.
4:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned why prices have not increased.
MS. EUBANKS responded that nothing is preventing price increases
and explained that prices have already increased. She stated
that there is an expected price increase of 6 percent to 10
percent this year, and this has the consequences of child care
only being affordable for parents with high incomes.
4:42:47 PM
MS. EUBANKS, in response to Representative Saddler, reiterated
that raising prices would make child care unaffordable for many
families.
4:44:44 PM
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of HB 46 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section l: This section amends AS 23.05.360(t) to allow
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency board in the Department
of Labor & Workforce Development the authority to include
workers in the child care sector for the purpose of
holding hearings. This is a conforming change to
language added in Sec 4.
Section 2: This section amends AS 23.05.370(a) to direct
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency to serve as labor
relations agency for workers in the child care sector
covered by the new language added in Sec. 4.
Section 3: This section amends AS 23.05.380 to give
Department of Labor & Workforce Development the authority
to update regulations pertaining to collective bargaining
rights for workers in the child care sector. This is a
confonning [sic] change to language added in Sec 4.
Section 4: This section amends AS 23.40 to give child
care providers the right to self-organize, join, or
assist an organization to bargain collectively and engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. This
section prohibits the Department of Health from engaging
in unfair labor practices, and it provides a process for
investigation and conciliation of complaints. This
section also provides definitions.
Section 5: This section establishes a child care provider
fund as a separate fund in the state treasury. This
section also establishes a child care stakeholder group
to recommend disbursements from the fund.
4:47:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, addressing earlier questions, added that
not investing in child care would create an environment where
only high-income families would be able to afford it. He
deduced that this results in a decrease in economic capacity
because families are pushed out of the workforce. He reiterated
that the proposed bill would create a child care trust fund to
allow the state to invest more in child care, similar to other
places in the world.
4:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the role DOH would play in
collective bargaining. He questioned who would provide the
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said the model would be similar to the
Alaska Higher Education Investment Fund. He continued that
subsidized slots do not cover the entire cost of tuition at a
child care center; therefore, child care centers pass the cost
to the parents who can pay.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a breakdown of the costs of
child care paid for by families and the grants from the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, referencing the child care center his
family uses, stated that subsidized slots are available, meaning
the state pays for the child care of children whose parents
qualify. He added that some states have expanded the level for
eligibility for subsidies, and this helps provide child care for
a wider range of families; therefore, the number of people able
to work increases.
4:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed concern that the proposed bill
would result in a continuously expanding eligibility for the
subsidy. He compared it to the current issues facing Medicare.
4:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK questioned whether home-based child care
providers would be covered by the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that all licensed providers would
be covered, including home-based providers.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK commented that the bill could be useful
in the effort to retain child care workers.
4:55:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned whether HB 46 could cause
prices to increase for some parents if the subsidy is not
expanded.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that the goal is to keep prices
down for parents. He expressed the belief that child care
providers should be a greater part of the discussion because
they have the best idea of how to serve families. He stated
that the bill would create a framework giving providers a
greater voice, as it would not be a mandate on a certain wage
for child care employees. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that currently there is not a specific amount to be
placed into the child care trust fund that HB 46 would create.
4:59:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the amount of childcare paid
for privately versus the amount paid for by the government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recapped that the vast majority is paid
for privately by parents, with some slots subsidized with
government funds. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the idea behind the trust fund would be to give
child care providers a greater say in how the federal grants
would be used. He reiterated the opinion that providers have a
better idea what would be most effective.
5:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT questioned the amount of money received
from the federal grants per year.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed uncertainty and offered to
follow up with the committee at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT explained the Worthy Wage Campaign and
asked whether the bill was related to this.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that he is unfamiliar with the
campaign.
[HB 46 was held over.]