Legislature(2009 - 2010)HOUSE FINANCE 519
03/23/2010 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB369 | |
| HB50 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 316 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 50 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 369 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 50
"An Act relating to limitations on mandatory overtime
for registered nurses and licensed practical nurses in
health care facilities; and providing for an effective
date."
2:45:07 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1 (26-
LS0274\U.1, Wayne, 3/23/10):
Page 4, line 23, following "hours":
Insert";
(9) a nurse who is covered by a collective bargaining
agreement, so long as the work is subject to that
agreement"
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained that the amendment related to
bargaining units.
REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, SPONSOR, testified that she
did not support the amendment.
REBECCA ROONEY, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE PEGGY WILSON, noted
that the unions had testified in support of the
legislation. She argued that HB 50 was not about contract
negotiations and collective bargaining but about patient
safety. She maintained that the bill would standardize work
and rest practices across the state and would ensure that
rested nurses are caring for patients regardless of how
well a bargaining unit has done.
Vice-Chair Thomas stated that he had proposed the amendment
because he did not want the legislature to do the work of
bargaining units. He did not recall legislation that was
involved in collective bargaining decisions and questioned
the legality of such a move.
Representative Wilson stated that the amendment would "gut"
the bill. She argued that the unit could still bargain any
way it wanted, but the legislation would provide for a
standard of care for patients and would make a difference
for nurses as well. She wanted to create a provision that
would allow nurses to come forward. She believed all the
nurses that had come to her regarding the issue worked for
hospitals with unions.
Vice-Chair Thomas did not want collective bargaining units
to have an advantage.
Vice-Chair Thomas WITHDREW Amendment 1.
2:50:41 PM AT EASE
2:54:27 PM RECONVENED
Vice-Chair Thomas MOVED to ADOPT Conceptual Amendment 2:
Nurses cannot moonlight and have two or more jobs.
Co-Chair Stoltze OBJECTED for discussion.
Vice-Chair Thomas explained that nurses should not have
more than one or two jobs if the issue is truly work
safety.
Representative Fairclough spoke in opposition to the
amendment. She knew nurses with multiple jobs. She relayed
the story of a single mother who was a school nurse that
did not make enough income. The nurse took on two more jobs
and was able to handle her responsibilities well. She
thought the amendment was too broad.
2:58:05 PM
Vice-Chair Thomas talked about residential psychiatric
care. He was concerned about a nurse having two high-stress
jobs with long hours. He believed the measure needed to be
restricted to protect patients.
Representative Fairclough reported that she had many good
friends who are nurses. She told the story of another nurse
friend with two jobs, one of which was crisis-oriented. She
emphasized that different people had different levels of
stamina and she did not want individuals who can handle
certain situations limited by the legislation.
Vice-Chair Thomas relayed a story about fishing for three
days without sleep, which he can no longer do. The intent
of the amendment was to encourage older people not to work
as hard as younger people can.
Vice-Chair Thomas WITHDREW Amendment 2.
3:02:41 PM
Representative Fairclough noted that age is not the issue
with endurance.
Vice-Chair Thomas wanted nurses restricted to an 8-hour day
to relieve stress. He pointed to similar restrictions done
with the mining industry.
Representative Kelly stated concerns about the bill. He
referred to testimony from witnesses implying that the
unions are not up to the job of regulating wages, hours,
and conditions, including safety issues. He suggested
hearing from the Department of Labor and Workface
Development (DLWD). He was concerned about labor issues
represented employees cannot solve themselves without
government stepping in.
3:07:00 PM
GREY MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS AND
SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
reported that DLWD is neutral regarding HB 50. He could not
explain why the unions are having a difficult time with the
issue.
Representative Kelly asked whether the area was an
unpermitted one to bargain in. Mr. Mitchell responded that
it was not.
Representative Doogan questioned what percentage of nurses
were unionized. Representative Wilson responded about 50
percent.
Representative Kelly asked whether anything prevented
unorganized employees from becoming organized. Mr. Mitchell
answered no.
Representative Wilson commented that hospitals say there is
not a problem. She questioned why they are afraid of the
issue.
3:10:19 PM
Mr. Mitchell addressed the fiscal note by the department.
He described the difficulty of ascertaining the fiscal
impact. The amount in the fiscal note is based on review of
licensed nurses. The Department of Commerce and Economic
Development monitors the licenses of registered nurses
(RNs) and licensed practical nurses (LPNs); as of March
2010, there are 10,357 RNs and 1,052 LPNs. He noted that
there is a separate license for temporary nurses, of which
there are 140 RNs and LPNs combined.
Mr. Mitchell reported that the department attempted to
account for what type of work might be required by the
bill, which requires the department to take and investigate
complaints based on violations or coercion when an employee
was required to work over their scheduled nursing shift or
to accept an overtime assignment when safety is
compromised, in the nurse's opinion. He maintained that the
language about the issue of a nurse's opinion of
compromised safety tends to create a scenario with a lot of
potential for complaints.
Mr. Mitchell continued that the average wage and hour
investigator handles a caseload of approximately 50
investigations per year on overtime, minimum wage,
prevailing wage claims, and so on. Therefore, 50 valid
claims by nurses as a result of potential violations under
the bill would keep one investigator busy full time. In
addition, different provisions in the bill will require
enforcement by the department, including the 10-hour off-
duty provision after the scheduled shift, enforcing a
requirement for the employer to have an anonymous complaint
process, a posting requirement of the rules, and so on.
Mr. Mitchell described a typical investigation. First, the
department receives a complaint. There needs to be a quick
screening process to determine the validity of the
complaint, since the employer is required by the bill to be
notified within three working days of the complaint. The
department would then follow up with the employer and
collect records of the shifts and the time worked. The
documents might have to be subpoenaed, if they are not
volunteered. Next, an audit of the records would determine
whether there was a violation. In some cases, there may not
be good records; witnesses would need to be interviewed and
sworn statements taken. The investigator would then issue a
written finding with a conclusion based on the facts. The
department would issue a reprimand or civil penalty under
the statute. Although the bill does not mention it, the
department would have regulation authority to administer
the law; DLWD believes a hearing process would be required
to allow people issued a reprimand or civil penalty to
appeal and potentially have rights to a hearing.
3:15:04 PM
Mr. Mitchell added that investigations of retaliation,
termination, threats, changes in work schedules, and other
things could also happen. Complaints related to possible
retaliation can be extremely difficult and time-consuming
to investigate. He pointed out that the amendment removing
the Department of Law (DOL) from the procedure would affect
the fiscal note, as the fiscal note included $5,000 for
assistance from them.
Mr. Mitchell provided an overview of the numbers in the
fiscal note:
· $71,800: Wage and hour investigator
· $3,000: Travel related to complaints in distant
locations
· $13,800: Contractual costs (reduced by the $5,000 for
DOL)
· $3,800: Supplies, including computer and office
equipment
Co-Chair Hawker commended the detail on the fiscal note. He
queried Mr. Mitchell's presumption that employers would act
in a manner that would generate enough grievances to
require an investigator. Mr. Mitchell responded that the
department made its best guess based on the number of
employees and number of facilities. He emphasized that the
testimony generated by the bill revealed many nurses that
felt coerced.
Co-Chair Hawker wondered whether employers had been lying
in the committees. He did not know who to believe. He
stated that he was skeptical of the department's fiscal
note without actual experience.
3:19:01 PM
Representative Austerman asked whether hospital employees
could come to the department under current law. Mr.
Mitchell responded that the employees could make complaints
to the department in some circumstances, such as a minimum
wage claim or some overtime situations.
Representative Austerman established that nurses could not
currently file a complaint with DLWD about being coerced
into working extra hours. Mr. Mitchell agreed that there
was no restriction related the number of hours nurses could
be required to work.
Representative Austerman asked when the department
anticipated hiring the position described in the fiscal
note. Mr. Mitchell replied that the position would be hired
as soon as possible after the July 1, 2010 effective date
in anticipation of complaints coming in.
Representative Austerman thought the fiscal note was
inappropriate at this time and thought the department
should come back the next year with a supplemental request.
He referred to documentation supplied by nursing homes and
hospitals reported zero overtime complaints.
Representative Doogan believed there were situations in
which reasonable people could disagree on the rules of
working. He described 30 years of experience with disputes
that were not indicative of a lack of maturity but of
understandable disagreement. He thought the bill attempted
to create a better way of dealing with disagreement. He
opined that the department could absorb the costs until the
next legislative session and report back; if the employer's
numbers are correct, not much money would be needed.
3:23:36 PM
Co-Chair Hawker directed the preparation of an
indeterminate fiscal note for the bill.
Vice-Chair Thomas asked whether the bill would give
bargaining units an advantage. Mr. Mitchell replied that
the bill does not appear to give either union or non-union
entities an advantage.
Vice-Chair Thomas wanted all groups to be treated equally.
Representative Fairclough questioned the Department of
Health and Social Services fiscal note showing two
additional full-time positions at the Alaska Psychiatric
Institute (API) but no dollar amount.
Representative Wilson commented that the positions are
currently unfilled.
RON ADLER, DIRECTOR/CEO, ALASKA PSYCHIATRIC INSTITUTE (via
teleconference), replied that he could not answer the
question. He noted that in FY 09, API had a total of 374.5
hours of mandatory overtime. In an effort to reduce
mandatory overtime, in the first six months of 2010 API has
logged in 106 hours. He did not know who would be tracking
those hours.
3:28:27 PM
Representative Fairclough queried the two positions with
zero impact.
WILDA LAUGHLIN, LEGISLATIVE LIAISON, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND SOCIAL SERVICES, pointed to page 2 of the fiscal note
detailing that any additional cost associated with the
physicians and on-call system will be offset by the cost
savings from reduced overtime payments.
Representative Fairclough spoke in favor of HB 50. She
believed the costs were reasonable because of the safety
issues. She asserted that the bill would level the playing
field for non-union and union hospitals and set a standard
of care that all nurses and all employers can be held
accountable to. She believed nurses had brought an issue
forward that the legislature had an obligation to address.
3:32:06 PM
Co-Chair Hawker MOVED to report CSHB 50 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 50(FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "do pass"
recommendation and with three new zero notes by the
Department of Health and Social Services and one
indeterminate note by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 316 Gov.Trasmittal Letter.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB 316 Sectional.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 316 |
| HB 50 Thomas Amendment #1.pdf |
HFIN 3/23/2010 1:30:00 PM |
HB 50 |