Legislature(2017 - 2018)BARNES 124
03/22/2017 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 | |
| HJR14 | |
| HB157 | |
| HB119 | |
| HB144 | |
| HB86 | |
| HB79 | |
| HB132 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 132 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 86 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HJR 14 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 157 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 79 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 79-OMNIBUS WORKERS' COMPENSATION
4:04:46 PM
CHAIR KITO announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 79, "An Act relating to workers' compensation;
repealing the second injury fund upon satisfaction of claims;
relating to service fees and civil penalties for the workers'
safety programs and the workers' compensation program; relating
to the liability of specified officers and members of specified
business entities for payment of workers' compensation benefits
and civil penalties; relating to civil penalties for
underinsuring or failing to insure or provide security for
workers' compensation liability; relating to preauthorization
and timely payment for medical treatment and services provided
to injured employees; relating to incorporation of reference
materials in workers' compensation regulations; relating to
proceedings before the Workers' Compensation Board; providing
for methods of payment for workers' compensation benefits;
relating to the workers' compensation benefits guaranty fund
authority to claim a lien; excluding independent contractors
from workers' compensation coverage; establishing the
circumstances under which certain nonemployee executive
corporate officers and members of limited liability companies
may obtain workers' compensation coverage; relating to the
duties of injured employees to report income or work; relating
to misclassification of employees and deceptive leasing;
defining 'employee'; relating to the Workers' Compensation
Board's approval of attorney fees in a settlement agreement; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 79, Version 30-GH1789\O.]
4:05:19 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:05 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.
4:06:07 PM
MARIE MARX, Director, Division of Workers Compensation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, said she was
available for questions.
4:06:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH asked, "whether we've achieved some
recognition that it's gonna be necessary to modify that without
-- so we don't entangle a bunch of folks that we would not have
otherwise intended to entangle in this bill?"
MS. MARX answered that the division has continuously met with
stakeholder groups over the past two months to define the
definition in a manner allowing true independent contractors to
operate, while at the same time ensuring those individuals who
are employees are covered under the Alaska Workers' Compensation
Act, and the department and stakeholders are comfortable with
the current language. Recently, she said, a request was put
forth to the department "that to be frank" were issues not
previously raised with the department. The department advised
the stakeholder groups that the department will always continue
discussions as part of the process, and noted that the majority
of the great work had been completed. This bill is a good bill
for employers, injured workers, increased efficiencies, and
offers more than the independent contractor definition, she
described. To the extent new issues were recently raised by
stakeholder groups, the department advised it is, of course,
open to discussions, she explained.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH advised that he wanted to be certain those
stakeholder groups were comfortable with that provision before
he supported moving the bill out of this committee.
MS. MARX reiterated her understanding that stakeholder groups
were comfortable [with the language], at least one week prior
[to this hearing].
4:09:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP related there may be "a whole new group of
stakeholders out there this week." He advised he does not
particularly care for Secs. 8 and 9, and asked why "we want to
take them away from the board and leave them with the division,"
and why this is a better process.
MS. MARX offered her belief that Representative Knopp was
referring to the division's investigations where an employer
does not have insurance. Currently, she advised, the division
investigates, and if it finds on a substantial basis the
employer should have insurance but does not, it files a petition
before the Alaska Workers' Compensation Board. The board then
holds a formal due process hearing and issues a decision as to
whether or not the employer should have had insurance, and the
penalty amount. The division has found that those penalties
assessed by the board are astronomically high, and the penalties
have not withstood review on appeal. Recently, she explained,
the department was ordered to pay a huge attorneys' fees bill
when an employer appealed the board's assessment of a penalty,
and on appeal, the department was ordered to pay some money
because the employer did not have insurance. Except, the amount
was dropped down for various reasons, the employer was deemed
the prevailing party, and the department was assessed
approximately $50,000 in attorneys' fees. She pointed out that
the process is long with intense litigation, and it is not
efficient; and CSHB 79 would change it to a process wherein the
department's investigators will investigate as they always do,
and assess a penalty based upon statute and regulation. In the
event an employer disputes the assessment, they can request a
hearing before the board, but the penalties will be reduced, in
most cases, under the new calculation. The division anticipates
that fewer assessments will go to board hearings, thereby
reducing attorneys' fee and litigation costs, she noted.
4:11:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that his dislike for Secs. 8-9
stems from prior conversations regarding OCC licensing,
investigative costs, and spreading those costs out. He related
his belief that they are better managed by the boards that can
determine the depth of an investigation, and he would not second
guess Ms. Marx if she believes this is more efficient. He
referred to Ms. Marx statement that the department would assess
fees within the statute. He asked whether the board does not
assess fees currently, whether there are statutes defining the
limitations of the fees and exceeding them, and why there are
"astronomically high assessments."
MS. MARX responded that currently, the maximum penalty is $1,000
per employee, per workday, which leads to high penalties because
an employer can have many employees and be uninsured for many
days. Governor Bill Walker's bill would change the penalty
calculation and instead would tie it to the risk of the work,
size of the employer, the employer's financial gain from not
having workers' compensation insurance, and set a maximum of
three times the premium the employer would have paid had they
had insurance.
4:13:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP commented that if the issue is excessive
fees, why not just leave it with the board if the new fee
schedule is put in place.
MS. MARX likened the fines to a traffic ticket: she said that
when an officer issues a citation, there is a simple process
wherein the person can agree with the citation and pay it, or go
to court. For efficiency purposes, the division's investigators
investigate [the case], which is a current process, and the
investigators petition the board with the amount. In most
cases, she explained, the employer can just pay the assessed
penalty if they prefer, or in the event of an appeal, the
employer can go to a formal board hearing which involves
litigation and attorneys' fees. She reiterated that CSHB 79
would just simplify and make the process more efficient.
4:15:17 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1,
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Eliminate Section 28(11) beginning on page 15 line 29
through page 17 line 13.
(For definition refer to AS 23.20.525 - Employment
Defined)
CHAIR KITO objected for purposes of discussion.
4:15:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP explained that he has heard concern from a
number of industries around defining independent contractors and
the unintentional consequences of this legislation. He said
there are "a whole bunch of definitions" of independent
contractor found in many state statutes and this bill would add
another definition.
He referred to Amendment 1 and noted that the amendment would
use the definition of independent contractor in AS 23.20.525,
the Alaska Employment Security Act and not under AS 23.30.230.
He said the conceptual amendment would give the legislature an
opportunity to address the independent contractor definition in
a separate bill consistent with unemployment insurance and the
workers' compensation provision because he does not want to
start creating definitions in every statute in the book.
MS. MARX asked whether Representative Knopp had a specific
question for her, or was asking for her thoughts.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that the issue had not been
addressed well enough and he was not willing to move this bill
out of the committee, "not that I'd be on the winning side of
that argument," until this issue is resolved. More importantly,
he said, is addressing it through the workers' compensation,
unemployment insurance and fair labor standards, which is
everything that defines it now. He reiterated that if
necessary, a bill could be brought forward that would discuss
independent contractors under the current statute "that it is
defined in."
CHAIR KITO suggested that the question to Ms. Marx could be for
her to explain the process in developing the independent
contractor language and, what if anything, "you are aware of" in
relation to the definition for independent contractor in AS
23.20.525.
4:18:51 PM
MS. MARX commented that there are two important issues to
consider with the definition of independent contractor. The
first is that it is needed, misclassification is an ongoing
nationwide issue especially over the last 1-2 years that states
are addressing. This state is not unique, and misclassification
needs to be addressed. The second issue is that this discussion
began approximately one year ago when the misclassification of
independent contractor was raised in a bill sponsored by
Representative Gabrielle LeDoux, which did not move forward.
The definition of independent contractor has been a long time
coming and, she advised, the definition proposed in
Representative LeDoux's bill was different than this
legislation. The department took the comments it then began
receiving, especially from the Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), about issues that may arise from that definition and
incorporated it into HB 79. The language arose from an
evaluation of not only the Division of Workers' Compensation,
but many stakeholder groups, and different agencies in all 50
states involved in misclassification issues. She remarked that
the division has read the laws of all 50 states over and over
again, as to specific provisions, weighing the benefit of one
language use and the wording versus another, and initially put
together a good starting point when the bill was introduced.
Since that time, she offered, the division met with numerous
stakeholder groups, including ATA, which have expressed support
in principle for the ideas here because most employers want to
operate on a level playing field with other employers and
support an independent contractor definition. She agreed that
concerns were expressed, and over the last two months they all
have worked hard to get to a version that is good. That said,
she acknowledged that some stakeholder groups still have some
issues to be addressed and the division is always open to that
process.
4:21:57 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP offered that the groups just mentioned are
in the room because they are still not good with the language,
and he does not see the need to draft another definition of
independent contractor when the definition under "the other
title" is where it needs to be and where it exists. Conceptual
Amendment 1 requests more time to work on the definition of
independent contractor, and in the event this conceptual
amendment fails, Conceptual Amendment 2 is larger and more
detailed, he said.
4:23:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH agreed with Representative Knopp and said
he has a stack of letters from the National Federation of
Independent Businesses (NFIB) and their concerns have not yet
been accommodated; the concerns regard real people trying to do
a job and maintain a lifestyle. In the event the bill needs to
be moved forward, he suggested applying a carve-out of the
definition or utilizing a different definition. He asked
whether Ms. Marx had recently spoken with the NFIB.
MS. MARX, in response to Representative Knopp's statements
regarding the ATA, answered that roughly one week ago ATA was
comfortable with the bill. She noted she had received an email
advising that "with this one change that the department would
make," involving changing a mandatory item to an optional item,
ATA would support the bill. The issues were addressed, and the
statement was made that ATA would be supportive with the issues
they worked out. While she understands that people can change
their minds as part of the process, she said she wanted to be
certain the impression was not that the division was not
listening or that there are major issues with this bill.
MS. MARX, in response to Representative Birch's NFIB question,
responded that she met with Dennis DeWitt, NFIB, and opined that
his comments were "the current bill as written -- he -- they
could meet that. They actually could meet this definition."
She expressed that there seems to be the feeling that perhaps
NFIB should not have to meet the definition and whether or not
to have an independent contractor definition at all is a policy
call. She remarked that a comment made to her was that the NFIB
could go out and advertise but did not feel the need, or NFIB
could have a bank account in the business name but did not want
to. That is a different argument and different position than
saying the test in CSHB 79 does not work, and she remarked that
this test works for NFIB. Whether NFIB wants to meet the
qualifications is a different issue, and she said she was unsure
whether that could be addressed in this legislation.
4:27:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES noted that within [Sec. 28],
Representative Knopp would like to eliminate the definition of
independent contractor, and yet the definition Representative
Knopp referred to is a definition of employment. She commented
there may be a difference there, and she did not see the
definition in the statute for independent contractor.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP [audio difficulties] it should be right
there under AS 23.25. [audio difficulties] ...
4:27:57 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:27 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.
4:30:35 PM
MS. MARX advised that Amendment 1 refers to AS 23.20.525, which
is not a statute in the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act, the
Alaska Workers' Compensation Act is AS 23.30, and so forth. To
be clear, she explained, the Alaska Workers' Compensation Act
applies its statutes, it does not use statutory definitions or
regulations of other agencies, such as wage and hour or
unemployment insurance. The statutes and interpretational
statutes are developed under the Workers' Compensation case law.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP acknowledged that he did not realize the
distinction because he thought definitions in statute would be
applicable across the board, yet the Division of Workers'
Compensation operates under its statutes.
MS. MARX responded that Representative Knopp was correct.
4:31:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP withdrew Conceptual Amendment 1.
4:32:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2, as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 28
Page 16, line 4, following "results", delete,
"completion schedule, or range of work hours ..."
Page 16, line 6, following "or", add, "to comply with"
Page 16, line 7, following "incurs" add, "or is
ultimately responsible for"
Page 16, line 17, insert before "follows" "is
responsible pursuant to contract to"
Page 16, line 17, change "follows" to "follow"
Page 17, line 1, delete, "maintains a business
location separate from the location of the individual
for whom the entity for the services are performed"
Page 17, line 1, insert before, "the person", "except
for an agreement with other individual or entity
relating to the completion schedule or range of work
hours," insert, after "the person", "has control over
the time the work is performed"
Page 17, line 4, delete, "engages in business
advertising, solicitation, or other marketing efforts
reasonably calculated to obtain new contract to
provide similar service;" insert following, "the
person", "is not required to work exclusively for on
principal unless:
(a) a law, regulation, regulation, or ordinance
prohibits the person form providing service to more
than on principal; or
(b) The person has entered into a written
contract to provide services to only one principal for
a limited period;
CHAIR KITO objected for discussion purposes.
4:32:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP explained that Conceptual Amendment 2
addresses recommendations from the Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA) by deleting the completion schedule and arrangement of
work hours, which means complying with federal "stuff, but you
can't mandate they go over the federal hours." For example, he
said, should a customer advise an item must arrive by Monday
morning, it is the customer's request and is not "our direction"
so it alleviates that "type of stuff" in contracting. He said
that when the discussion is under the direction of
employer/employee type relationship, that is not an employer
mandate. He explained that "It was -- it was just some words in
there that -- 'add or ultimately responsible for' that type of
language that kinda clears up some of the grey areas in the
proposed area there. 'That maintains a business location
separate from location individual whom the entity for the
services are performed' delete that line."
4:34:23 PM
CHAIR KITO ask Representative Knopp to read the Version number
of the amendment for the record.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP responded Conceptual Amendment 2, Version
30-GH1789\O.
CHAIR KITO asked whether there were other substantive components
of the conceptual amendment he would like to present.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP advised that representatives from ATA are
available to speak to the conceptual amendment because most of
it is ATA's language. He referred to the changes proposed in
Conceptual Amendment 2 on [page 16, CSHB 79, lines 1-6] AS
23.30.205(a)(11)(B) direction and control, and read as follows:
"Is free from direction over the means and manner providing
services subject only to the right of the individual for who, or
entity for which, the services are provided to specify." He
explained that deleting the language "completion schedule or
arrange of work hours," is simply to clarify that the
independent contractor/owner operator is free to direct their
own work subject to the desired results, or to comply with the
contract plans, or comply with governmental laws.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP turned to the changes proposed in
Conceptual Amendment 2, on page 16 of SCHB 79, lines 7-9] AS
23.30.205(a)(11)(C), which would add "ultimately responsible
for, incurs (indisc.) ultimately responsible for after incurs."
The second amendment would apply when someone or an entity may
incur the initial expense, such as a bank, truck, dealer, or
equipment supplier, in a loan or other financing arrangements,
he said.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP turned to [CSHB 79, page 16, lines 14-16]
AS 23.30.205(a)(11)(F), and said subparagraph (F) was good.
4:36:04 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD [and Representative Knopp spoke
over themselves and the conversation was undecipherable].
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to the changes proposed in
Conceptual Amendment 2, which would clarify that an independent
contractor/owner operator is not required by the contract to
have a license not required by law.
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP stated that paragraph (G) on CSHB 79, page
16, lines 17-27 "is responsible pursuant to the contract to
follow, and that limits responsibilities of the parties to the
contract at hand."
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP turned to the changes proposed in
Conceptual Amendment 2 [page 16, lines 28-31 and page 17, lines
1-13] AS 23.30.205(a)(11)(H) regarding business locations, and
he said, "Except for an agreement with other individual or
entity relating to the completion schedule or range of work
hours, delete the rest of that." He said, "What constitutes a
business location is in question. Is a truck sufficient, is a
dedicated home office needed? So, it clarifies that language.
Any mobile vendor who provides onsite services, mobile carpet
cleaning, van or even a Snap-On tool vendor will have concerns
with this section. Particularly if an independent contractor
provides regular frequent services to the same customer." An
independent contractor may also share space with the person or
entity with whom they are contracted while still providing
purely independent contractor services.
4:38:16 PM
MS. MARX responded to Chair Kito that she did have comments
regarding proposed Conceptual Amendment 2, and advised that the
conceptual amendment contains changes raised in a recent email
sent to the committee and the department, and the changes are
mainly grammatical issues. Version O, she explained, is more
flexible than Conceptual Amendment 2, meets the same purpose,
the existing language should remain, and ultimately, it is the
committee's decision. Conceptual Amendment 2 contain
grammatical issues, such as "ultimately responsible for" is
ambiguous and would open the door to litigation and it does not
add value to the language in Version O, she explained. She
advised that "maintain a separate business location, separate
from the location of the individual," is a mandatory provision.
She said, after noting some concern from stakeholder groups, the
provision was moved from an 11 or 12 factor mandatory test to a
test with optional factors, recognizing that possibly some true
independent contractors could not meet a factor. The language
in Version O would require a person meet three of the five
optional factors, such as advertise, bank account in the
business name, some insurance on a truck or office equipment,
some sort of an insurance policy. The factor besides business
location is, "not work as part in the same trade or occupation
as the contractor." She related that that was the answer to the
business location prong not being applicable to all independent
contractors, which is why it is an optional item.
4:41:27 PM
CHAIR KITO maintained his objection.
4:41:31 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Birch, Knopp, and
Sullivan-Leonard voted in favor of the adoption of Conceptual
Amendment 2. Representatives Wool, Stutes, Josephson, and Kito
voted against it. Therefore, Conceptual Amendment 2 failed by a
vote of 3-4.
4:42:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD asked Ms. Marx to present a
comparison of the statute prior to Version O, Sec. 28, with
regard to independent contractor. Secondly, she asked, whether
the "second version" assists in the goal of bringing down the
premium costs.
MS. MARX explained that currently there is no definition of
independent contractor in statute. The Workers' Compensation
Board has, in regulation, a balancing test wherein it is up to
the board, on a case-by-case basis, to review the facts of a
case and decide a test of employee status, except, states have
found that balancing tests do not work. Thus, over the past 10
years there has been a movement to define independent
contractor, as in this legislation. In the event an employer
has an insurance policy covering some workers but not all
workers, and an injured worker is found to have been an
employee, the insurance company will raise its rates for all
policyholders, causing fewer people purchase workers'
compensation insurance. The fact that insurance companies are
covering unanticipated uninsured losses causes workers'
compensation costs to be high, especially in Alaska, and the
average medical cost on a time loss claim is $66,000. Defining
independent contractor is part of the overall comprehensive plan
to lower Alaska's high workers' compensation premiums, she
explained.
4:44:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON surmised that an insurance company
cannot argue it was not advised that Jim Smith should have been
classified as an employee. Therefore, it must rely upon
arguments as to whether Jim Smith really should have been
classified as an employee according to common law and statute.
He asked whether that was what Ms. Marx was saying, that an
insurance company cannot rely on the employer's opinion.
MS. MARX stated that Representative Josephson was absolutely
correct, ultimately employee status is determined by the Alaska
Workers' Compensation Board. In the event it is found that the
injured worker was an employee under the Act, the insurance
company must cover that loss if there was an insurance policy in
place, she said.
4:44:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON commented that if he was an insurance
company, that would be his greatest concern because the
insurance company has no control and does not even know the
facts or who is at the job site, which is an argument for
insurance companies to get behind this bill. Suddenly the
numbers are 30 percent greater because the insurance company did
not know these people existed, he noted.
MS. MARX agreed that that was absolutely what she is saying, and
she stressed that there are letters of support, including one
letter signed by three insurance companies. She reiterated that
there are many letters of support here, and that she wanted to
bring this to the committee's attention because the focus has
been on the independent contractor's definition and refining it.
There is absolute support by employers who want a level playing
field, insurance companies for Representative Josephson's exact
reason, and injured workers who want their injuries covered,
there is broad support for this legislation.
4:47:13 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP referred to [AS 23.30.230(a)(11)] page 15,
lines 29-30, which read as follows:
(11) a person employed as an independent
contractor; a person is an independent contractor for
the purposes of this chapter only if the person
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP then referred to [AS 23.30.230(a)(11)
(H)(v)] page 17, lines 10-13, which read as follows:
(v) the person engages in a trade,
occupation, profession, or business to provide
services that are outside the usual course of business
for the individual for whom, or the entity for which,
the services are performed.
4:48:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KNOPP opined that in order to be an independent
contractor, the person must be performing services. For
example, he said, if an employer is Home Depot" and needs an
electrician, the employer would hire an electrician and would
have an independent contractor.
MS. MARX responded that if the employer is the Home Depot
business and wants electrical work performed on his/her business
location without electricians on staff, this is where a person
meets three of the five optional factors. She reiterated that
it is optional because there are some cases where legitimate
true independent contractors may work for a contractor in the
same line of business.
4:49:54 PM
AVES THOMPSON, Executive Director, Alaska Trucking Association
(ATA), reiterated his testimony from the 3/20/17 hearing on CSHB
79, and related that the Alaska Trucking Association (ATA)
believes this bill in principal is good, although difficulties
lay in the definition of independent contractor. The ATA has
been working with the department and he, again, apologized for
the miscommunication with the department. He then referred to
his previous testimony and listed six items of concern, and
advised that four concerns are merely grammatic clarifications.
Two concerns deal with advertising and marketing and ATA does
not believe it is necessary in an ATA type of business. The ATA
owner/operators simply use word of mouth when looking for work
and soon have a job. Therefore, advertising or marketing is not
a necessary component to be an independent contractor. Secondly,
as to the business location, ATA wants to be sure there is a
clarification that defines what is a business location; he asked
whether a business location is a truck. The department has
advised that a truck can qualify as a business location, except
it does not say that anywhere. He related that there needs to
be clarification on the issue of business location, and ATA will
continue to meet with the department to sort out these issues.
4:53:40 PM
CHAIR KITO commented that Mr. Thompson would understand Chair
Kito's frustration. He referred to an email sent to his staff
on March 9, 2017, suggesting two changes to paragraph (11)(F)
and (11)(H), and that "ATA supports CSHB 79 with the changes we
have suggested," and yet, between March 9th and Monday, more
changes were recommended. He expressed that the department has
done an admirable job of putting together and trying to
accommodate the situation with the independent contractor. He
said that "efforts to try to delay the bill really are not
appreciated." Chair Kito encouraged Mr. Thompson to work
constructively and productively, and "provide statements that
don't misstate the position of the truckers, because on March
9th, it seemed to be everything was okay, now it's not."
4:55:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH referred to the concerns of the National
Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) with the independent
contractor "program," and opined that its concerns are not yet
satiated.
CHAIR KITO answered that the department has made every effort to
try to work with industry, as well as protecting the workers,
and its work is admirable.
4:55:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD offered that she has issues with
the bill and asked to hold the bill until Friday.
CHAIR KITO explained that there are opportunities for comments
and changes in the House Judiciary Standing Committee and the
House Finance Committee, the floor of the House of
Representatives, as well as getting through the Senate. He
reminded the committee that his is the first committee of
referral for the bill.
REPRESENTATIVE SULLIVAN-LEONARD interjected that she is not on
those other committees and House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee is the committee to hammer out a majority of those
particular issues.
CHAIR KITO answered that he is interested in moving the bill
today.
4:56:34 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH commented that he does not support moving
the bill because the independent contractor questions need to be
addressed, and requested that the committee make the bill right
before moving it from committee.
REPRESENTATIVE STUTES offered that she appreciates the concerns,
although she has only been a legislator for three years and has
yet to see the perfect bill.
CHAIR KITO closed public testimony on HB 79.
4:57:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WOOL moved to report CSHB 79, Version 30-
GH1789\O, out of committee with individual recommendations and
the accompanying fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE BIRCH objected.
4:57:56 PM
A roll call vote was taken. Representatives Wool, Stutes,
Josephson, and Kito voted in favor of moving CSHB 79 out of
committee. Representatives Birch, Knopp, and Sullivan-Leonard
voted against it. Therefore, CSHB 79(L&C) was reported out of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee by a vote of 4-
3.