Legislature(2023 - 2024)ANCH LIO DENALI Rm
12/05/2023 02:00 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 | |
| HB119 | |
| HB186 | |
| HB115 | |
| HB100 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 115 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 100 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 186 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 119 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 100-PAID FAMILY LEAVE INSURANCE PLAN
3:05:49 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 100, "An Act relating to teacher and public
employee leave."
3:06:09 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JENNIE ARMSTRONG, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 100. She began by stating that the
proposed bill would establish a paid family leave plan in
Alaska. She stated this would address many issues the state
faces regarding the economy and workforce. She expressed the
opinion that Alaska is already a cost-prohibitive state to raise
a family, and this is because of the lack of child care and paid
family leave. She added that Alaska also has a high infant
mortality rate.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG returned to the PowerPoint
presentation, which she had begun during the meeting [on
5/1/23], titled "HB 100, Paid Family and Medical Leave" [hard
copy included in the committee packet]. She began on slide 19,
which recapped the information on the previous slides.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG stated that an economic trend report
from December 2023 by the Department of Labor and Workforce
Development shows that in 2022, Alaska had its tenth straight
year of net out migration. She suggested that the out migration
is specifically young professionals, and this is the population
who would be starting new families. It was reported that
employers in the state are spending 21 percent of a position's
salary recruiting new candidates. The report also conveyed that
there are two jobs for every available worker. She urged that
the state must address the question of how to empower families
and the workforce in the future.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG reviewed the background of paid family
leave on slide 19. She said that before 1993 and the American
Family Leave Act (FMLA), there was no federal policy addressing
this. She pointed out that currently the state has the Alaska
Family Leave Act (AFLA), and this protects jobs during extended
absences. She argued that establishing paid family leave would
help families remain in the state, as children would receive
better medical care and mothers would be able to join the
workforce at a faster rate. Moving to slide 20, she stated that
every state in the country has, or is in the process of passing,
similar legislation. Except for the proposed legislation, she
said Alaska would have been the only state in the country not
taking action. She reiterated that the proposed legislation
would help with the out migration and also help recruit families
to the state. She stated that this is important because Alaska
has an aging population.
3:11:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG stated that HB 100, Version B, would
provide a "lighter footprint and expanded coverage." She
explained that this would be done by implementing an insurance
policy for employers to purchase for employees. She further
explained the details of the policy as seen on slide 21. She
stated that the goal with the legislation is to move the current
AFLA to a paid family leave program. She continued that Version
B adds that this would be carried into the private market. On
slide 22, she listed the proposed plan's coverage, as follows:
18 paid leave weeks for state employees; 6-18 weeks for
employees of political subdivisions; 6-12 weeks for enrolled
employees of a participating private employer; and 6 weeks for
an employee enrolled through the purchasing pool, which she
noted would allow every employee in the state to opt into the
plan. She added that all paid leave would be equal to 100
percent of an employee's average weekly wage, but this could not
exceed $3,000 per week.
3:14:29 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG moved to slide 23 and discussed other
states in the country that are offering similar legislation.
She suggested that this version would give the opportunity to
have wide spread public investment in an individual household.
Referencing models in other states, she reiterated that this
model has a small footprint and a wide reach. She pointed out
that the initial version of the bill had required a large state
investment but would only cover state employees. She said that
Version B would expand coverage to the private sector. She
moved to slide 24 to discuss cost/benefit paid family medical
leave. She stated that because the proposed legislation
establishes a state policy through an insurance provider, the
insurance provider would be allowed to extend the insurance to a
wider range of Alaskans on an optional basis.
3:16:00 PM
TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Jennie Armstrong, Alaska
State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Armstrong, prime
sponsor, paraphrased the sectional analysis of HB 100, Version
B, [copy included in the committee packet], which read as
follows:
Section 1:
This section amends AS 23.10 to add Article 9, the
Alaska Paid Family Leave Plan to the statues regarding
State Employment Practices and Working Conditions.
AS 23.10.700 (a) instructs the commissioner of labor &
workforce development and the commissioner of
administration to jointly procure a paid family leave
insurance plan, defines which employees may be
eligible to use it, and how they are entitled to
participate.
AS 23.10.700 (b) mandates that the procurement process
will be governed by the State of Alaska Procurement
Code.
AS 23.10.700 (c) provides for evaluation of the
responses for that procurement, and requires they be
filed with the director of insurance for approval.
AS 23.10.700 (d) specifies that the parameters of the
plan adopted by both departments must include: length
and time of open enrollment, enrollment processes for
various eligible employees; and how premiums would be
paid or deducted.
AS 23.10.700(e) directs the commissioners of
administration and labor & workforce development to
adopt procedures for collection of information and
premiums from covered employees and transmission of
such to the insurer, and penalties for late payments
will be calculated.
AS 23.10.710(a) specifies wage replacement for
eligible employees, and how to calculate the average
weekly wage for eligible employees.
AS 23.10.710(b) specifies the maximum allowable family
leave eligible employees may take. It states the plan
may not impose a minimum duration.
AS 23.10.710(c) sets the employment eligibility
requirements for covered employees.
AS 23.10.720(a) states that a political subdivision of
the state or a private employer may opt into the paid
family leave plan established in AS 23.10.700. It
states that these entities shall contract directly
with the insurer, and provides for parameters on their
participation in the paid family leave plan.
AS 23.10.720(b) requires that any premium charged by
the insurer to the political subdivision or private
employer must be actuarially justified and derived
from the state employee premium.
AS 23.10.720(c) states that an employee of a
participating employer or political subdivision may
choose to enroll in the plan.
As 23.10.720(d) states that a participating political
subdivision or private employer pay premiums directly
to the insurer; they may do so via payroll deductions.
AS 23.10.720(e) states that a participating employer
with 50 or more employees maintain coverage in any
group health plan at the level and conditions if the
employee had stayed at work; it requires them to
restore the employee to the same or reasonably same
role after returning to work; declares that they may
not retaliate or discriminate against the employee if
they take family leave. This section reflects the
requirements of the national Family Medical Leave Act.
AS 23.10.720(f) states that a participating employer
with fewer than 50 employees may collect and transmit
the premiums directly to the insurer or to the
purchasing pool premium account; it states that they
may deduct the premiums via payroll deductions.
AS 23.10.730 (a) establishes the purchasing pool
premium account, and requires the insurer to
participate in it.
As 23.10.730 (b) allows an employee of a political
subdivision or private employer that does not
participate in the family leave plan or offer a
substantially similar family leave benefit to contract
indirectly with an insurer via the purchasing pool.
AS 23.10.730 (c) allows that the pool may be
experience rated. This section establishes a waiting
period and elimination period, as well as open
enrollment processes. It caps the coverage premiums at
$5 a week.
AS 23.10.730 (d) states that the private employer or
political subdivision of the state with 50 more
employees whose employee participates in the
purchasing pool transfer that employees' premiums
directly to the insurer via payroll deduction. An
employer with less than 50 employees may pay those
premiums directly to the purchasing pool.
AS 23.10.730(e) requires the commissioner of
administration to separately account for purchasing
pool premium payments received by the department; and
for payment of premiums to an insurer participating in
a family leave insurance plan purchasing pool premium
account.
AS 23.10.740(a) establishes the purchasing pool
premium stabilization account. It requires the
commissioner of administration to account separately
for premium taxes on family leave insurance plans,
appropriations made for the purchasing pool
stabilization, and gifts, grants and donations made
for the purpose of stabilizing the purchasing pool.
AS 23.10.740(b) allows the legislature to appropriate
funds to the purchasing pool so that premiums do not
exceed $5 per week.
AS 23.10.750 (a) establishes the family leave
insurance advisory board, to support the Commissioner
of Administration in implementing and administering
the family leave insurance plans.
AS 23.10.750(b) directs the composition of the family
leave insurance advisory board.
AS 23.10.750(c) requires the advisory board to meet at
least quarterly.
AS 23.10.760 declares that the provisions of AS
23.10.700-23.10.790 are not subject to
collective bargaining.
AS 23.10.770 (a) requires the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development, in conjunction with the
Department of Administration, to prepare and submit a
report to the Legislature by January 15th of each
year.
AS 23.10.770 (b) directs the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development to work in
conjunction with the Department of Administration
develop an outreach program to educate workers,
families, and employers on the benefits of
participation in the paid family leave program.
AS 23.10.780 directs that the Commissioners of the
Departments of Labor and Workforce Development, and
Commissioner of Administration, may issue regulations
to implement AS 23.10.700-23.10.790.
AS 23.10.790 is the definitions section for specific
terms in AS 23.10.700-23.10.790.
Section 2:
This section amends Chapter 39 Public Officers and
Employees pay and compensation, for conforming changes
under Section 1.
AS 39.20.305(a) is amended to allow an employee of the
state to take paid family leave. This is a conforming
change. The state may not require the employee to
substitute accrued paid leave to which the employee is
entitled.
Section 3:
This section establishes parameters for the Alaska
Paid Family Leave Plan for state employees.
AS 39.20.500(b) is amended to reflect that state
employees are entitled to paid family leave; because a
political subdivision may choose to opt in or not, an
employee of a political subdivision may opt into such
a program through AS 23.10.700-23.10.790, and such an
employer is not allowed to require the employee to
substitute accrued paid leave. It also establishes
that eligible reasons to take paid family leave
include pregnancy and birth of a child, placement of a
child, caring for a child, spouse or parent who has a
serious health condition, and the employee's own
serious health condition.
Section 4:
This section makes conforming changes to Title 39,
Chapter 20 to reflect the ongoing employment of the
employee.
AS 39.20.500(d) is amended to delete the reference to
unpaid leave.
Section 5:
This section is a conforming change. Because the
policy is offered outright to all state employees, the
language is a conforming change.
AS 39.20.500(f) is amended to include political
subdivisions of the state. This is a conforming
change. If a political subdivision did decide to
provide the benefit, their staff would be covered.
Section 6:
These are conforming changes.
AS 39.20.550(2) is amended to make conforming changes
to the definition of "employer".
Section 7:
This section establishes a paid family leave tax
credit for eligible taxpayers that provide this
benefit.
AS 43.20 is amended to include AS 43.20.075, a family
leave insurance tax credit: taxpayers providing family
leave insurance plans are allowed a credit equal to 50
percent of the premium paid by the taxpayer for the
year in which the premium is paid.
Section 8: This section provides for a transition
date and implementation of the paid family leave plan.
3:24:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX offered his understanding that the state
would be required to provide coverage, political subdivisions
would be able to choose whether to opt in, and companies with
more than 50 employees would be required to participate.
MR. WALSH responded that it is optional for all employers in the
state, other than the state itself. He explained that employers
with more than 50 employees would still have to follow FMLA. In
response to a follow-up question, he stated that there is a
discussion concerning a cost/benefit analysis. He added that
the proposed legislation would require an actuarial analysis.
This would look at the state pool and the rate a private
employer would pay. He added that the plan would be actuarially
based, with modifications for private employers that decide to
offer the benefit. These modifications would be made with the
state's insurance provider.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed the understanding that the benefit
would be based on the number of people employed in a company.
He questioned whether private employers with a smaller number of
employees would be penalized for having fewer employees.
MR. WALSH responded that these employees would just become part
of the state's pool.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX, in regard to an employer opting out,
questioned whether an individual employee could become part of
the program.
REPRESENTATIVE ARMSTRONG responded that there will be an
individual purchasing pool available to any worker in the state.
3:28:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT questioned what the cost would be to buy
into the insurance plan.
MR. WALSH pointed to [slide 20] and explained the costs in
similar plans in other states. He stated that Washinton State's
plan is $2 a week, while New Hampshire's plan is $5 a week. He
added that the contract with the insurance provider would
determine the cost.
[HB 100 was held over.]