Legislature(2021 - 2022)GRUENBERG 120
04/16/2021 08:00 AM 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 | |
| SB87 | |
| HB145 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB125 | |
| Alaska Workers' Compensation Board | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 87 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 145 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 125 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HB 125-MILITARY AND FAMILY EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE
9:17:40 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 125, "An Act relating to private sector and
state employment preferences for active service members,
veterans, and spouses and dependent children of active service
members and veterans; relating to employment preferences for
surviving spouses of deceased service members and veterans; and
relating to employment preferences for disabled veterans and
former prisoners of war."
9:18:25 AM
DREPRESENTATIVE DAVID NELSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime
sponsor, introduced HB 125. He read a sponsor statement, which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
HB 125 seeks to extend the current private sector and
state employment hiring preferences to military
spouses and dependent children.
Military spouses are among the highest unemployed and
underemployed group. They are highly educated and
qualified for a range of careers but because of
frequent moves the unemployment rate among military
spouses is 24% and there is a 26% wage gap compared to
civilian counterparts.
In 2019 the Blue Star Families Military Family
Lifestyle Survey found that 49% of military spouses
indicated that financial issues were the top stressor
for military families, and 48% were concerned about
employment. Of employed military spouses 75 % were
considered underemployed. HB 125 can provide some help
to reduce these concerns for military families by
providing a hiring preference.
A Covid-19 Military Support Initiative created by the
Blue Star Families and the Association of Defense
Communities found that an additional 17% of military
spouses lost their jobs during the pandemic on top of
the 24% unemployment before the pandemic.
Currently 35 states and the District of Columbia
provide hiring preferences to active-duty spouses or
surviving spouses. HB 125 will add Alaska to this
growing list of states that support our military
community and honor the sacrifices these families make
in service to our country.
9:20:38 AM
KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Representative David Nelson, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Nelson, prime sponsor
of HB 125, detailed the sectional analysis, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Section 1. AS 18.80.200(c)
This section does not prohibit a private employer from
having hiring preferences for persons described in
Section 2 of this bill.
Section 2. AS 23.88.010
This section repeals and reenacts the current statute
by adding definitions removed from Section 1 for
clarity. This section does not prohibit a private
employer from having hiring preferences to active-
military, veterans and families. This section adds
language to include spouses and dependent children of
deceased service members to the list.
Section 3. AS 39.25.150(19)
This section amends the State Personnel Act to
reference definitions as stated in Section 4 for
consistency.
Section 4. AS 39.25.159(a)
This section amends the employment preference for
veterans or former prisoners of war by adding new
language to include families of an active-duty service
member, veteran, or former prisoner of war. This
section clarifies the type of preference given the
hiring process and whether the applicant is disabled
or not. Subsection (B) is removed for consistency.
Section 5. AS 39.25.159(d)
This section clarifies that a person may receive an
employment preference under only one of the categories
described in sections 3 and 4. A person may use the
preference without limitation when being considered
for a position for which persons who are not currently
state employees are being considered. If the
recruitment for a position is limited to state
employees, preference under (a) or (c) of this section
may not be counted. This section adds language to
include spouses or dependent children for consistency
with other sections.
Section 6 AS 39.25.159 (e)
This section clarifies that this bill does not involve
interpreting amendments of a collective bargaining
agreement and makes a reference to subsection (a) of
Section 4.
Section 7 AS 39.25.159(f)
This section defines a dependent child.
Section 8 AS 39.25.159(c)
This section removes language that has been included
in Section 4 of this bill.
9:23:03 AM
TAMMIE PERREAULT, Northwest Regional Liaison, Defense-State
Liaison Office, U.S. Department of Defense, testified in support
of HB 125. She said a February 2020 letter to Governor Mike
Dunleavy from the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and
Readiness highlighted the need to support military spouses and
stated that military spouse employment is an important component
in retention of servicemembers. More than half of all active-
duty personnel are married, she said, and 88 percent of employed
military spouses indicated they wanted, or needed, to work. She
characterized military spouses as "highly influential" in a
servicemember's decision to remain in the military and said over
28 percent of servicemembers reported that their decision to
leave the military would be "largely or moderately" affected by
their spouse's career prospects. She stated that in addition to
be the highest unemployed and underemployed group in the nation,
military spouses reported challenges obtaining employment due to
frequent moves. She stated the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD)
supports the policy within HB 125 and asks the committee to move
the proposed legislation forward.
9:25:50 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE opined that it makes sense to have
employment preferences for military spouses but wondered why
dependents were included.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied that it may, in some cases, be
necessary for a child to work to help support the family.
9:27:23 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked how many other states included
dependents.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON directed attention to a supporting
document from the National Conference of State Legislatures
(NCSL) [included in committee packets].
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER surmised that it's unclear which states
include dependents in the policy.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied, "Correct."
9:28:30 AM
MS. PERREAULT said she doesn't know which states include
dependents and said her office could assist with that research.
9:28:55 AM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared her experience in working with
military spouses and echoed the concerns about the inclusion of
dependents, saying unemployment and underemployment is less of a
concern among children.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said part of the intent of the proposed
legislation is to assist families whose servicemember has died.
9:30:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the proposed legislation
would mandate that an employer is required to consider military
spouses in hiring decisions and whether an employer could be
penalized in any way.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON responded that the proposed legislation
recommends that private businesses consider military spouses and
that a military spouse is considered for positions in the public
sector.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Wayne to confirm that the proposed
legislation would not inadvertently require private employers to
consider an applicant but would protect an employer for choosing
to hire from military families.
9:32:14 AM
DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative
Affairs Agency, confirmed that the text in Section 2 of HB 125
states that an employer may give preference to servicemembers
and individuals from military families. He stated that there is
nothing in the proposed legislation requiring an employer to
give such preference in hiring.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether Section 2 is the only section that
would affect private employers.
MR. WAYNE referred to Section 1, subsection (c), which read as
follows:
(c) Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit a
private employer from granting an employment
preference described in AS 23.88.010 [TO A MEMBER OF
THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A VETERAN WHEN HIRING AN
EMPLOYEE. IN THIS SUBSECTION,
MR. WAYNE clarified that the text would prevent a private
employer from being penalized in any way for exercising the
preferences under HB 125.
9:33:52 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE spoke about the merits of hiring military
spouses.
9:34:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER pointed out that page 43 of the 2018 Blue
Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey [included in the
committee packet] discusses the need for increased access to
child care.
9:35:25 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day to detail how HB 125 would change
the hiring process for the State of Alaska.
9:35:45 AM
PAM DAY, Deputy Director-Personnel, Division of Personnel and
Labor Relations, Department of Administration, explained that
the state's job application would be updated to add an area
where an applicant could add the designation of military spouse
or dependent. The state would then "give consideration," she
said, meaning the application would be reviewed and the
applicant would be selected, rejected, or considered further in
the process.
9:36:35 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how the application process would be
different from that of someone who is not in a preferential
hiring category.
MS. DAY responded that applications are first reviewed to
determine whether an applicant meets the minimum qualifications
for the job class, then selection such as education or
experience is applied. Under HB 125, she said, an application
with the military spouse designation would be reviewed further.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day to talk about how the opportunity
to interview would be changed from current practice.
MS. DAY responded that the current process for veterans,
regardless of any qualifications such as disabled veteran or
former prisoner of war, is to offer an interview. This process
would be extended to those individuals outlined in the proposed
legislation.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how many people are typically interviewed
for an opening.
MS. DAY responded that it varies depending on the job class and
number of applicants. Three or four people may be interviewed
for specialized jobs, or up to 20 applicants for a broader job
class such as an office assistant.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how often the current veterans' hiring
preference results in a veteran being offered an interview.
MS. DAY said that every veteran is granted an interview.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how many veterans are applying for state
positions.
MS. DAY replied that she would find out.
9:40:39 AM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there have been any
conflicts with other hiring preferences.
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON deferred to Ms. Perreault.
9:41:29 AM
MS. PERREAULT stated that DoD has not seen any hiring preference
conflicts but that she would like to confirm her understanding
with NCSL.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS posed the same question to Mr. Wayne.
9:42:13 AM
MR. WAYNE said he is not aware of any legal conflicts presented
by the proposed legislation.
9:42:29 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day whether the state tracks how many
military spouses are employed by the state.
MS. DAY replied that two military spouses work in her
department.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the state systematically tracks
how many military spouses it employs.
MS. DAY replied that it does not.
9:43:25 AM
REPRESENTATIVE NELSON thanked the committee.
9:43:52 AM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that HB 125 was held over.