Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
02/10/2022 01:30 PM House FINANCE
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 | |
| HB187 | |
| HB146 | |
| HB60 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 187 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 60 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
HOUSE BILL NO. 146
"An Act relating to disclosure of information
regarding employee compensation by employers,
employees, and applicants for employment; establishing
the fund for protection of compensation disclosure
rights; and providing for an effective date."
Co-Chair Merrick invited the bill sponsor to present
HB 146.
1:40:11 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LIZ SNYDER, CO-CHAIR, HOUSE HEALTH AND
SOCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE, thanked the committee for
hearing the bill and hoped it would move quickly out of
committee. She reported that the bill helped Alaskans
return to work and feel secure in their job as the state
recovered from the economic impacts of the COVID-19
pandemic. She indicated that the bill established three new
expectations, each of which she would summarize. The first
expectation was that workers could see the salary range for
a position as part of its posting information, the second
was that workers would have the right to salary history
privacy, and the third was that workers could not be
penalized for discussing compensation amongst themselves.
She would provide additional detail on each of the
expectations.
Representative Snyder expanded upon the first expectation
requiring that salary and wage information be available at
the time of posting. Only about 12 percent of current job
postings in the state offered detailed wage information.
She argued that Alaska was competing in a global market and
the state was losing residents every year. She thought
knowing the salary upfront would help applicants make
informed decisions and encourage people to stay in the
state.
Representative Snyder continued to explain the second
expectation regarding salary history privacy, which was
proposed in an effort to minimize wage scarring. When a
person entered or re-entered the workforce at a low or
depressed salary, copious research suggested that the
salary tended to stick with the individual and persist over
a person's entire professional career. She explained that
the phenomenon was referred to as wage scarring. Even
though the mechanism was not completely understood, the
depressed wages could also be experienced by a person's
children. After the 2007 to 2009 recession, only one in
four displaced workers were able to return to their
original earnings. She hoped the bill could help protect
workers in Alaska from experiencing similar situations due
to the pandemic.
Representative Snyder reviewed the third exceptions which
would ensure that workers could discuss compensation
amongst themselves. There was already a federal law that
ensured that wage discussion was allowable, but the bill
would codify it in state statute. She suggested that the
law was poorly enforced and the bill would help the state
enforce it more effectively. If any employer penalized or
restricted discussion of compensation, it was already a
violation of federal law. There was significant evidence
that similar laws minimized wage scarring. She had been
cognizant of the language in the bill and she had made
great efforts to utilize language that would help
businesses follow the law and take action to minimize or
completely avoid penalties. She thanked the committee for
hearing the bill.
Co-Chair Merrick invited Ms. Tanya Keith to review the
fiscal note.
1:47:06 PM
TANYA KEITH, CHIEF, WAGE AND HOUR SECTION, DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT (via teleconference),
reviewed the fiscal note from the Department of Labor and
Workforce Development (DLWD) with control code AYpxa. The
fiscal impact note reflected three new positions that would
be responsible for facilitating the complaints and
investigations that would be the result of the proposed
regulations in the bill.
Representative Snyder commented that she had spent
significant time looking at the cost of implementation of
similar bills in other states. She had included comparisons
to other states in members' bill packets. The fiscal note
reflected a cost of implementation that was similar to
states with larger populations. She invited the department
to comment on how it determined the amount. She added that
the fiscal note also reflected some previous language that
had since been eliminated from the bill. It was also
possible that the bill would generate some revenue and she
did not believe the potential revenue was reflected in the
fiscal note.
Co-Chair Merrick asked Ms. Keith if the department could
provide an updated fiscal note.
Ms. Keith responded in the affirmative.
1:49:57 PM
Representative Thompson was concerned about the
implications of the bill and did not understand the
requirements being imposed on the private sector. He asked
why the bill was being introduced.
Representative Snyder responded that the primary motivation
behind the legislation was to minimize wage scarring,
particularly after emerging from an economically
challenging time. Similar legislation had been proven to be
helpful in getting people back into the workforce. She
argued that the state placed regulations on businesses
often, and she thought the regulations associated with the
bill would look out for Alaskan workers and placed a
minimal burden on businesses.
Representative Thompson thought the bill might work for the
public sector, but not the private sector. He asked if the
bill effected small businesses.
Representative Snyder responded in the affirmative, but she
was open to amendments that would consider the
circumstances of small businesses.
Representative Thompson wondered whether small business
would be permitted to post a "Help Wanted" sign in windows.
Representative Snyder thought it might be helpful to hear
from Legislative Legal Services. She thought it was
becoming more common to see salary ranges on recruitment
signs in Fred Meyers.
Representative Thompson reemphasized that he was concerned
specifically about small businesses.
1:52:41 PM
NOAH KLEIN, COUNSEL, LEGISLATIVE LEGAL SERVICES, read lines
9 through 12 on page 2 of the bill that referred to the
publishing of employment notices by business. He did not
think it would be prohibited for Fred Meyer or a mom-and-
pop business to publish solicitations as long as the signs
did not specifically detail a position without offering a
salary range. If the sign simply said, "Help Wanted" there
would be no problems.
1:53:40 PM
Representative Carpenter asked for details about the
process the commissioner of DLWD would utilize to
investigate and convict a business that violated the
proposed law.
Ms. Keith replied that one of the investigators in the Wage
and Hour Division (WHD) would determine whether a violation
occurred. If it was determined that there was a violation,
an enforcement action by the commissioner would be
recommended.
Representative Carpenter asked whether there would be an
appeal process for businesses.
Ms. Keith responded that there would be an appeal process
where a business could request a hearing to provide a
defense against the allegations.
Representative Carpenter asked who would receive the
appeal.
Ms. Keith indicated there would be regulations written to
enforce the law, but that had not happened yet. In similar
situations, there was an informal hearing process.
Representative Carpenter asked if it was customary for the
legislature to create laws that would give regulatory
authority to a department to penalize individuals. He
thought the specific penalization was left up to regulation
and not up to the legislature.
Representative Snyder needed to refer to her notes.
1:56:21 PM
AT EASE
1:56:41 PM
RECONVENED
Representative Snyder echoed Representative Carpenter's
request for clarification from Legislative Legal Services.
Mr. Klein would have to review statutes to provide a broad
response on whether it was customary for the legislature to
give regulatory authority to a department. He emphasized
that the department would have to provide adequate
constitutional due process.
Representative Carpenter asked if the state was enforcing
similar provisions already through the National Labor
Relations Act.
Ms. Keith reported that WHD was not currently investigating
similar issues.
Representative Carpenter asked if the division was already
asking for authority to investigate similar issues.
Ms. Keith responded in the negative.
Representative Rasmussen referred to AS 23.10.720 and asked
whether a three-year timeframe was a broad statute of
limitation for a variety of regulations or was it simply
applicable to wage information disclosure.
Mr. Klein asked Representative Rasmussen to restate her
question.
Representative Rasmussen restated her question.
Mr. Klein indicated that three years was the statute of
limitations used in other areas of Alaska law.
Representative Rasmussen thought businesses with 50
employees or less should be exempt. She thought that small
businesses were operating with small margins and three
years was a significant period of time in a small
businesses' life. She asked how the penalty for violating
the law was determined.
2:01:13 PM
Representative Snyder responded that she had looked at a
range of penalties used by other states to determine a fair
penalty range. She noted that the penalty she chose was
lower than the majority of other states. In addition to
reducing the range of penalties, she used language to allow
the commissioner to determine whether a business should be
penalized for each day of violation. There was also the
option for a company to conduct an audit to fix the
violation.
Representative Rasmussen asked if there was a cap on the
penalty amount.
Representative Snyder responded that there was no cap.
Representative Wool asked if other states with similar laws
had exemptions based on business size.
Representative Snyder would have to get back to the
committee with a response.
Representative Wool noted that he was the owner of a small
business and hired hundreds of people. He relayed that he
generally followed the practices regulated by laws in other
states already. He wondered if an employee voluntarily
disclosed past wage information whether a business would be
permitted to verify the information.
Representative Snyder responded that the language was not
specifically in the bill, but she did not think the bill
would prohibit verification if an employee voluntarily
disclosed wage information.
Representative Wool relayed that he would sometimes list
the wage as a number followed by "depending on experience"
or "DOE" in solicitations for his small business. He
wondered if that would be permittable by the bill.
Representative Snyder responded that her intention was to
encourage employers to post a specific range.
Mr. Klein indicated listing an amount followed by DOE would
be acceptable.
2:06:26 PM
Representative LeBon wondered if Representative Snyder had
been contacted by a private sector industry or any industry
asking for help with wage disclosure.
Representative Snyder responded that was not how the bill
came to be. However, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Cisco,
Google, and others had proactively adopted the provisions
proposed by the bill. She thought companies were trying to
stay ahead of the trend.
Representative LeBon asked if it would be considered
misleading if he posted a job in the banking sector with
the wage listed as, "salary depending on experience,
training, and education level."
Representative Snyder asked Representative LeBon to repeat
his question.
Representative LeBon repeated his question.
Representative Snyder would argue that language would not
reflect the full picture of the description of the
position.
Representative LeBon noted that there were other benefits
to consider in addition to salary, such as bonuses, sick
leave, and vacation. He suggested the story was much larger
than the salary range. He wondered if it would be
misleading if one company had a higher salary range but a
competitor had a lower salary range but more generous
benefits.
Representative Snyder thought the bill would provide
further incentive for businesses to provide greater detail
about benefits. She thought it would help educate
applicants on positions which would avoid wasting the time
of the applicant and the business.
Representative LeBon had hired many people over the past 40
years. His motivation was to hire the best person every
time and would write job postings with the goal to attract
the best talent. He continued to emphasize that the story
was much bigger than simply a salary range.
2:11:47 PM
Representative Josephson asked Mr. Klein about the
delegation of authority on regulations. He referred to line
18 on page 3 of the bill.
Mr. Klein indicated he was looking at the line to which
Representative Josephson was referring.
Representative Josephson asked about AS 23.10.085 which
discussed the scope of administrative regulations. He
thought that Alaska law allowed DLWD to write the
regulations regarding minimum wage and payment of overtime.
Mr. Klein responded in the affirmative.
Representative Josephson added that there was a case where
the authority was disputed and the United States Supreme
Court was asked to look at the issue, however the court
declined to address it. He asked if he was correct.
Mr. Klein responded that Representative Josephson was
correct.
2:13:29 PM
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked what prompted the bill and what made
it timely.
Representative Snyder indicated the bill was based on her
background in public and community health and economic
wellbeing. An important part of community health was the
ability to support oneself financially. She was highly
informed on wage scarring and she became very concerned
about workers not returning to the workforce after leaving
due to the pandemic.
Vice-Chair Ortiz asked for a more detailed definition of
the meaning of wage scarring.
Representative Snyder explained that if a person returned
to the workforce and accepted a lower salary job and then
aspired to move to a different job, it was more likely that
the low wage would be used as justification for continuing
to pay the individual poorly if employers were permitted to
ask about past wages.
2:16:32 PM
Representative Carpenter referred to page 2, line 16 of the
bill. He did not understand the language and wanted more
information.
Representative Snyder indicated that the intent of the
language was to permit applicants and employees to be free
to talk about compensation with each other.
Representative Wool agreed with Representative LeBon's
earlier point about benefits being an important part of
compensation. For example, hospitals were having trouble
competing with traveling nurses because traveling nurses
were sometimes paid three times more than in-house nurses
but did not receive the same benefits. He understood
wanting to get people back to work but thought there were
many jobs currently available for prospective employees. He
thought the trades needed experienced workers. He wondered
if businesses could tell prospective employees that they
could disclose their past wages if they so desired, but
that disclosure was not required.
Representative Snyder responded that the intent of the bill
was to prevent any sneaky inquiries into past pay. However,
there was nothing preventing an employer from asking for
the desired salary range of a prospective employee.
Representative Rasmussen thought that a savvy employee
might look at the larger picture of a compensation package,
which would include benefits. She was concerned that some
employees might be deceived by a salary-only disclosure.
Representative Snyder suggested that going into a job
interview with a seed of information was better than having
no information at all.
2:22:43 PM
Co-Chair Merrick invited Representative Snyder to submit
any additional comments she may have in writing to the
committee.
HB 146 was HEARD and HELD in committee for further
consideration.
2:22:57 PM
AT EASE
2:24:22 PM
RECONVENED