Legislature(2021 - 2022)ADAMS 519
03/18/2022 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 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB289 |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 281 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 282 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 289 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | SB 9 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 149
"An Act relating to allowing certain child day care
providers to organize for the purpose of collective
bargaining."
3:16:28 PM
Co-Chair Merrick
Representative Rasmussen MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1, 32-
LS0474\A.7 (Klein, 3/16/22) (copy on file):
Page 6, line 27:
Delete"."
Insert";"
Page 6, following line 27:
Insert a new paragraph to read:
"(6) requires an employee or child day care provider
to become a member of an organization that represents
childcare providers."
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Rasmussen explained the amendment. She
communicated that the amendment clarified that an employee
or childcare provider did not have to become a member of an
organization that represents childcare providers. The
amendment offered a choice and she asked for members
support.
Representative Josephson asked whether the sponsor
supported the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACH FIELDS, SPONSOR, had worked on the
amendment with Representative Rasmussen and supported the
amendment. He reminded the committee that the bill proposed
a sectorial bargaining model, where the entire sector
negotiated with the state. He did not believe that union
membership should be mandated under the sectorial model and
should be an opt-in model. He felt that the sectorial model
did not need any degree of coercion. The language ensured
the providers that it was a choice to affiliate with a
union should the sector decide to form one.
3:18:35 PM
Representative Josephson believed that members would pay
dues and if negotiated benefits were passed on to non-
members then non-union employees would enjoy the benefits
without any costs. He asked whether he was correct.
Representative Fields responded, "not necessarily." He
explained that if sectorial bargaining was adopted the
sector would seek out a union it wanted to affiliate with.
He exemplified the sector joining the Service Employees
International Union (SEIU). Some small providers might opt
out of being a part of the union because they did not need
the benefits a union provided. He restated that there were
many benefits of sectoral bargaining because it gave the
sector a voice without coercing individual providers or
employees to join the sectoral bargaining structure.
Representative Josephson indicated that he was well
informed about labor unions. He thought that joining was a
"critical issue" regarding unfair labor practices (ULP) and
whether an employee would receive attorney privileges.
3:20:03 PM
Representative Josephson wanted to make sure the sponsor
was comfortable with the amendment. Representative Fields
had asked Representative Rasmussen to offer the amendment.
He reminded the committee that most parts of the state's
economy were involved in "enterprise based bargaining"
which constituted an individual company and a union that
engaged in negotiations. He shared that within the
enterprise based bargaining model he did not support the
right to work model because it enabled "free riders." He
furthered that in a sectoral bargaining process he did not
think the same problems associated with free riders
existed. He remarked that it was a new idea for the sector
and the sector was diverse and he did not believe that it
was appropriate to require individuals to be a member of a
union. He believed that the employees would choose to join
the union when the benefits were worth the costs for things
like healthcare, training, and legal fees.
Co-Chair Merrick asked for clarification of SEIU.
Representative Fields responded that it stood for Service
Employees International Union that included childcare
providers and used the sectoral bargaining model in other
states.
Representative Wool inquired whether the amendment would be
in the union's laws as well. Representative Fields replied
that because domestic work was excluded from the National
Labor Relations Act, it was entirely up to a state whether
to require union membership within a sectorial bargaining
framework. He emphasized the importance of allowing people
to opt in with a new bargaining option in the state.
3:22:51 PM
Representative Rasmussen wrapped up the amendment. She
wanted to ensure that providers felt comfortable that they
could opt out of the sectorial bargaining agreement and
could still receive state childcare assistance.
Co-Chair Merrick withdrew her objection.
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 1
was adopted.
3:23:34 PM
Representative Josephson MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 2, 32-
LS0474\A.6 (Klein, 3/16/22) (copy on file):
Page 1, line 2, following "bargaining":
Insert"; and establishing the child day care provider
fund"
Page 8, following line 28:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 19. AS 37.14 is amended by adding a new
section to read:
Article 11. Child Day Care Provider Fund.
Sec. 37.14.850. Child day care provider fund
established. (a) The child day care provider fund is
established as a separate fund in the state treasury
for the purpose of implementing the monetary terms of
an agreement applicable to child day care providers
entered into under AS 23.40.070 - 23.40.260. Money in
the fund does not lapse. The fund consists of
(I) money appropriated to the fund;
(2) income earned on investment of fund assets;
and
(3) donations to the fund.
(b) The legislature may annually appropriate money
from the fund to implement the monetary terms of an
agreement applicable to child day care providers
entered into under AS 23.40.070 - 23.40.260.
(c) Nothing in this section creates a dedicated fund."
Renumber the following bill sections accordingly.
Co-Chair Merrick OBJECTED for discussion.
Representative Josephson explained that the amendment
established a trust fund to implement the sectorial
bargaining agreement. He invited the bill sponsor to speak
to the amendment.
Representative Fields spoke to the amendment. He
articulated that since the bill was introduced in the prior
session, the state had experienced a financial windfall
that could allow for a structure that could inject
"meaningful public investment into the childcare sector."
He relayed hearing testimony that the childcare sector
needed more power in negotiating with the state and that
the state was never going to have an adequately supplied
childcare workforce at affordable prices without more
public investment. The childcare trust fund was based on
models used in other states, that after initial
capitalization, was managed under an endowment model. He
believed that when the state experiences a "significant"
revenue windfall, it should consider setting some revenue
aside to pay out long-term benefits. He explained that the
legislature would appropriate a portion of the savings from
the childcare trust fund and if paid out at a 5 percent
rate it could be the largest investment in childcare that
the state ever made. He cited significant public testimony
regarding the issue in the House Labor and Commerce
Committee. He offered that the United States Chamber of
Commerce Foundation addressed the "dire need for
intervention in the childcare sector." He heard from
multiple organizations in support of a childcare trust fund
and from parents who had to drop out of the workforce due
to the unaffordability of childcare. He emphasized that the
"crisis" in childcare needed to be addressed and the trust
fund was beneficial to solving the problems.
3:26:41 PM
Co-Chair Merrick withdrew her objection
There being NO OBJECTION, it was so ordered. Amendment 2
was adopted.
3:26:55 PM
Representative Rasmussen spoke in support of the
legislation. She believed that the bill had a lot of merit
and could help with the childcare shortage in the state.
3:27:50 PM
Co-Chair Foster MOVED to REPORT CSHB 149(FIN) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note.
Representative Johnson objected and did not speak to her
objection.
A roll call vote was taken on the motion.
IN FAVOR: Edgmon, Ortiz, Josephson, Wool, Foster, Merrick
OPPOSED: Thompson, Johnson
The MOTION PASSED (6/2).
CSHB 149(FIN) was REPORTED out of committee with three "do
pass" recommendations and five "no recommendation"
recommendations and with one new fiscal impact note from
the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
3:29:12 PM
AT EASE
3:30:19 PM
RECONVENED
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|---|---|
| HB 289 - Research - ADN Article on Alaska Marijuana Industry - 11.07.2021.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 - Research - ADN Article on Alaska Marijuana Industry - 11.30.2021.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 - Sectional Analysis version I 2.17.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 - Sponsor Statement version I 2.17.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 289 Letter of Support AMIA 1.31.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 289 |
| HB 149 Amendments 1 - 2 031622.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 149 |
| HB 149 Public Testimony Rec'd by 031722_.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 149 |
| HB 149 Supporting Document Letters of Support as of 3.18.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 149 |
| HB 149 Supporting Document ADN Alaska Must Address Child Care Crisis 3.18.2022.pdf |
HFIN 3/18/2022 1:30:00 PM |
HB 149 |