Legislature(2021 - 2022)BARNES 124
04/05/2021 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 | |
| HB30 | |
| HB149 | |
| HB110 | |
| Regulatory Commission of Alaska | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 149 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 110 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 146 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| += | HB 30 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HB 149-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
4:17:13 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business
would be HOUSE BILL NO. 149, "An Act relating to allowing
certain child day care providers to organize for the purpose of
collective bargaining."
4:17:32 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS introduced HB 149 as prime sponsor and explained
that he thought it would be useful for the committee to address
the gender pay gap, female participation in the workforce, and
the devastation the child care industry has experienced due to
the COVID-19 pandemic. He offered a PowerPoint presentation
entitled, "Raising Wages & Benefits for Child Care Workers (HB
149)," and covered the information, on slide 2, "Problem:" which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
• Persistent low wages and benefits result in high
turnover and inadequate supply of child care workers.
• Low wages/benefits discourage investment in quality
instruction
CO-CHAIR FIELDS proceeded to slide 3, "Why does it matter?" and
explained that inadequate child care has been causing parents to
leave Alaska and is contributing to population decline. He
explained that while every state faces child care problems,
Alaska may actually be able to solve these problems as it is a
small state. The slide read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• Alaska needs to attract and retain high-earners
including parents with families (currently losing
population among age 3050)
• Early childhood education has greatest impact on
human capital development, and highest ROI
CO-CHAIR FIELDS advanced to slide 4, "Lessons from other
States/Nations," which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
• 11 U.S. states have established bargaining
structures for homebased child care providers to
bargain with state to establish livable wages and
benefits that expand supply of child care providers
• First state: Illinois, 2005. California most recent
state to adopt model.
• European countries directly subsidize child care
centers for parents of all income levels, and provide
tax credits
• And Northern Europe uses sectoral bargaining to set
wages/benefits
CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 149 follows the model that 11
other states are already following. He said that he intends
this bill to spark conversation in the committee and that he is
open to there being other potential models the state could
implement to solve this problem.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to slide 5, "Mechanisms to Raise Wages,"
and shared his understanding that the reason why construction
workers make middleclass wages is arbitrary, and was just a
policy decision. He offered the idea that perhaps the same
should be done for child care. The slide read as follows
[original punctuation provided]:
• Collective Bargaining (U.S. model / H.B. 149)
• Establishing prevailing wages (based on U.S.
construction policy model)
• Directly subsidize (Europe model)
4:21:59 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS proceeded to slide 6, "Why Now?" which read as
follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting
changes]:
• Growing federal support for child care-> To deploy
most effectively, need the right policy framework
• Pandemic decimated female participation in workforce
AND crushed many child care providers-> Need to help
industry and working families recover
CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that the collective bargaining process is
proposed differently under HB 149 in that the child care
providers are allowed to determine whether they would like to
engage in bargaining.
4:23:37 PM
KIMBERLY ROSENBERGER, Service Employees International Union
(SEIU), offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "AB 378:
Providers' Vision for Their Union," and explained that AB 378
relates to the assembly bill that passed in 2019 in California
that authorized child care providers to collectively bargain.
She began on slide 2, which read as follows [original
punctuation provided]:
After 16 years, providers win right to choose a union.
Similar to 11 other states. Bill enables:
Election to choose union
Collective bargaining
Training partnership
MS. ROSENBERGER added that this is necessary because child care
providers are considered small businesses and are therefore not
covered by a number of wage or labor laws. Child care employees
were considered low wage workers, she said. To combat this,
SEIU had to get an anti-trust exception which would allow the
State of California to determine that the benefit of collective
bargaining outweighs the risk of anti-competition.
MS. ROSENBERGER showed the information on slide 3, which read as
follows [original punctuation provided]:
Also covers the following:
Set of topics standard to many labor laws
Current labor law did not cover providers
Defines who is included:
Providers who care for state-subsidized kids
Includes licensed and license-exempt
Not assistants or centers
4:26:08 PM
MS. ROSENBERGER continued to slide 4, "Collective Bargaining
Scope," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Addressed in section 8434.5 of bill
Lists required subjects; others permissible Rates,
benefit trust fund, training, improving provider
retention/recruitment
Funding must be passed by Legislature
Does not include non-state controlled topics
MS. ROSENBERGER moved to slide 5, "Process for representation,"
which read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Addressed in section 8434 of bill
Adapts law for many CA public employees
Includes:
Show provider interest
List of eligible voters
Notifying providers Timelines, other guidance
MS. ROSENBERGER advanced to slide 6, "Training partnership," and
explained that training is essential as many entities cannot
remain open while also providing sufficient training. The slide
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Addressed in section 8442 of bill
Shorter language in final bill
Intent the same: consult with partners about
training, professional development $, programs
Lists required partners including R&R Network,
others possible
4:28:01 PM
MS. ROSENBERGER proceeded to slide 7, "In other states," which
read as follows [original punctuation provided]:
Providers in 11 other states have a voice through
their union. Typical improvements:
Higher rates + add'l for training, infants,
nontraditional hours
Health care thru a union trust
Voice in regulation and quality improvement
Expanded training
Smoother eligibility process for parents
MS. ROSENBERGER reminded the committee that California is the
newest state to join SEIU and has already seen the benefits of
being part of the union.
4:29:03 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ invited questions from the committee.
4:29:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Ms. Rosenberger what the other 11
states are that have joined the union.
MS. ROSENBERGER asked if she could get back to him on that and
noted that there is a document that lists the states that she
could share with the committee.
4:29:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that Illinois, Oregon, Washington,
Iowa, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin were some of the first
to join the union as of 2007, and since then, New York,
Pennsylvania, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio, Maine, and New Mexico have
joined.
4:30:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that organizing will cause costs to
go up, and asked how that improves accessibility.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that this would be one multi-employer
election overseen by the Alaska Labor Relations Agency (ALRA),
which has provided a fiscal note. In terms of accessibility, he
stated that small businesses have a difficult time finding high-
quality and affordable health insurance and organizing would
make it easier for these businesses to access benefits. He
reiterated that high quality training also contributes to a more
efficient system, and it has been demonstrated that it results
in lower employee turnover. He noted that if an individual
wants to pay more for high quality child care, that level of
care is not available at a higher price because child care
workers are considered low wage workers. He explained that some
of this is historical as child care workers are often people of
color, and he shared his understanding that the United States
Congress didn't want to give collective bargaining rights to
people of color. He said that farm workers, domestic workers,
and women were excluded from collective bargaining rights.
4:33:04 PM
MS. ROSENBERGER added that one of the benefits SEIU has seen
after implementing collective bargaining and increasing wages
and training has been more employees staying in the child care
field. She stated that the stance of SEIU is that there is more
of a return on investment by growing the workforce and
maintaining the workers that have entered the field already.
4:33:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER recalled her time utilizing child care
professionals for her own children and shared that she located a
worker through Thread, Alaska. She shared that this individual
was a small, in-home daycare provider and asked how this might
affect someone like her.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that it would be her choice to
unionize. He emphasized that this bill aims to give in-home
providers the mechanisms to create a more sustainable business
model and supply the amount of child care that working
professionals need.
4:35:10 PM
MS. ROSENBERGER said that there was an overwhelming response
from child care providers, but child care providers determine
whether to opt in or abstain. In California, this only applies
to those who receive subsidies, she noted, and many child care
providers have chosen to join the union to benefit from the
training mechanisms that it provides. It also gives providers a
voice when it comes to new and necessary regulations. She
shared that there is a 97 percent approval rate among providers
who have opted in.
4:36:20 PM
TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, presented the Sectional Analysis on HB 149 on
behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor. He read
Sections 1-10, which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section 1: This section amends AS 23.40.070, the
declaration of policy regarding the Public Employment
Relations Act, to include child day care providers.
Section 2: This section amends AS 23.40.080 to give
child day care providers the right to self-organize,
join or assist an organization to bargain collectively
and engage in concerted activities for the purposes of
collective bargaining or other mutual aid or
protection.
Section 3: This section amends AS 23.40.090 to include
child day care providers in the definition of
collective bargaining unit.
Section 4: This section amends AS 23.40.100(a) to
include child day care providers in the statute
regarding the election of representatives and
organizations for collective bargaining.
Section 5: This section amends AS 23.40.100(b) adds
child day care providers to the statute that directs
the labor relations agency to officiate the election
on representation following the determination that a
question of representation exists.
Section 6: This section amends AS 23.40.110(a) to add
child day care providers to the statute prohibiting
unfair labor practices by the public employer or agent
of the public employer.
Section 7: This section makes conforming changes in AS
23.40.205, regarding public employee family leave
benefits.
Section 8: This section amends AS 23.40.210(d) to make
conforming changes.
Section 9: This section amends AS 23.40.225 to add
child day care providers. It clarifies that child day
care provider have the right of non-association.
Section 10: This adds a new section to AS 23.40 to add
language that clarifies that nothing in this bill
makes child day care providers and organizations
public employees, their inclusion in this bill does
not form or terminate employer-employee relationship,
change a child care provider's legal status as an
entity, corporation or sole proprietorship. It also
declares nothing in this bill is intended to interfere
with compliance by a person, the state or political
subdivision of the state with a federal law or
requirement of a federal grant or subsidy. It also
states that nothing in this bill prohibits a child day
care provider from communicating with a public
employer or another person. It also states that a
child day care provider organization (union) may not
process or administer payments for day care.
4:39:36 PM
MR. WALSH explained that sections 11-23 are conforming changes
in definition.
4:39:46 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ expressed that she is confused about the
statute being updated referencing a public employee or an agent
of a public employee [in Section 6 of the Sectional Analysis],
but the bill does not designate child care employees as public
employees.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that that is correct. Child care
workers are not becoming public employees, but are simply being
given a mechanism to bargain in the child care sector.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that it is an interesting section
of law in which to put the bill.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that it goes back to the historic
exclusion from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA).
4:40:29 PM
MS. ROSENBERGER explained that the reason that designation is so
important is because child care providers want to maintain their
status as a small business and are dealing with the state
already in regard to subsidies. There is already an interaction
between the state and these small business, but HB 149 would
allow the businesses to collectively negotiate that existing
relationship.
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ directed the same question to an attorney
from Legislative Legal and Research Services.
4:41:25 PM
DANIEL WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative
Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA),
reiterated that this approach was used in California and some of
the other aforementioned 11 states. He explained that the bill
would broaden the mission of the ALRA to include oversight of
labor issues for child daycare providers. If this bill was
referring to other types of workers, for example, transportation
workers, then Alaska might be preempted as a state from
regulating labor in that sector because transportation workers
are already covered by NLRA, whereas child care workers are not
covered.
4:43:03 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that if an individual is a single provider
of child care, there is no one with whom that individual can
form a union. For this reason, he stated that it is important
for small businesses in the industry to work together.
4:43:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Mr. Wayne whether the bill is
stating that while these child care workers are recognized as an
entity of the state, the workers are not "connected" to the
state, but are "subsidized by the state, for the recognition
with the state."
MR. WAYNE responded that he was not sure that was accurate. He
said he doesn't think that the state would be subsidizing
anyone. The bill would simply put ALRA in charge of regulating
labor disputes and labor action between child care providers and
public employers, he explained.
4:44:49 PM
CO-CHAIR FIELDS shared that this is an approach to "sectoral
bargaining," where there is an attempt to raise standards in a
section of an industry. He shared his opinion that the U.S. has
a fairly outdated approach to labor relations with the
bargaining based on a firm in combination with a racist and
sexist history where women and farmworkers were excluded from
NLRA. This bill would attempt to bring a sectoral bargaining
framework to one sector that was historically excluded from
federal labor law, and that is why it is "pigeon-holed" in
bargaining with the state. He offered that a way to understand
it is that the bill would be providing a framework for sectoral
bargaining for small businesses.
4:45:55 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reminded the committee that this was an
introductory hearing, and the committee would have more time to
discuss HB 149 in the future.
4:46:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his understanding that the state
is subsidizing the programs, and asked for clarification on that
point.
CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that subsidies are already provided
based on eligibility to certain families, and that would
continue if this bill were to pass. If the federal government
chooses to subsidize child care in a more meaningful way, then
HB 149 would allow the State of Alaska to capitalize on that.
In closing, he shared that he would be open to other ideas to
improve child care, but that he thinks that the committee needs
to address the issue.
4:47:45 PM
CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 149 was held over.