Legislature(2005 - 2006)BELTZ 211
04/12/2005 03:30 PM Senate STATE AFFAIRS
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB152 | |
| SCR8 | |
| HB95 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| * | SCR 8 | ||
| HB 95 | |||
| = | SB 152 | ||
SB 152-APPROP: COST-OF-LIVING SURVEY
CHAIR GENE THERRIAULT announced SB 152 to be the first order of
business. He recognized Ms. Seitz and noted the proposed
amendment.
AMY SEITZ, Staff to Senator Wagoner, reminded members that the
issue of using Seattle as the out-of-state reference for the
cost-of-living survey was discussed at a previous hearing on the
bill. The discussion centered on the fact that the cost-of-
living in Seattle has increased so much that Alaska state
employees living in Seattle would get a higher pay increase than
in-state employees. The proposed amendment would change the
location for the cost-of-living survey to the greater Puget
Sound area.
SENATOR THOMAS WAGONER motioned to adopt Amendment 1, labeled
A.1.
CHAIR THERRIAULT announced that without objection, the motion
carried.
3:41:35 PM
MS. SEITZ told members the cost of the study was also discussed
and most members feel $500,000 is reasonable.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said he anticipates that the Senate Finance
Committee would wrap the cost into a larger appropriation bill
and consider the amount at that time.
SENATOR WAGONER asked that the Administration speak to the cost
of the study and how the findings would be implemented.
ART CHANCE, Director, Labor Relations, Department of
Administration, felt confident the state could get a competent
survey for $500,000. He said he does not believe the
implementation costs of the 1984 study were ever truly
determined. Many of the findings were implemented through union
negotiations and arbitrations - the process of implementation
created considerable controversy. He said unless the legislation
specifically says otherwise, the study's findings would just
count as a suggestion for employees whose wages are established
by collective bargaining. He further stated:
To the extent that we still recognize it, and we've
sort of changed the way we pay those people, their
contracts still reflect the old federal 25 percent
differential for cost of living - never able to
successfully truly change that. We were able to
bargain and adjudicate implementation with all the
other represented employees the results of the '84
study. It wasn't until ... the '89 round of bargaining
that we actually got it all implemented, applying to
all other represented employees of the executive
branch. To make it apply to non-union employees, you
would have to enact it in statute as a part of the
39.27.011 state pay plan.
The Administration has taken no position on this
aspect of it but I can tell you that I do not relish
the idea of having to bargain all of this into all of
our contracts and if I were to have to bargain that, I
would be over here asking you for money for the next
round of bargaining to support that bargaining
endeavor, particularly with those units that have
interest arbitration.
For those of you who aren't intimate to the collective
bargaining process, those employees who cannot strike
if we do not agree with them voluntarily, they submit
their proposals to an arbitrator, the state submits
its and the arbitrator decides. To get such a general
state study into those contracts I would probably have
to hire the contractor and maybe some other economist
to come in and testify to that interest arbitrator and
convince them - have the arbitrators agree with the
state that the results of such a study are, in fact,
the differentials that should be applied to those
contracts. That's particularly important with the
state troopers, since they are all over the state and
tend to be in some of the higher cost areas. I'll
guarantee you if a new study were to reflect a lower
differential to that which they currently have, they
would resist it vehemently. It's somewhat important to
some institution employees. We do have correctional
facilities and correctional officers, which are class
1 in Nome, Bethel, and there's long been agitation for
a geographic differential for Spring Creek.
So these are all things that we would have to contest
either through a negotiated agreement or through
interest arbitration. And then the legislature to
apply it to non-covered employees would have to enact
it in statute and the results of the '84, despite
several attempts, have never been enacted into
statute.
3:47:32 PM
SENATOR WAGONER asked what would happen if the federal cost-of-
living allowance (COLA) goes away, particularly with marine
highway employees.
MR. CHANCE responded marine highway employees have had
collective bargaining long before PERA, perhaps since 1962.
SENATOR ELTON asked if this bill obligates the DOA to contract
for a study sometime in the next fiscal year. He anticipated the
contract obligation to be fulfilled 18 to 24 months from now.
MR. CHANCE said it could be sooner. He thought an RFP could be
out on the street by September. He thought most of the survey
could be completed in that fiscal year but assumed the remote
site and statistical data would be done in the second fiscal
year. He noted the Division of Personnel has a good research
section so it would not be starting from scratch.
SENATOR KIM ELTON said it appears the report will go to the
executive branch and not to the legislature.
CHAIR THERRIAULT said the money would be appropriated to DOA,
which would conduct the study.
SENATOR ELTON asked if DOA would incur any obligation to vet the
study.
MR. CHANCE maintained that DOA would have an obligation to
manage it. He anticipates the Division of Personnel would make a
proposal to the legislature to adopt some sort of state
personnel pay plan to replace the current plan. It would be his
job to follow the legislative directive to achieve success in
bargaining.
3:52:48 PM
CHAIR THERRIAULT informed members the bill does not have a
fiscal note because it is an appropriation bill.
3:52:55 PM
SENATOR WAGONER motioned to report CSSB 152(STA) and attached
fiscal notes from committee with individual recommendations.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|