Legislature(2005 - 2006)HOUSE FINANCE 519
04/13/2005 01:30 PM House FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB32 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB182 | |
| HB169 | |
| HB54 | |
| HB98 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| + | HB 182 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 169 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 98 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 27 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| = | HB 32 | ||
| + | HB 54 | TELECONFERENCED | |
HOUSE BILL NO. 182
"An Act amending the Alaska Wage and Hour Act as it
relates to the employment of a person acting in a
supervisory capacity; providing definitions for persons
employed in administrative, executive, and professional
capacities, for persons working in the capacity of an
outside salesman, and for persons working in the
capacity of a salesman employed on a straight
commission basis."
Representative Foster moved to adopt the new CS for HB 182
labeled 24-LS0507\P, Carver, 4/6/05. There being NO
OBJECTION, it was so ordered.
1:53:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE NORM ROKEBERG, sponsor, explained that the
bill adopts federal rules for the Federal Fair Labor
Standards Act by amending the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
This bill will significantly help small businesses because
it clarifies provisions of the Alaska Wage and Hour Act.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the new amendment
would provide a "bright line" to the effective date of this
law, July 1, 2005.
1:56:38 PM
JOHN SEDOR, ANCHORAGE SOCIETY FOR RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, (via
teleconference) spoke in support of HB 182. He explained
that the bill would eliminate confusion about how to
determine overtime exemptions.
1:59:47 PM
Representative Weyhrauch pointed out that in order to
understand the various occupations in this bill, Federal
Fair Labor Standards Act regulations have to be understood.
He questioned the relevance of certain classifications. Mr.
Sedor responded that one of the benefits of moving toward
the federal system is that some people in the computer
industry qualify due to the complexity of their jobs. The
state has not moved forward to clarify which jobs are
exempt.
Representative Rokeberg asked Mr. Sedor to comment on the
proposed amendment. Mr. Sedor related that the bill would
delete the 80/20 test and sets forth definitions which are
much more understandable. He gave an example. The primary
duties test is the only test now in the federal system. The
amendment states that claims brought after July 1, 2005,
would be subject to statutory provisions of HB 182, and
claims brought before that date would be subject to
conditions prior to HB 182.
2:07:46 PM
Representative Croft asked if primary duty is defined in the
P version. Mr. Sedor replied it is not defined in any
version, only in federal regulation. He gave an example of
a position that is exempt due to the importance of the job.
Representative Croft rephrased his question to ask if an
employer has to conform to both state and federal laws. Mr.
Sedor replied that those in the private sector do. He
pointed out that the P version only has one system.
Representative Croft inquired why the definitions differ and
why it is not stated that they shall be the same as in
federal law. Mr. Sedor replied that "primary duties" is
only one of several tests. He indicated that the statutes
would be extremely large if all duties were spelled out.
2:13:41 PM
Representative Croft asked if primary duty is one of the
tests below executive, administrative, professional
capacity, and all other definitions are incorporated. Mr.
Sedor replied correct. Representative Croft referred to
page 4, (C) (1), which allows for state private employers
having to follow only one system. Mr. Sedor replied that is
exactly right, and 41 other jurisdictions have adopted that
as well.
2:14:52 PM
Representative Rokeberg drew attention to Section 5 where
definitions in federal law are mentioned. Representative
Croft pointed out that in other areas outside of that
capacity definition, the bill allows for different
definitions by the wording, "if not defined in this title".
Representative Croft asked Mr. Sedor if the amendment states
that claims filed previous to the effective date of the bill
are cut off. Mr. Sedor responded that claims brought after
the date are subject to one statutory requirement, HB 182.
A two-year look-back applies to both time situations.
2:18:29 PM
KARIN ROGINA, ALASKA HOSPITALITY ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) conveyed full support for HB 182 because it
provides for clear exempt status language. It defines
exempt status, makes it workable, and will prevent
litigation. She gave an example of a hotel worker with an
exempt salary status issue.
2:23:27 PM
JACK AMON, ALASKA HOSPITALITY ALLIANCE, ANCHORAGE, (via
teleconference) testified in support of HB 182. He related
the difficulties of operation under the older system.
Representative Weyhrauch quoted the bill, "an individual
employed in an executive, administrative, or professional
capacity is compensated on a salary or fee basis at a rate
of not less than two times the state minimum wage for the
first 40 hours of employment each week, exclusive of board
or lodging". He opined that most people work more than 40
hours. He asked about the pay after that period of time.
Representative Rokeberg replied that exempt employees would
not receive extra compensation; they would be on salary.
HEATHER NOBREGA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, clarified
that their salary would be based on a normal 40-hour work
week. Representative Weyhrauch asked if the value of board
and lodging is not included. Ms. Nobrega replied that is
correct. Representative Rokeberg added that because there
is a unique test in Alaska, it is two times the minimum
wage, which is based on the 40-hour week.
2:27:53 PM
BARBARA HUFF TUCKNESS, LOBBYIST, TEAMSTERS UNION 959,
concurred with the sponsor's earlier comments regarding
concerns and definitions. She responded to the comment that
this bill impacts the highest paid workers. In the
supervisory and administrative categories, there are
managers at McDonald's that flip hamburgers and are in an
hourly, paid-with-overtime compensation or are exempt from
overtime and have to be paid at least double time. She
recalled a bill from last session regarding minimum wage.
She provided a history of definition discussions and
maintained that they should be introduced into state law.
The statute serves to provide information to employers and
employees. She suggested that it should all be incorporated
into statute. She voiced concern about the adoption of
regulations and made suggestions about how to deal with
them. She spoke of increasing from double minimum wage to
2.2 percent and reasonable salary compensation.
2:32:43 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if the employee has the option of
exempting himself or herself from overtime. Ms. Tuckness
said that is determined by law.
2:34:27 PM
Co-Chair Chenault closed public testimony.
Representative Foster MOVED to ADOPT Amendment 1:
Page 1, line 6, following "occupations;":
Insert "directing retrospective application of the
provisions of this Act to work performed before the
effective date of this Act for purposes of claims filed
on or after the effective date of this Act, and
disallowing retrospective application for purposes of
claims for that work that are filed before the
effective date of this Act;"
Page 5, following line 30:
Insert a new bill section to read:
"* Sec. 6. The uncodified law of the State of Alaska
is amended by adding a new section to read:
APPLICATION AS TO WORK PERFORMED BEFORE THE EFFECTIVE
DATE OF THIS ACT. (a) This Act applies
retrospectively to work performed before the effective
date of this Act for purposes of any claim or
proceeding based on AS 23.10.050 - 23.10.150 (Alaska
Wage and Hour Act) that is filed on or after the
effective date of this Act.
(b) This Act does not apply to work performed before
the effective date of this Act for purposes of any
claim or proceeding based on AS 23.10.050 - 23.10.150
that is filed before the effective date of this Act."
Renumber the following bill section accordingly.
Co-Chair Chenault OBJECTED for discussion purposes.
Representative Rokeberg explained that the amendment creates
a bright line of flexibility. There would be two sets of
rules, before and after the effective date of the bill.
2:36:39 PM
Vice-Chair Stoltze asked if this legislation was found in HB
255 last year. Representative Rokeberg replied that it was
somewhat similar. Vice-Chair Stoltze wondered what the
Department of Labor's position is.
2:38:59 PM
GREY MITCHELL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF LABOR STANDARDS &
SAFETY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT,
related that the department has had input on this bill. The
department remains neutral on the bill.
Representative Kelly commended the sponsor for bringing this
bill forward. He asked Mr. Mitchell if this bill would cut
down on the cost of administering the hourly vs. salaried
worker situation. Mr. Mitchell agreed that it would.
Representative Kelly opined that it would cut down on fraud.
Co-Chair Chenault REMOVED his OBJECTION to adopt Amendment
1. There being NO OBJECTION, Amendment 1 was adopted.
2:42:46 PM
Co-Chair Chenault announced that HB 27 would not be taken up
today.
Representative Hawker summarized the discussion. He related
that there is a valid parallel to state corporate income tax
regulations in this bill.
Representative Foster MOVED to report CSHB 182 (FIN) out of
Committee with individual recommendations and the
accompanying fiscal note. There being NO OBJECTION, it was
so ordered.
CSHB 182 (FIN) was REPORTED out of Committee with a "no
recommendation" recommendation and with a zero fiscal impact
note by the Department of Labor and Workforce Development.
2:46:15 PM
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|