Legislature(1993 - 1994)
03/08/1993 01:00 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 62 - EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS Number 027 REP. BEN GRUSSENDORF, PRIME SPONSOR OF HB 62, commented that some people were so health-conscious that they wanted to carry those attitudes over into the homes of their employees. He noted that he never thought that he would see the day that a bill like HB 62 would be necessary. He said HB 62 provided that an employee, in the privacy of her or his own home, or in any other place where they were not associated with their employer, could use any lawful products that they desired. REP. GRUSSENDORF commented that the bill specifically provided that if use of the lawful products affected an employee's job performance, that was grounds for dismissal. He noted that the "bottle to throttle" policy of some airlines, in which pilots were not to drink within 12 hours of flying, was reasonable. He noted that he had heard a number of complaints and concerns about company policies that went too far. REP. GRUSSENDORF explained that nothing in HB 62 ran counter to public health. He said that religious corporations were exempt from the provisions of HB 62. In summary, he said that HB 62 was a very straightforward, simple piece of legislation which was unfortunately necessary. Number 114 REP. PHILLIPS asked Rep. Grussendorf why he felt it was necessary for the legislature to pass HB 62. Number 121 REP. GRUSSENDORF replied that some companies had policies which discriminated against employees who used lawful products. He noted that HB 62 would not prohibit companies from charging employees who used certain lawful products higher rates for health insurance. Number 157 REP. PHILLIPS asked Rep. Grussendorf if HB 62 would impact an employee who lived in a work camp. Number 170 REP. GRUSSENDORF responded that HB 62 addressed "places other than the work site or premise of the employer." He said that, in his interpretation, the existing rules in work camps would not be changed by HB 62. Number 191 REP. PHILLIPS indicated her desire to make sure that Rep. Grussendorf's interpretation was correct. Number 200 REP. JAMES asked Rep. Grussendorf if he had ever been an employer. Number 203 REP. GRUSSENDORF said he had been a crew chief, but not a true employer. Number 212 REP. JAMES commented that she was opposed to the unfair treatment of any person for any reason. However, she said that Rep. Grussendorf, as a non-employer, might not be able to understand the rationale behind companies being able to choose who they hired. She expressed her concern that government should not take all of an employer's options away with regard to who that employer would hire and fire. Number 226 REP. GRUSSENDORF commented that it would be very difficult to refuse to hire someone based on the use of lawful products. He noted his concern about the treatment of employees after they had been hired. Number 236 REP. JAMES stated that the bill said "may not refuse to hire." She asked about an employer who owned a business which counseled people to quit smoking. She asked if that sort of business should be able to refuse to hire someone who smoked. Number 245 REP. GRUSSENDORF cited exemptions included in HB 62, including religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, and societies. He commented that the example that Rep. James had offered would probably be considered an educational institution. Number 260 REP. GRUSSENDORF commented that an amendment being offered by the Department of Administration would gut HB 62. Number 292 MIKE MCMULLEN, of the DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, testified in opposition to HB 62. He offered an amendment to the bill, which he felt would adequately address the department's concerns with the bill. He said that currently, the state and all other employers could take disciplinary action against an employee for off-duty conduct when the employer could demonstrate a close relationship between that conduct and the employee's job performance. Number 320 MR. MCMULLEN said that employers could establish reasonable rules for off-duty conduct and enforce them, as long as they could demonstrate the aforementioned close relationship. He noted that some employees could not be separated from their employment identity. He mentioned that if the head of the state's Office of Alcoholism and Drug Abuse were to habitually drink excessively and publicly while off-duty, the state would want to be able to take disciplinary action. Number 330 MR. MCMULLEN stated that HB 62 would cause the state to give up the ability that it now enjoyed to take disciplinary action against employees based on their off-duty conduct. He noted that his amendment would serve as an exemption to provisions of HB 62. Number 357 REP. PHILLIPS asked if HB 62 pertained to lawful products only or also to lawful activities. As a hypothetical example, she cited a state employee who worked for a division that worked with children who moonlighted as a stripper. Number 387 REP. DAVIDSON asked if HB 62 was before the committee. CHAIRMAN PORTER indicated that HB 62 was indeed before the committee. Number 400 REP. DAVIDSON made a motion to move HB 62 out of the Judiciary Committee with individual recommendations. There was objection. REP. DAVIDSON commented that modern American society was going after individual rights more and more. He said if employers were going to try to dictate to employees what lawful products they could and could not consume in the privacy of their own homes, he feared for future generations. For that reason, he said, he supported moving HB 62 out of committee. He noted that he had been an employer in the past. He said he agreed with HB 62's sponsor that the Department of Administration's amendment would gut the bill. Number 440 REP. JAMES indicated her support for the intentions of HB 62. She expressed her concern that when government tried to legislate every small situation that occurred, larger problems were created than those that government had attempted to solve. She stated that more and more restrictions were being placed on employers. She said she would like to see the elements of HB 62 accomplished without legislation. She agreed that a problem existed, but said it was her opinion that HB 62 would create more problems than it solved. REP. JAMES expressed her opinion that an employer did not have the right to tell an employee what to do or not do on that employee's off-duty time. She stated that HB 62 would be a roadblock to jobs, however. Number 495 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he did not favor the Department of Administration's amendment. He said it was a close call for him, but he would support moving HB 62 out of committee. Number 534 REP. DAVIDSON offered a hypothetical example of a legislative staffer who took RU486, if lawful, although her boss was opposed to abortion. Could she be fired for that action, he asked? He questioned when an individual's rights kicked in. Number 577 REP. JAMES noted that labor laws were already very protective of employees, and HB 62 was therefore redundant. She reiterated her concern that legislation passed to remedy one small problem often resulted in the creation of more, larger problems. She said she was not so concerned with HB 62's impact on who an employer fired, but was concerned with its impacts on an employer's ability to hire whomever she or he wanted to hire. Number 616 REP. PHILLIPS indicated her desire to tighten up the bill's language regarding work sites. CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that discussion of HB 62 would be suspended until Rep. Phillips' amendments could be prepared and distributed to the committee. He announced that the committee would take up HB 147 next. REP. KOTT moved to table the motion before the committee, to move out HB 62, until Rep. Phillips' amendment was officially offered. No objection was heard, so the motion was tabled. HB 62 - EMPLOYEE'S RIGHT TO USE LAWFUL PRODUCTS CHAIRMAN PORTER stated that the committee would again take up HB 62. He called the committee members' attention to Rep. Phillips' proposed amendment. REP. PHILLIPS stated that the amendment would go on page 2, after line 20. She explained that it would clarify the definitions of a work site and the premises of an employer. She moved the amendment, but said that she would rather not act on the bill itself until she had heard from the sponsor of HB 62. REP. DAVIDSON objected for purposes of discussion. He said that perhaps Mr. Doug Rickey, staff to the sponsor of HB 62, could address the amendment. CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that he did not believe that the sponsor would object to Rep. Phillips' amendment. Number 578 DOUG RICKEY, LEGISLATIVE AIDE TO REP. BEN GRUSSENDORF, said that the only possible problem with the amendment might be that the definition of "work site" might not be what Rep. Phillips had intended. Number 594 REP. PHILLIPS stated that the definition reflected her intention exactly. She said she was referring to mining camps, logging camps, and North Slope employment where everyone lived in one facility. Number 600 REP. DAVIDSON stated that his understanding was that if an individual lived in housing in Juneau, owned by the Greens Creek Mine, that person could not drink in his or her own home if it were against the company's policy. Number 609 REP. PHILLIPS withdrew her motion to move the amendment. She said she would discuss her amendment with the bill's sponsor. She asked that Ms. Horetski work on the amendment. Number 615 CHAIRMAN PORTER commented that it was his impression that if he were an employer, and provided housing for his employees, whether on the work site or not, he could set rules for behavior in the housing. Number 629 REP. KOTT asked Mr. Rickey if he knew of specific cases that demonstrated the need for HB 62. Number 640 MR. RICKEY noted that several cases had received national television coverage. He called the members' attention to an editorial in their packets which cited a New York Times report of 6,000 companies which refused to hire smokers. Number 645 REP. KOTT asked if there was a problem in Alaska that merited passage of HB 62. Number 654 MR. RICKEY replied that HB 62 was prophylactic in nature, intended to prevent problems in other areas of the nation from appearing in Alaska. TAPE 93-29, SIDE A Number 003 CHAIRMAN PORTER announced that HB 62 would be held to a time uncertain.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|