Legislature(1997 - 1998)
04/24/1998 03:28 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 389 - OVERTIME WAGE EXEMPTION AIRLINE EMPLOYEES Number 0101 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG announced the committee's first order of business was HB 389, "An Act relating to an exemption from the requirement for payment for overtime under a voluntary written agreement for certain employees in the airline industry; and providing for an effective date." Number 0103 REPRESENTATIVE JOHN COWDERY presented HB 389 as the legislation's sponsor. He commented HB 389 was introduced at the request of an ad hoc group of employees from United Airlines, noting one of the employees was his neighbor. Representative Cowdery read the sponsor statement, making some additional comments and omitting the sentence, "However, we expect organized labor to oppose it." He noted the current overtime practice made it difficult or impossible for employees to trade shifts to have, for example, an extra day off during salmon season. He said he thought this had been done quite a lot in the past. Representative Cowdery stated he was sure organized labor would prefer the status quo, but he said they have indicated they will work with them on this bill and he indicated he hoped the legislation would find a way to provide a mechanism for the airline employees to legally trade shifts. Representative Cowdery mentioned he was not feeling completely well that day and Marco Pignalberi, a member of his staff, was present to answer questions on the legislation. The sponsor statement read: HB 389 was introduced at the request of an ad hoc group of employees from United Airlines. Since its introduction, support has broadened to include the entire commercial airline industry in Alaska. The Alaska Air Carriers Association, its individual constituent members and their employees are asking the legislature to pass this legislation. Management and employees support it. However, we expect organized labor to oppose it. HB 389 is intended to allow airline employees to trade workdays with each other without invoking overtime pay requirements. Under strict interpretation of current statute, a substitute employee who works a shift for another employee must be paid overtime if the substitute employee already worked 8 hours in the same work day or 40 hours in the same work week. Consequently, shift trading can only occur when the substitute employee has a day off from his/her regular shift. This situation narrows the available pool of substitute workers and makes it impossible or very difficult to trade shifts. Airline employees in Alaska are vexed under Alaska's statute (A.S. 23.10.160) because we are the only state in the U.S. that has a daily overtime requirement. This bill gives Alaskan employees of airlines the same treatment as their counterparts in the other 49 states. Shift trading among employees in the airline industry is a very common practice. Usually it is done informally with tacit approval of the employer. HB 389 will legitimize the practice that has become the custom in the industry. Without it, employer airlines would violate the law if they allow their employees to trade shifts. Organized Labor would prefer the status quo. They are against any weakening of the overtime pay requirements in statutes. There is no problem with the status quo as long as the Department of Labor doesn't enforce the overtime statutes. However, neither the legislature, nor the governor, should be party to any practice that condones arbitrary enforcement. Either we must tell the employees of the airline industry in Alaska that they can no longer trade shifts, or, we must provide a mechanism for them to do it legally. Number 0385 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated the committee would take teleconference testimony and confirmed members of the audience wishing to testify on HB 389 had signed the witness register. He asked witnesses to limit their testimony to three minutes or less. Number 0443 DOUGLAS ORCUTT testified via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he worked for Alaska Airlines and was the vice president for the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), representing Alaska Airlines employees out of District 143 in Seattle. Mr. Orcutt spoke from his prepared statement, "I've worked for Alaska Airlines for 23 years. I've enjoyed the ability to trade days and shifts off between the course of my employment both in Seattle and in Anchorage. (Indisc.--coughing) practice of trading days off or shifts by employees of Alaska Airlines have been in effect for over 30 years. Alaska Airlines, like other airlines in the industry, operates 24 hours a day 365 days a year. The voluntary day and shift trading among employees is a longstanding airline industry practice which allows an employee to obtain additional time off from work to address personal and professional needs which would otherwise be unavailable to them. These needs can range from time off not covered by a working agreement and the relative (indisc.) to the ability to spend quality time with family when work and school schedule conflict or to perform charitable work in the community and to obtain additional education." Number 0530 MR. ORCUTT continued, "The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, the IAM, currently represents the mechanic and related MRP [mechanic and ramp personnel] employees as well as the clerical office and passenger service (indisc.) [COPS] employees under separate contracts (indisc.) Alaska Airlines. ... I have been elected and currently serve as an IAM District 143 vice president for the union at Alaska Airlines and help administer and enforce both contracts throughout the Alaska system. Although the MRP agreement is silent, the practice of trading days off or shifts has always been allowed and does not, and was never intended to, jeopardize overtime rules or pay for that work group. Moreover, the current working agreement between Alaska Airlines and the IAM for the clerical office passenger service employees does have negotiated contract language under its article 5, hours and service, paragraph 'f,' page 14, which states, 'Employees in the same classification and work group may participate in the trade of days off or shift with their managers approval 48 hours in advance.' I emphasize, 'employees shall be compensated as if they remained on their original days off and shift. When employees trade days off or shifts, they will be considered for pay purposes to have remained in their scheduled days off and/or shifts.' The mechanical-related employee group is currently in contract negotiations with Alaska Airlines and with support from the carrier is seeking to adopt contract language identical to the COPS agreement." Number 0622 MR. ORCUTT stated, "I have reviewed HB 389 and would offer only the following suggestion. The Act should include further language under paragraph 'd' which would clarify when employees trade days off or shifts that they will be considered for pay purposes to have remained in their scheduled days off or shifts, as it is described in the COPS working agreement which I have read. As an employee and a union representative of Alaska Airlines, I certainly support HB 389 because it maximizes schedule flexibility for employees while minimizing administrative scheduling for management, and provides a positive voluntary benefit to all employees." Mr. Orcutt indicated anyone who wanted further information on the union's position on the legislation could phone either him or Tom Gibbs (ph), the general chairman of Air Transport District 143, Seattle, Washington, 1-800-248-0143. Number 0727 REPRESENTATIVE BILL HUDSON asked Mr. Orcutt if it was correct this had been a practice for 30 years. Number 0730 MR. ORCUTT replied in the affirmative. He indicated Mr. Gibbs (ph) had said the practice for at least 30 years and probably longer. Mr. Orcutt noted Alaska Airlines has had a contract with the IAM since 1958. Number 0744 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON asked why it needed to be changed if it had been working for 30 years. Number 0749 MR. ORCUTT indicated the process might need to be legitimized in the state of Alaska. Number 0762 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY stated, "As I understand, even though it's been in existence it ... could lead to the employer facing a lawsuit - a class action lawsuit or something for -- or that time, some sort of a legal problem if ... they endorse this as ... it stands now." He asked if he was correct. Number 0787 MR. ORCUTT replied, "Yes, I think I'm in - in agreement with that although there's never been any times for many employees on ... Alaska Airlines." Mr. Orcutt said he had spoken with Mr. Perkins, of the Department of Labor (DOL) the other day who had indicated the department had never received any complaints from Alaska Airlines. Number 0806 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said, "I understand, but that's not to say some ambitious lawyer could come around and offer some employees money (indisc.) enter into a suit ..." MR. ORCUTT indicated he was not saying that could not happen and stated he was in favor of the bill. Number 0825 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked Mr. Orcutt if he had had any communications with the AFL-CIO (American Federation of Labor - Congress of Industrial Organizations) or the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. MR. ORCUTT replied he had not. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recommended he do so and try to get those organizations behind his union. The chairman stated, "It's been our experience that the organized labor takes a jaundiced eye at amending this particular provision of the statute, so I recommend that you get those chaps on your side where they belong as a pro- worker group." Number 0885 MICHELLE BUCKMASTER testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. She stated she had worked for United Airlines for ten years and noted she was a customer service representative for the airline in Anchorage. She commented she had faxed several pages of text to the committee the day before, including a revised copy of HB 389 and a copy of a similar bill passed recently in the state of Washington. Ms. Buckmaster stated, "In May 1997 United Airlines informed (indisc.) employees in Alaska that because of the state labor laws in our state, the trade policy and company regulations would no longer pertain to us. This trade policy is a significant benefit to us as employees as well as all airline employees in Alaska. ... In an industry that spends 24 hour a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year in promoting and supporting the economic growth of our state through tourism, conventions, sporting events and numerous other activities, the trade policy is a valuable benefit and tool to its employees who would otherwise miss out on precious time with family, observance of religious holidays, educational opportunities, summer vacations and extra time for those who require it. In an industry where competition is always a priority, we have come together to make a change that will benefit and create a win-win situation for all airline employees. Over the past year, employees from ... several air carriers have worked together to encourage the implementation of this bill. As you are aware from the numerous phone calls and letters from concerned airline employees, there has been a great deal of grass root support for this legislation. In closing, we understand and respect the labor are here to protect us, however this particular law which may be a protection in your eyes (indisc.) eliminating a benefit in ours. Therefore I'm here on behalf of these employees to request the amendment we have brought before you not only be passed but be passed in a timely manner so that this valuable benefit may be reimplemented as soon as possible." Number 1020 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said Ms. Buckmaster had been the first person to bring this problem to his attention and had done a lot of work on it. He indicated she had gathered signatures from other employees with similar concerns. Number 1033 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he had worked as a passenger service agent for Northwest Airlines at the Anchorage International Airport 34 years ago and 31 years ago for Alaska Airlines. He said the practice of trading days off and shifts existed at that time [tape states "34 years" and "Alaska Airlines," Chairman Rokeberg corrected information in further testimony]. Number 1065 DANIEL SMITH testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he was an employee with United Airlines in Alaska and would just like to reiterate the comments of Mr. Orcutt and Ms. Buckmaster. He said the trade policy was an important tool to assist the employees, and as previously mentioned, it was almost an industry standard. Mr. Smith indicated Alaska was the only area where they were having problems with this policy. Number 1113 MICHAEL BROADWAY testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. He stated he worked for United Airlines and was there to show his support for what the people before him had basically said. He indicated the trading policy was an airline industry standard; it made a more friendly work environment, creating better jobs. Number 1188 DAVID ATHEARN came forward to testify in Juneau. He stated he was an Alaska Airlines employee and indicated he had been employed with Alaska Airlines in Juneau for 22 years. He stated his airline career extended back 35 years, noting the trade had been in effect back in the "dark ages" of the industry as well. Mr. Athearn said it had, if anything, become more of an integral part of the business among the employee groups. He stated, "On a daily basis in my work group there's probably 30 employees on the various shifts throughout the 24 hour time period and about that number in the COPS group, I being in the MRP, mechanic and related, and the COPS, they're the ones at the ticket counter, the freight office and what have you. ... I individually maintain a trade book to keep track ... and there is anywhere from five to ten or a dozen daily people that are very dependent upon a good, viable day trade policy to have time off available for a variety of reasons - vacation, personal time, et cetera. This is such an ingrained part of ... the way we do business out at Alaska Airlines that there's no way that I can conceive that we could operate unless we had the policy like this in effect." He indicated he had a question about the accountability of time which would be brought up by Mr. Monagle and commented their appearance to testify had been on very short notice. Mr. Athearn spoke in support of the legislation's passage and commented it needed to be "cut in stone." He indicated the language did not exist in the MRP contract but as Mr. Orcutt had mentioned, the other half of their work group did have that language. Number 1338 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what the normal practice was for trading days off, questioning whether it was done just between individuals or if they worked through management. Number 1348 MR. ATHEARN noted there was what they call a lead ramp service or lead passenger service as management's representative for these purposes. He said, "The person desiring a trade initiates the paperwork between themselves with the approval ... of whoever happens to be the straw boss of their work group that day, and then it's entered into a trade log so when shifts change the new lead coming on duty can just simply look at the piece of paper and say, 'Joe for Sam on such and such a shift,' and know who's going to be there." Number 1383 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked what happened if one person fulfilled his or her part of a trade agreement but the counterpart did not. He asked, "Are you looking upon the management to do that -- to step in and pay you for that?" Number 1397 MR. ATHEARN said, "Then that becomes a -- if you've held up your end of the bargain and someone, the person that had agreed to trade with you did not show up, you're not going to be held accountable for that because you had a viable trade established with them. If the other person spaced out or called in sick or whatever, ... you're not held responsible for that. It would be considered ... unauthorized leave of absence or (indisc.)." Number 1423 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY confirmed that if an employee made a trade it did not show up in his or paycheck, it was just in the operation records. Number 1427 MR. ATHEARN replied there was record made of it, noting there was a provision on their timecards. He said, "You circle the day, say you took Tuesday, and it says, 'Trade day worked,' you would circle that, or 'Trade day off,' you would circle that." Number 1443 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY confirmed the practice was so common the timecards were printed to indicate that possibility. Number 1452 MR. ATHEARN agreed, stating it was an innovation which came eight to ten years ago for accountability purposes. Number 1463 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON commented the committee had heard United Airlines had essentially put its employees on notice the airline was not continuing this practice because of the law. He asked Mr. Athearn if Alaska Airlines had notified him the airline would not continue the current trade practice. MR. ATHEARN answered in the negative. He said, "They're pretty much on the same page with us on this I think." Number 1498 CHRIS MONAGLE came forward to testify next. He stated, "I (indisc.) past president here the last five years ... of Local 2263 which is the local that covers all of Southeast [Southeast Alaska] for Alaska Airlines, the ramp maintenance divisions. I think that what we're looking for here is protection ... for things [to] remain the same. The United [United Airlines] situation has ... certainly given us a scare, taking away our trade benefits." Mr. Monagle said people relied on trades benefits on a daily basis, giving the example of how he used the trade practice to be able to coach Little League Baseball without having Saturdays off. He said he usually gave his days to returning college kids and he noted it was common for people to use trades for an extra weekend day in the summertime to go fishing. Mr. Monagle indicated the work group at Alaska Airlines in Juneau felt very strongly about the issue. He passed around a timecard for the committee members to see, indicating the practice was so common it was on the timecard for every employee. He added, "I wanted to say that when we do trade, it's always at a regular straight-time rate, there's never ... any advantage to stockpile overtime or to violate any state laws regarding the use of, or accumulation of, overtime. ... I see it as nothing but a benefit and would strongly favor the bill." Number 1599 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said to Mr. Monagle, "You say ... it's a common thing, but on the same token, your airline hasn't sent notice, but we had -- I think I had communication with ... Alaska Airline, well with the airline industry as a whole. They felt -- the management felt that if we didn't -- something similar to this bill happen, that it could be selectively enforced to -- and - and that was their concern. It wasn't that they -- the airline industry as you said, and this testimony showed, that they're all in favor of this, they just want to have it so they don't get something stacked up on 'em and then they have to defend it." MR. MONAGLE said he would agree. Number 1642 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG commented Alaska Airlines was the largest carrier in Juneau but he noted there were other small commuter-type air taxis and other scheduled carriers. He asked if those people were members of any unions or generally nonunion. MR. MONAGLE answered he thought most of the small carriers were nonunion. Number 1660 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked, "How many people (indisc.) you think work on the ramps and as passenger service agents or would be covered under this bill with your firm working those same capacities for all the other kind of carriers in 'Anchorage' that are not union members?" [Note: "Anchorage" stated on tape, although it appeared the question was in reference to Juneau.] Number 1680 MR. MONAGLE confirmed Chairman Rokeberg was referring to people working for the other carriers. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated he was looking for a rough estimate. MR. MONAGLE with an aside to Mr. Athearn, indicated the number in Juneau would be probably less than 40 total. He said he was not sure how many people Wings of Alaska employed, noting it was probably the largest other carrier in Juneau. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if that estimate included the pilots. MR. MONAGLE answered in the affirmative. Number 1738 MANO FREY, President, Alaska State AFL-CIO, testified next via teleconference from Anchorage. Mr. Frey said he sincerely appreciated the comments and questions, noting, "You have, I believe, become enlightened about some of our concerns and issues regarding overtime and wage and hour laws, and I appreciate you and your committee members concern. As you know, we're ... very reluctant when there are efforts to change the wage and hour laws." Mr. Frey commented they have had many opportunities through the last two legislative sessions to discuss with the chairman and the committee members the AFL-CIO's concern about downgrading Alaska's strong overtime and wage and hour laws. Mr. Frey indicated the AFL-CIO thinks those strong laws are good, and not a negative. He noted, "I think it's good for the workers of this state to know that ... if they work overtime they're going to get paid overtime, and, generally, it amounts to employers scheduling those employees off rather than pay the overtime which really was originally the ... very intent of having overtime -- is to allow people more time with their families and to do things ... that they'd rather do than necessarily be working, even at an overtime rate. Having said that, I take very seriously your questions with regards to Doug's [Mr. Orcutt] testimony. We have not spoken about this until just prior to the hearing and it is very rare that the state AFL-CIO is in opposition to the bill supported strongly by one of its affiliates, but that is the case today. We do oppose the bill. But let me assure you that we will, when we push the button and listen today to the rest of the testimony, the machinists' union and the AFL-CIO will schedule a meeting to sit down and discuss this, see if there are ways that would provide some reassurances that - that we might feel necessary and if we can make the bill palatable we would change our position ... we'll try to set up a meeting as quickly as we can, depending on our schedules. ... We will try to schedule a meeting so that we can see if there's not a way to ... reach a middle ground on this, because it is a very uncomfortable position ...." He indicated he agreed with Representative Cowdery that a "rascal" attorney could cause some legal problems with the current situation, noting he would do almost anything to try to prevent that. Number 1936 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said it wasn't his intention or he thought the intention of the employees requesting the legislation to do any downgrading of organized labor, but he commented it was something they had to work out someway. He indicated he would be glad to work with Mr. Frey to avoid some sort of selective enforcement or a future class action lawsuit. Number 1925 MR. FREY said he agreed with that and reiterated that they would try to set up a meeting with the machinists' group. He indicated they would attempt to reach something the AFL-CIO could support. Number 1945 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indirectly asked Mr. Frey if he was serious about meeting with the machinists before the end of the legislative session on May 12. MR. FREY. indicated he was serious about the meeting. Number 1960 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "As my constituent, I would not want to do anything to ruffle your feathers but I think this is an excellent piece of legislation and ... I am very familiar with this situation from my own personal experience. ... This is a longstanding traditional practice and it's so pro-worker I would not even want to have ... any idea that you ... as a chief representative of organized labor in this state would stand in the way ... of workers of this state. I mean I just cannot conceive of that, I mean it's beyond my understanding." Number 1996 MR. FREY humorously commented to Chairman Rokeberg he was curious why the chairman had downgraded himself by leaving the airline industry represented by a good strong union to go into the real estate business. He commented, "I can't believe it." CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG discussed his employment history briefly, noting he had worked for the airlines after college and the army. He said he took a leave of absence from Alaska Airlines and opened his first business, "The Birdhouse," commenting he never went back to Alaska Airlines. He said he eventually sold "The Birdhouse" and went back to college. Number 2023 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON declared a conflict of interest, noting his son was a commercial pilot in Anchorage and his son's wife, his daughter-in-law, was a flight attendant. Number 2048 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY asked Mr. Frey if he could come up with a "date certain" for Mr. Frey's recommendation on this. MR. FREY indicated he and Mr. Orcutt would meet the afternoon of Monday, April 27, 1998. He stated he would contact the committee as early as possible, either late Monday or early Tuesday. Number 2064 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said the committee would look kindly upon Mr. Frey's recommendation to the department not to try to enforce this or anything else until it was resolved. MR. FREY replied he absolutely would go on record supporting that. He said they would not want to see any kind of conflict rise up on the situation. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked him if he would make the "other step" and put that into writing to United Airlines. MR. FREY answered in the affirmative, asking to whom he should address that. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG recommended he ask Ms. Buckmaster if she was still at the Anchorage Legislative Information Office (LIO). Number 2095 DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner, Department of Labor, came forward to testify. Mr. Perkins noted he had had some discussion recently with the IAM's representative, Mr. Orcutt. Mr. Perkins said in response to the sponsor's statement regarding the other 49 states, he said he believed, in all due respect to the sponsor, the research on that was slightly incorrect. Mr. Perkins commented he had recently received a notice from the state of Hawaii that similar legislation was going through there. He said the state of Washington had adopted similar legislation the past year. Mr. Perkins indicated he was not sure how many states had similar legislation but he knew Alaska was not the only state that did not allow this. He indicated he didn't necessarily disagree with the legislation's intent but was just clearing the record. Mr. Perkins commented United Airlines was pushing the legislation in Hawaii, stating, "And based on testimony that was made by a couple of United Airlines employees, I'm sorry that it sounds to me like the employer is getting this whipped up to a frenzy ... threatening the employees, 'If you don't take care of it, we're not gonna do it,' and - and that's what it sounds like, and I have a little concern with that ... if that's the case." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated he strongly did not feel that was the case. Mr. Perkins noted the employees had been put on notice the practice would no longer be allowed if this legislation was not passed. He said everyone had been on record and he would also go on record saying it has been a past practice for many years. He indicated the department did not have the finances to "go out and look for trouble in this type of area." He stated "Mr. Orcutt did tell me that in the 20-some years ... he's worked for Alaska Airlines, there's been one or two people, employees, that have come and asked them about this. After they explain it to them and how it's worked, ... their opposition was withdrawn. Representative Cowdery, you make a very good point as ... Mr. Frey said, there are some ... not over-zealous, but ... out of employed attorneys, maybe, that would like to ... make some money on this, and there certainly is a concern there, and I would agree with you, Representative Cowdery ... The department is in the process of - of trying to reach out. We did, with Mr. Gibbs (ph) down in Seattle, he got me in touch with Orcutt. I've talked to a couple friends that work for Alaska Airlines out here, I understand the concern, I've addressed the concern to the commissioner; he does want to work this out. There is language that does touch on, and Mr. Orcutt and I believe maybe the representatives from Alaska Airlines, we want to make sure that ... and it's in federal statute, to make sure ... that they aren't, for lack of other words, cheated out of their overtime pay when it's due them. (Indisc.--coughing) other (indisc.), and I only know of Alaska Airlines because I live here in Juneau and they've been a good ... employer to the employees of Alaska Airlines here. They have a good track record ... with their employees. I ... personally have several friends that work for Alaska Airlines that ... talk very highly of that particular company." Mr. Perkins stated, however, he would like to have the parties work together, indicating Mr. Frey and Mr. Orcutt would be meeting on April 27. Mr. Perkins indicated he had received some legislation from the state of Washington the previous day which he would examine and compare to the bill's language. He said, "It might be so that it is clear in other states that we use some language that ... would fit this and maybe offer a substitute to the ... legislation. But at this point, ... I'd like to just say give us a few days to let us work the constituent groups, to let us work with the air carriers associations and try to come back in a timely manner and get this taken care of." Number 2328 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG said Mr. Perkins's comment about United Airlines was a bit injudicious. He indicated it was the chairman's reading that the airline was trying to abide by the law the DOL was mandated to enforce. MR. PERKINS apologized for any misunderstanding he might have presented. He stated, "It kind of bothered me that -- ... it sounded to me like there ... may be undue pressure put onto the employees for legislation ... that would cause a hardship for 'em ... and quite rightly give them some stress in their workplace." Mr. Perkins apologized if he misinterpreted or misspoke or offended anyone from United Airlines. Number 2378 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG asked if there was anything in the statutes the DOL was in charge of enforcing that would allow for this type of shift trading. Number 2385 MR. PERKINS answered there was nothing under current statute. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG noted the people interested in the legislation had identified a defect in Alaska's statutory construction and that was the problem. Number 2394 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY indicated other carriers besides United Airlines were involved, noting PenAir, the Alaska Air Carriers Association and others had endorsed the legislation. He stated he hoped Mr. Perkins thought it was a good bill and they could work it out. He indicated the issue needed to be resolved. Number 2422 MR. PERKINS said he believed the legislation had merit and it was truly the employees coming forward wanting this done in light of what one of the air carriers saw as a deficiency in Alaska's statutes regarding wage and overtime laws. Mr. Perkins indicated it was something they needed to resolve. He noted the commissioner appreciated the opportunity to work with the Alaska Air Carriers Association, with the constituent groups, the employees and with the AFL-CIO, trying address this concern in a timely manner. Number 2448 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Mr. Perkins ... I'm sure that the commissioner wouldn't want to make himself open to the accusation that he was ... not for the working man of the state. ... I'm sure that ... the commissioner would not take kindly to that kind of a charge if it was ... leveled against him under these circumstances, I would think." MR. PERKINS asked, "What leveled against the commissioner?" CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG replied, "That he didn't support ..." [TESTIMONY INTERRUPTED BY AUTOMATIC TAPE CHANGE] TAPE 98-50, SIDE B Number 0001 MR. PERKINS stated, "... (indisc.) I said, I believe I said, was, I would like -- I believe he would like to have the opportunity to work with the groups ... to try to come to a resolution so that it can be moved forward. I think ... there is some potential, and Mr. Orcutt addressed it, in the proposed legislation, there is some potential for abuse, and we'd like to address that with some possibility of some language ... that is being used around the country that may make it simpler and address ... Mr. Orcutt's concern about the overtime provisions." Number 0023 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "No, it wasn't what you said, it's what I said." Number 0027 REPRESENTATIVE HUDSON indicated he thought the department needed to examine this in a general sense. He mentioned he had brought the problem of his wife's hairdresser to Mr. Perkins, and commented, "But at any rate, you know, we really got into this before, and I can see it here and again, and I would really urge the department to try to look at this in a more general sense, because there has to be other sort of general applications like this that doesn't totally blow away or violate, you know, the working man's right to overtime pay when it's due and payable. So I would just urge you to take a look at that and see if there isn't some way ...." Number 0064 MR. PERKINS thanked Representative Hudson and said he would carry the message to the commissioner. Number 0070 REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he had been just told the federal government exempted airline employees from this, asking if Mr. Perkins was aware. Number 0089 MR. PERKINS replied it was to some degree but not across the board. He stated, "And that's something that I have ... and actually it's ... under the ... railway Act, and I believe it's US Code 181, and so we are looking at that, and that is what I was referring to as tying into this legislation." REPRESENTATIVE COWDERY said he would provide Mr. Perkins a copy of the statute they had. CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG stated, "Mr. Perkins, I would suggest that you do this very expeditiously or we'll remove the reference to airline business in this thing and move the bill." MR. PERKINS laughed and mentioned "fast track." He replied he would contact Mr. Frey and Mr. Orcutt, commenting they might possibly even have a teleconference over the weekend. Number 0115 CHAIRMAN ROKEBERG indicated the commissioner should be informed as well. He stated HB 389 would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|