Legislature(2001 - 2002)
04/20/2001 03:25 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 128-EMPLOYMENT OF MINORS IN AGRICULTURE CHAIR MURKOWSKI announced that the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 128, "An Act relating to employment of certain minors in agriculture." Number 0073 REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a motion to adopt the proposed committee substitute (CS) for HB 128, version 22-LS0373\J, Cramer, 4/6/01, as a work draft. There being no objection, Version J was before the committee. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG, speaking as the chair of the subcommittee assigned to work on HB 128, explained that the proposed CS provides for a method [referenced on page 2, paragraph (1)] advancing the approval by the Department of Labor & Workforce Development to meet the requirements. [Paragraph (2)] allows an employer to hire a minor with a written consent from the parents or guardian within three days after [the minor] begins working. He noted that the department had come up with substitute language [included in packets, most of which are incorporated in Version J]. Number 0303 RICHARD MASTRIANO, Director, Division of Labor Standards & Safety, Department of Labor & Workforce Development, testified via teleconference. He stated that the department's proposed language makes it mandatory [under paragraph (1)] for the employer to inform the department of the job duties the minor would be performing, and gives the employer seven days in which to file the written consent from the parents. He explained that [the department] could then make the employer aware if he or she is employing a child in something that may be considered hazardous or may cause a problem for the employer, particularly with the hours of work or number of days the child may be asked to work. [The department's proposed language] eliminates paragraph (2) from the original bill by saying it is mandatory that [the employer] notify the department in order to track the job duties the [department] has approved. MR. MASTRIANO stated that the second change is that employers need to submit written consent for minors working in the physical presence of the parents; however, the employer should still contact the department to ensure that the employee can actually perform the duties. He said [the department's] concern is that parents may allow kids to do some work without the knowledge that it may be a violation of either state or federal law. He remarked that the third change from is that written consent from a parent or legal guardian filed under (c) of Section 2 is valid as long as the minor performs the duties that had been approved by the employer. Originally, he said, [it was valid] for one year; however, most kids don't stay at a job for a year. [Version J] has also changed the requirement that both parents must sign [the consent] to one parent or one legal guardian. He noted that the custodial parent and a court- appointed legal guardian can sign for the child. [The department] will have to devise some sort of tracking system for approved job duties and approved employers. Once an employer has gotten a job approved, the only thing he or she would have to do is send in the parental consent form within seven says. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that during the subcommittee meeting a draft fiscal note of $214,000 was submitted by the department. He asked Mr. Mastriano whether adopting the department's changes would bring the fiscal note down to zero. MR. MASTRIANO responded that [the fiscal note] would not be small, because one of the problems inherent in the proposed system is that there would be more field enforcement, and [the department] would have to develop a tracking system. Right now [the department] tracks minors by taking a copy of the work permit and, if available, the minor's proof of age. For example, an investigator could receive a call from an employee, parent, or the general public saying, "We've seen a kid [who] looks awfully young working at this particular establishment. Do you know if they have a work permit?" [The department] could then pull up the permit and see the age of the kid. He stated that there would be an investigator at each one of the regional offices. Number 0942 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that this is a huge jump. [The committee] started with a bill that would have allowed certain minors to work in agriculture. At that point [the committee] heard testimony from one man who said his main problem was that he didn't have a decent fax line; therefore, he couldn't get the reports back and forth. Representative Halcro asked Mr. Mastriano whether he had met with the group of farmers. MR. MASTRIANO responded that he talked with [representatives of nine to ten farms] with regard to that [committee meeting]. Two farmers expressed that they didn't realize they were even required to have a work permit, and asked that permits be forwarded to them. The individual who expressed concern at the [committee meeting] said it was his intent to continue using the work permit form, but would not have it approved prior to the minor's starting to work. Mr. Mastriano said he is concerned that by doing that, the man could leave himself liable, since there are a lot of duties that fall under hazardous orders, particularly for minors 14 and 15 years old. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked whether the same farmer who gave testimony in support of the bill was the only one who said he had a problem with the current system. MR. MASTRIANO said he was correct. He noted that the man was the chairman of the meeting. He added that work-permit requirements probably were not of major concern to [the farmers], because most were trying to deal with hoof and mouth disease. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Mastriano how he currently handles work permits for industries other than agriculture, and what the turnaround time [of approving the work permits] is for the other industries. Number 1188 MR. MASTRIANO answered that he uses the same method of work permits for other industries. As to the turnaround time, he stated that ordinarily [the department] can turn them around in one to three hours. In a busy time, it can be done within 24 hours. For example, in the summertime when the fish processors start hiring, kids tend to jump from job to job, and the [department] gets a lot of faxes overnight. [The department] can turn those around by the close of business that day. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Mastriano what the fiscal note requirement would be. He stated that the provisions of the proposed CS as well as the suggestions [from the department] were in part designed to save the department money. He said he agrees that having field inspection would perhaps provide a higher level of protection, but the bill doesn't require more field instructors. MR. MASTRIANO responded that the current work permit indicates to [the department] the rate of pay, the hours the child is going to work, and the duties. He stated that if the consent form were to have all of this information on it, then there wouldn't be a large fiscal impact, other than [the department's] approving all of it. Number 1434 CHAIR MURKOWSKI asked Mr. Mastriano whether he is suggesting that before the department grants the approved job duties for there would be a site inspection. MR. MASTRIANO answered that she was correct. He said usually before a child starts working [the department] checks the work permit, and if the duties are something that the child of a particular age is not allowed to do, the work permit is denied or the employer is contacted. Currently, the child is not supposed to start working until the [employer] gets the approved work permit back. As for the inspection, the only time [the department] would [do a site inspection] is when it got the consent forms saying what the individual kids would be doing. CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that it really doesn't make any sense to give the advanced approval if [the department] is still going to do an on-site enforcement making sure the kids are doing what the employer said they were doing. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that he assumed there would only be an inspection if there was some hazardous duty and/or material being used. He asked, if he owned a restaurant and was going to hire a kid to flip hamburgers, whether [the department] would inspect the premises. MR. MASTRIANO answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked whether that happens now. MR. MASTRIANO answered yes. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why, then, there is a fiscal note. MR. MASTRIANO explained that [the department] is familiar with fast-food restaurants and knows that [the employer] is going to list the hours the individual works, the amount of money being paid, and the equipment that is going to be used. However, if a 15-year-old is going to work at a private business, [the department] needs to go out and make sure that the 15-year-old is cooking in plain view of the public so that it's not considered a hazardous order. Number 1625 REPRESENTATIVE SCOTT OGAN, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 128, testified via teleconference. He stated that he is perplexed because there are 11,000 faxes that [the department] gets, and they have the same amount of information. He said this looks to him like an opportunity for the Department of Labor and Workforce Development to grab a few extra positions. He noted that this is one of the pieces of legislation that the Alaska's Farmer Association requested. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG stated that this is a problem for every employer in the state and every person trying to get a job. REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that he was leaning toward favoring the bill when it talked about family farms. However, this has been expanded to all sorts of industries, and there are a lot of dangerous jobs out there that parents and other people are having kids do. He shared that he used to flip burgers. When he was 16 years old, the nephew of his boss was draining the grease one night and dropped the pan. It burned his feet and he was crippled for life. He said he had an ironworker friend who had his two boys, ages 16 and 15, put up a pole building. One boy fell off the apex of the building onto the concrete and "scrambled" his brains for the rest of his life. He stated that the reason there are child labor laws is because kids were getting hurt. He said he heard earlier that there were 66,000 kids who were injured in the line of work last year. He remarked that he is now opposed to this bill. REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated that he thinks the bill takes back all the child welfare laws. He remarked that from the research and the testimony received in the committee, this bill is centered on a fax machine. He said he doesn't feel comfortable rewriting all the statutes and regulation over that type of testimony. Number 1866 REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO asked Mr. Mastriano what would happen with a company that does not have preapproval on file with [the department]. MR. MASTRIANO responded that if [the department] received the notification, an investigator would be sent out to ensure that the individual is not in a hazardous occupation, and discern what he or she is being paid and how many hours he or she is working to make sure the [employer] is complying with the law. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that it seems to him that [the department] is going to make that trip either way, whether or not [the employer] has preapproval. He remarked that if there are companies that are preapproved and [the department] has already gone out and inspected the worksite, that is a trip [the department] will not have to make once the application comes in and is approved. Therefore, only those that don't get preapproval will have to be inspected. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested that there is going to be a lot more safety for kids if preapproval does take place. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO commented that when [the department] arrives at a business requesting preapproval, the inspector can then point out possible occupations where minors are working that are not safe, and therefore make recommendations for the workplace to be even safer. Number 2012 REPRESENTATIVE HAYES stated that he doesn't understand the preapproval. He asked if that means employees are already in place. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that with a preapproved site, every time someone is hired [the employer] has to submit the form back to the department. Rather than have the department to get the commissioner to sign it, it will be file, unless the form shows that there is a duty that needs to be followed up on. Right now, if there is a problem that comes up on the permit, [the department] denies the permit. He submitted that that is what's clouding the system. REPRESENTATIVE MEYER asked which version the fiscal note goes to, because what Representative Rokeberg is suggesting would actually reduce the fiscal note. REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG responded that the fiscal note is for Version J. He stated that [the department] wants to hire three more inspectors. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated: Let's say that I owned a fast-food restaurant. I'm going to be in a position to hire ... minors. So they come out and take a look at my facility and say, "All right, you can have minors working at the cash register, at the drive-through window, you can even have them work at the shake machines, but you cannot have them at the fryer or the deep fryer. ... So then, as an employer, I know upfront ... what positions I can put these minors in. In addition, I've also been warned about those positions that I cannot. And it makes me a better operator, because then I have a better grasp of the law in what my limits are. And they don't have to show up again, unless, God forbid, I have an accident. Number 2181 MR. MASTRIANO remarked that the way to eliminate the situation is when the employer calls in for a job approval. If the employer says that this job will only be done by 14- and 15- year-olds, and the [the department] approves the job, it would go back to the present system. If [an employer] says he or she wants to hire minors to cook hamburgers, the [department] will approve that, but won't know whether the kids will be 14 years old or 17 years old. He stated that if [the committee] wants to tie the job positions to age limits, the [department] doesn't have a problem doing that. The fiscal note would be reduced substantially, but the duties performed for the various age limits are one of the things [the department] looks at. REPRESENTATIVE HALCRO stated that as he understands the process, that is already on the work permit. He asked whether [the employer] has to clearly define what the minor is going to be doing and what equipment he or she would be working around. MR. MASTRIANO answered that he was correct. He said that saves [the department] from going out on a more frequent basis, because once [the department] does an inspection, it knows, for example, what the various jobs are and whether a 14- or 15- or 17-year-old can perform those types of [duties]. Number 2236 REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD remarked that currently, the kids come into the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and apply for the work permit; therefore, the [department] knows the age of the kid. CHAIR MURKOWSKI remarked that [the committee] had been working on the bill for almost an hour, and she does not think they have made any headway. She said she is going to give it back to Representative Rokeberg, the chair of the subcommittee, to see whether he can work it through a little more based on the comments from the department. [HB 128 was held over.]
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|