Legislature(2013 - 2014)SENATE FINANCE 532
03/24/2014 09:00 AM Senate FINANCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| SB194 | |
| SB182 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 194 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 266 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| += | HB 267 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
SENATE BILL NO. 182
"An Act relating to salary differences in collective
bargaining agreements subject to the Public Employment
Relations Act that are based on a difference in the
cost of living outside the state and the cost of
living in the state; and providing for an effective
date."
9:20:30 AM
RON BRESSETTE, MASTERS, MATES, AND PILOTS UNION, JUNEAU,
testified in opposition to SB 182. He relayed that the
union had been involved in good faith negotiations with the
administration since December 2013 and was willing to
continue negotiations in order to reach an agreement on the
cost of living differential (COLD), the subject of SB 182.
He believed that negotiation between the administration and
the union was the proper way to resolve the COLD issue for
Alaska Marine Highway Vessel Employees. He appreciated the
new language in the current version of the bill, which
protected the income of current employees. He shared that
the role of the union was to represent current members as
well as future members, and that future members should
receive the same pay and benefits as current members. He
believed that the passage of the legislation would
negatively affect the ability of the marine highway system
to recruit new employees. He explained that with the strong
demand for qualified mariners across the country, benefits
like COLD would allow the state to compete with other
maritime employers.
9:23:05 AM
BEN GOLDRICH, MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL ASSOCIATION,
testified against SB 182. He believed that the current
version of the bill would hinder recruitment. He shared
that marine engineers were currently running at a 10
percent vacancy rate; the masters, mates and pilots were at
about a 20 percent vacancy rate. He stated that COLD had
been a successful in bringing mariners to the state and
keeping homegrown mariners in the state. He noted that the
savings the bill would bring to the state were unknown but
that COLD was an investment in the future. He said that the
state was competing for mariners all over the world and
that without the COLD incentive employees would be working
side-by-side for unequal compensation. He reiterated the
concern that the marine highway would not be able to
recruit the talented, young mariners that were necessary to
keep the system operating.
9:24:35 AM
Co-Chair Meyer inquired about the graph that had been
created by the administration, "Top Three Earners - Marine
Units"(copy on file)
Mr. Goldrich replied that the numbers provided little
information unless the number of hours that each employee
worked was also considered. He said that the vacancy rate
that the system was currently operating under had resulted
in employees working for up to three months straight.
Co-Chair Meyer inquired what the acronyms for each position
stood for on the chart.
Mr. Goldrich replied that the Marine Engineers Beneficial
Association (MEBA) represented the licensed engineering
officers and that IBU stood for the Inland Boatman's Union.
9:26:39 AM
RICK DEISING, REGIONAL DIRECTOR, Inland Boatman's Union
(IBU), JUNEAU, testified in opposition to SB 182. He
explained that IBU had been negotiating since December 2013
and had started good faith negotiations with the State of
Alaska through the collective bargaining process. As
discussions progressed the IBU had requested proposals from
the state, which the state failed to supply. He stated that
when the state did reply it requested that the IBU give up
COLD. The union explained that COLD was part of the hourly
wage, and had been 1977. He furthered that the union had
been willing at that time to discuss other avenues in order
to help the state meet projected budgetary figures. He
contended that the state had offered no incentive to union
members and had suggested cutting other benefits. He opined
that it was difficult to negotiate in good faith with the
state when there was a third party involved; the
legislature.
9:30:39 AM
Co-Chair Meyer agreed that the negotiations should be
between IBU and the administration; however, the
legislature did get involved on occasion. He thought that
the hang-up with seemed to be the COLD factor and requested
an explanation for the public regarding what COLD was.
9:31:21 AM
Mr. Deising stated that the COLD factor had resulted in the
attempt to draw people to work and line in Alaska. The wage
had been set in Seattle and in Alaska. A wage was set in
Seattle and then another was set in Alaska. As wages rose
over the years, the COLD factor became part of the hourly
wage for union boatmen. The legislature put the
differential into effect in 1977. He stressed that the
current expense to the state to run the ferry system was
not the fault of marine highway employees. He noted that
the payment for employees living out of state was 20
percent less than those who lived in the state of Alaska.
9:33:31 AM
Senator Olson asked whether Mr. Deising refuted the numbers
listed on the "Marine Unit-Top Three Earners" document.
Mr. Deising responded in the affirmative. He added that the
numbers did not tell the entire story. He explained that
employees were often held over without relief which could
put them in overtime status. He stated that the numbers did
not reflect the straight time work, but bulked up overtime
hours.
9:35:05 AM
Senator Olson probed whether the numbers were a correct or
incorrect reflection of wages.
Mr. Deising suggested that the numbers were correct.
9:35:48 AM
SILA THIELKE, IBU, spoke against SB 182. He refuted the
numbers on the "Marine Unit Top 3 Earners". He thought that
the numbers reflected the current recruitment problems at
the marine highway system. He stated that the rates down
south were too high for the system to maintain a
competitive and hiring atmosphere. He said that the state
currently had a 23.6 percent vacancy rate for Able Bodied
Seamen (ABE), which was high. He argued that the numbers on
the top earners sheet were large because employees did not
have relief and could not go home. He stressed that in his
position he was legally bound to stay with the ship if
someone did not show up for work. He stated that employees
put in 84 hour weeks, sometimes twice as much, and it was
imperative that the system attract more young sailors to
the state. He felt that the McDowell report that the
sponsor used in crafting the legislation was lacking. He
noted that the 2008 Alaska geographic differential
methodology did not include household surveying or retail
price surveying in Seattle; the bill was supposed to be
crafted to compare the cost of living difference between
the state of Alaska and Seattle.
9:39:55 AM
Senator Olson inquired what data should be used, if not the
data from the McDowell Group.
Mr. Thielke replied that he did not know.
9:40:46 AM
DAWN NELSON, SELF, NIKISKI, KENAI (via teleconference),
spoke in strong opposition to SB 182. She expressed concern
that COLD compared Seattle to Anchorage; however, very few
AMHS employees lived in Anchorage. She furthered that many
employees lived in coastal areas and small town where
livings expenses were higher than in Anchorage.
9:42:05 AM
LIZ BUNESS, SELF, WRANGELL (via teleconference), testified
against SB 182. She feared that new employees to the system
would be starting at a pay rate that was below the cost of
living in the state. She reiterated that system employees
worked very long hours and had particularly honed set of
skills.
9:43:59 AM
AT EASE
9:45:52 AM
RECONVENED
9:45:59 AM
DENNY KAY WEATHERS, SELF, HAWKINS ISLAND (via
teleconference), spoke against SB 182. She reiterated
previous testimony concerning the retention of quality
employees from outside the state. She stated that in the
past, the Republican Party had preached Alaska hire, SB 182
did not sent that message. She said that not many system
employees lived in the Anchorage area and so that city
should not be considered the cost hub. She furthered that
system employees had attempted to meet with the bill
sponsor and had been rejected. She said that the numbers
presented by the administration had been inflated. She
echoed the issue of overtime and lack of vacation
availability due to limited staff. She referenced a letter
from Matt Wilkens that clearly explained the history and
importance of COLD (copy on file).
9:51:01 AM
CASEY CALHOUN, SELF, KETCHIKAN (via teleconference),
testified in strong opposition of SB 182. He echoed the
concern of previous testifiers. He referenced the McDowell
Group report.
9:53:31 AM
KRIS WILSON, SELF, NORTH POLE (via teleconference), spoke
against SB 182. He reiterated previous testimony.
9:59:57 AM
JOHN MAYER, SELF, HOMER (via teleconference), testified
against SB 182. He made several similar points to those of
previous testifiers.
10:02:30 AM
LYDIA RODRIGUIZ, SELF, JUNEAU, spoke against SB 182. She
spoke of the expense of working for the marine highway
system. She shared that she worked on the MV Kennicott and
that many of the employees she worked with paid a lot of
money in order to get to work. She said that if you live in
Kodiak and want to work for the marine highway you have to
travel to southeast where the ships are located. Employees
have to buy their own round-trip tickets, full-time work
was not expected until after the first 5 years and year-
round work was non-existent. She stressed that it was
expensive for a person to work for the system and continue
living in Alaska. She shared that the basic training
classes in water, medical, firefighting costs were the
burden of employees; additionally, a Coast Guard class is
required that costs the employee over $1500. She stated
that she wanted to work and live in, and help build the
economy of Alaska. She stressed that in order for the
people aboard the vessels to be as safe as possible the
people working on them had to be the best qualified and
most competent people available.
10:09:25 AM
Co-Chair Meyer CLOSED public testimony.
10:09:46 AM
AT EASE
10:10:20 AM
RECONVENED
10:10:28 AM
NICKI NEAL, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF PERSONNEL AND LABOR
RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, stated that the
current statutory language was outdated and provided
limitations on what the administration was able to bargain.
Currently, the state was required by statute and by
collective bargaining agreements to pay substantial amounts
in COLD, which limited the state's ability to adjust wages
in other ways. She believed that there were recruitment
difficulties, but not to the extent that had been described
by the previous testifiers. She said that paying COLD was
not the way to alleviate the hiring issue. The state
currently had employees from the Lower 48 that were making
less than Alaskan employees and paying COLD limited the
state's ability to put those dollars elsewhere.
10:12:08 AM
Co-Chair Kelly requested an explanation of the bill in very
simple terms.
Ms. Neale replied that the bill removed COLD from the
statute and prohibits the state from bargaining new
collective bargaining agreements that included terms for
COLD and would grandfather in all existing employees. All
existing employees would receive the differential for the
duration of their employment as long as they remained an
Alaskan resident.
10:13:13 AM
Co-Chair Kelly clarified that people living out-of-state
did not receive COLD.
Ms. Neal replied in the affirmative. She reiterated that
Alaska residents that worked for the marine highway system
received COLD. The legislation would not allow the state to
provide COLD to new employees or negotiate future
collective bargaining agreements that would provide for the
differential.
10:14:09 AM
Co-Chair Kelly asked if there would still be a differential
between Anchorage and the smaller communities in the state.
Ms. Neal replied that there was a geographic differential
currently for most employees. She said that the geographic
differential was difficult to apply to marine highway
employees because they did not all live where their change
port was located; however through collective bargaining the
state had proposed geographic differentials for those
employees that, it was assumed, lived in the communities in
which their change port was located.
10:14:50 AM
Co-Chair Kelly understood that the cost differential used
Anchorage as the cost of living base.
Ms. Neale responded yes. She explained that employees that
were on a day boat would receive a cost of living
differential for the community that the vessel was located
in; Juneau and Cordova.
10:15:43 AM
Ms. Neale said that the geographic differential was based
on the McDowell Group Cost of Living Survey.
10:15:56 AM
Co-Chair Kelly queried the Seattle reference in Section 1
of the legislation.
Ms. Neal said that there was a provision in statute that
specified what the state could not collective bargain, this
would be added to that meaning that the state could no
longer collectively bargain a differential for employees
that lived inside the state.
10:17:06 AM
Senator Bishop noted that the top three earners sheet had
been prepared by the administration and reflected only the
highest wage earners in the marine highway system.
Ms. Neal responded that the sheep reflected the three top
earners of each bargaining unit.
Senator Bishop asked why so many employees were being held
over for overtime.
Ms. Neal thought that there were various reasons. She said
that the extra overtime pay was reflected in the "premium
pay" column of the earner sheet, the regular pay more
accurately represented the normal salary.
10:18:25 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired whether out-of-state
employment numbers that could be tied to each union could
be supplies to the committee.
Ms. Neale replied that 71 percent of the marine engineer
union members resided in-state; 77 percent of masters,
mates and pilots union members, and 91 percent for inland
boatmen union members.
10:19:26 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked where most of the people
receiving cost differentials lived.
Ms. Neale responded that it was hard to make an exact
determination; however, the administration had home
addresses for the employees.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked about the employee's
responsibility to get to the change port.
Ms. Neal agreed that it was the employee's responsibility
to get to the change port.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the state was responsible
for getting any employees to any of the change ports.
Ms. Neal replied no.
10:20:39 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough noted that a testifier had claimed
that every year his contract had been decreasing. She
requested further clarification on the matter.
Ms. Neale responded that negotiation was a give and take.
She said that nothing was ever taken away without the state
giving something in return.
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested confirmation on who paid
for the cost of the required training and certification for
marine highway employees.
Ms. Neale responded that she would need to check with the
Department of Transportation.
10:22:17 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wanted an explanation of leave
accrual for the three different units. She asked whether 10
percent was normal for the state to carry as a vacancy
factor in the system.
Ms. Neal responded that she would need to check with the
Alaska Marine Highway System.
10:23:16 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough requested that Ms. Neal also research
whether there were other factors in premium pay in addition
to the overtime.
Ms. Neale responded that there were things in premium pay
besides overtime. She deferred the question to Nancy Sutch.
10:23:37 AM
NANCY SUTCH, DEPUTY DIRECTOR, PERSONNEL AND LABOR
RELATIONS, DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, stated that other
pay types that could be included in premium pay were;
penalty pay, pilotage pay, travel pay, and there were a
variety of different overtime payments depending on whether
the employee was held over beyond their assignment or
working extra hours within an assignment.
10:24:15 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked what the travel pay entailed.
Ms. Sutch explained that if an employee was assigned to go
to a different change port, rather than their normal change
port, the employer typically paid for the travel to the
different port.
10:25:02 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough clarified that the number reflected a
wage not received on a paycheck, but a wage to transport an
employee to their change port; or was it in addition to
compensation for their salary.
Ms. Sutch responded that it would be in addition to their
regular earnings. Employees earned an hourly rate or pay
and then if they had to travel somewhere unexpected the
state would pay for the travel.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired whether the travel pay was
considered overtime pay or regular pay.
Ms. Sutch responded that travel pay was normally straight-
time pay and not overtime pay.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if there was a minimum pay for
the travel pay.
Ms. Sutch said that she would need to look to the
individual bargaining agreements, but typically it was 4
hours with a limit of 12 hours.
Vice-Chair Fairclough inquired what kind of pay was
included in "other pay."
Ms. Sutch responded that she did not know what "other pay"
was. She noted that she had not prepared the document but
that she could provide the information to the committee at
a late date.
10:26:54 AM
Vice-Chair Fairclough wanted to know how long it took to
retire from the unions, how much vacation was accrued
inside the unions and how much the governor of the state
made.
Ms. Neal replied that that the governor currently made
$145,000 per year. She said that the IBU and MMP were part
of Public Employees' Retirement System (PERS) and followed
the same provisions as other state employees. She relayed
that MEBA had its own pension plan.
10:27:49 AM
Ms. Sutch spoke to leave accrual and related that there
were different tiers of leave. Within the MMP, depending on
when you were hired, you would accrue different rates of
leave; the same went for the IBU.
Vice-Chair Fairclough asked if the three unions had been
capped in past contracts for leave accrual.
Ms. Sutch responded that the bargaining agreements
addressed a cap for leave accrual. The cap for the IBU was
840 hours. She said that she did not know if that maximum
accrual had been enforced by the marine highway system.
10:29:14 AM
Co-Chair Meyer felt that the legislature should not get
involved in the collective bargaining process.
Vice-Chair Fairclough understood that the bill would not
take effect until after the current collective bargaining
unit was concluded.
Ms. Neale responded that the bill was scheduled, if passed,
to take effect on July 1, 2014. She furthered that the
current collective bargaining agreements expired on June
30, 2013. She hoped that new collective bargaining
agreements were in place before the expiration date.
10:30:52 AM
SB 182 was HEARD and HELD for further consideration.
Co-Chair Meyer discussed housekeeping.