01/30/2023 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB13 | |
| HB46 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 13 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 46 | TELECONFERENCED | |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
January 30, 2023
3:15 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Jesse Sumner, Chair
Representative Justin Ruffridge, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Prax
Representative Dan Saddler
Representative Stanley Wright
Representative Ashley Carrick
Representative Zack Fields
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
OTHER LEGISLATORS PRESENT
Representative Josephson
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 13
"An Act relating to the definition of 'employer' for the
purposes of the State Commission for Human Rights."
- HEARD & HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 46
"An Act allowing child care providers that receive state aid to
organize and collectively bargain with the Department of Health;
and establishing the child care provider fund."
- HEARD & HELD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 13
SHORT TITLE: APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) JOSEPHSON
01/19/23 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/23
01/19/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/19/23 (H) L&C, JUD
01/30/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 46
SHORT TITLE: CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) FIELDS
01/25/23 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/25/23 (H) L&C, STA, FIN
01/30/23 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented HB 13, as the prime sponsor.
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff
Representative Andy Josephson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided a PowerPoint presentation, titled
"HB 13: Applicability of Human Rights Commission," on behalf of
Representative Josephson, prime sponsor.
ROBERT CORBISIER, Executive Director
Alaska State Commission for Human Rights
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 13.
REPRESENTATIVE ZACK FIELDS
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As the prime sponsor, introduced HB 46 via
a PowerPoint presentation, titled "Raising Wages and Benefits
for Child Care Workers (HB 46)."
BLUE SHIBLER, Executive Director
Southeast Alaska Association for the Education of Young Children
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
PEARL BROWER, PhD, CEO
Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
CHRISTINA EUBANKS, Executive Director
Hillcrest Children's Center
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Provided invited testimony during the
hearing on HB 46.
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff
Representative Zack Fields
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Presented a sectional analysis of HB 46, on
behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:15:09 PM
CHAIR JESSE SUMNER called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:15 p.m. Representatives Wright,
Fields, Prax, Saddler, Ruffridge, and Sumner were present at the
call to order. Representative Carrick arrived as the meeting
was in progress.
CHAIR SUMNER appointed Representative Ruffridge as vice chair of
the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
HB 13-APPLICABILITY OF HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
3:16:05 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the first order of business would be
HB 13, "An Act relating to the definition of 'employer' for the
purposes of the State Commission for Human Rights."
3:16:15 PM
REPRESENTATIVE ANDY JOSEPHSON, Alaska State Legislature, as
prime sponsor, presented HB 13. He stated that Alaska has had a
State Commission for Human Rights (ASCHR) since 1963; however,
it does not have jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations. He
said that according to Legislative Research Services, it is
unclear why this is the case.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that ASCHR was created to
eliminate discrimination based on factors such as race and
ethnicity, and the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(EEOC) acts as a "parent organization" and generally covers
larger employers. He stated that EEOC will pay a fee to ASCHR
to handle some cases EEOC would normally handle. He reiterated
that HB 13 would give ASCHR jurisdiction over nonprofit
organizations. He reinforced that the Alaska Human Rights
Commission operates by investigating meritorious claims of
discrimination, working to conciliate both sides to keep the
cases from going to court; however, the agency can take cases to
court if a reconciliation agreement cannot be reached.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that the ASCHR commissioners
appointed in 2018 by Governor Bill Walker had supported the
change HB 13 proposes. He highlighted that the commissioners
now, appointed by Governor Mike Dunleavy, agree with the
previous commissioners.
3:21:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed the belief that the proposed
legislation is necessary to address a gap in jurisdiction. He
explained that if a person is discriminated against for housing
or employment, this individual is able to take the claim to the
Anchorage Equal Rights Commission (AERC); however, residents who
work for a nonprofit in other parts of the state do not have
this opportunity. He pointed out that because ASCHR lacks
jurisdiction, a gap is created. He noted that only nine states
lack protections for nonprofit employees. He pointed out that
approximately 50 cases statewide were not "screened in" by ASCHR
because of this lack of jurisdiction.
3:24:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked how many cases ASCHR deals with per
year.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed uncertainty and deferred the
questioned to Robert Corbisier, the Executive Director at the
commission.
3:25:24 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE reported a potential conflict, as his
wife serves as a commissioner for ASCHR.
CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Ruffridge.
3:25:47 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON stated that in the 2021 report from
ASCHR, there was a peak of 1,733 cases in the highest year, 405
of which were found to have a basis. In 2021, he stated that
the number dropped to 674, and he expressed the belief that this
could be related to the COVID-19 pandemic.
3:27:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for clarification on the number of
cases for 2021.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that there were 674 inquiries
in 2021. Of these, 139 cases were found to have a basis, while
119 cases were taken in. Out of these cases 106 complaints were
filed.
3:27:43 PM
ALEXANDER SCHROEDER, Staff, Representative Andy Josephson,
Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Josephson,
prime sponsor, provided a PowerPoint presentation titled "HB 13:
Applicability of Human Rights Commission" [hard copy included in
the committee packet]. He explained that the proposed
legislation would amend the definition of "employer" in AS
18.80.300, to include nonprofit organizations, and this would
give ASCHR jurisdiction on discrimination cases.
3:29:19 PM
MR. SCHROEDER moved to slide 2 and stated that the federal
equivalent to ASCHR is EEOC, which was created by Title VII of
the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to deal with employment-related
discrimination. He noted that EEOC covers employers with 15 or
more employees, while ASCHR covers any employer with at least
one employee. He continued to slide 3 and said that ASCHR was
created in 1963, adding that Alaska is one of only nine states
not including nonprofit organizations under the jurisdiction of
its human rights commission. He said that municipal level human
rights commissions, such as the Anchorage Equal Rights
Commission and the Juneau Human Rights Commission (JHRC) have
nonprofit organizations included under their jurisdictions.
MR. SCHROEDER argued that, while there are other commissions
covering nonprofit organizations in relation to employment
discrimination, it is still important for ASCHR to gain
jurisdiction over these types of cases. He explained that the
location of the nonprofit organization matters, and residents of
an area should be able to go to the human rights commission
within their municipality, even if the nonprofit organization is
in another area. He said that there are areas in Alaska with
significant numbers of nonprofit employees who do not have a
municipal commission.
3:34:08 PM
MR. SCHROEDER returned to slide 3 and said that ASCHR has had a
legislative goal to gain jurisdiction over employment related
discrimination cases for four consecutive years. On slide 4, he
gave a brief overview of what the proposed legislation would do,
reiterating that the definition of "employer" would be changed
in statute to include nonprofit organizations. He added that
the exceptions would be for religious, fraternal, and social
nonprofit organizations.
3:35:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT asked for a specific example of an
instance when this would be needed.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON expressed the inability to provide a
case, explaining that this is because ASCHR currently lacks
jurisdiction. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier.
3:37:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned whether the minutes from the
bill which created ASCHR had been reviewed. He indicated that
these minutes may help understand why the makers of that bill
did not include nonprofits.
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that Legislative Research
Services has related that because of the age of the legislation,
the records are limited, and no minutes are available to provide
context. He continued that the records prior to 1990 are
difficult to find, if at all. In response to a follow-up
question, he offered to contact his father on the matter, as he
had been a legislator at the time.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked if the same definition of
"employer" is used at the municipal and federal level, but not
the state level.
MR. SCHRODER answered that the definitions vary, as well as the
exceptions to these definitions. He deferred to Mr. Corbisier.
3:40:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK questioned the rationale for excluding
religious and fraternal organizations, and he questioned the
definition of a "fraternal organization."
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON answered that HB 13 would cover an
"evolving" area of law, and this is an example. He expressed
the opinion that a church should not be required to ordain
female clergy if this is against its beliefs. He offered that
the Boy Scouts of America are an example of a social or
fraternal organization, and although its position has been
reversed, there was a case concerning a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) scout leader. He said that the
bill ultimately reflects language the commissioners have
requested.
3:45:37 PM
ROBERT CORBISIER, Executive Director, Alaska State Commission on
Human Rights, stated that ASCHR enforces Article 1, Section 3 of
the Constitution of the State of Alaska, and this is the section
that provides for civil rights. He said ASCHR is the
legislature's implementation of this constitutional provision.
He continued that ASCHR has jurisdiction over employment, public
accommodations, the sale and rental of real property, credit and
financing, and government practices cases, as well as
retaliation cases, which often stem from one of the previous
types of cases. He noted that the Fairbanks Diversity Council
and JHRC are advisory councils without the ability or resources
to enforce decisions. He noted AERC is the only other entity in
Alaska with the ability and authorization to implement and
enforce decisions. He explained that this gap means that small
nonprofit organizations of fewer than 15 employees would not
face accountability for discrimination.
3:49:02 PM
MR. CORBISIER stated that ASCHR receives reimbursement from the
EEOC for taking co-jurisdictional cases; however, EEOC does not
track the "screened-out" cases. He said that ASCHR is not a
punitive agency, and its goal is to make victims "whole" and
work with the respondents to create an enforceable
nondiscrimination policy which complies with state and federal
laws. He informed the committee that in 2022, ASCHR received
814 cases, of which 184 had basis, 164 were formally taken, with
134 of these investigated.
3:53:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX reported a potential conflict of interest,
as his sister-in-law serves on the ASCHR board.
CHAIR SUMNER did not recuse Representative Prax.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX asked whether EEOC would take cases dealing
with a nonprofit organization if the organization had 15 or more
employees.
MR. CORBISIER answered that it would; however, if the employer
is in Anchorage, EEOC would refer all of these cases to ASCHR or
AERC. He explained that if the employer is a nonprofit EEOC
would be informed that ASCHR cannot take the case. In response
to a follow up question, he expressed uncertainty concerning the
15-employee threshold. He speculated that it is related to the
size of cases the federal government will address.
3:55:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for an explanation on the
jurisdictional gap present in employment discrimination cases.
MR. CORBISIER answered that the jurisdiction of AERC and ASCHR
are similar; however, AERC has explicit jurisdiction over cases
involving LGBTQ discrimination as a protected class. He said
AERC also has jurisdiction over nonprofit organizations within
the Municipality of Anchorage, while EEOC has jurisdiction over
employers with 15 or more employees, including nonprofit
organizations. He added that both organizations would have
jurisdiction over cases involving government employers. In
response to a follow-up question, he said that ASCHR covers
employers with any number of employees, excluding nonprofit
organizations. In response to a follow-up question, he answered
that ASCHR has a budget of just over $2 million. He added that
this is roughly what it costs to repave a mile of road.
3:58:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER inquired about the reimbursement per case
from EEOC. He also questioned the associated costs with taking
on those cases.
MR. CORBISIER answered that ASCHR has the capacity to accept
more cases without additional cost to the state. He added that
most of the rejected cases are "obviously" not jurisdictional.
He voiced that ASCHR moves away from giving "false hope" for
these complaints. He continued that the COVID-19 pandemic
caused the number of cases to decline because of remote work.
He stated that since normalcy is returning, the number of cases
has increased. In response to a follow-up question, he said
that the amount of reimbursement could be up to $800 per case,
and that 45,000 employees could be affected by the change in
jurisdiction. He confirmed that it would not cause an increase
in cost to the state's general fund.
4:03:19 PM
REPRESENTATIVE JOSEPHSON asked Mr. Corbisier about the
difference between the original version of the bill and the
commission's adopted resolution language.
MR. CORBISIER answered that the commission's resolution relies
on the religious exemption language provided in regulation. He
confirmed that the bill's draft did not change the religious
exemption language but removed the word "club."
4:05:38 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that HB 13 was held over.
4:05:51 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 4:05 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
HB 46-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
4:08:22 PM
CHAIR SUMNER announced that the final order of business would be
HB 46, "An Act allowing child care providers that receive state
aid to organize and collectively bargain with the Department of
Health; and establishing the child care provider fund."
4:08:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, as prime sponsor, gave a PowerPoint
presentation, titled "Raising Wages and Benefits for Child Care
Workers (HB 46)" [hard copy included in the committee packet].
He provided a brief history of HB 46. Moving to slide 2, he
stated that the problem is that the child care sector has low
wages and few benefits, and this has resulted in a shortage of
workers. He added that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the
shortage of adequate child care.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 3, which
showed a report which related that employment in the child care
sector has decreased by 7 percent. On slide 4, he highlighted a
report which shows that 2 more child care centers have closed in
Juneau, while there are none in Valdez.
4:12:12 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS advanced to slide 5, expressing the belief
that the inadequate amount of child care in Alaska is playing a
part in the outmigration from the state. He added that the
greatest number of people leaving the state are young people of
working age. He turned to slide 6, stating that 11 other states
have implemented some form of collective bargaining for child
care employees.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS directed attention to slide 7, stating
that the goals of HB 46 are to give these workers a "living
wage" in order to increase the supply of child care. He advised
that many families cannot afford to pay more for child care, so
this should be done without increasing prices. He added that
public policy on child care should remain "flexible" to allow
the sector to continue to work with the state government on the
best possible solutions.
4:14:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS continued to slide 8, pointing out that
major Alaska employers are raising concerns about the lack of
adequate child care in Alaska, and child care is one of the top
three issues for the Alaska Chamber of Commerce.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS concluded by explaining how the proposed
legislation would work. He explained that the Alaska Department
of Labor and Workforce Development would conduct an election
which would ask whether child care workers would engage in
sectoral bargaining with the state. If it is voted
affirmatively, a union would be created to negotiate with the
state for wages and benefits. He added that the bill would also
establish a child care trust fund.
4:17:37 PM
BLUE SHIBLER, Executive Director, Southeast Alaska Association
for the Education of Young Children, provided invited testimony
on HB 46. She expressed the opinion that there have always been
issues with child care shortages. She explained that this is
because child care centers do not have "a very good business
model." These centers have a single source of revenue, with the
charge being limited to what families can pay. She suggested
that, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic, it was possible to find
employees who would do the work because they enjoyed it;
however, rising costs of living have forced a choice between
having an enjoyable job or a higher-paying job. She pointed out
that Juneau's child care centers have the capacity to care for
more children, but there are not enough employees to increase
enrollment. She described the current business model for child
care as a "market failure," and she described child care as a
"public good." She asserted that the solution would be
investment by the state into the child care sector.
4:21:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX inquired about the organizations that
Southeast Alaska Association for the Education of Young Children
represents.
MS. SHIBLER explained that the association provides support
mechanisms rather than representation. In response to a follow-
up question, she said that the majority of the money child care
centers receive is from the parents' tuition. She added that
there are subsidies available for families with lower incomes.
4:23:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE requested an explanation of the label
"market failure" concerning child care centers.
MS. SHIBLER responded that, as a business, no profit is being
made and a worthy wage is not provided. She contrasted this
with a traditional business where goods or service costs could
be raised to close the gap; however, child care businesses
cannot do this because parents would not be able to pay.
4:25:55 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned whether a state subsidy
would be the only way for these businesses to survive. He
questioned where the state would receive an "injection of cash"
for this purpose.
MS. SHIBLER answered that child care centers are unable to pay
high wages or make a profit. In other businesses, it is
possible to raise the prices to reflect a rise in business
costs, whereas child care centers are unable to do this because
it becomes unaffordable for families. She concluded that the
lack of ability to make a profit means fewer people attempt to
start this business. In response to a follow-up question, she
expressed the belief that the child care sector needs subsidies
to remain operational. She observed that the issue is being
acknowledged in other states and at the national level.
4:27:31 PM
MS. SHIBLER, in response to a series of questions from
Representative Saddler, answered that, in her 20 years of
experience, the issue of low profits and wages has been an
ongoing problem, and the increase in the cost of living has
exacerbated the problem. In response to a follow-up question,
she said that child care prices are generally similar across the
sector and largely paid for by the parents. She answered that
the Department of Health (DOH) receives block grants from the
federal government and is responsible for deciding on the best
usage of this money in regard to child care. She continued that
the federal money used in the Childcare Assistance Subsidy
Program pays providers on behalf of parents who qualify for
assistance. Other money is used for training purposes; however,
federal money does not cover increasing wages or benefits for
workers. She expressed uncertainty concerning the amount of
federal money going towards wages.
4:32:29 PM
PEARL BROWER, PhD, CEO, Ukpeagvik Inupiat Corporation (UIC),
provided invited testimony on HB 46. She stated that workplaces
across the state are facing shortages, and this has made it more
difficult for parents to return to work. She said that one of
the reasons her family moved from Utqiagvik to Anchorage was
because of the difficulty finding child care. She continued
that the lack of available child care causes economic
instability for families, leaves children at a higher risk of
neglect, and makes it difficult for employers to fill available
positions.
4:36:28 PM
DR. BROWER, in response to Representative Prax, stated that UIC
is a for-profit organization. In response to a follow-up
question, she said that even if the corporation were to provide
child care benefits to employees, there would not be enough
child care providers to care for every child.
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX suggested that the solution may require an
increase in the cost of child care, either paid for by the state
or by private employers.
4:39:03 PM
CHRISTINA EUBANKS, Executive Director, Hillcrest Children's
Center, provided invited testimony on HB 46. She stated that
finding employees has been a continuous issue in her 20 years of
working in child care. She suggested that this is one of the
lowest paying professions in the state, which causes a high
level of turnover. She expressed the belief that the industry
should have a voice in how federal grants for child care are
being spent. She argued this because of the direct impact on
the operations and cost of child care centers.
4:41:49 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX questioned why prices have not increased.
MS. EUBANKS responded that nothing is preventing price increases
and explained that prices have already increased. She stated
that there is an expected price increase of 6 percent to 10
percent this year, and this has the consequences of child care
only being affordable for parents with high incomes.
4:42:47 PM
MS. EUBANKS, in response to Representative Saddler, reiterated
that raising prices would make child care unaffordable for many
families.
4:44:44 PM
EVAN ANDERSON, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State
Legislature, on behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor,
provided a sectional analysis of HB 46 [included in the
committee packet], which read as follows [original punctuation
provided]:
Section l: This section amends AS 23.05.360(t) to allow
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency board in the Department
of Labor & Workforce Development the authority to include
workers in the child care sector for the purpose of
holding hearings. This is a conforming change to
language added in Sec 4.
Section 2: This section amends AS 23.05.370(a) to direct
the Alaska Labor Relations Agency to serve as labor
relations agency for workers in the child care sector
covered by the new language added in Sec. 4.
Section 3: This section amends AS 23.05.380 to give
Department of Labor & Workforce Development the authority
to update regulations pertaining to collective bargaining
rights for workers in the child care sector. This is a
confonning [sic] change to language added in Sec 4.
Section 4: This section amends AS 23.40 to give child
care providers the right to self-organize, join, or
assist an organization to bargain collectively and engage
in concerted activities for the purposes of collective
bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. This
section prohibits the Department of Health from engaging
in unfair labor practices, and it provides a process for
investigation and conciliation of complaints. This
section also provides definitions.
Section 5: This section establishes a child care provider
fund as a separate fund in the state treasury. This
section also establishes a child care stakeholder group
to recommend disbursements from the fund.
4:47:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, addressing earlier questions, added that
not investing in child care would create an environment where
only high-income families would be able to afford it. He
deduced that this results in a decrease in economic capacity
because families are pushed out of the workforce. He reiterated
that the proposed bill would create a child care trust fund to
allow the state to invest more in child care, similar to other
places in the world.
4:49:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the role DOH would play in
collective bargaining. He questioned who would provide the
funding.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS said the model would be similar to the
Alaska Higher Education Investment Fund. He continued that
subsidized slots do not cover the entire cost of tuition at a
child care center; therefore, child care centers pass the cost
to the parents who can pay.
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER asked for a breakdown of the costs of
child care paid for by families and the grants from the federal
government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS, referencing the child care center his
family uses, stated that subsidized slots are available, meaning
the state pays for the child care of children whose parents
qualify. He added that some states have expanded the level for
eligibility for subsidies, and this helps provide child care for
a wider range of families; therefore, the number of people able
to work increases.
4:52:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE PRAX expressed concern that the proposed bill
would result in a continuously expanding eligibility for the
subsidy. He compared it to the current issues facing Medicare.
4:54:16 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK questioned whether home-based child care
providers would be covered by the proposed bill.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that all licensed providers would
be covered, including home-based providers.
REPRESENTATIVE CARRICK commented that the bill could be useful
in the effort to retain child care workers.
4:55:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE RUFFRIDGE questioned whether HB 46 could cause
prices to increase for some parents if the subsidy is not
expanded.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that the goal is to keep prices
down for parents. He expressed the belief that child care
providers should be a greater part of the discussion because
they have the best idea of how to serve families. He stated
that the bill would create a framework giving providers a
greater voice, as it would not be a mandate on a certain wage
for child care employees. In response to a follow-up question,
he stated that currently there is not a specific amount to be
placed into the child care trust fund that HB 46 would create.
4:59:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE SADDLER questioned the amount of childcare paid
for privately versus the amount paid for by the government.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS recapped that the vast majority is paid
for privately by parents, with some slots subsidized with
government funds. In response to a follow-up question, he
stated that the idea behind the trust fund would be to give
child care providers a greater say in how the federal grants
would be used. He reiterated the opinion that providers have a
better idea what would be most effective.
5:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT questioned the amount of money received
from the federal grants per year.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS expressed uncertainty and offered to
follow up with the committee at a later time.
REPRESENTATIVE WRIGHT explained the Worthy Wage Campaign and
asked whether the bill was related to this.
REPRESENTATIVE FIELDS answered that he is unfamiliar with the
campaign.
[HB 46 was held over.]
5:02:23 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:02 p.m.