Legislature(1995 - 1996)
02/28/1996 03:20 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
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
February 28, 1996
3:20 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Pete Kott, Chairman
Representative Norman Rokeberg, Vice Chairman
Representative Beverly Masek
Representative Jerry Sanders
Representative Brian Porter
Representative Kim Elton
Representative Gene Kubina
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
SENATE BILL NO. 178(title am)
"An Act increasing the number of eligible employees that constitute
an employer group for purposes of providing small employer health
insurance; amending the definition of `small employer'; and
requiring an annual report from the Small Employer Health
Reinsurance Association until 1999."
- PASSED OUT OF COMMITTEE
*HOUSE BILL NO. 479
"An Act relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting
from equine activities."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 311
"An Act repealing the limitation on the hours a person may be
employed in a mine; and making a related technical amendment to
avoid changing the penalties for failing to make payments into an
employee benefit fund."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 483
"An Act relating to the calculation of unemployment insurance
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
*HOUSE BILL NO. 487
"An Act amending the Uniform Residential Landlord and Tenant Act
and the civil remedy of forcible entry and detainer as they relate
to mobile home park operators and mobile home park dwellers and
tenants."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
Governor's appointments previously heard and held over
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
(* First public hearing)
PREVIOUS ACTION
BILL: SB 178
SHORT TITLE: SMALL EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE
SPONSOR(S): SENATOR(S) RIEGER
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
05/09/95 1679 (S) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
05/09/95 1679 (S) L&C, FIN
01/09/96 (S) L&C AT 1:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
01/09/96 (S) MINUTE(L&C)
01/10/96 2095 (S) L&C RPT 3DP 2NR
01/10/96 2095 (S) ZERO FISCAL NOTE (DCED)
02/06/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/09/96 2345 (S) FIN RPT 4DP 3NR
02/09/96 2345 (S) PREVIOUS ZERO FN (DCED)
02/09/96 (S) FIN AT 9:00 AM SENATE FINANCE 532
02/09/96 (S) RLS AT 12:30 PM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/09/96 (S) MINUTE(FIN)
02/12/96 (S) RLS AT 8:00 AM FAHRENKAMP RM 203
02/12/96 (S) MINUTE(RLS)
02/14/96 2427 (S) RULES TO CALENDAR 2/14/96
02/14/96 2428 (S) READ THE SECOND TIME
02/14/96 2428 (S) ADVANCED TO THIRD READING UNAN CONSENT
02/14/96 2428 (S) READ THE THIRD TIME SB 178
02/14/96 2428 (S) TITLE AMENDMENT NO 1 ADPTD UNAN CONS
02/14/96 2428 (S) PASSED Y19 N- E1
02/14/96 2428 (S) DUNCAN NOTICE OF RECONSIDERATION
02/15/96 2447 (S) RECONSIDERATION NOT TAKEN UP
02/15/96 2448 (S) TRANSMITTED TO (H)
02/15/96 2769 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/15/96 2769 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, FINANCE
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 479
SHORT TITLE: IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) G.DAVIS
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/07/96 2650 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/07/96 2650 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 311
SHORT TITLE: REPEAL LIMIT ON HOURS EMPLOYED IN MINES
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) VEZEY, Toohey, Martin
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
04/18/95 1351 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
04/18/95 1351 (H) LABOR & COMMERCE, JUDICIARY
01/24/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
01/24/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/07/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/07/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/14/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
02/14/96 (H) MINUTE(L&C)
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 483
SHORT TITLE: CALCULATION OF UNEMPLOYMT INS BENEFITS
SPONSOR(S): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
JRN-DATE JRN-PG ACTION
02/09/96 2689 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRAL(S)
02/09/96 2689 (H) L&C, STATE AFFAIRS, FINANCE
02/09/96 2690 (H) FISCAL NOTE (LABOR/ALL DEPT'S)
02/09/96 2690 (H) GOVERNOR'S TRANSMITTAL LETTER
02/28/96 (H) L&C AT 3:00 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
SENATOR STEVE RIEGER
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 516
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3879
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of SB 178(title am).
GORDON EVANS, Lobbyist
Health Insurance Association
of America
318 Fourth Street
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 586-3210
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of SB 178(title am).
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 420
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-2693
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 479.
BILL TURNER, Equine Professional
Alaska State Horsemen, Incorporated
Box 871634
Wasilla, Alaska 99687
Telephone: (907) 376-6849
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 479.
MARCIA BOYD, Owner
Twinview Horse Park
HC 31, Box 5083 P
Wasilla, Alaska 99654
Telephone: (907) 376-3276
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 479.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY
Alaska State Legislature
Capitol Building, Room 216
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 465-3719
POSITION STATEMENT: Sponsor of HB 311.
ED FLANAGAN, Deputy Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99801-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 311. Gave testimony on
HB 483.
CLYNT NAUMAN, General Manager
Kennecott Greens Creek Mining Company
P.O. Box 32199
Juneau, Alaska 99803-2199
Telephone: (907) 789-8110
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311.
ERIC KLEPFER
Coeur Alaska, Incorporated
431 North Franklin Street, Suite 400
Juneau, Alaska 99801
Telephone: (907) 463-5425
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311.
JOE J. THOMAS
Alaska State AFL-CIO
315 Barnette Street
Fairbanks, Alaska 99701
Telephone: (907) 452-3139
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311.
ANDREW J. BEAR PIEKARSKI
District Council of Laborers
Mile 5, P.O. Box 831
Eagle River, Alaska 99577
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified against HB 311.
JIM DUCHON, Consultant
6017 Chowen Avenue, South
Edina, Minnesota 55410
Telephone: Not provided
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 311.
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 21149
Juneau, Alaska 99802-1149
Telephone: (907) 465-2700
POSITION STATEMENT: Explained HB 483.
WILLIE LEWIS
Laborers Union
1629 Madison Drive
Fairbanks, Alaska
Telephone: (907) 479-5842
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 483.
WILLIE CREECH, President
Vulcan Towing and Recovery
5406 Lake Otis
Anchorage, Alaska 99507
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 483.
RON TORGERSON, Chief of Appeals
ESD Appeals
Department of Labor
P.O. Box 25509
Juneau, Alaska 99811
Telephone: (907) 246-9300
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions on HB 483.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 96-14, SIDE A
Number 001
The House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee was called to order
by Chairman Pete Kott at 3:20 p.m.. Members present at the call to
order were Representatives Sanders, Masek, Kubina, Elton, Rokeberg
and Kott.
SB 178 - SMALL EMPLOYER HEALTH INSURANCE
CHAIRMAN PETE KOTT announced the first issue the committee would
address would be SB 178(title am), "An Act increasing the number of
eligible employees that constitute an employer group for purposes
of providing small employer health insurance; amending the
definition of `small employer'; and requiring an annual report from
the Small Employer Health Reinsurance Association until 1999,"
sponsored by Senator Rieger. He informed the committee SB 178
addresses some minor changes to legislation which was passed a
couple of years ago.
Number 145
SENATOR STEVE RIEGER, sponsor of SB 178, said a couple of years ago
a small group health insurance bill was passed which established
some of the mechanisms of a pool for the insurance of the small
employer groups. He noted "small employer groups" were defined as
"employee groups from 2 to 25 employees." After two years of
experience, it has been proven to be working. The intent of SB 178
is to broaden the statute so the definition of "small employer"
would be changed to 2 to 50 employees instead of 2 to 25. He
explained it increases the ability for a number of additional
employers to get into the small group health insurance market that
was served by the original bill.
Number 243
REPRESENTATIVE NORMAN ROKEBERG asked the number of groups, if any,
have availed themselves in the previous legislation.
SENATOR RIEGER indicated there are several ways to answer the
question. In a way, every group that is a 2 to 25 employer group
that is applying for insurance has been subject to this bill
because if you are an insurer doing business in Alaska, you are by
definition, part of this pooling mechanism. Senator Rieger
explained the measure has sort of a automatic pooling and then it
has an optional second pool - a reinsurance pool, which is a buffer
to accommodate high risk cases where an underwriter couldn't
justify underwriting the group within the band of premiums that are
prescribed in the bill. There is only a couple of cases where the
reinsurance pooling mechanism has been necessary. He referred to
testimony given in the Senate from people who said it has made it
easier to underwrite groups, but that is not as quantifiable
because unless you go into the reinsurance pool, there is not a
true statistic you can point to.
Number 377
GORDON EVANS, Lobbyist, Health Insurance Association of America,
said during the three years that legislation has been in effect, it
seems to be working. When the measure was originally enacted, it
was thought that the coverage of the bill would affect about 85
percent of the small businesses. He referred to the increase from
25 to 50 employees and said it would probably up the figure to
about 92 percent of Alaska employers. Mr. Evans noted the figures
came from the Health Resources Access Task Force Study which was
done in the late 1980s and early 1990s. He said his organization
supports the bill. Alaska would be the eighteenth state to change
their coverage up to 50 employees.
Number 489
There being no further testimony, REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG made a
motion to move SB 178(title am), out of committee with attached
fiscal notes and individual recommendations.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if there was an objection. Hearing none, SB
178(title am), was moved out of the House Labor and Commerce
Committee.
Number 500
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee would take a brief at ease at 3:26
p.m. The meeting was called back to order at 3:30 p.m.
HB 479 - IMMUNITY FOR EQUINE ACTIVITIES
Number 608
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 479, "An Act
relating to civil liability for injuries or death resulting from
equine activities."
REPRESENTATIVE GARY DAVIS, sponsor of HB 479, said there are a lot
of things that happen in this world that a lot of people aren't
responsible for, but other people feel that somebody must be
responsible except themselves. The bill is intended to give
handlers of the equine profession extra protection from civil
liability lawsuits. The reasoning behind this proposition is that
horses and related animals can be unpredictable in their behavior.
This unpredictability is an inherent characteristic of some
domestic animals, especially equines, because of their size and
specific utilization for human activities. A horse that is
carrying a rider can easily be spooked by a number of events. If
the rider is subsequently thrown from the horse, the owner or
trainer may not be directly responsible for the accident. He noted
people do sometimes wear spurs and it is not always the horses or
their owner's fault. This would be true as long as the owner or
trainer has cared for and trained the equine in the best possible
manner.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said there are a number of exceptions to this
legislation. If the owner or trainer is negligent, improperly
caring for the horse or uses faulty equipment, they would not be
immune from civil liability. The bill also recognizes other
exceptions such as placing an obviously inexperienced rider on a
high spirited horse known for demonstrating unpredictable behavior.
Representative Davis noted he has received correspondence from
involved parties.
Number 751
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER referred to the bill and questioned the
meaning of a "hinny."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated he didn't know.
Number 785
REPRESENTATIVE BEVERLY MASEK referred to page 1, line 11 and asked
what the definition is of "reckless conduct."
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he is sure everybody has their own
definition. He said this piece of legislation doesn't have the
definition and he couldn't answer specifically.
Number 834
REPRESENTATIVE BRIAN PORTER explained reckless or intentional
misconduct is a standard of misconduct that has been dealt with by
courts for a long time in the state. There are a number of court
decisions that have identified exactly reckless conduct is. In
other words, in legal parliaments it is understood. It basically
means an act that a reasonable person would conclude would have the
result that did occur. You're reckless if you fire a gun into a
crowd. You may not have intended to hit anybody but the natural
probable result of that act was that somebody was going to get hit
and perhaps killed. That is reckless conduct. It is a very high
standard and it is a standard above negligence.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK questioned whether that is different from
gross negligence is which is on page 1, line 13 and 14.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said that makes it even more restrictive to
a higher standard.
REPRESENTATIVE GENE KUBINA said there must be an absolute
definition written for the terms used.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER explained there are definitions in various
statutes that apply to that particular body of law. He said he
didn't know if there was one in this chapter. The general standard
of severity is intentional, reckless, gross negligence and
negligence.
Number 1010
BILL TURNER, Equine Professional, Alaska State Horsemen,
Incorporated, testified via teleconference from Wasilla. He
explained that his organization represents about 300 people in the
Anchorage Mat-Su Valley area and indirectly represents another 500
or 600 through affiliated clubs. He said they feel that the bill
is a good bill in its general intentions. It is good public policy
to have inherent risk of an activity assumed by those who have
chosen on their own to engage in that activity. He said there is
currently a law similar to this bill but it is in regards to skiing
and ski areas. Similar legislation has also been enacted in about
15 or 16 other states throughout the country. Mr. Turner said this
would be a (indisc.) to the horse industry within the state because
he expects insurance premiums would be lowered and, therefore, help
more horse activities occur within the state. Mr. Turner noted he
has faxed some suggested changes to Representative Davis which
would help close some of the loopholes.
Number 1142
MARCIA BOYD, Owner, Twinview Horse Park in Wasilla, was next to
testify via teleconference from Mat-Su. She said she agrees with
Mr. Turner that this bill will be a boom to the horse industry in
Alaska. It would open up many more activities that are currently
not being looked at because of the liability involved. Ms. Boyd
informed the committee she has been told by her insurance company
that if Alaska has such a law, her insurance premiums would go
down. Her insurance company would be willing to allow more
(indisc.) at her facility that they are not currently willing to
stand behind because of the liability picture as it currently
stands. Ms. Boyd explained she has sent a statement to
Representative Davis which outlines her ideas. She said she would
like to elaborate on the fact that when (indisc.) his or her own
horse, the sponsor of an event cannot possibly determine the
suitability of the horse to the rider. The sponsor can't be
expected to intervene between a horse and his rider or owner even
though there are countless instances where people buy horses that
are too much for them. That is not anyone's business but their
own. Ms. Boyd referred to page 2, line 12, and said it limits the
liability exemptions to people who are riding, driving or training
horses. She said handlers of horses who are also at risk and don't
fall into any of the three above mentioned categories need to be
recognized as handlers from the ground. Sponsors should be
protected from liability of accidents occurring to handlers. Ms.
Boyd said she doesn't think spectators should be eliminated from
the bill if they choose to attend an equine activity, they've made
that choice and just being around a horse, by nature, is dangerous
because of the unpredictability of the response of a horse. You
can do your best to be safe and prevent accidents, but if a
motorcycle drives by and sprays the horses or a helicopter flies
overhead, a spectator could easily be hurt and the sponsor
shouldn't be held responsible.
Number 1322
REPRESENTATIVE KIM ELTON said normally, if you sign your child up
for little league or karate lessons or you join a health club,
generally you're asked to sign a waiver of liability. He asked Ms.
Boyd if she requires that with her business. If so, why is there
the additional need for legislation.
MS. BOYD explained she has a waiver of liability she had drawn up
by an attorney. She said she has also been told by that attorney
it really won't hold up in court.
Number 1372
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained in response to Representative
Elton's question, a lot of those organizations, especially little
league, have a large amount of insurance that covers their events.
He said he thinks it is provided through their national
organization.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Mr. Turner sending Representative Davis
some suggested changes and asked Representative Davis if he cares
to address them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS explained he has received requests from
involved people. He said a lot of the suggested changes were what
he considered somewhat "boiler plate" and "housekeeping" measures.
He said he has decided not to request a sponsor substitute.
Representative Davis explained he received some of the same
recommendations from Ms. Boyd, Mr. Turner and Lee Woodman.
Representative Davis referred to page 2, line 5, relating to injury
or death of a spectator and said he would like to see that whole
paragraph taken out of the bill. He said he could come back before
the committee with a committee substitute.
Number 1488
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to Ms. Boyd's concern relating to a
horse or an owner who should not be held responsible for the
adaptability of the owner of the horse to his/her own horse. He
said he doesn't think that is what is required on line 8, page 2,
"the failure of the equine activity sponsor or equine professional
who provided the equine to make reasonable efforts to determine the
ability of the injured person...." Representative Porter said he
doesn't think that would then require someone who is just boarding
a horse which is owned by someone else, to make sure that that
"someone else" knows how to ride their own horse.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said, "Also, on page 2, line 6, it's probably
-- it doesn't seem logical to exempt equipment or tack provided by
an equine... It does seem logical to provide as in a defective
equipment or tack - would seem to be more logical. And another
amendment that I would strongly consider is page 2, line 14,
indicates a defective product. I would roll that up into line 6.
`A defective product, equipment or tack provided by an equine
activity sponsor or professional.'"
Number 1588
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said there are two kinds of defective product.
One would be a defective product that is provided by the
manufacturer. The other could be a defective product that is
defective because of lack of upkeep on the part of the business
owner. He said if they are rolled together, it may be going too
far.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS said he agrees it should probably be spelled
out.
Number 1700
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said it would be a matter of evidentiary
proof if there is a cause of action about whether the equipment is
defective or not. You have the right to bring a cause of action
over the equipment and that is how the bill is written. He said
the bill is alright as it is currently written.
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to some suggested changes faxed to his
office from Wendy Yardley and asked Representative Davis if he has
received them.
REPRESENTATIVE DAVIS indicated he doesn't have Ms. Yardley's
information.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said he would like to hold the bill until the
following Wednesday so that a committee substitute could be
developed.
HB 311 - REPEAL LIMIT ON HOURS EMPLOYED IN MINES
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 311,
"An Act repealing the limitation on the hours a person may be
employed in a mine; and making a related technical amendment to
avoid changing the penalties for failing to make payments into an
employee benefit fund." He said the bill had been heard twice
previously.
REPRESENTATIVE AL VEZEY, sponsor of HB 311, said he didn't have any
new comments.
Number 2120
ED FLANAGAN, Deputy Commissioner, Department of Labor, said the
department feels that the current law has served the state and the
workers in the underground mining industry well. He said the
Department of Labor is opposed to the current bill in that it
removes any restrictions on the hours of underground work. Mr.
Flanagan said he thinks a compromise could be worked out where a
ten hour limitation could be placed in the bill as long as it is
subject to something like the variance procedure that exists for
any and all of out OSHA regulations. He explained that is where an
application is made and the department would have the opportunity
to examine the circumstances of the particular situation of the
particular mine to see if it is run safely and additional hours
would not pose an additional threat to the safety of the workers.
MR. FLANAGAN explained that there has been three miners killed in
the Juneau area over the last eight years. He noted that is with
the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA). Mr. Flanagan
said he is not casting any aspersions on MSHA. He said he thinks
the guy does a real good job, but he is one guy for the whole
state. Mr. Flanagan said mining is a hazardous industry and there
are people in attendance at the meeting who are better qualified to
speak on the issue. He explained he has been somewhat involved in
the Brady Lake project.
MR. FLANAGAN referred to tunnels and said the hazard is 360
degrees. Anything can happen. He said the Department of Labor
would be willing to work with the committee on an acceptable
committee substitute that has some kind of variance. Mr. Flanagan
referred to Alaska's wage and hour statute and said there is a
provision for a four day ten hour work week. That relates to an
overtime issue. There are two specific provisions which allows for
an alternate work week without incurring the overtime liability for
over eight hours, which is state law. One is if it is under a
collective bargaining agreement or, in the case of a nonunion
operation, if it is under a written plan submitted and approved by
the Department of Labor. He said it is not as if there isn't any
precedence between that, the Wage and Hour Act and the variance
procedure in the OSHA Act. Mr. Flanagan said that is what the
department uses when they deal with seafood processing companies.
Although Alaska's requirements for camps is 60 square feet per
person, the federal minimum is 50 square feet per person. When
there is a short-term situation and the company needs to put people
up who are working for the canneries, the department will do a
temporary variance and go down sometimes as low as 42 or 43 feet.
It is on a case by case basis. There is public notice and an
opportunity for response and public input.
MR. FLANAGAN said you can have the best mining operation in the
world, but the contractors come in. At least two out of the three
fatalities were contractor employees. That is another reason for
having a case by case basis.
Number 2109
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Mr. Flanagan to explain the
situations where the miners were killed.
MR. FLANAGAN said one accident was at Kensington mine where a
worker fell down a shaft and was killed about five or six years
ago. In approximately 1989, there was a driller who was working
alone in the A-J Mine for centennial development that got wrapped
around the drill and was killed. Mr. Flanagan said there was a
person working for Echo Bay about a year and a half ago and there
was a cave in where a slab came down and killed him. He noted he
didn't know if any of the deaths had to do with fatigue. He said
he is sure they were operating legally within the confines of the
existing law where they don't work over eight hours.
Number 2164
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON referred to the possibility of the committee
deciding to discuss the idea of an eight hour day with additional
hours being permitted by the department and asked if that would
take a statutory change.
MR. FLANAGAN answered in the affirmative. He noted it could not be
done by regulation.
Number 2185
REPRESENTATIVE JERRY SANDERS said it was the committee's
understanding that at the last meeting that there was going to be
some negotiations occurring between the companies and the union.
He asked Mr. Flanagan if he knew what happened.
MR. FLANAGAN said he knows a little, but he pointed out there are
people in attendance at the meeting who could speak to the issue.
Number 2225
CLYNT NAUMAN, General Manager, Kennecott Greens Creek Mining
Company, thanked Chairman Kott for the opportunity to address the
committee. He informed the committee he is new to Southeast Alaska
but has spent a lot of years in Fairbanks area. He noted he is not
unfamiliar with a lot of Alaskan issues. Mr. Nauman said he is
giving testimony on behalf of the employees at the Kennecott Greens
Creek Mine located on Admiralty Island, about 18 miles away from
Juneau. He said he would like to testify in support of a
modification of the existing statute to increase the number of
hours that a person could spend underground from eight hours to ten
hours.
MR. NAUMAN said he would like to point out the situation that
Greens Creek is currently in and what the anticipated future is.
Secondly, he said he would talk about the jobs issue, especially
the local hire issue, and the impact the bill could have on that
issue. Thirdly, he stated would talk about job security or long
term economic viability. He said he would also speak about the
capital competition and investment criteria that is required for
companies to invest money in the mining business in Alaska. Mr.
Nauman informed the committee he would briefly address the issue of
the variance of permits and then summarize with a few other points.
MR. NAUMAN said as far as Greens Creek is concerned, Greens Creek
is going to reopen as a viable mining operation in the later
portion of 1996. When the mine reopens it will be a modern fully
Americanized underground mining operation, and when in production
it will be by far the largest silver producer in the United States.
He informed the committee they currently have 142 employees
primarily to put the mine back into operation, and they are
spending more than $80 million. When the mine is back in
operation, they will employ approximately 250 people. Of the 142
people currently employed, 80 percent are Alaskans and 20 percent,
33 people, were brought into Juneau from outside of Alaska because
they offer the type of expertise that is needed to run the mine.
MR. NAUMAN referred to the jobs issue and said Greens Creek has
always stated and proposed to maximize its local hire. He said
they recognize that in Southeast Alaska especially that not all the
communities are as well off as Juneau is. The basis of Greens
Creek's proposal is to offer employment opportunities to people
outside of the Juneau area, to be able to transport those employees
to Juneau and keep them onsite during a normal shift rotation. In
order to do that, there are two components that are critical. The
first is being able to extend the underground shifts from eight
hours to ten hours so that they may operate on a two shift basis.
Secondly, they need approval from the U.S. Forrest Service to
provide the housing that is required on Admiralty Island.
MR. NAUMAN explained they recently advertised in Sitka and other
Southeastern communities for mill rights. They were plowed under
with responses from people who want to go to work at Greens Creek.
The uniform cry of those people was, "We cannot afford to relocate
our family to Juneau. We know that the cost of housing in Juneau
is extremely high. Is there any way we can work at Greens Creek
and remain in our home communities in Southeast Alaska." Mr.
Nauman pointed out there is a tremendous demand for jobs in
Southeast Alaska, especially in the communities that have been
adversely affected by timber problems.
MR. NAUMAN said Greens Creek is going to go into production whether
it is on a two shift or a three shift basis. He referred to being
primarily interested in local jobs and the ability to be able to
house people on the island and said it will drive up the number of
people they are able to employ from Alaska versus what they will
have to bring in from the Lower 48. He noted there are also a lot
of people in the Lower 48 who would like to move to Alaska to work.
TAPE 96-14, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. NAUMAN explained his company would much prefer to employ
Alaskans to keep the payroll in Alaska.
MR. NAUMAN referred to job security and said Greens Creek went out
of production in 1993. The reason was because commodity prices,
especially silver and zinc prices were low, and costs were too
high. The ability to keep the mine in production is only as good
as their ability to sustain the margin between net revenues and the
underlying cost structure of the operation. Moving to a ten hour
shift at Greens Creek gives them about a 15 percent increase in
efficiency and helps to compete in the global marketplace and on a
sustained basis.
MR. NAUMAN referred to the Greens Creek work force and said 95
percent of the people working underground want to work the longer
hours. In fact, they would prefer to go to more than ten hours.
This is because to work at Greens Creek, you get up at 4:30 a.m.,
you catch a ferry at 4:45 a.m., you get home around 5:30 p.m.,
depending on sea conditions. He said the problem is that with the
three shift basis, people do not get to spend enough time with
their families. Moving to a two shift basis would effectively add
more than 20 days a year that an employee could spend with his
family.
Number 071
MR. NAUMAN said Alaska competes with a lot of other states and
countries in the world for mining investment dollars. Alaska is
the only state with a viable mining industry that has not addressed
the eight hour statute and modified it in some form or another.
Extension of the underground shafts would improve the economics and
the competitiveness of Alaska on a global basis. It would allow
the mining industry to go forward in Alaska as it should.
MR. NAUMAN explained his company has worked with the labor and
trade people over the past month to try and find some common ground
on which they can move forward with this issue. He said he thinks
they have been successful with some of the people, but he isn't
sure they are going forward on a mutual basis at this point. Mr.
Nauman said he would request that the bill be moved forward.
MR. NAUMAN referred to moving from eight hours underground to ten
hours at the face and said that would be safe. He said as far as
Greens Creek is concerned, it promotes opportunities for Alaskan
jobs. It reduces the exposure of Greens Creek to the inevitable
fluctuations in the commodities market and improves the competitive
edge of the state in terms of investment of capital dollars for the
purpose of creating jobs.
Number 152
CHAIRMAN KOTT referred to Mr. Nauman suggesting there should be
some modification to the existing statutes and said he mentioned
ten hours. He said the way the bill is currently written, you
could go to 12 or 14 hours. Chairman Kott asked Mr. Nauman if he
wants a minimum of ten hours.
MR. NAUMAN said the Greens Creek proposal, which is supported by
the Council of Alaskan Producers, is for ten hours at the face.
There has been an considerable amount of research work that has
been done on safety and underground operations. Most of the
research relates to the difference of 8 hours and 12 hours
underground. The research clearly shows that safety is not an
issue between 8 and 12 hours, but the management at Greens Creek
believes the movement from 8 hours to 10 hours is absolutely safe
and does not compromise on any of the other issues while adding
value to the employees' family lives without compromising (indic.)
opportunity.
Number 208
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said he has sympathy with Mr. Nauman's
desire to make the change from 8 to 10 hours. He said that is not
what the bill is about. He pointed out there would need to be a
bill that applied to what Mr. Nauman is asking for.
MR. NAUMAN stated it is his understanding that the bill is to
repeal the underground law.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS answered in the affirmative.
MR. NAUMAN said, "I think it is Greens Creek's position that the
research data and everything that has been done by the industry, in
general, in North America and elsewhere, is only looked at up to 12
hours and we believe that that's a reasonable and safe and
hopefully, on a legislative basis, an achievable resolution to this
problem."
Number 247
CHAIRMAN KOTT said testimony from the Department of Labor indicated
that they would be supportive of a ten hour limitation subject to
variance procedures. He asked Mr. Nauman to comment on the
proposal.
MR. NAUMAN explained that in order to put Greens Creek in
production, they needed 125 permits. While in production, they
have to maintain over 50 permits. He said the problem with the
permitting of a variance system is that the operation and the
invested capital is exposed to the vagaries if the permitting or
variance system. People and mining companies, including Greens
Creek, will make investment decisions based on a least risk
weighted basis. Those decisions will not be made for the 10 or 12
hours without some assurance or a statute that the efficiency and
productivity can be achieved. Mr. Nauman said the problem they see
with that proposal is in terms of weighing the investment
opportunity against other opportunities elsewhere in the world.
Number 356
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA referred to Mr. Nauman being in attendance on
behalf of his employees. He questioned whether his employees have
voted to give up the right of the protection of an eight hour day.
MR. NAUMAN said Greens Creek is a nonunion operation. Their
employees, with the exception of one underground employee, have
offered support and have actually requested to be allowed to work
longer hours underground. One of the problems at Greens Creek is
basically you put in a 12 hour day and on average, they spend 5.7
hours working at the face, exclusive of travel to and from the
mine, exclusive of travel within the mine to get to the face.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said with the exception of one employee,
every employee has asked that the hours be extended.
MR. NAUMAN pointed out he is talking about underground employees.
Out of the 142 employees 43 of them are underground employees. He
explained 42 of them want to work longer hours underground because
they want the additional time off with their families without
compromising their earnings opportunity.
Number 382
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS asked if this is a situation Greens Creek
needs in order to compete in the world marketplace.
MR. NAUMAN said he would point to the fact that Greens Creek went
out of business in 1993 and put more than 200 people out of work.
Prices were low and costs were high.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS explained that what scares him about the
bill is it repeals the limitations. If they need ten hours in
order to be viable on the world market today and the price goes
down a little bit, will people need 12 hours to compete next year
or will it go to 18 hours in two years.
MR. NAUMAN said from his perspective, the issue is safety. The
primary driving issue in underground operations is safety first and
productivity and efficiency second. He said the work that has been
done by the U.S. Bureau of Mines and other people in the business,
and the experience of other mines working in the North, remote
operations - Polaris, Nanacivic, Loopin (Sp.?), and other major
underground operations in Canada are working the longer hours and
have shift rotations. He said those companies have actually been
recipients of prestigious safety awards, but none of those
operations work beyond 12 hours at the face.
MR. NAUMAN explained the Greens Creek proposal is to modify the
language of the existing law.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said this bill modifies it substantially.
Number 536
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said the committee has been waiting for the
results of discussion between producers and labor. He asked who
has been involved in the discussions.
MR. NAUMAN explained he has taken this issue upon himself and has
somewhat been leading the charge on trying to educate and solicit
support for modification of the existing bill. He said he
recognized, from looking at prior transcripts, the efforts of
trying to change this law in the past. One of the continuing
problems was the opposition of the labor and trades people. Mr.
Nauman said he has spoke with those people at least to let them
know what is going on so there is no surprises. As far as the
skilled and crafts people are concerned, they're reasonably happy
that Greens Creek has come forward and discussed this issue with
them. He noted he had an opportunity to meet with the building
trades and labor people and have laid out similar things for them.
He said he has asked for their support in terms of modifying the
existing language. One thing that has come through loud and clear
is that repeal of the law is not a supportable issue. He said that
is why he is in attendance, to support a modification of the
existing bill primarily so that Greens Creek can move forward and
put Alaskans to work.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he appreciates the fact about expanding
the discussion beyond hiring locally and hiring Alaskans. He said
he would like to put forward one caution that it is sometimes
easier to commute to Seattle than it is to commute to Wrangell.
MR. NAUMAN said Greens Creek's proposal would be one that would
subsidize travel of those people and they would not subsidize
travel for anybody who resides outside of Alaska.
Number 674
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked how many underground mines are
currently operating in the state.
MR. NAUMAN explained in the Mettles (Sp.?) mines there are two
mines in operation and two development projects. The mines in
operation are Greens Creek, which has a 17 year mine life, Nix and
Fork, which is the only mine in operation that has a much shorter
mine life. He referred to development projects and said one is the
A-J Mine in Juneau and the Kensington project north of Juneau.
Number 681
MR. NAUMAN referred to Greens Creek and said during the first four
or five years of production, 58 percent of the net revenues are
going to come from precious metals, primarily silver. Later in the
mine life, around 2003 or 2004, silver grades will drop and zinc
grades will improve. Zinc will then become the primary revenue
generating product at Greens Creek. He said he can assure the
committee that without the opportunity to work ten hours at the
face, when silver prices fall below $4.50 an ounce and when zinc
falls below 45 cents an ounce, in the latter portion of the initial
ore body Greens Creek will find itself in a position similar to the
position it was in before. That is why in putting the mine back
into operation, he wants to make sure that the 250 people they
employ have a maximum opportunity of remaining employed for the
next 15 years. To do anything less is irresponsible.
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked who the members are on the Council of Alaska
Producers.
MR. NAUMAN said in terms of mining companies, Cominco, Coeur, Echo
Bay, Kennicott, Placer, Dome, Nevada Gold Fields, nearly all the
major mining companies in Alaska are represented.
Number 856
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS said it is evident that the committee isn't
discussing HB 311. He asked if there is a possibility that the
labor organizations, the deputy commissioner of the Department of
Labor and Mr. Nauman could get together and craft a bill that
everyone could support.
MR. NAUMAN said he thinks the issue is really the ability to bring
efficiency to the underground mining industry, in Greens Creek's
case to be able to hire Alaskans. He said he has been working to
communicate to see if he can generate support for what the
committee is talking about, modification of the existing language.
Number 945
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said Mr. Nauman has said two different
things. He finished his testimony urging the committee to move the
bill, but he has also said he is against the repeal of this
statute.
MR. NAUMAN said he would have to plead ignorance on the
complexities of the process, but they want to see this issue move
forward as they need to make decisions based on that. He said they
are currently recruiting and hiring people and his concern is that
if the bill doesn't move out of committee and gets berried, it will
never surface again.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said what the committee would do if they
could ever get to the point of doing it is to consider amendments
to the bill. One obvious amendment would be to amend the total
repeal of the 8 hour restriction to something like 10 to 12 hours.
He asked Mr. Nauman if it would be a fair statement in that he
would support that amendment.
MR. NAUMAN answered in the affirmative.
Number 1031
ERIC KLEPFER, Coeur Alaska, was next to testify. He read the
following statement into the record:
"My name is Eric Klepfer, I'm with Coeur Alaska. I would like to
thank the committee for the opportunity to testify today.
"Coeur is the owner and operator of the Kensington Project which is
located 45 miles north of Juneau. The Kensington Project is an
underground gold mine with an ore reserve of approximately 1.95
million ounces of gold. Capital costs for the project are
estimated at $195 million and will have an annual payroll of about
$28 million. This project is expected to employ approximately 300
people during the operation and produce approximately 200,000
ounces of gold per year. Coeur is presently in the process of
permitting the operation and expects to be in a position to make a
construction decision in fourth quarter of 1996.
"The Kensington Project is a remote mine operation and is
accessible only by plane or boat. Due to the remote nature and
limited access, we intend to build personnel camp to house
employees during their off-hours. It is Coeur's intent to provide
an environment in which employees can safely and productively work
while having a place to relax during their off shift hours.
"Coeur is committed to local and Native hire and employment.
Recently, we've entered into an agreement with three Native
Corporations in Southeast Alaska and our goal is to develop local
human resources as part of our mineral resource development effort
at Kensington. In order to accomplish this, we have been working
with the state Department of Labor, University of Alaska and the
Native groups to set up mine training programs in Southeast.
"The best alternative Coeur can provide employees that work at a
remote site is a schedule that will provide extended time home with
their families. Coeur needs a modification of the present eight
hour work day restriction for underground mines to provide this
employment opportunities and schedules that allow flexible work
shifts. With an extension of the eight hour work day, Coeur could
consider schedules such as two weeks on, two weeks off, rather than
an eight hour alternative of two weeks on, four days off.
Coeur is working with local Southeast communities including Juneau
and Haines to develop a `local community project concept.' This
can be achieved only if there is flexibility in the current law
which allows us a similar flexibility in scheduling.
"The majority of Alaska's extensive natural resources are located
in remote areas. Development of these resources will require
companies to establish remote camps and use innovative work
schedules to meet project objectives and employee needs. Remote
operations, by their nature, are well suited to the extended work
day and, more importantly, dictate different work schedules.
"It is important for this committee to recognize that the eight
hour underground law must be changed in some manner that permits
Coeur to use alternative schedules to meet production and employee
needs for the Kensington Project while remaining competitive in a
world market. Without change, Coeur is restricted in its ability
to provide flexible work schedules that benefit the project and
most importantly, our employees, Southeast Alaska and the state as
a whole. Alaska is one of the last active mining states that has
not changed this law in some manner.
"Numerous reports and studies have been completed by organizations
such as the U.S. Bureau of Mines and other knowledgeable groups
regarding extended shifts and safety in mining. James Duchon,
former U.S. Bureau of Mines, Safety Division research analyst and
expert on shift work and safety training in mining is here today
via teleconference to testify on the results of these studies and
answer questions the committee may have with regard to safety and
the extended work hour.
"To be competitive and attract quality employees, Coeur's
operations must be able to: Provide a safe work environment; offer
reasonable work schedules which provide the employee opportunity to
spend quality time with families; meet project objective and goals;
and minimize costs.
"There are several inherent benefits that Coeur and its employees
gain by extending the eight hour underground work day. These
include: High paying jobs with work schedules that meet both
project and employee needs; employment opportunities in communities
such as Haines and Juneau; minimizes the need for families from
outlying Alaska communities to relocate to Juneau; reduces the
number of helicopter flights to and from the site both from a
safety and an environmental consideration; and provides much needed
job opportunities to Southeast Alaska communities.
"As you can understand, the remote location of the project, limited
access and other considerations make it imperative that the eight
hour underground restriction be changed. This is extremely
important to the project and will play a pivotal role in the final
decision of project development. Coeur must be able to operate the
underground mining operations beyond the eight hour work day and we
urge the committee to support a bill that changes this restriction.
By doing so, Alaska is moving in concert with other states in
removing work day restrictions for underground mining operations
that other industries in Alaska enjoy. Anything less will hinder
the future of mining in Alaska
"Coeur is committed to Alaska and the Kensington Project and we
would offer our assistance to the committee in anyway to change the
existing eight hour day restriction imposed upon the mining
industry. Thank you Mr. Chairman and committee members."
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked Mr. Klepfer if he supports the bill in its
present form.
MR. KLEPFER said Coeur is looking at and supports the ten hour
modification that Greens Creek is proposing. He said from Coeur's
perspective, they need a ten hour day.
Number 1431
JOE J. THOMAS, Alaska State AFL-CIO, was next to testify on HB 311.
He informed the committee that he did testify on the measure at a
previous meeting. Since that time, he hasn't heard much to change
his opinion of the bill. Mr. Thomas said his organization's
primary concern is the safety of those who are working underground.
He showed the committee an article from a National Geographic
booklet showing the largest gold mine in the world. He said, "We
could probably find a lot of laws that we could change -- that if
we changed, we would make a particular industry come alive again or
reinvigorated or make it profitable."
MR. THOMAS referred to camps and said he would like to bring the
committee's attention to the oil industry at Prudhoe Bay. There
are a lot of large camps there. The camps serve the purpose that
so many people show concern for. Once you have a camp, you can
bring people in from anywhere regardless of where they were going
to come from. If you're controlling work shifts, it does make it
extremely reasonable for somebody to travel long distance depending
on what the work shifts are. The longer the shifts, the more the
weeks can be put together, the more reasonable it is for somebody
to travel great distances because the money is there and the
airplane tickets are relatively an insignificant cost of traveling
depending on what the wages are that are paid.
MR. THOMAS said, "Our concern about the extension of hours - the
changing in this bill is I don't see the idea and somewhat see the
reluctance of people to agree to oversight and that concerns me
when there is a resistance to the idea that well a variance which
was discussed briefly. The idea of a variance based on your
ability to prove that what you are doing or what you intend to do
is reasonable." He said that is what concerns them.
MR. THOMAS said there is no doubt that competition is difficult
throughout the world. World prices that vary a few cents can make
the difference between a mine being profitable or not. He said he
doesn't think his organization can actually support the idea that
few cents on the market is going to cause either wage or safety
laws to be changed or working hours to be fluctuated to make
something more profitable. Mr. Thomas said a mine representative
testified that they are going to open regardless. He said he would
find it hard to believe that somebody would go ahead and invest
tons of money on the idea that maybe the law will be changed.
MR. THOMAS referred to reviewing some statistics he has received
and said depending on how you would interpret them, it looks to him
that in the twenty-second, twenty-third and twenty-fourth hours of
work are the safest hours somebody can work in. He said he finds
that to be ridiculous.
MR. THOMAS said the mineral industry is surviving. He quoted from
an article, "The mining industry in Alaska has doubled in size in
the last ten years." He said he realizes it may be a growing
industry at this point, but it sounds like it is doing fine under
the existing conditions and laws. There is no doubt that things
could be changed here and there. He said his organization is
willing to sit down and discuss it. The concerns relate to safety,
the air within the mines, the rock bolting, the safety equipment,
the evacuation procedures, etc. Mr. Thomas pointed out Arizona has
an eight hour law with no exceptions. California allows miners to
work longer than eight hours when there is a collective bargaining
agreement or a variance reached.
MR. THOMAS said he is also concerned about the length of hours that
were worked in some construction projects related to tunneling
work. He referred to some information the committee was given and
it may be inaccurate. During the development of the Bradley Lake
project, they had three shifts, eight hours a day, as were most of
the other tunnel jobs in Alaska. Mr. Thomas said he would be happy
to answer questions.
Number 1925
ANDREW J. BEAR PIEKARSKI, District Council of Laborers, testified
against HB 311. Mr. Piekarski informed the committee he was in a
tunnel cave-in on November 30, 1964, where safety was one of the
issues. He said if the legislature changes this stipulation,
they're changing the little "ma and pa" companies. Safety is a
critical issue. The District Council of Laborers has supported
mining in the state of Alaska. He said they have tried to organize
the Greens Creek mine. Mr. Piekarski said they supported Echo Bay,
A-J, and they helped get the Dong Road funded for the Red Dog Mine.
He referred to the Whittier Tunnel and said it is a pipeline tunnel
that runs adjacent to the tunnel that is existing there. That was
ran on a three shift basis. He referred to an eight by eight area
and said when something goes wrong you can't run. Mr. Piekarski
informed the committee of the different projects he has worked on.
MR. PIEKARSKI told the committee he has been a business agent in
Alaska for 25 years and is elected every three years. He
represents a lot miners and a lot of people in the rock business
and has seen some of them killed. He referred to long hours in
mines and said there will be fatigue. Mr. Piekarski said in
closing, "If you bring a law like this in, you've got people that
are desperate for money and you start getting into `jipos' where
they go in and they start working and you start bunching and
stuff." He informed the committee of some of the laws in Idaho.
Mr. Piekarski said he has been in the business for 25 years and
urged that things not be changed until more people are involved.
TAPE 95-15, SIDE A
Number 050
JIM DUCHON, Consultant, was next to testify via teleconference. He
read the following statement into the record:
"My name is James C. Duchon. I received my Ph.D. in Experimental
Psychology from the Illinois Institute of Technology in Chicago,
Illinois. I am currently employed as an independent consultant and
serve on the Board of Examiners for the Minnesota Quality Awards
Council. My areas of expertise are in the areas of shift work
consulting and training, safety, organizational effectiveness and
quality improvement.
"From 1986 to February of this year, I have worked for the Safety
Division of U.S. Bureau of Mines in Minneapolis, Minnesota. As
many of you may know, we were a federally funded research arm of
the mining industry. The focus of our research was to explore and
study methods to reduce the risk of accidents in mining. My
particular expertise was in the area of nights and shift work,
fatigue, extended work shifts and job analysis.
"As a result of our research, we learned a great deal about the use
of extended workdays in mining. This research appears to be of
direct relevance to the deliberations by the state of Alaska,
regarding lengths of work shifts in underground mines. To
illustrate, I will discuss the results of a study at an underground
copper, lead and zinc mine that went from an 8 hour, 3 shifts per
day to a 12 hour, 2 shifts per day schedule.
"The purpose of this summary that I am discussing now is to present
an objective way some of the relevant research on safety issues
regarding extended workdays and to offer my recommendations
regarding the use of extended work shifts in underground mining.
"First of all, extended work shifts - What are they? Extended work
shift, workdays or compressed workweeks longer than 8 hours in
length, typically 10 or 12 hours, while still retaining an
approximate 40 hour week. There are at least five theoretical
factors that could make a difference in a worker's tolerance to the
shift.
"First and most obvious is the length of workday. While it seems
intuitive that the longer someone works, the more likely he or she
will make some sort of human error. However, our data shows that
the frequency of accidents is more or less equal for each hour into
shift. In other words, the first hour of work is associated with
approximately the same number of accidents as the fifth, sixth,
seventh and so forth.
"Second is the shortened time between shifts. This would have an
impact on sleep length and afford less time for physical recovery
between shifts.
"Third is the length of the workweek. Extended workdays often are
associated with shortened workweeks of two to four days. This
could create a desirable situation for two reasons. First, our
circadian rhythms would not have the time needed to adjust as we
rapidly go from say the night shift to an off day. This could to
some degree offset the negative health effects of working nights.
In short `occupational jet lag' is kept at a minimum. Second, with
short workweeks there would be less cumulative fatigue across the
workweek.
"Fourth, with more days off time for recovery from fatigue or sleep
deficit is enhanced.
"The fifth factor is time-of-day. Of course both extended workdays
and regular 8 hour shift work patterns can involve working nights
where work capacity is lessened.
"Safety in mining. First I wanted to make a brief comment about
safety in mining today. When discussing the idea of using extended
workdays in mining, it is useful to put safety in mining in
perspective with other industries.
"Accident rates in mining have dropped drastically since the 1940s
and earlier. We no longer count fatalities in the thousands, as we
once did. For example, over 2,000 each year in the 1920s.
Fatalities have in fact decreased steadily from over 300 fatalities
in 1973 to only 115 in 1991, for example.
"However, mining in general still has one of the highest injury and
fatality rates of any industry. For example, latest figures show
that 43 fatalities per 100,000 individuals employed in mining, as
compared to 40 and 32 in agriculture and construction, which are
the three top most risking industries. However, it may be an
unfair comparison to lump all types of mining into one statistic.
For instance, incidence rates for mental/nonmetal mining, including
underground mines, are roughly half of those in coal mining. This
sort of breakdown indicates an incident rate for metal and nonmetal
mines less than other high rate industries.
"I now want to talk a little about studies in all industries
regarding safety in extended workdays. It is probably noteworthy
and may be of historical interest to note that the earlier studies
of human endurance and sustained operations were conducted by the
U.S. Army. They were interested in how long soldiers could work
before their performance was degraded. These studies clearly
showed that under certain conditions humans could work well over
eight hours without a loss of efficiency. However, while it is
enlightening to know our limitations under these conditions, it is
more important to look at research associated with actual modern
working conditions.
"In my review of extended research literature, which I published in
1994, I looked at over 50 published reports. Of those reports,
there were only ten studies that actually looked at 10 or 12 hour
shifts. The rest related primarily to the issue of overtime and
safety. Interestingly, while most of the analyses indicated more
frequent accidents related to overtime, extended work shifts did
not. Specifically, in a survey study of 716 12-hour works in the
processing, oil refinery, chemical and fertilizer industries, self-
reports of job performance, ability to concentrate, amount of sleep
and health either remained the same or improved. Also, over 90
percent were satisfied with the schedule. Mangers indicated that
they perceived less absenteeism, less tardiness, and no effects on
health and safety. Likewise, the results of interviews with
managers of 50 U.S. and Canadian chemical and petroleum plants
indicated similar health and safety results, including improving
morale. However, both studies warned of the effects of 12 hour
shifts on older workers, but not provide objective data on this
topic.
"In a study of 8 hour versus 10 hour shifts in a manufacturing
plant, performance and physiological measure indicated no
difference.
"In another study of English policemen, performance and
physiological measure either stayed the same or improved on 12 hour
shifts.
"However, there are some studies that have shown performance
decrements with 12 hour shifts. For example, in a study conducted
by NIOSH on extended workdays in a nuclear power plant, some
measures did indicate a decrease in performance.
"Now for the studies in underground mining, including the Bureau of
Mines Study. I am aware of only one published study that looked at
extended workdays in underground mining. This was conducted by
researchers at the Bureau of Mines where I was principal
investigator. We studied an underground copper, lead and zinc mine
in British Columbia that changed from an eight hour rotating shift
schedule to a four on, four off, 12 hour schedule. We were invited
by the mine and the Provincial Ministry of Energy, Mines and
petroleum Resources to evaluate their change to the new 12 hour
schedule. Our recommendation following the study would be taken
into account by the ministry when evaluating the exemption given to
the mine for the introduction of 12 hour shifts.
"Before and ten months after the 12 hour schedule was introduced,
we took measures of behavioral performance, cardiopulmonary
functioning, air containment levels and a variety of self-report
measures. The entire production crew was measured. These measures
were directed at assessing possible effects of 12 hour shifts on
behavioral functions, fatigue, air contaminant exposure and job
satisfaction.
"Survey results indicated an overwhelming support for the new
extended workday schedule. The 12 hour schedule was not associated
with a decrease in most measures of performance across the shift.
Most of the physiological and pulmonary data indicated few
differences between 8 and 12 hour shifts.
"Based upon the overall acceptance of the new schedule by the
workers and lack of evidence to suggest serious performance
decrements, we recommended that the mine retain the 12 hour
schedule with certain precautionary measures to ensure the safety
of the workers. These were: 1) maintenance of on-site lodging for
12 hour workers; 2) periodic observation and measurement of the
work force; and 3) customized work tasks and work breaks to
accommodate longer work hours.
"Now my conclusion and recommendations. In conclusion, based upon
the evidence of the studies of extended workdays, including my own,
it is my informed judgement that extended workdays can be safely
used in underground mining under certain circumstances. These are:
1. Extended workdays should not be considered for jobs that
require extremely high physical work loads. For example,
the American Industrial Hygiene Association recommends a
work load not to exceed 1/3 VO2max for an 8 hour workday.
That is a measure of physical fatigue. Our data and other
(indisc.) have shown that underground miners work well
under this standard in today's technology;
2. Job sharing and cross training should be considered for 12
hour shifts or 10 hour shifts. Changing jobs may
alleviate certain physical and psychological stressors;
3. Workers should not be expected to work overtime beyond the
12 hour shift; and
4. Regular evaluation and assessment are strongly
recommended. There are surveys that have been developed
for this purpose.
"Finally, I would like to thank members of the committee for
hearing my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you
may have at this time."
Number 983
There being no questions or further witnesses to testify on HB 311,
CHAIRMAN KOTT closed public testimony.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER offered a proposed amendment that would
extend the eight hour limitation to a ten hour limitation. The
amendment is as follows:
Sec. 1 is amended to read:
Sec. 1. AS 23.10.410(a) is amended to read:
(a) A person may not be employed in an underground
coal mine, underground lode mine, underground placer
mine, underground coal, lode or placer workings, or other
underground mine, or working for more than ten hours in
24 hours, except on a day when a change of shift is made.
The ten hour limitation applies only to work actually
performed at the mining face and excludes the
intermission of time for meals, traveling to the mine
site, traveling between the mine's portal to the face, or
otherwise going to or from the place where the work is
actually carried on, whether in going on or off shift, or
in going to or returning from meals.
Sec. 2 is amended to read:
Sec. 2. AS23.10.410(b) is amended to read:
(b) It is the purpose of this section to limit the
hours of employment in 24 hours to ten hours of actual
labor at the face, or other place where the work or labor
to be done is actually performed.
Sec. 3 is deleted.
Number 1059
CHAIRMAN KOTT called for a brief at ease to make copies of the
proposed amendment.
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the amendment would be labeled Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER moved Amendment 1.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS objected.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he has a concern that the committee is
trying to essentially draft a new piece of legislation. The
amendment will create a whole new bill with a whole new effect. He
said he would feel more comfortable if the bill were to be put in
a subcommittee with a time specific to bring the it back before the
full committee the following Wednesday. He pointed out the
amendment essentially says the ten hour limitation applies only to
work actually performed at the mining face. It does not preclude
somebody from spending four hours in a shop above ground and then
another ten hours down below ground where you would still have the
fatigue factor.
Number 1245
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER said he thinks there would be a problem with
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) with working four hours
upstairs and ten hours downstairs. He noted he realizes the
amendment is a departure from the original bill, but the committee
has spent more time talking about this issue than the original
bill.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would echo Representative Porter's
comments. He noted he would support the amendment.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said if the committee is going to make the
bill a better bill, this is not the direction he would like to
pursue. He said he doesn't want to change the eight hour time, but
he would be willing to through the collective bargaining process or
through waivers from the department. Representative Kubina said it
takes away some of the protection, whether it is through the
collective bargaining process or through the Department of Labor.
REPRESENTATIVE SANDERS indicated without further input from the
Administration and labor, he isn't prepared to vote on the
amendment, and if the committee does vote on the amendment, he
isn't prepared to move the bill out of committee. It should be put
into a subcommittee.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA said he would be supportive of leaving the
department out of this and say that these sections can be waived by
a collective bargaining agreement. He said his point is where does
the employee, the department or anybody have a chance to provide
any kind of input to this regarding safety, etc. It is a
unilateral decision by changing the law.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said the committee isn't talking about the
safety or inspection of safety operations, they are just talking
about changing the hours.
REPRESENTATIVE MASEK said feels the amendment would change the
intent of the original bill. She said she isn't in favor of
supporting the amendment at the current time.
Number 1730
MR. FLANAGAN said as long as there is no provision for a variance,
the department cannot and will not support the amendment. He said,
"From Mr. Nauman's testimony, I gathered that if he's talking six
hours at the face and a 12 hour day, his workers right now --
assuming he doesn't get his permit for his camp, you're working ten
hours at the face plus the six hours - that's a 16 hour sift.
Their expert witness talked about overtime being the fact. Well
the difference between overtime and extended shift gets rather
(indisc.), too (indisc.) for me to figure out, frankly. When
they're talking about working two weeks on, two weeks off and seven
tens -- it's not saying that this - there couldn't be all those
concerns laid out. The wishes of the employees, union or nonunion,
would certainly be a factor in the variance, and I'm not saying we
would definitely mimic the variance procedure for OSHA variances,
but that allows for public comment. If a worker was feeling like
it was being rammed down their throat, they could contact the
department if they had genuine concerns - we could look at them.
We'd probably just talk to MSHA and see what the records were. But
as some speakers said, `We're not just addressing.' When we change
this law, and I'm glad to see at least the legislative declaration
of hazard remains in tact and the penalties. They - we're doing it
for every operation, every conceivable operation in the state. I
have little doubt that Greens Creek and -- none of those 125
permits that they have to get are from our department. Our
department - my commissioner's family has been mining in this
community for 110 years. He is one of the staunchest advocates of
the industry in the Cabinet. Everyone of these mining
representatives - every time they're in town, he meets with them.
And we weren't party to joint conversations, but we've heard the
concerns of the industry, we've heard the concerns of organized
labor. Obviously, including my former boss, Mr. Piekarski, doesn't
agree from the other side with the position that we've come up
with. But - I can -- it is a compromise that addresses the
concerns of both sides. Unless there is some perception that we're
some bureaucratic shibboleth that's gonna come down on them and
stop these projects. I don't think there is any rationale. I
don't think the variance procedure for our violations has shown
that. I don't think there has been any abuse or bureaucratic
indifference on processing alternative work week plans under Title
23 on the four-tens and it is our position, which I would be remiss
if I did not emphasize the commissioner's position that some form
of variance or waiver with the department doing fact finding and
finding of that it was in the interest of the workers would be
necessary for us to remove opposition to the bill."
Number 1902
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the committee has gone from a bill that
essentially repealed the 8 hour provision, which theoretically
would offer a 24 hour opportunity to work underground, to an
amendment that places a limitation of a maximum of 10 hours, which
is a 2 hour increase from the present. Chairman Kott said if the
department is not supportive of that amendment, is there some kind
of middle ground the department would support.
MR. FLANAGAN said, "Well if we screwed up by coming in with our
middle ground -- I mean I don't think -- we don't see it, we don't
see it as onerous to have. I mean basically, this amendment with
a waiver or variance procedure because the discussion on collective
bargaining was interesting and it would be applicable in some
circumstances but there are a vast array of businesses that are not
union and go to some lengths to remain nonunion. That's their
right under the law. That's the right of their employees. Some of
the employers tend to play fast and loose with the law in keeping
themselves that way, but that's neither here nor there. If it's a
union operation or a nonunion operation, there has to be a place in
a situation like this where we're changing the law, not just for
Greens Creek, not just for Echo Bay, not just for Coeur. We can do
that. We can individualize it for these large employers with a
large safety program, well organized track record, that will have
the resources to bird dog their contractors to make sure that every
contractor they bring in adheres to a standard in case those are
also going to be working longer hours. I guess that's as good as
we can do. We've given this a lot of thought. We've gotten to
this. The initial reaction in the department is `now the law works
fine.' Eight hours, the Greens Creek ran for five years. I didn't
hear anybody say that the reason Greens Creek closed in December of
93 was because of the eight hour limitation. I don't think anybody
would dare to make that claim. I think the findings -- I'm real
interested in reading these studies. I would point out that MSHA
is the entity charged with mine worker safety in this country, not
the Bureau of Mines. I'm sure they have an interest and do good
work in that direction, but I'd be interested in reading those
stories. As a layman, they frankly strain crudity that it gets
safer in the later hours, having worked long shift in non-mining
industries for years, on the North Slope. That's basically the
department's position. I don't know -- I guess I'm beating it to
death at this point, Mr. Chairman, but we've heard the concerns of
the industry. We want to address it. So this is how we do it, we
say, `O.K., ten sounds reasonable if it's a good operation, if it's
a safe operation.' If it's not a safe operation, we don't want the
blood on our hands."
Number 2033
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would be willing to move a
conceptual amendment that adopted the recommendation of the
Administration if that was the will of the committee. He asked Mr.
Flanagan if there is a statue that is like a waiver on overtime if
there was either collective bargaining or variance procedure.
MR. FLANAGAN indicated there is statutory language in Title 23.10
on overtime.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there is a conceptual amendment
that adopted that language. He also asked if it would fit with the
additional language the committee has before them.
Number 2008
CHAIRMAN KOTT asked if the department would be agreeable of an
amendment to Amendment 1 that offered that variance procedures.
MR. FLANAGAN said conceptually they would be. He noted he isn't
sure that the exact language from the wage and hour provision would
be applicable, something such as a plan submitted to the Department
of Labor and based on a finding of the commissioner that it was in
the best interest of the workers. It should be language that would
give the department the ability to review the plan and operation
for the safety.
REPRESENTATIVE KUBINA stated he would like to see it in writing.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if the collective bargaining language
should be included. He questioned whether it is in the overtime
statute. He also asked if there is language in the overtime
statute that says that there would be no review of the plan if
there were a collective bargaining agreement.
MR. FLANAGAN answered in the affirmative. He said that is the
effect.
REPRESENTATIVE ELTON said he thinks the committee is very close to
having something that is going to allow everybody an opportunity to
feel a certain level of comfort when the committee votes to move it
out. He said he doesn't think they want to jeopardize it, craft
something here and then walk away from it. He said he assumes that
at some point, the commissioner of the Department of Labor isn't
going to the Governor and waste this effort. If the committee
spends a week getting the language right, they may be saving a
year's time if it is done in committee. He noted concern about
conceptual amendments.
Number 2228
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER referred to the notion that this process
needs to go to a variance and said he is undecided whether it
should be put at the bottom of Amendment 1 or whether it should be
put at the bottom of the existing statute. He said the language
conceptually that he is thinking of would be that this variance
would be obtained from the Department of Law in a situation where
there wasn't a labor agreement. He said he would agree that the
committee should spend time to come up with language that everybody
understands and hopefully agree on.
Number 2269
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER withdrew his motion to amend and recommended
the conceptual ideas go to either staff or to a subcommittee.
Number 2287
CHAIRMAN KOTT said the bill would be held in order to work on a
committee substitute which would incorporate language that will
hopefully be agreeable to all the parties. He said there would be
a committee substitute before the committee the following
Wednesday.
HB 483 - CALCULATION OF UNEMPLOYMT INS BENEFITS
Number 2335
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the committee would address HB 483,
"An Act relating to the calculation of unemployment insurance
benefits; and providing for an effective date."
DWIGHT PERKINS, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor, read the following statement into the record:
"For years, the unemployment insurance system has enabled
Alaskan workers, their families, and their communities to
weather periods of unemployment with their economic
well-being and dignity intact. Recent events in Sitka and
Wrangell, as well as in other areas of the state affected by
plant closures or layoffs, have demonstrated all too well the
importance of this safety net for our working men and women.
"The schedule of benefits for unemployment insurance has not
been adjusted to increase the maximum weekly benefit amount
since 1990. Alaska currently ranks forty-ninth in the nation
in unemployment insurance wage replacement, with the average
weekly benefit amount only slightly more than 27 percent of
the average weekly wage for the state. In terms of the
maximum weekly benefit amount, Alaska ranks thirty-fifth in
the nation, notwithstanding the higher cost of living here.
"The current benefit schedule uses a worker's yearly wage to
determine the weekly benefit amount. The minimum qualifying
wage amount is $1,000, which provides a weekly unemployment
insurance benefit amount of $44. For each $250 a worker earns
over $1,000, $2 is added to the benefit amount. Weekly
benefits are new capped at $212, based on maximum wages of
$22,250.
"This bill would keep the current benefit schedule in place
but would replace the current fixed cap with a flexible cap.
The new cap on wages would be 75 percent of the average annual
Alaska wage, exactly the same as the wage base on which
employers and workers are taxed to support the system.
Bringing the maximum qualifying wages up to the wage base
would raise the maximum benefit amount from $212 to $238 in
1997. The average cost to employers in the year 2000 will be
approximately one dollar per employee per week.
"Thirty-five states use a flexible benefits standard driven by
changes in the average weekly wage. The advantage of such a
system is that it integrates the benefit standard into the
self-adjusting unemployment trust fund formula, which is
directly tied to the performance of the state's economy. As
average wages rise, the standard for unemployment insurance
benefits keeps pace in terms of income replacement. If wages
fall, as they did during the 1986-1987 recession, the maximum
weekly benefit decreases and the employer tax burden
decreases.
"I want to emphasize that this is a modest proposal. The bill
would raise Alaska's wage replacement less than 1 percent, to
a little over 28 percent.
TAPE 96-15, SIDE B
Number 001
MR. PERKINS continued to read his statement.
"While not enough to change our wage replacement ranking among
the states, this small change would provide a measure of
additional security to Alaska's average wage earners and help
slow the erosion of purchasing power during hard times. As we
work together to strengthen Alaska's economy to provide
quality jobs for Alaska's families and to move certain low-
income people from welfare to work, we must ensure that there
is an adequate safety net in place to allow unemployed workers
sufficient finances to remain in their homes, in their
communities, and in Alaska until they are reemployed."
MR. PERKINS pointed out that in the committee files there are three
tables that shows the average weekly wage check of $620.11. Alaska
ranks fifth in the nation. Table two is the average weekly benefit
amount of the check written for unemployment insurance in which
Alaska ranks twenty-sixth at $169.99. The average amount that is
replace of that $620 in the 50 states, Alaska ranks forty-ninth of
the average wage replacement.
Number 064
WILLIE LEWIS was next to come forward to testify. He informed the
committee he has been a resident of Fairbanks for 22 years and has
also represented the Laborers Union, which has approximate 1,300,
for about the same length of time. He noted he served on the
Employment Security Advisory Board for 12 years and was appointed
by Governor Sheffield in 1984. He referred to the previous
increase of benefits and said it actually saved homes, etc., as
most of the contracts for Alaskan residents were terminated on the
North Slope. He informed the committee that members of his union
usually work during the summer months and they have to make as much
as they possibly can. Those wages have to last until the next
season. Unemployment benefits helps people to survive over the
winter months. He said he thinks HB 483 is a good bill and urged
passage.
Number 172
WILLIE CREECH, President, Vulcan Towing and Recovery, testified via
teleconference from Anchorage. He informed the committee he
recently received a letter from the Department of Labor where they
tried to explain why they wanted to raise unemployment insurance
taxes. He informed the committee he doesn't have a problem with HB
483, but asked the committee to not move it forward until they have
had some reform done unemployment benefits. There is currently no
requirement to look for a job. There is no requirement to accept
a job or to bring proof to the unemployment office that you're
actively seeking employment. He said we have people who work the
required amount of time, get on unemployment and stay on it until
the benefits run out and then start the whole procedure again. He
asked that the unemployment office requires anyone on unemployment
to bring proof that they are currently looking for work and will
accept a job if offered. He said he called the unemployment office
to find out if people are required to bring proof that they are out
looking for a job and the answer was "no." He said he isn't
against HB 483 and doesn't mind giving an extra dollar per week for
an employee, but he wants to make sure that people who don't
require unemployment benefits are out there trying to find a job.
Number 329
RON TORGERSON, Chief of Appeals, ESD Appeals, Department of Labor,
came before the committee to testify. He informed the committee he
has worked as an analyst in Unemployment Insurance Program for a
good many years and also worked on the drafting of HB 483. Mr.
Torgerson said the department does have a work search requirement.
It is a selective focused work search requirement which is written
in their regulations, AAC 85.350. Mr. Torgerson said, "It allows
the department - the local office, at its discretion, to impose a
work search if an individual is in an occupation where employers
are hiring so that it would be fruitful for the person to knock on
doors and try to find work, and if making these kinds of personal
contacts is the way that people get work in those occupations and
as long as the individuals have been given a certain amount of time
to find work through the employment office. The problem that the
department is seeing in this, just for information, with a blanket
work search requirement in Alaska is that so much of the employment
in this states is just seasonably unavailable, and where isn't any
discretion to ask -- to take into account labor market conditions,
we'd have people knocking on the door of the two or three employers
in town at a time when work was seasonally unavailable, and our
experience has been that employers don't appreciate this. We've
gotten feedback from employers time and again that they don't want
to be involved in a pro forma work search effort that is being
imposed on claimants. For example, when they're drawing extended
benefits. Extended benefits is a program that imposes a work
search automatically. It's a federal requirement. We certainly
understand the concern. We just hope that we take into account the
labor market conditions and the fact that we do have the authority
to require a work search where it is appropriate."
MR. TORGERSON said the department also instituted an eligibility
review program where an individual who remains unemployed in a
favorable labor market, their claim is reviewed periodically and
they can be required to make personal efforts to get back to work.
Number 448
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked if there is a requirement or provision
that a person can only be required to take employment that somewhat
mirrors the employment he lost.
MR. TORGERSON stated that is correct. He said under the provision
of Section 385 of the Employment Security Act, which is a federally
imposed requirement, they have to take into account the worker's
past training experience earnings. The worker can't be required to
accept a job that is substantially less favorable than the
prevailing work in the locality, but as their unemployment
lengthens they can be required to take work outside their regular
occupation. It just has got to compare favorably with the average
conditions in the labor market. He pointed out that at the first
part of their unemployment, a person is basically expected to take
work similar to the work that they lost. They're not being asked
to downgrade their skills or take a job that pays half the wages of
the job they lost. He said that period varies depending on the
labor market and what's reasonable.
Number 527
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said he would like more information about
the program.
REPRESENTATIVE PORTER asked what would be in it for the employer.
MR. FLANAGAN explained a lot of the communities in Alaska are
dependent on unemployment insurance benefits. There are some
employers that support it because they know if they're selling the
basics of life that people spend this money on such as fuel,
housing, food, etc., they're not going to survive and their
community isn't going to survive. He noted Alaska is one of four
states where the employee pays a share. Of total benefit costs
over time, the employee pays 18 percent, the employers pay 82
percent. In 46 states, the employers pay the whole bill for the
unemployment insurance system.
MR. LEWIS said one thing that he has seen while being on the
Employment Security Advisory Board is what Employment Security has
did over the years when people are on unemployment, they have an
opportunity to get (indisc.), look at the job market. Everybody is
well trained. He noted is very proud to serve on that board.
MR. CREED pointed out there is a $212 maximum benefit and you could
go to work at McDonalds and make more than $200 per week. He
questioned why these people don't have to take a job where they
could make more than $212 per week. He said the department is
saying if a person was making $700 per week, if they're not going
to get another job that they're making equal to that amount, they
don't have to take it. Mr. Creed said if they got a job making
over $212 per week take home, they are doing better for themselves
that way than they are if they just collect the unemployment.
There was continued general discussion regarding the unemployment
program and seasonal workers in Alaska.
CHAIRMAN KOTT announced the bill would be back before the committee
at a later date.
ADJOURNMENT
Number 1288
CHAIRMAN KOTT adjourned the House Labor and Commerce meeting at
6:15 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|