04/08/2009 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB89 | |
| HB37 | |
| Adjourn |
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| *+ | HB 144 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 89 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| *+ | HB 37 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED |
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
April 8, 2009
3:30 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Kurt Olson, Chair
Representative Mark Neuman, Vice Chair
Representative Mike Chenault
Representative John Coghill
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Robert L. "Bob" Buch
Representative Lindsey Holmes
MEMBERS ABSENT
All members present
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 89
"An Act repealing the governor's committee on employment of
people with disabilities; creating the state vocational
rehabilitation committee and relating to the committee; and
providing for an effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 89 OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 37
"An Act relating to the relationship between employees and labor
organizations; prohibiting collective bargaining contracts that
require employees to join a labor or employee organization;
extending the policy and limitations set out in this Act to
public employers and public employees subject to the Public
Employment Relations Act; and providing for an effective date."
- HEARD AND HELD
HOUSE BILL NO. 144
"An Act relating to the Uniform Probate Code, including wills,
trusts, nonprobate transfers, augmented estates, personal
representatives, and trustees; and amending Rules 3 and 8,
Alaska Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 1, Alaska Rules of Probate
Procedure, and Rule 37.5, Alaska Rules of Administration."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 89
SHORT TITLE: VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE
SPONSOR(s): RULES BY REQUEST OF THE GOVERNOR
01/28/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/28/09 (H) L&C, HSS, FIN
04/08/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
BILL: HB 37
SHORT TITLE: RIGHT TO WORK
SPONSOR(s): REPRESENTATIVE(s) GATTO
01/20/09 (H) PREFILE RELEASED 1/9/09
01/20/09 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
01/20/09 (H) L&C, JUD
03/27/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
03/27/09 (H) Scheduled But Not Heard
04/08/09 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM BARNES 124
WITNESS REGISTER
PAULA SCAVERA, Special Assistant
Office of the Commissioner
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD)
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 89.
CHERYL WALSH, Director
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation
Department of Labor & Workforce Development
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified and answered questions during the
discussion of HB 89.
PAM STRATTON, Member
Governor's Committee on Employment and Rehabilitation of People
with Disabilities
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 89.
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified as the prime sponsor of HB 37.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff
Representative Carl Gatto
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on behalf of the prime sponsor of
HB 37, Representative Carl Gatto.
GREG O'CLARAY, Retiree
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified on HB 37.
LARRY BELL, Business Manager, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1547
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
JAMES FLAKE
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 37.
MAX MIELKE
Business Manager
Plumbers and Pipefitters
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition of HB 37.
GEORGE MCGUAN, Representative
Laborers Local 942
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 37.
DIMITRI CASSERI, Director
Government Affairs, National Right to Work Committee
Washington DC
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 37.
BILL WARREN, Retiree
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
JARED HAMLIN
International Union of Operating Engineers Local 302
Wasilla, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified during the discussion of HB 37.
JOHN SOUTER
Chugiak, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
JAKE QUAKENBUSH, Assistant Business Manager
International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW)
Fairbanks, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in opposition to HB 37.
ACTION NARRATIVE
3:30:00 PM
CHAIR KURT OLSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:30 p.m. Representatives Buch,
Coghill, Neuman, and Olson were present at the call to order.
Representatives Chenault, Holmes, and Lynn arrived as the
meeting was in progress.
3:30:02 PM
HB 89-VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION COMMITTEE
3:30:34 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the first order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 89, "An Act repealing the governor's committee on
employment of people with disabilities; creating the state
vocational rehabilitation committee and relating to the
committee; and providing for an effective date."
PAULA SCAVERA, Special Assistant, Office of the Commissioner,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD), stated that
HB 89 would allow the DLWD to conform to federal law. She
related that the bill combines two committees within the
Division of Vocational Rehabilitation (DVR) and sets up a
process for appointment to the State Vocational Rehabilitation
Committee. She assured members that the bill is 100 percent
federal conformity and the DLWD did not add any additional
provisions to the bill. Additionally, the DLWD refers to the
committee by the U.S. code number so if any aspects of the board
changes, the DLWD can make those changes without seeking
legislative approval. She pointed out that the DLWD has one
technical amendment to the bill that corrects a typographical
error that was in the U.S. code cite.
CHERYL WALSH, Director, Division of Vocational Rehabilitation,
Department of Labor & Workforce Development, stated that the
purpose of the State Vocational Rehabilitation Committee (SVRC)
is to provide advice and oversight for development of policies
and procedures to implement programs to assist Alaskans with
Disabilities to regain or obtain employment. Thus, the SVRC
committee will assist the department with its policy development
to develop a state plan, and to provide the department with a
perspective from outside of the bureaucracy. Additionally, the
composition of the SVRC committee is important since it provides
good representation ranging from employers, people with
disabilities, and educators. Further the bill combines the
Assistive Technology Committee and the State Vocational
Rehabilitation Committee, which are required under federal
regulation in order to administer the state programs.
3:33:54 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL made a motion to adopt Amendment 1,
labeled 26-GH1024\A.1, Wayne, 4/3/09, as follows:
Page 2, line 4:
Delete "3001"
Insert "3003"
There being no objection, Amendment 1 was adopted.
3:34:43 PM
MS. WALSH, in response to Representative Chenault, explained
that the committee meets four times a year, in Anchorage,
Fairbanks, Juneau, and in a rural area whenever possible. Also,
the committee can meet telephonically, if necessary. The
majority of the committee composition must be people with
disabilities. Thus, sometimes the telephonic meeting can be
important.
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT related his understanding of the
significance and necessity for telephonic meetings. He said he
hopes the committee is making an effort to meet in rural areas
since Alaskans with disabilities live in all parts of the state
and to give rural Alaska a voice.
3:35:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH related his understanding other states would
have to do this too.
MS. SCAVERA, in response to Representative Buch, indicated other
states have already made the changes. She stated there will not
be any changes in the department except that the department will
conform to federal law.
MS. WALSH, in response to Representative Buch, stated the
committee met in Nome and previously met in Barrow. She
explained that the committee attempts to meet at least once a
year in a rural area. She explained that it is sometimes
accessibility in the communities that makes it more difficult.
In response to Chair Olson, she stated that the committee met in
Sitka in January 2009.
3:38:11 PM
PAM STRATTON, Member, Governor's Committee on Employment and
Rehabilitation of People with Disabilities, stated that the bill
will bring the state into compliance with federal regulation and
will allow it to have the appropriate membership. She offered
that currently the state statute has a different definition for
membership, as well as a different number of members. She also
thought this bill would make it easier to obtain participation.
She acknowledged the concern members raised with respect to
holding meetings in rural Alaska. She explained that the
committee meets in rural locations at least once a year, and
takes public testimony. She also mentioned that an 800 number
is also available for the public. She related that the
committee solicits input and invited members to attend.
3:39:49 PM
CHAIR OLSON, after first determining no one else wished to
testify, closed public testimony on HB 89.
3:40:05 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his understanding that the reason
to use the federal code is to avoid having the legislature
review changes every time the federal law changes the name.
However, he expressed concern and stated he would consider this
since the bill has another referral. He stated that he does not
want to slow down the bill, but at a later time would like to
know the dynamics of the code such as does the number change
often. He related the similarity to the debate on sunset dates,
whether the matter should come back to the legislature or just
be set into motion. He pointed out this bill addresses a
federal requirement that references federal code, but the state
performs the function.
3:41:36 PM
CHAIR OLSON suggested that Representative Coghill may wish to
consider adding a sunset clause at some point.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL offered his belief that the bill is set
up so to enable the committee to function more efficiently. He
related that he has a favorable view of HB 89.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL moved to report HB 89, as amended, out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal note. There being no objection, CSHB 89(L&C) was
reported from the House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
3:42:10 PM
The committee took an at-ease from 3:42 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.
3:43:56 PM
HB 37-RIGHT TO WORK
3:44:00 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that the next order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 37, "An Act relating to the relationship between
employees and labor organizations; prohibiting collective
bargaining contracts that require employees to join a labor or
employee organization; extending the policy and limitations set
out in this Act to public employers and public employees subject
to the Public Employment Relations Act; and providing for an
effective date."
REPRESENTATIVE CARL GATTO, Alaska State Legislature, introduced
himself.
DIRK CRAFT, Staff, Representative Carl Gatto, Alaska State
Legislature, introduced himself.
3:44:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated that HB 37 supports individuals to
form unions and it protects individuals who have formed unions
from retaliation by their employers. He recalled a union
advertisement that stated we support the right of individuals to
join a union. He stated that the Employee Free Choice Act
(EFCA) has advertisements that support the right of employees to
join a union. He said, "That's what this bill does. It
encourages you to do it and supports your option to do it. The
EFCA defends you against retaliation when you do it". He opined
that the committee will hear testimony from people that will
tell us that union states are better paid, have better benefits,
have better retirement, and have better medical insurance than
right to work states. He said, "That's not in the evidence that
I have." He explained that Michigan is a strong union state and
Texas is a right to work state. He offered his belief that
Michigan is currently having an internal meltdown and disaster.
General Motors is failing and if GM collapses, union workers
will be out of work. However, Texas has an enormous amount of
trade, is a North American Free Trade Agreement member, and the
trade is good for Texas. He said he wants to make it eminently
clear that the data demonstrates that right to work states have
employees that receive very good wages, have medical and
retirement benefits, and in general are doing very well. He
opined that it is not necessary to force a person to join an
organization they do not want to join. He opined that it is
unconstitutional to do that. He stated that either we have the
right of free association or we give up the right. He stated
that if a person wants to do so, they should do so for
his/herself, but not for someone else.
3:47:41 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO emphasized that no one should compel a
person to join a group at his/her expense. No one should be
subject to being fired if a person does not join a group. He
offered to provide an example. He said, "When I was working for
the fire department, I was a union member. I was required to
join the union and I did so willingly. But at one point, I
wanted to volunteer in Palmer for their fire department - just
volunteer, no pay. The union said if you do that you can be
fired." He related that the union was in Anchorage. He related
that the union said that their bylaws stated that its members
cannot volunteer for another organization. He said, "That's
force. That is true force." And the rule is if a person
violates the bylaws, then the union goes to the management, who
requires the department to discharge the person if he/she has
not satisfied the union bylaws. He stated that he was not
allowed to opt out of the union, which is what he would have
liked to have done. He said, "I think every person ought to
have the right guaranteed in the constitution to make a decision
to join or not to join."
3:49:46 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO offered his belief that if unions are good
for him, his family, and his community, then he would willingly
join. He said, "I believe we should not be forced to join a
group." He reiterated that HB 37 allows members to make the
choice and offers protection against retaliation by management
or the employer. He said, "You can't be forced to join a
religion. You can't be forced to join any society, but you can
be forced to join a union."
3:50:49 PM
MR. CRAFT explained the sectional summary of HB 37. He stated
that it applies to Public Employment Relations Act. He referred
to Section 1, of proposed AS 23.10.441, which provides a
declaration of the right to work policy in the state. Proposed
AS 23.10.443(a) lists what would be prohibited as a requirement
of employment or continuation of employment. He referred to
proposed AS 23.10.443(b), which states union dues, fees, and
assessments can only be deducted from an employee's pay if it is
authorized in writing. Proposed AS 23.10.443(c) would make
prior agreements or practices that violate the law proposed in
Section 1 void. Additionally, a strike, picket, or boycott to
induce an employer into an agreement would be a violation of
law. He referred to proposed AS 23.10.443(d), which states that
a person or labor union cannot coerce, threaten, or injure their
employment prospects. He referred to proposed AS 23.10.445,
which would make "knowingly" violations a class B misdemeanor
and would require the attorney general to investigate criminal
complaints and award an employee injunctive relief, civil
damages or both.
3:52:24 PM
MR. CRAFT referred to proposed AS 23.10.447, which states that
provisions in Section 1 would only apply to certain employers or
employees and any provisions that conflict with federal law
would not apply to the extent of the conflict.
MR. CRAFT referred to proposed AS 23.10.449 provides a proposed
definition for labor organizations for the purposes of Section
1.
MR. CRAFT referred to Section 2, which would repeal AS 23.40.225
and replaces it with proposed AS 23.10.225, which would require
all collective bargaining agreements to comply with the more
universal Section 1.
3:53:20 PM
MR. CRAFT referred to Section 3, noting this would repeal AS
23.40.110(b), which currently allows public employers to enter
into exclusive representation agreements. This section makes it
a condition of employment for public employees to join a labor
organization and pay dues or to not join a labor organization.
In lieu of membership due members would pay a fee for services
provided by the organization. He related his understanding that
currently employees are not required to join unions but can be
forced to pay union dues for their services. Thus, this section
would repeal the requirement to pay union dues or fees.
3:53:51 PM
MR. CRAFT referred to Section 4, which would limit the
applicability of the bill to prospective agreements related to
collective bargaining.
3:54:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL described a scenario in which employees
voted to join a union by a majority but a smaller group did not
want to join. He offered his belief that the minority group
would obtain a benefit from the union even if they did not join.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO explained that employees could be asked to
pay a representation fee, which could only be assessed for
representation. He offered that unions can include fees for
union organizing, which seem to be included in the union dues
and fees. He related that there are ways to obtain more than
just union dues. He stressed that members should not be charged
for things other than representation.
3:56:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL agreed he has heard similar complaints.
He related another scenario in which the same minority that did
not want to join, had the right not to join, but the union was
effective in obtaining pay raises. He asked if the minority
members would also obtain the pay raises.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO answered in practice that has usually been
done.
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated he agreed in concept but offered
separating that issue would be difficult in practicality
3:57:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH referred to proposed AS 23.10.447, which
states provisions in Section 1 would only apply to certain
employers or employees and any provisions that conflict with
federal law would not apply to the extent of the conflict. He
then referred to page 2, line 24, which makes it against the law
for someone to strike, picket, or boycott. However, under
federal law first amendment rights are guaranteed. He inquired
as to whether the sponsor would consider striking some of the
language in the bill.
3:59:02 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated he would have to consider whether it
would improve the bill.
MR. CRAFT explained that proposed AS 23.10.447 only makes it
illegal if the purpose of the strike, picket, or boycott, or
other action is to induce an employer to enter into an agreement
that is contrary to Section 1. Thus, members could strike for
many reasons, but if it is for the purpose of entering into an
exclusive bargaining union, it would be illegal.
REPRESENTATIVE BUCH asked how to differentiate between valid and
non-valid strikes or pickets. He opined that there is an
immediate conflict, noting he is not a lawyer.
4:00:16 PM
CHAIR OLSON announced that it was not his intention to move the
bill. He stated that the legislature is currently under the 24
hour rule. He offered in addition to noticing, to contact three
of the unions to help ensure union members are aware if the bill
is scheduled for another hearing.
4:01:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO summarized freedoms everyone should be
allowed. He opined that a person has a right to join or not
join a union under the U.S. Constitution and the Alaska
constitution. He said, "You can't be forced to do something
against your will. And you are forced when your livelihood is
at stake. That is forcing you to do something so I think
constitutionally, if the unions would allow a person to simply
not join, I think we wouldn't be here. But they are forcing
people to join, and that's why we're here."
4:02:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked whether this issue has been deemed
unconstitutional. He inquired as to whether the U.S. Supreme
Court has issued a decision to that effect.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO referred to the clause for the right of
free association.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if the U.S. Supreme Court has decided
that unions cannot "force" someone to join.
4:03:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO stated there are currently 22 states that
are right to work states. He offered his belief there would
have been 22 challenges. He assumed so, yet 22 states have this
law. He said he was not sure.
4:03:58 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN recalled earlier testimony that it was
unconstitutional to force someone to join a union.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO answered no. He said that a person has the
right of free association and can join a church, a rotary or not
join a rotary club. A person can resign from a club. He
clarified that no community can require everyone in the
community to join a certain business or a club.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN inquired whether the U.S. Supreme Court has
ruled on right to work issues.
REPRESENTATIVE GATTO said he was not certain.
4:05:16 PM
GREG O'CLARAY, Juneau, Alaska, stated he is a retired former
official for organized labor and is a former Commissioner of
Department of Labor & Workforce Development (DLWD) under the
Murkowski administration. He further stated it is preposterous
that someone would be fired for violating a bylaw. Since 1967,
he has been in organized labor or worked as an official, a
consultant, a lobbyist, and as commissioner. He opined he has
never seen a union bylaw that requires compulsory union
membership. He said, "Period. That is a fact. That is the
law." Thus, the bill is a misguided effort. These laws have
been widely known as national right to work for less or for
free. As a former Commissioner of Department of Labor &
Workforce Development, he stated that he had access to studies
that showed the comparison between right to work states and
union labor in terms of the economy. He offered that problems
exist worldwide with the economy.
4:07:50 PM
Mr. O'CLARAY said, "This is the absolute worst piece of
legislation you could be considering. In our state alone, the
fact is that our state is primarily organized in the private
sector, in the construction industry." He then said:
This legislation does not give anyone rights. What it
does is it infringes on the rights of people who form
associations to bargain collectively, to be effective,
and to deliver for their members. This state was
built with union labor; our pipeline was built with
union labor; this building we're in was built with
union labor. And I have to tell you the reason this
state has been prosperous, and come out of the dark
ages, is because of organized workers building and
working together.
MR. O'CLARAY opined it is appalling that a bill like this would
get a hearing.
4:09:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL thanked him for his service to Alaska.
He stated that he likes the right to organize, but understands
many in Alaska do not. He asked for the percentage of those in
the state under a bargaining union and those in private sector
that are outside union.
MR. O'CLARAY related the percentage of union and nonunion
workers depends on the specific industry. He opined that in
construction, most crafts are organized, but some are nonunion.
He stated he is familiar with a company in the timber industry
that is nonunion company. He said, "Unions do not organize
workers. Bad employers organize workers. Because you can't
organize a union membership or working group if they are not
unhappy." He made a semi-educated guess, that about 60 to 70
percent of heavy construction is organized labor. He opined
that since the pipeline was constructed there has been a
resurgence of unorganized shops in the smaller electrical trade
[shops], for example. He estimated that there is about 60 to 75
percent organized labor. He stated that the Associated General
Contractors, a nonunion association, are not organized. He
opined that in the commercial fishing industry, the processors
are mostly organized with cannery workers. However, he stated
that most commercial fishermen are not organized and that he is
also a commercial fisherman. He opined that most Alaskans
associate with some type of organized bargaining unit, but not
necessarily a union. He concluded by stating the private sector
could be a 50:50 split, or could be 60:40 split of
nonunion/union workers.
4:13:26 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related his understanding that the
general number of organized workers in the Interior is about 35
percent. He related that he has a mix and both groups are
important to him. He stated that he wants to protect the rights
of both groups: the nonunion members from being pushed by the
union, and the union members who have bargained in good faith.
4:14:08 PM
LARRY BELL, Business Manager, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, Local 1547, stated that he is opposed to HB
37. He stated that he administers over 75 collective bargaining
agreements around the state with approximately 5,000 active
members and 3,500 retirees in Alaska. He stated the union
agreements require that fees be paid. He stated that members
cannot be mandated to become a member if he/she does not wish to
become a member, which is current law. He stated that all of
the collective bargaining agreements are operated accordingly.
He highlighted that their bylaws are generated from the floor of
their meetings by the membership. He stated that he is a son of
nonunion electrician. He noted that he joined union membership
later in life, had no prior attachments, no political inside
track. He stated that he rose through the ranks as a hard
working apprentice, and got involved in the process. He further
stated that he is proud of the union structure. He said, "I
speak today in opposition of this bill, not only as a union
leader, and a working Alaskan, but as a veteran, a father, an
American." He opined it is representative of the very
democratic process for which my family has fought and died. He
concluded by relating he fights the fight to work for members
that make the union work. Additionally, padding agency fees
does not exist, he opined. It is no secret labor organizations
are more heavily regulated than any other entity. He stated
that the fee structure is a very open and transparent fee
structure, which changes as directed by membership.
4:17:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related he has a family member and a son-
in-law that are members of the IBEW. He recalled that he
administers several contracts, without mandatory memberships.
He described a scenario in which a majority of employees that
decide to organize in an electrical company with a minority
membership. He asked for clarification of administration of
minority members working work side by side with majority
members.
MR. BELL explained that majority rules. Under the National
Labor Relations Act (NLRA), if a minority, 30 percent or more,
of employees want to join a union the group has a right to hold
an election. If the majority votes to become union, it becomes
a union shop. Those that did not want the union have the
ability to join as full members or to sign on as fee objectors,
which means they will pay the portion of working assessments
that goes solely to negotiating. He recalled earlier testimony
mentioning some items were also included in fees, which he noted
are expressly prohibited by law. He related his understanding
that they are not included. Additionally, a labor leader would
be foolish to include them in assessments, he opined.
4:19:56 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL inquired as to how contentious the
working relationship is and between the two groups. He asked
whether people quit or find a good working relationship and if
any intimidation problems occur.
MR. BELL related that the IBEW is very active in organizing
unions. Since he has been a union organizer, he has been
business representative in at least a half dozen instances. He
highlighted that he could not list a single fee objector. He
opined that the reality is those who initially objected to the
union realized through the negotiation process that they would
enjoy the investment. He stated that it does not happen through
intimidation, in fact, the unions are legally barred from it.
He related that he simply does not have an issue. He explained
that every working Alaskan benefits from the union movement,
whether they are union or not. He surmised that most workers
realize the benefits. He explained he grew up in that
environment. He stated that his dad looked for jobs and
recognized the union rate and how it affected him as a nonunion
electrician. He pointed out that construction rates, labor
laws, every working Alaska benefits.
4:22:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL stated that he is attempting to distill
the right to work emphasis of this bill. He stated that right
to work generally rings true with him. However, he related his
understanding that attempting to make this work is difficult.
He related a scenario in which a majority forms a union. He
inquired as to whether the employer could hire a nonunion worker
who may provide a unique specialty.
MR. BELL answered that what was described appeared to be
subcontracting ability. He explained that would be covered in
the specific collective bargaining agreement. He offered to
describe a shop in which some employees want to join a union,
but others do not want to be union. At the core of right to
work and the reason it has been dubbed right to work for less,
is it facilitates those that do not want to pay to avoid paying
any dues for representation and for negotiations. This places
this burden on those who are willing to pay the dues. Thus,
everyone benefits from the workers who pay the dues, including
salaries and benefits. Furthermore, the burden shifts to fewer
and fewer people. He offered to review Texas law. He opined
the record is clear, with respect to the 22 states that are
right to work states, of the benefits enjoyed by construction
crafts before and after the law went into effect.
4:24:34 PM
MR. BELL, in response to Representative Coghill, explained that
he has been through two decertification processes. He stated
decertification and de-authorizations are similar. He offered
that neither one was successful. He highlighted that 30 percent
can also file for a de-certification. He concluded by stating
that he would like to speak in stern opposition to HB 37.
4:25:27 PM
MR. BELL, in response to Representative Lynn, explained that the
reason for deciding not to join goes back to the work
environment. He opined when workers are seeking to join a union
that they are not working in a healthy environment. He argued
that these employees are not being treated as well as they could
be under a union contract. He said, "We don't go after those
employers." He offered his belief that the unions benefit union
and nonunion employees. He stated any number of reasons might
affect employees' viewpoints including what they have heard on
the news, commercials, or on the Internet.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN asked if he wanted to work in a union shop,
what reason would someone give for not joining that union,
assuming the union is already organized.
MR. BELL related he does not encounter that since the employees
want to be in the union.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN clarified that he is directing his remarks
to those who do not want to join the union.
MR. BELL surmised if the employees are working in a shop, but do
not want to be union, that he would not usually hear from them.
Thus, he stated he cannot really answer that question. He
offered his belief workers seek work at a property that is union
since they are interested in the union jobs for the benefits.
4:27:51 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN related his understanding that some unions
take positions at the national level on "hot button" social
issues such nuclear warfare, global warming, and whether the
U.S. should be involved in the war in Iraq. He opined the
issues do not have anything to do with health benefits, wages,
or working conditions. He offered his belief that some workers
do not want to join a union to subsidize the platform the union
takes on issues that do not directly affect the workplace. He
recognized that members could opt out.
MR. BELL clarified that members do not opt out of the political
portion of membership, but actually opt in to support the
political platform. He explained that the union membership sets
the direction. He acknowledged that many members challenge what
union should be involved in politically. He offered that if the
union is not involved in issues such as the right to work issue
today, that all members would feel the negative impact.
4:30:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CHENAULT asked for clarification on
decertification since 30 percent can call for an election.
MR. BELL explained it is the flip side of organization. Thus,
if 30 percent show support for a union, the union can hold an
election. And if 30 percent petition to decertify, under
federal law an election is held to determine if a majority want
decertification.
4:30:51 PM
JAMES FLAKE stated that he has been a member of Laborers Local
942 union. He related he is trying to understand HB 37. He
offered that if a person did not vote for Governor Palin or for
President Obama, what are his/her concessions. He highlighted
that people who did not support the candidates, still have them
as their leaders. He related his own circumstances that he
worked in a shop as a welder. The employees elected for union
representation. He said, "I didn't vote for the union, but when
it came down to the vote, it went union. I joined the [Plumbers
and] Pipefitters [union]. Our whole government is founded on
majority rules. If a majority wants something, and you're not
on that side, then you've got the option. Either join or go on.
They're a lot of nonunion companies in this town. If you don't
want to be union, you don't have to be." He related that the
benefits are representation and wages. He opined that it is
nice to have representation so when problems arise the union
representative irons it out such as if an employee is asked to
do something outside the scope of their job duties. He further
opined that without representation if the boss tells you to do
something and you do not do it, "you're down the road."
4:33:57 PM
MR. FLAKE surmised that if the right to work bill passes, he
could be on a job being paid $28 per hour, and if the boss wants
him to perform flagging duties, but the nonunion worker will
perform the flagging for $15 per hour, that he may be asked to
take a wage reduction. He opined that he has observed companies
using noncertified flaggers, which he opined is dangerous. He
stressed the union guarantees that the person performing the
work is qualified to do the job. He said, "That's why we have
union contracts. And I still want to know what concession I get
if you guys pass this bill."
4:34:25 PM
MAX MIELKE, Business Manager, Plumbers and Pipefitters, stated
that he has been a former pipefitter for 34 years, worked on the
Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, and served as a business manager
for the Plumbers and Pipefitters union, which represents about
100 members. He asked to go on record that the Plumbers and
Pipefitters strongly oppose HB 37. He opined that at a time
when the nation and Alaska wants to stimulate the economy, that
this would have the opposite effect. He further opined that the
bill would affect everyone. He referred to the U.S. Bureau of
Labor statistics he found. He related that the average worker
in right to work states earns $5,000 per year less. He opined
that right to work would hurt Alaska businesses since workers
earning less would spend less. He stated that 21 percent fewer
people have health care benefits in right to work states. He
provided additional conditions in right to work states such that
residents of these states have higher poverty, more infant
mortality, lower Workers' Compensation benefits, and higher
death and injuries. He stated these are just a few reasons why
right to work legislation would be another backward step for the
struggling middle class in this country and this great state of
Alaska. He reiterated the Plumbers and Pipefitters opposition
to HB 37.
4:36:36 PM
GEORGE MCGUAN, Representative, Laborers Local 942, stated he
found similar statistics. He offered his personal work
experience. He stated that he has been in the union since he
was 19 years old. He also worked in a nonunion job in Texas.
He further stated that when his employer needed laborers they
went to the corner and selected a group of laborers that fit the
crew best. The workers were paid $10 per hour in cash. He
highlighted this does not happen here. He said, "I hope it
never does." Additionally, he had an opportunity to volunteer
as a Peace Corps volunteer, and paid his union dues during that
time. He offered he was not subject to any repercussions for
his time serving in the Peace Corps. He stressed the union has
never forced him to do anything he did not want to do. He
offered his belief that higher injuries result in right to work
states is due to a lack of training. He highlighted that he has
been afforded training, which is all paid from union dues. He
said, "What it does in my personal opinion; there are no better
workers in the world than United States union workers. I've
seen it - both sides of it."
4:39:13 PM
DIMITRI CASSERI, Director, Government Affairs, National Right to
Work Committee, stated that the right to work citizen
organization consisting of 2.2 million workers dedicated to the
elimination of compulsory union participation. He stated that
HB 37 would guarantee working men and women in Alaska have the
right to decide for themselves whether a labor union deserves
their financial support. He referred to his written testimony,
but stated he would like to address misconceptions stated
earlier. He said, "Yes, no one is forced to join a union, but
in a non right to work state, a forced union state like Alaska,
individuals are forced to pay dues to a union, up to and
including 100 percent of the union membership dues just for the
privilege of keeping their job." He emphasized that no one
should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to keep their
job. He provided some examples, such as a good friend, who was
a secretary/treasurer for his union. He participated in an
exchange program in Alabama and was amazed what unions did for
their members. He related that his friend reported this to the
local union, but they did not care. He opined that the reason
is union members are forced to pay dues whether or not they
receive benefits. He highlighted his friend decided that right
to work is the way to go. He offered his belief that the best
way to get union members to join a union is to provide the
employees with services. He related his understanding that some
of the statistics mentioned in previous testimony were pretty
inaccurate. He provided some statistics, such as according to
U.S. Administration on Child and Families, welfare recipients in
right to work states are 7.3 per 1,000, but in Alaska welfare
recipients are 16.3 per 1,000. He opined that more people
collect government subsidies and government assistance in forced
union states like Alaska. He referred to wages and stated that
while union workers are paid more, the cost of living is higher
in forced union states. Alaska has a high cost of living. He
opined that workers in right to work states actually take home
$5,000 more than forced union state workers, once basic needs
are subtracted from their wages due to fewer costs.
4:43:26 PM
MR. CASSERI stated that he supports this bill. He stressed that
this will bring jobs to Alaska and it will keep the young people
from leaving. He recalled that 102,000 families left Michigan
with many of them relocating to Charlotte, NC to gain
employment. He opined that many college students leave forced
union states to move to right to work states to start a family,
get a good job, and make a good living. He opined that they do
not stay since they cannot make a good living in the forced
union states.
4:44:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL related a scenario with union
organization with nonunion workers. He inquired as to whether
the nonunion members are required to pay union dues, and if they
receive the same collective bargaining agreements.
MR. CASSERI stated that the nonunion workers will obtain the
same benefits that a union worker would receive. However,
employees who do not want the union to negotiate for them for
benefits, under federal law, are forced to accept them. He
stated that under federal law, unions can also opt out and offer
members only bargaining, a practice that was prevalent prior to
1960. Since then, the unions have elected to be the exclusive
bargaining agent for everyone in the workplace. Thus, they
negotiate for union and nonunion members. He offered an
example, such that every state has problems obtaining enough
math and science teachers. He stated that the union sets the
salary, but does not allow any additional salary for math and
science. He offered his belief that math and science should be
receiving more funds since the demand is greater. He stressed
that an underperforming worker benefits, but over performing
workers probably receive less than what they are worth.
4:48:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE COGHILL asked for clarification on the
qualification of workers, especially in the trade fields.
MR. CASSERI stated that economically the fastest growing states
are right to work states. He referred to American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC) lists "rich and poor" states. He opined
that 9 of 10 are right to work states. Additionally, all of
bottom ones are forced union states. He offered his belief that
a business owner would look for high quality employees. He
stated that Charlotte, NC is the number one recipient of
Michigan workers. He said:
Well, they're stealing, basically the well-educated
young families to come down there, to work there.
They're coming down there to look for jobs. They're
hiring good people. People are mobile. They don't
have a problem finding qualified, competent employees.
And I don't think anyone would leave Michigan to go to
North Carolina to take a 50 percent pay cut or 25
percent pay cut. They're going because they can get a
well paying job down there. They're costs are less
and they're treated better.
4:49:52 PM
BILL WARREN, Retiree, stated he is a retired member of Plumbers
and Pipefitters Local 367. He expressed his opposition to HB
37. He opined that it will not affect the box stores or the mom
and pop businesses, but it is aimed at the large commercial and
industrial jobs. He stated that he has worked on large union
jobs since 1960 in Alaska and does not see anything wrong with
the existing labor laws. He offered his belief that he made a
good living in Alaska, raised his family here, and has retired.
He has a nice home, a good pension, and health care. He opined
that he is not a financial drain on the community. He stated
right to work is nothing new. He further opined that right to
work states are primarily located in the South and in Texas. He
recalled working in Texas as a young man and the low wages. He
stressed that right to work states have lower wages, have less
health care per capita, with more poverty and crime. He stated
it has not been demonstrated that Alaska would gain by adopting
the right to work bill. He referred to the TAPS project, any
Alaskan that wanted a job, had a job. He recalled his union
trained many apprentices for skilled jobs. He opined that
having the workers on the same job, making different pay, under
different conditions is bad. He suggested that Alaskans
supporting right to work states should visit Mississippi,
Louisiana, or Georgia to observe how their citizens fare. He
said, "I think this bill, along with HB 185 is an effort to
break the unions in Alaska and will cause a great amount of
discontent and lower the standard of living for us."
4:52:52 PM
JARED HAMLIN, International Union of Operating Engineers Local
302, stated that he has been a union member for six years and
prior to that he was nonunion worker. He also owned a
manufacturing company that was also nonunion company. He
offered his belief that both are needed in Alaska. He offered
that both union and nonunion jobs are needed. He said:
This proposed bill is definitely unnecessary and
untimely looking at our current economic crisis. Just
real quick, just four days ago was the 41st
anniversary of the assassination of Martin Luther
King. I wanted to read a quote here real quick. This
is a quote that came from his speech that was given
the day before his assassination. He wrote, "In our
glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against
being fooled by false slogans such as right to work.
It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job
rights. It is supported by southern segregationists,
who are trying to keep us from achieving our civil
rights and our right of equal job opportunity. Its
purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of
collective bargaining by which unions have improved
wages and working conditions for everyone. Wherever
these laws have been passed wages are lower. Job
opportunities are fewer and there are no civil rights.
We do not intend to let them do this to us. We demand
this fraud be stopped. Our weapon is our vote.
MR. HAMLIN provided U.S. Department of Labor statistics census
of fatal occupational injuries from 2006. The US-DOL compared
right to work states versus non-right to work states. What they
found was in right to work states the fatalities rate was 5.9
workers per 100,000 compared to 3.8 fatalities in non-right to
work states. If right to work was enacted in Alaska, using an
arbitrary number of 400,000 workers, approximately 8 more people
would die per year.
4:56:23 PM
JOHN SOUTER stated that he is a member of the Anchorage
Independent Longshore Union #1, which is an independent union
affiliated with Teamsters Local 959. He offered that he
recently retired from Public Employees Local 71. He stated one
thing that has been overlooked is that for the working poor, the
unions offer an opportunity for people to pull themselves out of
poverty and into an average standard of living. He reiterated
that the union provides the mechanism to do that. He stated
that unions offer a living wage. Additionally, across America
that is a balance of power between workers versus management.
He emphasized that unions provide a better balance of power. He
recalled speaking to the NLRB and opined that the board has a
mechanism to assist members in opting out of the union. He
related his understanding that employees would pay for the
benefits of union personnel who negotiate contracts but they do
not have to belong. He emphasized that the unions provide
workers with an opportunity to get a fair wage.
JAKE QUAKENBUSH, Assistant Business Manager, International
Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), stated that he has
been a business manager for IBEW for 18 years, and has been a
member for 32 years. He said that right to work seems like a
great slogan. He said the phrase is a catchy phrase, but it is
not true. He stated that right to work does not give workers
rights, create jobs, or provide benefits. He said, "It is such
a misleading statement that when right to work legislation was
being spread through Washington, the state supreme courts said
the phrase right to work could not even be listed on the ballot
because it was so falsely describing of its contents." He
opined that the right to work movement led by the national Right
to Work Committee on the East Coast is dumping millions of
dollars into breaking unions. He said, "The national Right to
Work Committee exists for one reason. And that's to weaken and
break ultimately their goal is to break unions and their
workers. They think that by driving away unions and their
workers, they will help the economy. Right to work is wrong
again." He related his understanding that it is not the state's
role to protect unions, but it should protect workers in Alaska
and the economy. He opined states that have right to work laws
have a negative impact on all their workers - union and
nonunion. In Alaska, workers have a legal right to form unions
in their workplace. They do this through a democratic process.
Workers understand they will pay a fee for services. He related
that people do not have to become members, but must pay their
share of dues or fees for the service. He further opined that
the union has a legal duty to represent all employees in the
workplace. He highlighted that with right to work, no one has
to pay for the representation. He said, "It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to see that this system is going to break
down." He inquired as to how many organizations would survive
to support the employee if dues or fees were not required. He
pointed out that National Rifle Association (NRA) requires its
members to pay dues, as do Chamber of Commerce members and so
should all employees who choose to work under a collective
bargaining agreement with an employer and a union. Alaska's
economic success does not include right to work. Instead,
economic success includes things like partnership with
corporations and unions under collective bargaining agreements.
He said, "Innovation and hard work "8 to 8" as we say in the
trade. The future of our economy depends on a fair balance
between "labor, business, and government". The future does not
lie with the right to work. They would like to tip the balance
away from fairness and partnerships by distracting unions from
the real work of representing workers. They want things so one-
sided that workers are not even at the table." He opined that
right to work is a misleading and catchy phrase. He reiterated
his strongly opposition to HB 37.
CHAIR OLSON announced that HB 37 would be held over for further
discussion.
5:04:02 PM
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
5:04 p.m.