HB 149-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  4:17:13 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 149, "An Act relating to allowing certain child day care providers to organize for the purpose of collective bargaining." 4:17:32 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS introduced HB 149 as prime sponsor and explained that he thought it would be useful for the committee to address the gender pay gap, female participation in the workforce, and the devastation the child care industry has experienced due to the COVID-19 pandemic. He offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "Raising Wages & Benefits for Child Care Workers (HB 149)," and covered the information, on slide 2, "Problem:" which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Persistent low wages and benefits result in high turnover and inadequate supply of child care workers. • Low wages/benefits discourage investment in quality instruction CO-CHAIR FIELDS proceeded to slide 3, "Why does it matter?" and explained that inadequate child care has been causing parents to leave Alaska and is contributing to population decline. He explained that while every state faces child care problems, Alaska may actually be able to solve these problems as it is a small state. The slide read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Alaska needs to attract and retain high-earners including parents with families (currently losing population among age 3050) • Early childhood education has greatest impact on human capital development, and highest ROI CO-CHAIR FIELDS advanced to slide 4, "Lessons from other States/Nations," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • 11 U.S. states have established bargaining structures for homebased child care providers to bargain with state to establish livable wages and benefits that expand supply of child care providers • First state: Illinois, 2005. California most recent state to adopt model. • European countries directly subsidize child care centers for parents of all income levels, and provide tax credits • And Northern Europe uses sectoral bargaining to set wages/benefits CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that HB 149 follows the model that 11 other states are already following. He said that he intends this bill to spark conversation in the committee and that he is open to there being other potential models the state could implement to solve this problem. CO-CHAIR FIELDS moved to slide 5, "Mechanisms to Raise Wages," and shared his understanding that the reason why construction workers make middleclass wages is arbitrary, and was just a policy decision. He offered the idea that perhaps the same should be done for child care. The slide read as follows [original punctuation provided]: • Collective Bargaining (U.S. model / H.B. 149) • Establishing prevailing wages (based on U.S. construction policy model) • Directly subsidize (Europe model) 4:21:59 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS proceeded to slide 6, "Why Now?" which read as follows [original punctuation provided, with some formatting changes]: • Growing federal support for child care-> To deploy most effectively, need the right policy framework • Pandemic decimated female participation in workforce AND crushed many child care providers-> Need to help industry and working families recover CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that the collective bargaining process is proposed differently under HB 149 in that the child care providers are allowed to determine whether they would like to engage in bargaining. 4:23:37 PM KIMBERLY ROSENBERGER, Service Employees International Union (SEIU), offered a PowerPoint presentation entitled, "AB 378: Providers' Vision for Their Union," and explained that AB 378 relates to the assembly bill that passed in 2019 in California that authorized child care providers to collectively bargain. She began on slide 2, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: After 16 years, providers win right to choose a union. Similar to 11 other states. Bill enables: Election to choose union Collective bargaining Training partnership MS. ROSENBERGER added that this is necessary because child care providers are considered small businesses and are therefore not covered by a number of wage or labor laws. Child care employees were considered low wage workers, she said. To combat this, SEIU had to get an anti-trust exception which would allow the State of California to determine that the benefit of collective bargaining outweighs the risk of anti-competition. MS. ROSENBERGER showed the information on slide 3, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Also covers the following: Set of topics standard to many labor laws Current labor law did not cover providers Defines who is included: Providers who care for state-subsidized kids Includes licensed and license-exempt Not assistants or centers 4:26:08 PM MS. ROSENBERGER continued to slide 4, "Collective Bargaining Scope," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Addressed in section 8434.5 of bill Lists required subjects; others permissible Rates, benefit trust fund, training, improving provider retention/recruitment Funding must be passed by Legislature Does not include non-state controlled topics MS. ROSENBERGER moved to slide 5, "Process for representation," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Addressed in section 8434 of bill Adapts law for many CA public employees Includes: Show provider interest List of eligible voters Notifying providers Timelines, other guidance MS. ROSENBERGER advanced to slide 6, "Training partnership," and explained that training is essential as many entities cannot remain open while also providing sufficient training. The slide read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Addressed in section 8442 of bill Shorter language in final bill Intent the same: consult with partners about training, professional development $, programs Lists required partners including R&R Network, others possible 4:28:01 PM MS. ROSENBERGER proceeded to slide 7, "In other states," which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Providers in 11 other states have a voice through their union. Typical improvements: Higher rates + add'l for training, infants, nontraditional hours Health care thru a union trust Voice in regulation and quality improvement Expanded training Smoother eligibility process for parents MS. ROSENBERGER reminded the committee that California is the newest state to join SEIU and has already seen the benefits of being part of the union. 4:29:03 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ invited questions from the committee. 4:29:06 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked Ms. Rosenberger what the other 11 states are that have joined the union. MS. ROSENBERGER asked if she could get back to him on that and noted that there is a document that lists the states that she could share with the committee. 4:29:49 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that Illinois, Oregon, Washington, Iowa, New Jersey, Michigan, and Wisconsin were some of the first to join the union as of 2007, and since then, New York, Pennsylvania, Kansas, Maryland, Ohio, Maine, and New Mexico have joined. 4:30:31 PM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN noted that organizing will cause costs to go up, and asked how that improves accessibility. CO-CHAIR FIELDS answered that this would be one multi-employer election overseen by the Alaska Labor Relations Agency (ALRA), which has provided a fiscal note. In terms of accessibility, he stated that small businesses have a difficult time finding high- quality and affordable health insurance and organizing would make it easier for these businesses to access benefits. He reiterated that high quality training also contributes to a more efficient system, and it has been demonstrated that it results in lower employee turnover. He noted that if an individual wants to pay more for high quality child care, that level of care is not available at a higher price because child care workers are considered low wage workers. He explained that some of this is historical as child care workers are often people of color, and he shared his understanding that the United States Congress didn't want to give collective bargaining rights to people of color. He said that farm workers, domestic workers, and women were excluded from collective bargaining rights. 4:33:04 PM MS. ROSENBERGER added that one of the benefits SEIU has seen after implementing collective bargaining and increasing wages and training has been more employees staying in the child care field. She stated that the stance of SEIU is that there is more of a return on investment by growing the workforce and maintaining the workers that have entered the field already. 4:33:56 PM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER recalled her time utilizing child care professionals for her own children and shared that she located a worker through Thread, Alaska. She shared that this individual was a small, in-home daycare provider and asked how this might affect someone like her. CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that it would be her choice to unionize. He emphasized that this bill aims to give in-home providers the mechanisms to create a more sustainable business model and supply the amount of child care that working professionals need. 4:35:10 PM MS. ROSENBERGER said that there was an overwhelming response from child care providers, but child care providers determine whether to opt in or abstain. In California, this only applies to those who receive subsidies, she noted, and many child care providers have chosen to join the union to benefit from the training mechanisms that it provides. It also gives providers a voice when it comes to new and necessary regulations. She shared that there is a 97 percent approval rate among providers who have opted in. 4:36:20 PM TRISTAN WALSH, Staff, Representative Zack Fields, Alaska State Legislature, presented the Sectional Analysis on HB 149 on behalf of Representative Fields, prime sponsor. He read Sections 1-10, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1: This section amends AS 23.40.070, the declaration of policy regarding the Public Employment Relations Act, to include child day care providers. Section 2: This section amends AS 23.40.080 to give child day care providers the right to self-organize, join or assist an organization to bargain collectively and engage in concerted activities for the purposes of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection. Section 3: This section amends AS 23.40.090 to include child day care providers in the definition of collective bargaining unit. Section 4: This section amends AS 23.40.100(a) to include child day care providers in the statute regarding the election of representatives and organizations for collective bargaining. Section 5: This section amends AS 23.40.100(b) adds child day care providers to the statute that directs the labor relations agency to officiate the election on representation following the determination that a question of representation exists. Section 6: This section amends AS 23.40.110(a) to add child day care providers to the statute prohibiting unfair labor practices by the public employer or agent of the public employer. Section 7: This section makes conforming changes in AS 23.40.205, regarding public employee family leave benefits. Section 8: This section amends AS 23.40.210(d) to make conforming changes. Section 9: This section amends AS 23.40.225 to add child day care providers. It clarifies that child day care provider have the right of non-association. Section 10: This adds a new section to AS 23.40 to add language that clarifies that nothing in this bill makes child day care providers and organizations public employees, their inclusion in this bill does not form or terminate employer-employee relationship, change a child care provider's legal status as an entity, corporation or sole proprietorship. It also declares nothing in this bill is intended to interfere with compliance by a person, the state or political subdivision of the state with a federal law or requirement of a federal grant or subsidy. It also states that nothing in this bill prohibits a child day care provider from communicating with a public employer or another person. It also states that a child day care provider organization (union) may not process or administer payments for day care. 4:39:36 PM MR. WALSH explained that sections 11-23 are conforming changes in definition. 4:39:46 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ expressed that she is confused about the statute being updated referencing a public employee or an agent of a public employee [in Section 6 of the Sectional Analysis], but the bill does not designate child care employees as public employees. CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that that is correct. Child care workers are not becoming public employees, but are simply being given a mechanism to bargain in the child care sector. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ commented that it is an interesting section of law in which to put the bill. CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that it goes back to the historic exclusion from the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). 4:40:29 PM MS. ROSENBERGER explained that the reason that designation is so important is because child care providers want to maintain their status as a small business and are dealing with the state already in regard to subsidies. There is already an interaction between the state and these small business, but HB 149 would allow the businesses to collectively negotiate that existing relationship. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ directed the same question to an attorney from Legislative Legal and Research Services. 4:41:25 PM DANIEL WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Counsel, Legislative Legal and Research Services, Legislative Affairs Agency (LAA), reiterated that this approach was used in California and some of the other aforementioned 11 states. He explained that the bill would broaden the mission of the ALRA to include oversight of labor issues for child daycare providers. If this bill was referring to other types of workers, for example, transportation workers, then Alaska might be preempted as a state from regulating labor in that sector because transportation workers are already covered by NLRA, whereas child care workers are not covered. 4:43:03 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS added that if an individual is a single provider of child care, there is no one with whom that individual can form a union. For this reason, he stated that it is important for small businesses in the industry to work together. 4:43:19 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked Mr. Wayne whether the bill is stating that while these child care workers are recognized as an entity of the state, the workers are not "connected" to the state, but are "subsidized by the state, for the recognition with the state." MR. WAYNE responded that he was not sure that was accurate. He said he doesn't think that the state would be subsidizing anyone. The bill would simply put ALRA in charge of regulating labor disputes and labor action between child care providers and public employers, he explained. 4:44:49 PM CO-CHAIR FIELDS shared that this is an approach to "sectoral bargaining," where there is an attempt to raise standards in a section of an industry. He shared his opinion that the U.S. has a fairly outdated approach to labor relations with the bargaining based on a firm in combination with a racist and sexist history where women and farmworkers were excluded from NLRA. This bill would attempt to bring a sectoral bargaining framework to one sector that was historically excluded from federal labor law, and that is why it is "pigeon-holed" in bargaining with the state. He offered that a way to understand it is that the bill would be providing a framework for sectoral bargaining for small businesses. 4:45:55 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ reminded the committee that this was an introductory hearing, and the committee would have more time to discuss HB 149 in the future. 4:46:27 PM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY shared his understanding that the state is subsidizing the programs, and asked for clarification on that point. CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded that subsidies are already provided based on eligibility to certain families, and that would continue if this bill were to pass. If the federal government chooses to subsidize child care in a more meaningful way, then HB 149 would allow the State of Alaska to capitalize on that. In closing, he shared that he would be open to other ideas to improve child care, but that he thinks that the committee needs to address the issue. 4:47:45 PM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ announced that HB 149 was held over.