HB 347-LEAVE FOR MILITARY SPOUSES  8:09:29 AM CHAIR SEATON announced the first order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 347, "An Act allowing certain teachers, public employees, and private sector employees to take leave without pay when their spouses are on leave from deployment in a combat zone." 8:10:38 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETE PETERSEN, Alaska State Legislature, reintroduced HB 347 to the committee as the prime sponsor. He summarized that the bill allows spouses of active military personnel ten days of unpaid leave. Representative Petersen noted an amendment to the bill limits its scope to businesses with 20 employees or more, and schools with 20 employees or more. 8:13:05 AM MR. PEDER TERLAND, Staff to Representative Pete Peterson, Alaska State Legislature, informed the committee that the sponsor recently learned of a change in the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) to include the spouse of regular military personnel, which was the primary intent of the bill. However, HB 347 was written specifically for Alaskan troops, and conforms to state law. He acknowledged the receipt of a facsimile (FAX) contained in the committee packet that refutes the need for the bill, and reported its arrival was too late to review prior to this scheduled hearing. Nevertheless, Mr. Terland pointed out that differences between FMLA and HB 347 still exist; for example, FMLA allows for up to five days of leave when a covered military member is on leave from deployment, and HB 347 allows for ten days of leave. Additionally, the bill applies to businesses and, as amended, schools with 20 or more employees versus the FMLA standard of 50 or more employees. Although not practical given the situation of a small business, ideally, he opined, the legislation would be "in the families' best interest" and allow the spouse of a soldier leave from any size of establishment. 8:16:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN pointed out that bill does not prohibit an employer with fewer than 20 employees from allowing leave, but provides an exemption should such action cause a hardship. REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER queried why the original act did not include active duty military. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN expressed his belief that the provision was originally passed at a time when a large number of National Guard and Military Reserves were deployed for active military duty. 8:18:33 AM CHAIR SEATON referred to the document provided in the committee packet and titled, "U.S. Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division Fact Sheet #28A: The Family and Medical Leave Act Military Family Leave Entitlements," and paraphrased language which read [original punctuation provided]: Qualifying Exigency Leave: A covered employer must grant an eligible employee up to a total of 12 workweeks of unpaid leave during the normal 12-month period established by the employer for FMLA leave ... CHAIR SEATON pointed out that HB 347 stipulates ten days of leave; however, the October 2009, amendment to the FMLA allows twelve work weeks of leave. He observed the federal legislation grants a greater duration of leave. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN agreed, but noted the leave was determined by a "qualifying exigency," the definition of which was unknown to him. CHAIR SEATON indicated that the definition was contained in the same document, and included farther reaching situations than previously discussed and connected with HB 347, such as: short notice deployment; military events and related activities; childcare and related activities; financial and legal arrangements; counseling; rest and recuperation; certain post- deployment activities. 8:21:09 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER turned to the Pension Services Int'l., Inc., FAX of 3/9/10, provided in the committee packet, and paraphrased from the cover page, second paragraph, which read [original punctuation provided]: In reviewing the data, we find that virtually all of the concerns raised in the bill had been address[ed] in the Family and Medical Leave Act National Defense Authorization Act for FY 2010, which was signed by President Obama on October 28, 2009. Public Law 111- 84. CHAIR SEATON, acknowledging that testimony on the bill had been received too late for review by the committee or sponsor, suggested holding the bill to provide that opportunity. 8:22:20 AM MR. TERLAND maintained that the federal revision did not expand the exigency leave from five days, nor did it alter the size of the businesses exempted. 8:23:18 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER noted that the federal legislation also included the caveat that an employee qualifies only after having worked at an establishment for one year. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN expressed his understanding that the qualification requires minimum employment of 1,250 hours. MR. TERLAND pointed out that HB 347 does not have that requirement. 8:23:59 AM REPRESENTATIVE KELLER expressed disbelief that an employer would deny an employee leave; in fact, this bill may be unnecessary government intervention. He asked if there are reported instances where employers have denied leave. REPRESENTATIVE PETERSEN said he had no personal knowledge to offer, only non-specific reports that leave had been denied. He acknowledged that being short-staffed could cause a problem for a small business, which was why the bill established the minimum of 20 or more employees. 8:25:35 AM CHAIR SEATON opened public testimony. 8:26:04 AM AL TAMAGNI, SR., Owner, Pension Services Int'l., Inc., informed the committee he was speaking as an individual, although he is a member of the National Federation of Independent Business-Alaska (NFIB). Mr. Tamagni indicated that he had reviewed the recent updates to the FMLA of 1993. He opined that the statistical data used to draft HB 347 was null and void, due to the recent changes to the federal act signed by President Obama on October 28, 2009, and effective as recently as February, 2010. 8:27:31 AM MR. TAMAGNI directed attention to the FAX communication, page 1 of 4, Fact Sheet #28, and the heading "Employer Coverage," and read [original punctuation provided]: The FMLA applies to all public agencies, including state, local and federal employers, local education agencies (schools), and private-sector employers who employed 50 or more employees in 20 or more workweeks in the current or preceding calendar year ... MR. TAMAGNI reported that spouses are routinely granted leave, due to outstanding employer efforts to voluntarily support military families. Unless there is compelling, verifiable evidence that HB 347 should be enacted, he opined that additional state legislation is unnecessary. Furthermore, Mr. Tamagni pointed out that employers exempt from FMLA because they employ less than 50 employees, may not have to comply with the more restrictive state law. He suggested legislators "move on to more important things." 8:29:47 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER asked whether Mr. Tamagni notified the bill's sponsor of his findings. MR. TAMAGNI said he was not employed by the sponsor, although he was in recent contact with Representative Tuck. 8:30:51 AM REPRESENTATIVE GARDNER observed the differences in the proposed legislation and FMLA regarding the number of days of leave and the exception for certain employers. She agreed that a large measure of Alaska businesses generously support military members and military families, and remarked, "But, if you're already in compliance, then why would there be an objection to just having it in law, for those few businesses ... critically important to the family who might be denied leave ...? MR. TAMAGNI related that an informal poll of over 100 of his clients indicated there was no problem associated with this subject matter. He asked, "Why do you want to regulate something that apparently there's no evidence to support it's a problem?" 8:32:40 AM RIC DAVIDGE, State President, Vietnam Veterans of America; Chairman, Alaska Veterans Foundation, cited the primary differences between the proposed state legislation and federal law. As a combat veteran, he opined that when a soldier has been in combat for twelve to eighteen months, it takes more than five days of leave to make a difference. He said his organization supports the two amendments to the bill. 8:33:53 AM CHAIR SEATON closed public testimony, and announced HB 347 was held. 8:34:32 AM The committee took an at-ease from 8:34 a.m. to 8:37 a.m.