HB 125-MILITARY AND FAMILY EMPLOYMENT PREFERENCE  9:17:40 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that the next order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 125, "An Act relating to private sector and state employment preferences for active service members, veterans, and spouses and dependent children of active service members and veterans; relating to employment preferences for surviving spouses of deceased service members and veterans; and relating to employment preferences for disabled veterans and former prisoners of war." 9:18:25 AM DREPRESENTATIVE DAVID NELSON, Alaska State Legislature, as prime sponsor, introduced HB 125. He read a sponsor statement, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: HB 125 seeks to extend the current private sector and state employment hiring preferences to military spouses and dependent children. Military spouses are among the highest unemployed and underemployed group. They are highly educated and qualified for a range of careers but because of frequent moves the unemployment rate among military spouses is 24% and there is a 26% wage gap compared to civilian counterparts. In 2019 the Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey found that 49% of military spouses indicated that financial issues were the top stressor for military families, and 48% were concerned about employment. Of employed military spouses 75 % were considered underemployed. HB 125 can provide some help to reduce these concerns for military families by providing a hiring preference. A Covid-19 Military Support Initiative created by the Blue Star Families and the Association of Defense Communities found that an additional 17% of military spouses lost their jobs during the pandemic on top of the 24% unemployment before the pandemic. Currently 35 states and the District of Columbia provide hiring preferences to active-duty spouses or surviving spouses. HB 125 will add Alaska to this growing list of states that support our military community and honor the sacrifices these families make in service to our country. 9:20:38 AM KIM SKIPPER, Staff, Representative David Nelson, Alaska State Legislature, on behalf of Representative Nelson, prime sponsor of HB 125, detailed the sectional analysis, which read as follows [original punctuation provided]: Section 1. AS 18.80.200(c)  This section does not prohibit a private employer from having hiring preferences for persons described in Section 2 of this bill. Section 2. AS 23.88.010  This section repeals and reenacts the current statute by adding definitions removed from Section 1 for clarity. This section does not prohibit a private employer from having hiring preferences to active- military, veterans and families. This section adds language to include spouses and dependent children of deceased service members to the list. Section 3. AS 39.25.150(19)  This section amends the State Personnel Act to reference definitions as stated in Section 4 for consistency. Section 4. AS 39.25.159(a)  This section amends the employment preference for veterans or former prisoners of war by adding new language to include families of an active-duty service member, veteran, or former prisoner of war. This section clarifies the type of preference given the hiring process and whether the applicant is disabled or not. Subsection (B) is removed for consistency. Section 5. AS 39.25.159(d)  This section clarifies that a person may receive an employment preference under only one of the categories described in sections 3 and 4. A person may use the preference without limitation when being considered for a position for which persons who are not currently state employees are being considered. If the recruitment for a position is limited to state employees, preference under (a) or (c) of this section may not be counted. This section adds language to include spouses or dependent children for consistency with other sections. Section 6 AS 39.25.159 (e)  This section clarifies that this bill does not involve interpreting amendments of a collective bargaining agreement and makes a reference to subsection (a) of Section 4. Section 7 AS 39.25.159(f)  This section defines a dependent child. Section 8 AS 39.25.159(c)  This section removes language that has been included in Section 4 of this bill. 9:23:03 AM TAMMIE PERREAULT, Northwest Regional Liaison, Defense-State Liaison Office, U.S. Department of Defense, testified in support of HB 125. She said a February 2020 letter to Governor Mike Dunleavy from the Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness highlighted the need to support military spouses and stated that military spouse employment is an important component in retention of servicemembers. More than half of all active- duty personnel are married, she said, and 88 percent of employed military spouses indicated they wanted, or needed, to work. She characterized military spouses as "highly influential" in a servicemember's decision to remain in the military and said over 28 percent of servicemembers reported that their decision to leave the military would be "largely or moderately" affected by their spouse's career prospects. She stated that in addition to be the highest unemployed and underemployed group in the nation, military spouses reported challenges obtaining employment due to frequent moves. She stated the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) supports the policy within HB 125 and asks the committee to move the proposed legislation forward. 9:25:50 AM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE opined that it makes sense to have employment preferences for military spouses but wondered why dependents were included. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied that it may, in some cases, be necessary for a child to work to help support the family. 9:27:23 AM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER asked how many other states included dependents. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON directed attention to a supporting document from the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) [included in committee packets]. REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER surmised that it's unclear which states include dependents in the policy. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON replied, "Correct." 9:28:30 AM MS. PERREAULT said she doesn't know which states include dependents and said her office could assist with that research. 9:28:55 AM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ shared her experience in working with military spouses and echoed the concerns about the inclusion of dependents, saying unemployment and underemployment is less of a concern among children. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON said part of the intent of the proposed legislation is to assist families whose servicemember has died. 9:30:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the proposed legislation would mandate that an employer is required to consider military spouses in hiring decisions and whether an employer could be penalized in any way. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON responded that the proposed legislation recommends that private businesses consider military spouses and that a military spouse is considered for positions in the public sector. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Mr. Wayne to confirm that the proposed legislation would not inadvertently require private employers to consider an applicant but would protect an employer for choosing to hire from military families. 9:32:14 AM DAN WAYNE, Attorney, Legislative Legal Services, Legislative Affairs Agency, confirmed that the text in Section 2 of HB 125 states that an employer may give preference to servicemembers and individuals from military families. He stated that there is nothing in the proposed legislation requiring an employer to give such preference in hiring. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether Section 2 is the only section that would affect private employers. MR. WAYNE referred to Section 1, subsection (c), which read as follows: (c) Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit a private employer from granting an employment preference described in AS 23.88.010 [TO A MEMBER OF THE NATIONAL GUARD OR A VETERAN WHEN HIRING AN EMPLOYEE. IN THIS SUBSECTION, MR. WAYNE clarified that the text would prevent a private employer from being penalized in any way for exercising the preferences under HB 125. 9:33:52 AM REPRESENTATIVE SCHRAGE spoke about the merits of hiring military spouses. 9:34:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE SNYDER pointed out that page 43 of the 2018 Blue Star Families Military Family Lifestyle Survey [included in the committee packet] discusses the need for increased access to child care. 9:35:25 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day to detail how HB 125 would change the hiring process for the State of Alaska. 9:35:45 AM PAM DAY, Deputy Director-Personnel, Division of Personnel and Labor Relations, Department of Administration, explained that the state's job application would be updated to add an area where an applicant could add the designation of military spouse or dependent. The state would then "give consideration," she said, meaning the application would be reviewed and the applicant would be selected, rejected, or considered further in the process. 9:36:35 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how the application process would be different from that of someone who is not in a preferential hiring category. MS. DAY responded that applications are first reviewed to determine whether an applicant meets the minimum qualifications for the job class, then selection such as education or experience is applied. Under HB 125, she said, an application with the military spouse designation would be reviewed further. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day to talk about how the opportunity to interview would be changed from current practice. MS. DAY responded that the current process for veterans, regardless of any qualifications such as disabled veteran or former prisoner of war, is to offer an interview. This process would be extended to those individuals outlined in the proposed legislation. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how many people are typically interviewed for an opening. MS. DAY responded that it varies depending on the job class and number of applicants. Three or four people may be interviewed for specialized jobs, or up to 20 applicants for a broader job class such as an office assistant. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how often the current veterans' hiring preference results in a veteran being offered an interview. MS. DAY said that every veteran is granted an interview. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked how many veterans are applying for state positions. MS. DAY replied that she would find out. 9:40:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN asked whether there have been any conflicts with other hiring preferences. REPRESENTATIVE NELSON deferred to Ms. Perreault. 9:41:29 AM MS. PERREAULT stated that DoD has not seen any hiring preference conflicts but that she would like to confirm her understanding with NCSL. CO-CHAIR FIELDS posed the same question to Mr. Wayne. 9:42:13 AM MR. WAYNE said he is not aware of any legal conflicts presented by the proposed legislation. 9:42:29 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Day whether the state tracks how many military spouses are employed by the state. MS. DAY replied that two military spouses work in her department. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked whether the state systematically tracks how many military spouses it employs. MS. DAY replied that it does not. 9:43:25 AM REPRESENTATIVE NELSON thanked the committee. 9:43:52 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS announced that HB 125 was held over.