HB 149-CHILD CARE PROVIDER COLLECTIVE BARGAINING  8:48:54 AM 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." 8:49:12 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS, as prime sponsor, summarized the HB 149. He explained that it would allow child care providers, which include business owners and employees, to vote for unionization and subsequently negotiate with the state for wages and benefits. He said that unionization would follow the "Right to Work" model, with membership being optional, but those who did choose to join would have wages and benefits set by a sectoral model designed to raise both wages and benefits, reduce turnover, and provide a structure under which members could have access to better and more affordable healthcare and to structured training. 8:50:54 AM CHRISTINA EUBANKS testified in support of HB 149. She said she's been an early childhood education provider in Alaska for 14 years. She said that the poor wages and benefits of child care providers is detrimental to working families, and a healthy early learning system depends on having a variety of providers that are well-trained and well-compensated. She said that Alaska's youngest residents experience alarming rates of adverse childhood experiences, and a quality early learning system supports children and families in building resiliency. The system in Alaska doesn't provide the livable wages necessary to keep a trained workforce, she said, with early childhood educators among the lowest-paid professionals in the state despite the high cost of child care. MS. EUBANKS said financial investment in early childhood saves money in education and health care costs in the long term. The majority of early childhood educators live in poverty, which causes stress and decreases the ability of providers to be attuned to the needs of the children in their care. Losing a child care provider causes stress on the family and children, and with the shortage of child care providers in Alaska families have to choose a provider based on what's available instead of on what's best for the family or child. She said that everything possible needs to be done to minimize stress on families, children, and providers, and to keep child care businesses open, as well as attract new ones, and to incentivize providers. Allowing independent child care business owners the ability to engage in collective bargaining with the state, she said, would provide a way to increase wages and keep programs open. 8:54:22 AM REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether the proposed legislation could reclassify private employees as state employees. 8:56:49 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that the proposed legislation would not designate child care employees as public employees. He said that it's also stated in the proposed legislation that nothing in the unionization or collective bargaining actions would change the nature of the employee/employer relationship. He said that under that provision, the child care sector, by negotiating as such, would experience better outcomes for workers, business owners, and working parents who utilize child care providers. He said that it would not be a model used by other sectors of the economy because most other sectors are under the purview of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). He expressed that the history of excluding domestic and farm workers from foundational labor laws allows space to create a new model for a collective bargaining structure; the new structure would not affect the industries currently under the purview of the NLRA, as those industries could continue collective bargaining within the framework of that law. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked, "In the work of Cesar Chavez, didn't he not override what happened in the 1930s to acknowledge those individuals you mentioned?" CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that he employed consumer pressure to force union recognition. He said farm workers, historically excluded from rights under NLRA, have the ability to petition an employer for voluntary recognition and may employ public pressure to do so. Employers decided that economic losses resulting from boycotts were so great, he said, that they decided to sign agreements with organizations such as the Teamsters or the United Farm Workers. Co-Chair Fields pointed out that Cesar Chavez figured out a way to make the system work in favor of workers despite historic exclusions in a different way than that which is contemplated in the proposed legislation. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY asked whether HB 149 would allow child care providers to be subsidized or whether supply and demand would remain in effect. CO-CHAIR FIELDS explained that with the passage of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, the State of Alaska will receive $76 million per year over what is currently in receipt in community development block grants for child care. He said, "We're going to get a lot of additional resources, as a state, to support child care, and I think we have a choice." He expressed that the choice was between continuing to subsidize child care within the framework of the existing system or expanding supply while raising wages, using the federal resources to reduce turnover, improve working conditions, and not raise prices on parents. It's only because of the infusion of federal money, he said, that such an opportunity exists. Each employer chooses whether or not to participate, he explained, and evidence from other states' show that it's a "win-win" situation which results in a larger pool for health care and training programs along with reduced turnover resulting from higher wages and benefits. REPRESENTATIVE MCCARTY expressed the belief that subsidizing one industry sets a precedent for all businesses to be subsidized. CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied that child care subsidies will continue to exist whether or not HB 149 is passed; the question is how to best structure subsidies to meet the needs of parents and employers. He shared his perspective that child care subsidies currently exist in a "broken system" and pointed out that the amount of subsidies is determined by Congress. He referred to the construction industry, in which there are prevailing wages for public construction and well-funded state capital budgets, and said that someone working in construction can support a family. "Why have we made that decision for construction but not child care? Aren't they both important?" he asked. He said that the goal should be to strive to provide conditions under which people can earn a living wage and employers can thrive. 9:04:06 AM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that the hospitality industry is subsidized by low-wage workers being on Medicaid. She stated that a person can make more money working at Starbucks than caring for children. She expressed that it's important to look at different ways of restructuring the system. She said that due in part to the gender pay gap, lack of child care options make it difficult for women to participate in the workforce because the parent who earns less money is the one who stays home with the children. She pointed out that child care consists of a mostly female workforce and is disproportionately composed of people of color. 9:06:16 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS noted that it's important to look at how other developed countries handle child care. He said that many countries subsidize at a much higher level, which is a policy choice they made. He expressed that HB 149 represents the most affordable and least coercive model he could find. 9:07:53 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the influx of federal money is attractive when thinking in terms of building programs, but the unionization of child care workers would result in higher costs. He discussed "money printing and the destruction of the dollar" and stated his concern with using federal money. He asked for an explanation of how unionization would reduce the total cost of child care. He then said, "I think the ultimate value of child care rests with - if a mother can raise the child and be with them as much as possible. That's what I had, and it was great." He said he's been "working" since he was four years old because his mother had a job that would allow her to take her child to work with her. CO-CHAIR FIELDS asked Ms. Eubanks how having a livable wage with benefits positively impacts an employer. 9:09:53 AM MS. EUBANKS responded that she has some really skilled staff who she characterized as "meant" to work in child care but who don't see it as a career option because the pay is low and there are no benefits such as health care or retirement. She said society does not commonly have stay-at-home parents anymore, and parents are often working more than one job each, so ensuring that children are loved, cared for, and have good memories is essential. 9:11:33 AM CO-CHAIR FIELDS stated that when funding such as the Child Care & Development Block Grants (CCDBG) is permanently authorized, it's rational to plan around it. CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ asked whether continuing education for providers could be negotiated for as part of the collective bargaining under HB 149. CO-CHAIR FIELDS replied yes, and pointed out that in other states a pool of employers working together could mean more robust training programs. 9:12:39 AM REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN suggested that the "core question" is whether HB 149 would strengthen the family or strengthen "the state's approach to raising children." CO-CHAIR FIELDS responded, "I think the decision has, effectively, been made ... with 40 years of stagnant wages for the middle class." He referred to Ms. Eubanks' statement that most parents must work, and economic conditions have made it so that most working families must rely on child care. He said he's in support of everyone having the choice to stay home and raise children, but economic conditions don't necessarily permit the choice. REPRESENTATIVE KAUFMAN opined that the transfer of wealth and commerce overseas is a big reason for the erosion of wages and discussed repatriating overseas companies. He suggested that building a better economy would help strengthen the nuclear family. CO-CHAIR FIELDS agreed and pointed out that countries with strong economies and high-wage jobs are the same countries with the strongest early child care and learning programs, as well as the strongest career and technical education programs. He said those countries invested in early care and learning because that's how to get human capital to a point of being highly- productive workers who are competitive in a global environment. 9:15:56 AM CO-CHAIR SPOHNHOLZ pointed out that there are many reasons why a parent would choose to work outside the home and that the decision should be made by the family instead of by policymakers. She suggested finding a way to remediate the outdated structural system of compensation to ensure that people doing critical work are able to live with dignity. [HB 149 was held over.]