SB 278-LEAVE FOR MILITARY SPOUSES  3:06:05 PM CHAIR PASKVAN announced SB 278 to be up for consideration. 3:06:09 PM SENATOR BILL WIELECHOWSKI, sponsor of SB 278, explained that this bill allows spouses of soldiers serving in combat zones to take 10 days of unpaid leave from work while that soldier is on leave from the field of battle. He said the many of the concerns have been addressed. Two changes were suggested at the end of the last hearing. One was to fix the language currently describing a period of military contact. The other change was at Senator Kookesh's request to clarify that schools with 20 or fewer employees are not required to provide 10 days of leave to their teachers without pay, but they are also not prohibited from doing that. 3:07:45 PM GEORGE ASCOTT, staff to Senator Wielechowski, said the changes can be found in committee (CS) that had not been adopted labeled 26-LS1034\C. The first change was made because of an error that required Congress to have formally declared war in order for a person in the regular armed forces to qualify for this. It turns out that Congress has not formally declared war since WWII, but they have authorized it. That clarification was made on page 3, lines 7-8, page 5, line 22, and page 7, lines 11-12. The second change was on page 2, lines 1-4, to make it absolutely clear that teachers that work for schools with less than 20 employees, particularly rural schools that may have only one teacher, may provide this leave if they want to but are not required to. 3:09:57 PM SENATOR KEVIN MEYER asked how this bill differs from the Federal Family Medical Leave Act. MR. ASCOTT explained the major difference is that SB 278 would allow more Alaskan soldiers to qualify. Under federal law an employee must work for an employer with 50 or more employees. This bill applies to an employer with 20 or more employees. Under the federal act an employee must have worked for a full year and a total of 1,250 hours during that year; SB 278 requires an employee to have worked more than 20 hours per week. This is in response to the fact that military families typically tend to move every couple of years; the spouse is often raising children and can't necessarily work for a full year for that many hours - or hasn't during a deployment. CHAIR PASKVAN asked for the difference in hours per year. MR. ASCOTT said under SB 278 an employee must work for an employer that has more than 20 employees for more than 20 hours per week. Under the federal law an employee has to have worked for a full year of not less than 1,250 hours to qualify. SENATOR MEYER asked how they arrived at 20 employees or more; he liked the federal limit of 50 because more employees are available to cover for the person who would be gone. MR. ASCOTT replied they reviewed what other states did; many of them have a 20 employee limit and hadn't discovered any problem with meeting that criterion. SENATOR MEYER mentioned he liked the correction that they are now requiring a two-week notice. That gives the employer a chance to get a temporary to fill in. 3:14:07 PM JEFFREY MITTMAN, Executive Director, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Alaska, said they worked with the Senate State Affairs Committee on constitutional issues on SB 278 and they now fully support it. The current version is in compliance with the Alaska Supreme Court's ruling in AKCLU v Alaska. 3:15:01 PM AL TAMAGNI, Sr., Pension Services International, Inc., Anchorage, said they looked at the House version of this bill initially and determined that the other states had passed their bills before the enactment of the Defense Authorization Act of 2010 that was signed by President Obama on October 28, 2009. The federal act grants 5 days of unpaid leave and the Alaska proposal grants 10 working days. He didn't think the sponsors were aware of this passed legislation when it was in the House. Basically the federal act takes care of all these problems. Some parts of the CS are regulated by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which can't be superseded by state law. Most importantly there has been no evidence at all that this is being abused by Alaskan employers. He considered the suggestion in this bill a "slap in our face." It is trying to solve a problem that does not exist. 3:18:26 PM CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he had a problem with the 20 versus 50 employee limit. MR. TAMAGNI answered yes. CHAIR PASKVAN asked if he had a problem with the two-week notice. MR. TAMAGNI replied yes, because there are times when deployments happen that they don't have two weeks' notice. It's military tactics to change deployment times in the event of war so that no one knows precise times of transportation. He didn't see why this bill was needed because the federal law takes care of everything and has exempted all small entities with less than 50 employees under the Family Medical Leave Act. SENATOR MEYER followed up saying 50 is better than 20. It just seems like 20 employees didn't give a whole lot of flexibility to an employer for filling in for someone who would be gone for 10 days. Fifty days would give an employer enough time to cover for the person who is absent. MR. TAMAGNI agreed. Just leave the federal act in place because it addresses everybody's concerns. SENATOR MEYER said that was a good point. He didn't know the differences between the federal act and this bill. MR. TAMAGNI said the federal act allows five days of unpaid leave for the spouse. This bill wants 10 working days of unpaid leave and to apply to employers who have more than 20 employees when the federal act says 50. There is no demonstrated evidence of any abuse or problems. He said they have checked with employers in Anchorage and Fairbanks and lot of them are veterans themselves. 3:21:59 PM RIC DAVIDGE, President, Viet Nam Veterans of America, said he is also Chairman of the Alaska Veterans Foundation. With all due respect to the person who testified before him, he said that military families don't always get much notice, and, yes, most Alaskan businesses have been very helpful for spouses and families to spend time with their warrior, but this bill is not just dealing with deployment and return. It is also dealing with when a soldier is given R&R time but is unable to return to the country and the spouse would like to go over and meet their warrior and spend some time with them too. That is why the 10 days is important. He thanked Senator Wielechowski for sponsoring this. He said the core issue is that the State of Alaska is making a statement, preemptive of problems, to allow 10 working days without pay with reasonable notice to be given to a spouse to spend time with their warrior during overseas deployments. He said a woman called the Foundation last year and would have made an extraordinary witness because her warrior was, in fact, wounded. Her employer was unwilling to give her time off to go overseas. While they were able to eventually resolve it, the situation was unimaginable. Having a law would make it very clear and it is a reasonable request. 3:24:30 PM STACY BANNEMAN, representing herself, supported SB 278. Said she is the wife of an active duty Army Guard soldier who has already served two tours in Iraq. He received a bronze star in combat and a combat infantry badge. During both deployments she was working full or part time for employers for whom the recent changes to the federal Family Medical Leave Ace for military families will never apply. She explained that for the first year of the Viet Nam war married men were exempt from the draft; married men with children were give draft deferments because it was thought to constitute too much of hardship on the families. During Viet Nam the majority of troops served one tour and comparatively few citizen soldiers served in combat. However, in comparison, the bulk of the boots on ground in Afghanistan and Iraq are married, they have served or are serving multiple tours; most of them have children. "But America doesn't seem to care about that anymore even as military families are increasingly stretched and stressed to the breaking point." She said nearly 70 percent of military spouses work outside the home, but a lot of spouses are unable to spend time with their loved one immediately prior to a deployment during a two-week R&R if it even happens or when their husband comes home. With every single deployment they have to make impossible choices between work and family. Forcing military families to make these choices over and over again when a nation is at war is the very definition of a lack of patriotism and a failure to support the troops and their military families. Shortly before her husband's most recent deployment she had started a new job and couldn't get any time off. After several months of training at Ft. McCoy, WI, he left for Iraq. She didn't see him for more than a year, but he returned safely. But the reality is that some soldiers are coming home in a box and some will spend the rest of their lives wishing for those last two weeks with them. She acknowledged recent changes to the federal Family Medical Leave Act, but they do not cover temporary, part time, seasonal or contract workers. They don't take into account the reality and frequency of relocation required of active duty personnel and their families, and the fact that many spouses have to cut back to part time work in order to handle child care and household responsibilities during deployment (they are also the primary unpaid caretakers of veterans as well). The Act doesn't take into account that most Guard Reserve spouses work for small businesses, many in rural communities, or that an increasing number of employers are creating a virtual workplace in hiring contract workers. She said in order to be eligible for the federal law, military spouses are required to have been working for an employer for at least 12 months, worked at least 1,250 hours during the prior 12 months and be located at a work site where there are at least 50 employees within a 75 mile radius. So, for all intents and purposes the federal law is meaningless for the majority of military family members. In 2008 Washington State passed the Military Family Leave Law and in 2009 Oregon State followed suit. She strongly encouraged Alaska to pass SB 278. SENATOR MEYER said he was a little shocked that she couldn't get some time off to meet her spouse. MS. BANNEMAN replied she couldn't get time off during either deployment. SENATOR MEYER asked if that was an employer in Alaska. MS. BANNEMAN answered no; it was in the Lower 48, but she said her story is not an anomaly. The thing is they can't afford to complain to their employers. When you are a military spouse enduring these deployments your plate is so full that you don't have the time or energy to pursue other avenues and filing complaints. SENATOR MEYER said he has never heard of an employer in Alaska not letting an employee have time off to see their spouse during an R&R. He said Alaska really appreciates its military. CHAIR PASKVAN asked if she had lived here in the last six years. MS. BANNEMAN replied no; she has lived in Washington State and in Oregon. SENATOR MEYER said he takes offense at someone who lives in Washington and Oregon saying Alaskans don't appreciate and honor its military because they do. MS. BANNEMAN apologized if he took offense. She clarified that she wasn't talking about Alaska. She said this is her experience and she had stated she has not lived in Alaska. 3:32:01 PM CHAIR PASKVAN said this bill raises significant policy changes and he held SB 278 for further consideration. Finding no further business to come before the committee, he adjourned the meeting at 3:32 p.m.