Senate Standing Committee on Labor and Technology

Okay, good afternoon. Committees on Labor and Technology and Transportation, Culture, the Arts. We have a joint agenda. 3:00pm, we're in conference Room 224. It's Monday, February 10th. Okay, just real briefly. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday the 12th at 3pm in this conference room. There will be a two minute testifier limit per testifier. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up first we have Senate Bill 396.

Okay, up first we have DHRD Director. Okay, thank you very much, Director. Up next we have the Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation Commission. Okay, thank you very much. We have Hawaii State Energy Office. Thank you very much. We have the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization.

Aloha, Chairs, Vice Chairs, and Members of the Committee. My name is Kiana Otsuka and I'm with the Oahu Metropolitan Planning Organization. And we stand on our written testimony in support and offer amendments for your consideration. I also want to note for the Committee that our office helped to lead a study that's in alignment with this bill. We're happy to take questions on this. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up next we have DAGS Comptroller. Okay, thank you very much. Up next we have Ulupono Initiative. Okay. Mariah Yoshizu in support. Beatrice DeRego, Coalition Earth also in support. Okay. And then we have Kiana Otsuka again as an individual. Okay. Still in support. Any others wishing to testify? Seeing none. Members, any questions? I have a quick question for DHRD. Thank you, Director, once again for being here. Any projected costs that you would look at at least initially to implement?

It really depends on the scope of what the benefit package would be. Right. If we're going to incentivize folks to walk or roll or ride, that number is sort of unknown at this point because we don't capture that data. So it would, it would be contingent upon the mode of transportation. I assume that those folks that we don't know how they get to work and what kind of incentive would be offered.

Okay. All right, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Seeing none. I'll defer to the Transportation of, Committee on Transportation and Culture and Arts.

Thank you.

Next is Senate Bill 47 relating to state holidays, which designates the second new moon after the winter solstice as the Lunar New Year. Testifying first is the Office of Collective Bargaining with comments. City and County Honolulu with comments. And we have support from Mericia Palma Elmore, Victor Lim, Doris Dvonch. And signed up to testify. Tai-ni Xia in support. And Sharlene Chun. Good afternoon. Please. Welcome.

So. Thank you. So bear with me. Okay. Aloha, Chair Lee, Chair Aquino, and the Members of the Joint Committees. My name is Sharlene Chun and I am testifying in support of Senate Bill 47 relating to state holidays. As a Chinese American woman who has deep roots in the Hawaii Chinese community, I wholeheartedly support this effort to recognize the Lunar New Year and to continue perpetuating this cultural celebration for everyone in Hawaii to enjoy.

Every Lunar New Year, I continue family traditions passed on to me from my grandparents, parents, and embracing the coming of the New year with food, music, and lion dances. The celebrations bring so much joy to our community, and I want to pass these traditions down to the next generation. Recognizing a Lunar New Year as a state holiday will continue to raise awareness of the significant day for not only the Chinese community, but for all the people of Hawaii, as we are a diversified community. Mahalo for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here wishing to testify in this measure? If not, are there any questions?

Thank you, Director. This is a wonderful holiday that we had, the lunar holiday. And I'm just wondering. We have a number of holidays. What is the cost of the state if you would observe this as a holiday?

That's a very good question, and luckily the money man is here. Director Salaveria is probably much better.

January 29th... And it changes every year according to the Lunar Calendar. So not the American calendar, but the Lunar Calendar.

So if the Committee were to designate it as a holiday, it could be observed as a holiday, but not necessarily a holiday that state employees would not be working. Right. So we do have a number of holidays which are considered observed but are not a day off for state employees because those are subject to collective bargaining. We need to negotiate when employees can it off.

So this is observed as a holiday.

Could be, yeah.

I have a quick question for Mrs. Chun. This may seem a little personal, but I was asked to ask these questions. Do you have children?

Yes.

And who's your favorite child?

I have none.

There's no specific colleague of ours?

Oh, you do have... I do. Cory Chun. But I treat them all equally.

For the record. Thank you very much.

I have a doctor, lawyer, and an Indian chief. So, yeah.

Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for indulging me, Chair.

Okay. Any other questions? If not, turn it back over to Chair Aquino.

Okay, we're gonna recess briefly.

Okay. Reconvening the joint committees. Our 3pm agenda for decision-making. Up first, we have Senate Bill 396, relating to commuting. Members, the recommendation is to move this as a Senate draft one. We'll be adding a defective date, technical amendments, and we'll be also adding appropriate appropriation language with a blank amount, okay, for further discussion.

Any questions or concerns, colleagues? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 396. Recommendations to pass with amendments. [Roll call]. Chair, the recommendation's adopted.

Okay, thank you very much. And the Committee on Transportation, Culture and Arts? Same recommendation on 396.

Chair's recommendation for the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts is to pass SB 396 with amendments. [Roll call]. Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Moving on to the Senate Bill 47, linked to state holidays. Like to recommend moving this on with amendments. I think we recognize the concerns or the issues that were raised with respect to collective bargaining and cost.

But for the moment, if folks are amenable, we'd like to just move this on so we can get maybe some clarity and provide an opportunity for further discussion. And for maybe Representative Chun to help solve the issue once he gets to the House. So any discussion? If not, Vice Chair for the vote.

Chair as is or amended?

With amendments.

For the Committee on Transportation--

Oh, sorry. Yeah, now be adding in a defective date.

For the Committee on Transportation and Culture and the Arts, Chair's recommendation to pass SB 47 with amendments. [Roll call]. Measure's adopted, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Labor and Technology, same recommendation. Any questions or concerns, colleagues? Seeing none, Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 47. The recommendation's to pass with amendments noting Senator Fevella excused. Are there any reservations or nos? If not, recommendations adopted.

And with that, we are adjourned.

Okay. Good afternoon. Coming on Labor and Technology has a 3:15pm agenda this Monday, February 10th Conference Room 224, Hawaii State Capitol. This meeting is being streamed live on YouTube.

In the unlikely event that we have to abruptly end this hearing due to technical difficulties, the Committee will reconvene to discuss any outstanding business on Wednesday the 12th at 3pm in 224. There will be a 2 minute testifiers limit for each testifier. Okay, up first you have Senate Bill 136 reading through ironworkers.

Okay, up first we have Ironworker Stabilization Fund.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Cody Sula with the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. On behalf of our Managing Director, T. George Paris, we're in strong support of SB136 relating to iron workers. We submitted written testimony. We just wanted to highlight a few points on it.

Some of the testimony does have some minor housekeeping amendments that were included in there. We just want to say the ironworkers are highly skilled and specialized craft people who have undergone rigorous training and end here to strict safety standards in all aspects of their work, including installation, maintenance and ultimately decommissioning of iron structures.

Improper dismantling or demolition of these projects poses significant safety risks which compromise the structural integrity of the project and surrounding areas, endangering workers and the public. Lack of adherence to the safety protocols increased the risk of accidents, injuries and fatalities.

Improper dismantling can release hazardous materials and debris, harming the environment, allowing untrained individuals to perform these critical tasks it undermines the value of the ironworker's expertise and devalues the importance of safety in our industry.

So we urge the Committee to pass SB136 to safeguard the safety of workers and the public, protect property and uphold the highest standards and professionalism in the iron working industry. At the end of the day, guys, we're not trying to get into anybody's jurisdiction or take away work, but we just. It's about common sense.

The people touching iron with their hands is in iron work, electrical workers touch the electrical stuff and etc. So would you guys have passed this bill? Thank you for the opportunity to testify. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Up next, we have United Public Workers. Okay. With comments. Okay. Up next, we have Operating Engineers Local Three.

Hello, Chair, Members of the Committee, Panama Tong the third Operating Engineers Local Three. You have our written testimony in opposition.

I would like to point out though that the very end of our testimony, we do see that there is a way forward with amendments to the bill to protect our work, which is running the machines, cranes and other motorized vehicles that do pertain to demolition and erection and dismantling of cranes and so forth.

And so we see a path forward there and we would push for amendments. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, up next we have the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters. Opposition. We have lesson. Hawaii lesson. Okay. Also in opposition. Okay. Laborers International Union Local 368.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Emmanuel Zibakalam. Here. On behalf of the laborers. For this measure, we want to respect, you know, our brothers at the different trades. But unfortunately, at this time, the bill is a bit too broad.

We feel like it does step into the jurisdiction, especially in the dismantling space of some of the work that has been traditionally done by laborers. And that's the reason why we are currently in opposition to this measure.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Plumbers and Fitters Local 675.

Here on. Behalf of the Plumbers and Fitters Local 675. Once again, this is a broad issue for us as well. And that's the reason why we are currently in opposition to this measure. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any others wish you to testify? Bill 136, please introduce yourself and state your position, please.

Good afternoon Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Dwayne Bautista. I work for the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund under managing Director T. George Paris. I'm here to ask to support on Senate Bill 136, the Iron Worker Bill.

Due to the fact that iron workers, when we erect these steel beams or do the rebars, that's 100% iron workers right off the bat. And then if you're dismantling it you should always reverse the process. Like my brother said earlier, we gotta use common sense. It's common sense. All we're asking is make sure that the iron workers--

If we're putting it up and then we're dismantling it or disassemble, save it for a later date. Even during the demolition. If we were using a wrecking ball system where we bust everything down and it goes into one big rubbish pile, then that's something else that might. Might be in somebody else's jurisdiction.

But if we were cutting, we're welding and we're taking it off piece by piece. That's iron workers. So I urge support, please. Senate Bill 136. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify Senate Bill 136. Okay, thank you very much. Please introduce yourself and your position.

Good afternoon, Chair and Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I'm with the Ironworkers 625 Stabilization Fund under the leadership of T. George Paris. This Bill 136, granted, we have some jurisdictional things. We're not asking you guys to solve that.

What we're doing is we're asking you guys to look at the safety, health and safety of this bill and the situation. You know, our workers go through three years of extensive training. I have a list here of 16 labor unions that also feel the same. Health and safety should be top priority in all the jobs.

I can name all of this for you, but you gave me only two minutes. So I urge. I strongly urge you guys to please pass this bill under the condition of health and safety. As far as jurisdictional stuff, common sense, Ironworkers work is iron workers work, plumbers is plumbers and labors is laborers.

We will deal with that at the job site and with the contract negotiations. Thank you for your support.

Okay, thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 136 seeing none. Colleagues, any questions? I have a quick question. Okay. Department of Labor. Hi, Director. I understand that you didn't submit testimony regarding this measure. But I would ask you, is there any comparable section to what's being introduced in this measure in the HRS? Any existing.

The reason we didn't want to submit. Any testimony is because we don't want to, you know, we don't want to take sides and. But if you don't mind, our administrator for Weight Standards Division, Cheryl Lee.

No, I understand, Director, but please.

Sorry, I'm not too sure what the bill is asking, but if it's apprenticeship. I'm not sure.

Thank you very much.

Just the reason why I guess they have no answer really and they cannot really answer is because they do mostly state, not private. Right?

That's true.

You guys don't do private. Right. And this is. Even though it's in the construction. Unless it has to do with state jobs, which is UPW already had chimed in. This is really nothing have. That's why you didn't put in testimony because I remember you telling me this is more a private matter than a state matter labor, right?

Okay, thank you very much for the clarification. Is there anyone within the Administration who can answer that specific question? Anyone in attendance from the admin that can answer this specific question? Okay, thank you very much. Members, any other questions? Okay, Senator Fevella.

Hello Senator. Emmanuel Zinakalam here on behalf of the laborers.

Just what you had heard. Iron workers are speaking. And, you know, we know it's a difficult field in all the fields, but going forward, iron workers technically cannot be doing labor jobs. What is this for labor? For the labor union. Iron workers cannot run machines because that is operator's job.

So what part of the bill that you could not work with the Committee and try to amend it so that we all work good together with our other brothers and sisters in the union? I see you guys in a post, but I didn't see if you guys had made any amendments to the bill.

Correct. So, two points to that question. The first one, we didn't have any amendments because this is one of the first times we've been seeing the jurisdictional space be put into statute, which is concerning for us because we don't know what happens over time.

Obviously, we don't want to be fighting with other unions over jurisdiction, but we do want to maintain the work for our members. And so while we can say that, you know, if it's dismantling and put into a pile at the end, that's labor's work in conjecture.

If it's in statute, that point could then be argued legally and we might be forced into a position where we would lose work for our members. So, you know, outside of all of the trades being defined in statute, we wouldn't really have any other way of recourse in this space.

And that's why we're primarily an objection to this measure.

It's just like roofers, operators, laborers, long time ago, not so much with the operators. But I was, I was with those unions before, and I remember you don't, you know, stay in your lane. You don't cross over.

Especially when I used to run the Bobcat, technically, when I was a laborer, that was actually an operator's job, but, you know, defined defining moment. But you're saying if we put this in the statue, it's gonna challenge the jurisdiction of each trade?

It definitely could.

Just because, A, this is the only space it would be in statute, and B, we just feel like it's defined quite broadly right now, because when you take certain spaces of placement, dismantling, demolition, you know, those words need to each be defined for interpretation, if we're putting it into a section and then each of the trades should then be defined afterwards.

If we're looking for a space where we, you know, legislate this in entirety. Because right now what we're doing is we're placing in a single section and asking everybody else to conform to that space without giving them the opportunity to have their own.

We feel like, you know, with the way it's written right now, we couldn't support this measure going forward.

Senator Moriwake.

So are you saying 1, that we shouldn't have it in statute that you guys all get along or 2, we have this in statute. Everybody else, I mean, then every union should have their space or their lane identified in statute.

Well, Senator, I don't think that is a space for me to comment. That's up to you as Senators and as representatives.

Would you clarify? You folks not getting along and you're getting into each other's lane. Is that why we have a bill like maybe we should have iron workers come up? I'm not making this too long, but yeah, maybe you can answer in the morning.

It's not a matter of us not getting along. It's just a matter in this situation. We got big jobs coming, like the stadium. Who would you prefer taking the stadium apart? Somebody that's trained to do that or somebody that's going to slide in and try to get the job?

All of our members go to a three to four year training, specifically this mandoline. And they get certified. So when you're looking at a project that big, my question to you is, you guys don't support what we're trying to do. Safety first. Something happened.

Can we come back to you guys and say, hey, your fault was trying to get this thing done the right way where certified people can do the job. Basically. As far as getting along, we all get along. A lot of fighting and the BS between unions before 15 years ago, all of that has gone away.

Like we said earlier, they know what their job is. We don't drive the cranes, we don't do that. We don't get into their part of the work. And if there's a mix up where, let's just say an iron worker company got the job, we can straighten them out.

We're not going to take works away from them because we don't want them to take work from us. Health and safety is the key here. We've got big projects coming up. State Projects. It's up to you guys who you see, who you want on the job, somebody that's properly trained or you can roll the dice.

Every union has apprenticeship programs.

And to that point, I agree with Cliff in saying that for the most part, we do get along. You know, we try to work together as best as possible. I don't think he's trying to point at us, but I will say that we have an apprentice trade that people are trained for quite a long time.

They've worked a long time in these fields. The work that they've traditionally done, they've done safely. And I know that they'll continue to do so. This is more of a jurisdictional space. And so we just have to come out in opposition to this measure because we feel like it may infringe on our space.

And whether it be now or in the future.

Thank you.

This one quick concern. Just to let you know, I never only go to the roofers pre apprentice or apprentice, but I was also in the labor training school over there by the community college.

Reason why I bring this up is same thing with Cliff was just saying when we went to the training school, we trained in our field. Pipelining, grading, you know, digging, you know, all that kinds of stuff. When it comes outside the school, we don't tie steel. We rarely make forms if need to.

We work with the masons and carpenters or whatever. But just saying that is that we know when you go to the job site, we get companies. I don't blame any of the trades. I blame the company. They don't want to bring the people in chair as the trade needs because they, like, cut costs.

I won't pay one. I'm not saying leave us because labels get good money. Now, I know they wasn't making 17 an hour back anyway. So we know each trade makes very good money. So they're gonna look at a sense of rolling the dice on who they can take apprentices who get paid cheaper with no benefits.

But it will take one journeyman from one of the trades to do that. And before, the unions would have to offset so much apprentices to so much journeymen. I don't know if they still do that now, but that was a ratio.

So I guess what Cliff is saying is that not so much the trade itself, but the company or even like the project for the state. We got to make sure that we take care of what we need to take care.

And I think that's where I think we can help Chair moving forward is that making sure that whoever gets the job, and I hear like Stanford Carr going to get the job, most likely we got to make sure we put those parameters in there when they get the job.

So basically that's, I mean that's basically what you guys are saying, right? I mean it's just the parameters of the job classification.

I guess my response would be that, you know, all the unions respect each other's work. We just want to make sure that we can continue to do so in the ways that we've traditionally done.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, sir, for indulging.

Thank you very much. Colleagues, any other questions? Okay, seeing none. Let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 1523 relating to private sector collective bargaining rights. Expands the types of employees protected by the Hawaii Employment Relations Act to include independent contractors and all individuals subject to the jurisdiction of the NLRA. Okay. Up first. Okay, we have IATSE, Tuia'ana Scanlan.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Tuia'ana Scanlan, President of IATSE Local 665 and IATSE International Trustee. You have a written testimony. We just wanted to point out that there is an unelected billionaire rifling through some of the most sensitive areas of the federal government, accessing data they should not have access to, and actively dismantling, undermining, and destroying and disabling civil rights and protections for people across the US. We must do everything that we can to bolster the bulwark against this wave that may be headed our way.

This bill seeks to expand collective bargaining rights to private sector unions to afford the same rights and protections as our public sector kin. It is imperative that we take bold steps to do so to protect our union family in this action. Hawaii has a history of passing bold legislation to protect workers' rights and the rights of labor, and we implore you to pass this bill. Thank you. Available for questions.

Thank you very much. International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 50. Okay. In support. Okay. We have HGEA. Okay, thank you very much. Hawaii state AFL-CIO. Okay. Also in support. Okay. Again, we have Tuia'ana Scanlan. Okay. Again, on behalf of the Democratic Party of Hawaii Labor Caucus. Okay, thank you very much. Okay.

We have Nohealani NihipaliDay in support. Okay. We have Hawaii Nurses Association, Rosalee Agas-Yuu. Okay. Also in support. Henry Gonzalez. Okay. Brandon Wolff, ILWU International Hawaii. Okay. Both in support. Okay. Pride at Work Hawaii, Michael Golojuch Sr. Eric Uyeda. And it seems like there's at least 50. Okay. 50 plus individual testifiers all in support. Okay.

We do have late testimony from Pio Pelesasa . Okay. Support. Okay. Hopena Pokipala. Okay. UHPA, Christian Fern. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Christian West, ILWU Local 142. Okay. In support. Okay. Dion Dizon. Okay. Late testimony in support. Okay. Gino Soquena, Hawaii Building and Construction Trades Council. Okay. In support. Oh, Gino became better looking.

And shorter. Taller. A little bit stronger.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. My name is Cliff Laboy. I'm a short testimony for Gino. Basically, we're in support of Senate Bill 1523, right? I also have, I have asked them if I could use the rest of our building trades except for one that I didn't talk to, which is IBEW.

I've spoken to the rest. I got 16 unions here in support. Shall I list them? Electrical, elevators, plasters, insulators, bricklayers, sheet metal, Teamsters, Boilermakers, Iron Workers, painters, glazers, floor lasers, drywall tapers, roofers. Roughly a total of about 35,000 members. Adding the spouses and some family members in there, you're looking at about 138,000 people supporting this, which I could not get into this room today. So we thank you for your testimony. And, again, thank you very much. Have a good day.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up next we have the Hawaii State Teachers Association, President Osa Tui. Okay. Also in support. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 1523. Okay, introduce yourself please.

Good afternoon again. Dwayne Bautista. Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, and Members of the Committee. I represent Hawaiian Iron Workers Local 625 Stabilization Fund under T. George Paris. But today we support House Bill 931. I'm sorry, Senate Bill 1523. Now I'm going to take you guys back into history.

Why I support this based off the private sector to be unionized. Public sector, state and county, they have their collective bargaining. But as a private sector, you don't. Federal workers, we all know they don't have their bargaining rights. The reason why it touched me home is, prior to retiring, I had 22 years at the federal detention center. And I was their union President during pre-Covid and during COVID. AFGE, they have like 800,000 members. CPL is Council Prison Local 33 on the Western Region, which we only have about 15 prisons out there. And they're all bargaining under the federal.

Those are my brothers and sisters that kept us safe from the people that society don't want to deal with. The judge judged them, they have to do their time. Us private sector, we watching them. They're one year, 20 years. And my brothers and sisters there, my wife still works in the prison system, 22 years also. So I fight for this as a private sector to have the same bargaining rights as a public sector because that's public safety. Mahalo. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 1523.

Aloha, Chair, Members of the Committee. Ben Sadoski with Unite Here, Local 5. We just want to register our support for this measure as well for SB 1523. Thanks.

Thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify?

Welcome, Chair.

Chair Aquino, Senator Moriwaki, good afternoon. The Hawaii Labor-- Dwight Takamine, the interim Chair for the Hawaii Labor Relations Board.

We did not submit written testimony and we felt that this was an appropriate policy call for the legislature, although we wanted to raise one concern, and that is if you were to look at how both systems work now, should this bill pass, essentially in the current form, we're concerned that there would be not only an additional substantial workload, but also resources, additional resources would be necessary.

And in three areas specifically. That would be of course, staffing space as well as operational costs. But I'll stand by to answer any questions that the Committee Members may have.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 1523. Seeing none. Any questions?

Chair Takamine, could you come back?

Senator Moriwaki.

So if we were to pass this bill to give rights, or I guess rights that the federal may take away from these employees, what kinds of additional work would that come to you? What additional work are you talking about?

I appreciate the question very much. As we see it, basically the NLRA does most of the coverage for the private sector workers in Hawaii. To give you an idea, Senator, we have about 670,000 workers in our workforce. About 125,000 of those are considered public sector workers.

As you may be familiar, Hawaii Labor Relations Board currently handles public sector workers and employers. So if this bill were to pass, we're anticipating that the 125,000 workers in the public sector would be joined by the remainder who are in the private sector. So that could increase the amount of work by up to five fold.

Just because if you were to look at 125,000 public sector workers, that would constitute a little bit less than 20% of our current workforce.

If I can, to explain it another way, if we were to look at this from a different parameter, let's say the number of cases that are handled both by the NLRB and by HLRB. In 2024, the number of cases handled by the National Labor Relations Board came out to about almost 250 cases.

Comparatively speaking, for HLRB, if you were to look at similar cases, the board handled 20 cases. So there you have sort of almost a tenfold increase where all of those employees as well as the kind of cases be transferred to the jurisdiction of the Hawai'i Labor Relations Board.

So are you saying that if we were to pass this bill, we should have an appropriation included in this?

Yes, we would be very concerned that should this bill pass that you would need the necessary financial resources to be able to have it-- to have the laws enforced and properly have the agency properly operated.

So the 250 cases that you're talking about, those were all local cases that you're talking about NLRB across the street, the federal building, handled.

That's correct. And you know, I have to admit, staff kind of, you know, tried to pull numbers together as quickly as they could. This would be for NLRB cases filed in Hawaii since January 1, 2024. And total representation cases would amount to 22 of them occurring in 2024.

And the number of unfair labor practices cases would amount to 221. Again, 205 of those occurring in 2024.

All these cases came before the board. The 24 or the 20 cases, the HLRB cases all come before the board?

They were filed in 2024 before the HLRB.

Oh, okay, so, but do they all come up for hearing or how do you dispense with cases?

We just submitted our annual report to the governor, and so there we tried to capture the numbers of cases as they move through the system. Of the 20 that was filed or opened in 2024, actually seven of those cases were actually closed within the year. That left a balance of 13 pending at the end of 2024.

Thank you, Chair.

Okay, thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you.

All right, let's move on to the next measure, Senate Bill 1440. Two exemptions from civil service for certain positions in Department of Health. Okay, up first we have Department of Health.

Aloha, Chair, Senator Moriwaki. Lorrin Kim, Department of Health, Policy and Planning Chief. The department's in strong support of this measure. It is part of Governor Green's administrative package. It's also worth noting that its House companion did not make it past triple referral.

So we ask that this measure keep moving so that we can help everybody understand why these positions need to be exempt. So the first position is the public information officer, which, as mentioned in my testimony, has been an administrative assistant.

Public information, public relations, media communications has gotten so complex that the civil service analog, the civil service positions just can't keep up with the salaries. And we do know that in many other cabinet agencies the public information officer is exempt or oftentimes a special assistant.

We have a position that in our Developmental Disabilities Division that will help maintain the large drawdown of about $114 million from the federal government for the home and community-based services waiver. Two medical directors from Emergency Medical Service and Injury Prevention Branch. These are not full time positions, I think they amount to about 0.3.

But doctors are very, very busy and we need to have medical directors for every jurisdiction. And as medical directors come and go because their practices grow or they move on, long vacancies due to civil service recruitment are just not acceptable in those counties in which those medical directors work.

And lastly, several positions that are part of the executive leadership staff from the Hawaii State Hospital. These positions are being established after the tragic incident and loss of life of a state employee a couple of years ago from an after action report and set of recommendations. So these are all very unique classes of work.

Many of them serve at the executive leadership level and we think should be serving at the pleasure of the executive leadership of the department. And again, there is no house companion. This is the only bill left and we kindly ask that you move this through to continue the conversation.

And I have colleagues from the Behavioral Health Administration who can answer more specific programmatic questions should you have it. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up next we have HGEA.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair. Nui Sebast here with HGEA. We'll stand on a written testimony in opposition to this measure. We just want to emphasize that exempt employees do not have civil service protections and they're not allowed to grieve a suspension or discharge.

We further want to emphasize that while we appreciate the department's intent to increase pay for for these positions, we want to just throw the question on, why can't they just reprice these positions?

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, we have Dave Fields on Zoom.

Aloha Chair and other Members. My name is Dave Fields. I'm here to strongly oppose Senate Bill 1440, specifically the Hawaii State Hospital staffing portion. It's pitched as a fix for safety issues by adding high level administrative-- I mean administrators exempt from civil service. But the reality of Hawaii State Hospital is far more dire. I've worked there before.

The rail safety crisis stems from thin frontline staffing and a leadership culture of favoritism and cronyism, specifically under the leadership of the Deputy Director, Marian Tsuji. So that drives away many skilled staff that they simply don't like or want to replace.

The Hawaii State Hospital part was added after the murder of a nurse, Justin Bautista, on the campus. Essentially at that time they tried to distance from that incident, saying that it occurred at a state-operated specialized residential program, so technically not at Hawaii State Hospital.

But now they're kind of using that to add more positions at the state hospital. So, yeah, this bill effectively gives more unchecked authority to the same leadership that ignored staff pleas and avoided responsibility after Justin's tragic death. If we really want to honor his memory, we'd address staffing shortfalls and the culture of retaliation at the state hospital.

Unless there's real oversight, like mandatory reporting on hires, terminations, patient outcomes, this bill will only reinforce the power dynamics that has continually held us at the hospital. I respectfully ask the Committee to oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 1440. Okay, questions, colleagues? I have a quick question for Department of Health. So the PIO position, is it-- I mean, I know that there's a admin assistant filling in, so that that position is currently filled by a warm body?

I believe so, yes. We also have supplemented with some federal funds to create a better overall communication office.

And then for the second request, regarding the Federal Initiatives Coordinator, who's currently providing this particular service? Who's filling this position?

Do you mind if I call up my colleague Mary? Mary Brogan is the Administrator for Developmental Disabilities and will be able to provide more detailed information.

Good afternoon, Chair and Senator. There currently is nobody fulfilling this function. And so we're particularly reeling off of the implementation of the last large federal initiative that we had to do and that was spread up among staff, and it--

A lot of the compliance implementation happened during COVID And so, having experienced that big initiative, we're now moving into a large one, the HCBS Access Rule. It was promulgated last July by CMS, and it is probably a larger initiative than the last federal initiative that we engaged in. It's very complex, very data and system heavy.

And we know we don't have any existing staff that could do all the coordination of the implementation timelines, compliance deadlines, the complexity of the design, development, implementation, analysis of existing resources, interagency agreements, et cetera. We've done an analysis of all the different functions that would need to be addressed, and we don't have anybody to fulfill those functions.

So how long have we had this vacancy for?

It's not an existing position. We're asking for the position to be established in the budget.

Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Senator Moriwaki.

Could you tell me a little bit more about this position? Is it going to be a permanent position and-- is it going to be a permanent position?

Yes, it would become a permanent position. In the 10 years since I've been in this position, I've seen federal initiatives that last anywhere from 10 to 20 years in the duration. And there are always new guidances and federal rules, federal regulations coming down to additionally add protections to people with Medicaid.

So this is a federally funded position. And do you know that it will be continuing to be funded under the new administration?

It's a state-funded position, but funded with federal administrative claiming.

And in terms of-- We just heard a bill earlier from your director saying that he wants to have a lot more flexibility in terms of recruiting and getting people with higher salaries, I think, in order to have a really strong labor workforce for the department. So why wouldn't you use those authorities should it pass rather than exempt positions that you're requesting?

I'm not exactly sure what the director was referring to. I couldn't make--

But you could recruit on a much broader basis and not have an exempt position.

I think I can partially answer your question, Senator. So Dr. Fink's pilot is limited to civil service positions for unique classifications delegated to the Department of Health, like an epidemiologist. An epidemiologist doesn't exist anywhere else but. DOH. And so we sort of define it, we understand the class of work.

And the pilot that was conducted over the summer was limited just to those delegated classes.

I think he's expanding it though.

He would like to expand it, yes, with the approval of the legislature.

So I'm just wondering-- So that when you look at exemptions, there's a real need to exempt versus getting a civil service position that's long term and permanent.

There's really no existing class. So it really has to do with the classification of the position.

Yeah, but there are classes that you could look at if it's a unique class. I'm just wondering about the exemptions. I think the Chair also asked about the PIO similarly. You know, those are positions that would be in the civil service. You could have a way of increasing the salary if you have more responsibilities to the position.

And we've had some civil service positions that we've had vacant for many years because we don't get applications for them too. I think that we want to make it a position that's really tight on what we need in terms of a operations coordinator.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, let's move on to the next measure. Senate Bill 182 relating to service disruptions. This would require hotel keepers to provide adequate notice of strikes and lockouts to guests and third party vendors under certain conditions. Allows for recovery of damages. Okay. Up first we have the Attorney General.

Good afternoon. Chair Aquino. Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee. Deputy Attorney General Sarah Anne Mau. On behalf of the Department of the Attorney General, we submitted comments in our written testimony, but we just had a couple of housekeeping measures. First, we recommend adding a preamble to help defend against potential First Amendment challenges.

And second, we recommend adding a non impairment clause to defend against potential challenges under the contract clause. I'm available for questions.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay. Up next, we have Unite Here Local 5, Ben Sadowski.

Thank you, Chair. Members of the Committee, Unite Here Local 5 stands in strong support of SB182 with the amendments noted in our written testimony, which would bring the language in line with HB594 HD1, that was passed out of the Tourism Committee on February 4th on the House side.

And that HD1 version incorporates amendments that the Attorney General had proposed to that bill as well. So we feel like that should cover all of the bases on that one. But this bill is basically about transparency in advertising and sales.

When consumers book hotel rooms, they have certain expectations based on what the hotel or third party vendor's website advertises. Visitors obviously put a great deal of money into their vacations and they deserve to get what they paid for. And when their expectations aren't met, it's incumbent on us to mitigate this as much as possible.

We want people to have a good impression of Hawaii, so they'll want to return. Yet that does not always happen. You know, sometimes things come up. Construction projects, restaurant closures, renovations, labor disputes and so forth. And we hope to avoid disruptions related to these things, but it's not always possible or practicable.

So, you know, our union has found that guests have not always been notified of service disruptions. We've taken steps to notify them ourselves where possible, but for the most part, we don't have the ability to reach those guests, especially individual travelers, before they arrive.

So this bill seeks to remedy that and, you know, help provide a better visitor experience overall for all of our visitors.

Thank you very much. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 182. Okay, seeing none. Members, any questions? Seeing no questions, let's move on to the last measure of the agenda. Senate Bill 342 related to paid family leave. This would require five days of paid family leave annually for state and county workers. Ensures the protection of wage seniority and other employment benefits of employees who take paid family leave. Okay, up first... Okay, we have Director of Corrections and Rehabilitation.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair. Melanie Martin, Deputy Director for Administration, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Testifying on behalf of Director Tommy Johnson. We stand on our written testimony in opposition of Senate Bill 342. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up next, we have Department of Labor Industrial Relations Director.

Aloha, Chair Aquino, Vice Chair Lee, and Senator Moriwaki. I'm Jade Butay, Director of Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our submitted testimony in support. The word ohana gets overused, especially in workplace environments. But, you know, it's nice to see employees working together and caring for one another. I think this measure will enhance our ability to attract and retain good quality employees. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Up next, we have DHRD Director.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Brenna Hashimoto, Director of Department of Human Resources Development. We'll stand on our written testimony providing comments.

Okay, thank you very much. Budget and Finance Director.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance. We'll stand on our testimony in opposition. Here to answer any questions.

Okay, thank you very much, Director. Up next, we have the Department of the Attorney General. Okay. With comments. United Public Workers in support. We have UHPA Executive Director Christian Fern.

Good afternoon, Chair, Vice Chair, Senator Moriwaki. Sarah Beamer for UHPA. We stand on our written testimony in support. I would like to emphasize though that while the length of time in this bill may not seem very long, five days can still be very impactful for an individual caring for a loved one.

And it would not prevent the Legislature from continuing their discussion, if they want to, on a more extensive family leave program. Additionally, paid family leave is very incentivizing for individuals looking for employment. So this could be this, we see this bill as a very meaningful first step in the recruitment and retention of state and county employees. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Hawaii State Teachers Association. Okay, President Osa Tui in support. We have HCAN Speaks. Nicole Woo on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Senator Moriwaki. Thank you for hearing my comments. We certainly support any paid family leave increases for workers in our state. But just want to note that the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends 12 weeks of paid family leave, and all other developed countries provide between 14 and 164 weeks of paid leave. The other states that currently have paid family leave laws have an average of more than 11 weeks of paid family leave.

We urge you to also hear some more robust bills, such as your own bill, SB 852, which would provide more generous benefits under a statewide insurance program, which makes it a lot more efficient and economical because you share the insurance pool with workers across the entire state. So this is a great start to the conversation, but we really hope that the state can do a little better and extend this to private workers as well. Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much. Okay, up next we have Bronson Silva, Democratic Party Hawaii, in support. We have Hawaii Public Health Institute, Nate Hix, with late testimony in support. Actually with comments. Okay. We have Hawaii State AFL-CIO. Okay. Randy Perreira in support. Michael Golojuch Jr. in support. Amy Zhao of Imua Alliance with comments. Beatrice DeRego, Democratic Party of Hawaii Education Caucus, with comments.

Okay. We have Jennifer Tse in support. We have Irish Barber of IATSE 665 in support. We have HGEA. Okay, thank you very much. We have ACLU of Hawaii, Josh Frost, with comments. Okay. Michael Golojuch Sr. in support. Patricia Bilyk in opposition. And we have Veronica Moore and Dion Dizon. Okay. Both in support. Any others wishing to testify? Senate Bill 342. Seeing none. Members, any questions? No questions. We're going to recess briefly. Recess.

Reconvening our 3:15pm agenda. Committee on Labor and Technology is ready to provide decision making on numerous bills starting with Senate Bill 136. Link to ironworkers. Members, the recommendation is to defer indefinitely.

You know, we understand all sides of the issue regarding this particular bill, but absent of a measure to include all the trades, we feel that this measure does not measure up to what's necessary. So we're going to defer Senate Bill 136. Okay. Moving on to Senate Bill 1523. Okay. Relating to private sector collective bargaining rights.

Members, the recommendation is to move this as a Senate draft. 1. We're going to defect the date to July 1 2050 with some technical amendments. And we're also going to be including appropriation language to provide some resources for the Department of Labor, specifically under the Labor Board. Okay. Any questions or concerns, colleagues? Seeing none. Vice Chair, put a vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 1523. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call]. Chair the recommendations adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. Colleagues, let's move on to Senate Bill 1440 relating to exemptions from civil service for certain positions in Department of Health. Members, the recommendation is to move this as a Senate draft one. Okay. We're going to keep this vehicle alive for now. Okay. With some technical amendments.

And also we're going to be adding a reporting measure into the measure. Requesting Department of Health to provide a report 20 days prior to the 27th legislative session to provide a report which may include performance audit of all exempt positions granted in this measure. This provides some level of oversight. Okay. Any questions or concerns, colleagues? Senate draft 1 Vice Chair.

Voting on Senate Bill 1440. The recommendation is to pass with amendments noting all members present. Are there any reservations or nos? Seeing none the recommendations adopted.

Thank you very much, colleagues. Moving on to Senate Bill 182. Okay. Relating to service disruptions. Okay. Again, still on Senate Bill 182 relating to service disruptions. Members the recommendation is to move this as a Senate draft one. Okay. We're going to put some technical amendments for clarity and consistency. Okay. Defective date of July 1 2050. Okay.

We'll also be adding Attorney General's suggested amendments, which includes a preamble to assure that the bill is justified and defensible.

In addition to that, we will be adding language in Section three where it should read as this act shall not be applied so as to impair any contract existing as of the effective date of this act in a manner that violates either the Constitution of the State of Hawaii or the U.S. Constitution. Okay.

And again there will be further amendments as necessary to reflect the language in House Bill 594. House draft one. Okay. Any questions or concerns, colleagues? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Voting on Senate Bill 182. The recommendation is to pass with amendments noting all members present. Are there any reservations or nos? The recommendations adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much, colleagues. On to the last Senate Bill 3:42. Okay. Relating to paid family leave. This would require five days of paid family leave for state and county workers. It ensures the protection of wage, seniority and other employment benefits of employees who take paid family leave.

Members the recommendation is to move this and keep this alive. So senate draft one. We will insert a defective date, some technical amendments. Defective date will be July 1 2050. And we'll also be adding some notwithstanding language from the AGS suggested to read as follows and if negotiated into a collective bargaining unit pursuant to Section 89-9

For those employees included in bargaining units pursuant to Section 89-6 and so on and so forth. Any questions? Seeing none. Vice Chair.

Voting on Senate Bill 342. Recommendation to pass with amendments noting all members present. Are there any reservations or nos? Seeing none. Recommendations adopted.

Okay. Thank you very much. This concludes our hearing. Thank you.