House Standing Committee on Labor

Good morning, everyone. I'm calling to order the House Committee on Labor. It is Tuesday, January 28th, 2025. 9:00am we're in Conference Room 309 and on Zoom. I just want to welcome everyone to the first hearing. Just to start off, I just want to go down perhaps the row here.

If Representative Garrett, if you could just start with introduction. Your name and your district number.

Sure. Thank you. Chair, looking forward to serving on the Labor Committee once again. Andrew Takuya Garrett, representative from District 22. Manoa.

Jackson Sayama, representing District 21.

Mike Lee representing District 50.

Jeanne Kapela representing District 5.

Thank you. We also have Representative Sam Kong and Julie Reyes Oda serving on this committee. Before we go, on the agenda, just a housekeeping. We will. In order to allow as many people to testify as possible, there will be a two minute time limit per testifier. I will let you guys know when that two minutes is up.

So please wrap your testimony once I do. Next. Because morning hearings must adjourn prior to the noon floor session, not all testifiers may have the opportunity to testify. In that event, please know that your written testimony will be considered by the committee.

Also, for those who are on Zoom, please keep yourselves muted and your video turned off until it is your turn to testify. Once you're at pal, you could turn your video off and keep yourself muted.

For those again who are on Zoom, you could use the chat function to chat with the technical staff if there's any technical difficulties you are experiencing. If you are disconnected unexpectedly, you may attempt to rejoin the meeting. If disconnected while presenting testimony, you may be allowed to continue if time permits.

Please note the House is not responsible for any bad Internet connections on the test of virus end. In the event of a network failure, it may be necessary to reschedule the hearing or schedule a meeting for decision making. In that case, an appropriate notice will be posted. Please, everyone be respectful, not use any profanity.

Also, please refrain from using any trademark or copyright images. Now, with that out of the way, Let us begin. HB69 relating to a compensatory time cash out pilot program. First, to testify, we have Tommy Johnson, Director from Department of Corrections and Rehabilitations. Oh, in person, in opposition.

Thank you, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee. I am Tommy Johnson, the Director of the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We are in opposition to this measure for two reasons. One, we already allow employees under certain circumstances to cash in comp time, providing we have the funding available.

Two, this is outside of the Governor's Executive Budget. And so this matter is not funded. So our concern is where would the money come from? It may come from another program. So for those reasons, because we already have a program in place, then we are opposing this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW in support.

Hello Chair Sayamo, Vice Chair Lee, Members of the Committee, Kamakana Kaimuloa, Government Affairs Manager for United Public Workers. You have our written testimony. Apologize in advance. There were, there are a few minor non substantive errors that will be evident to you in our testimony that we submitted for consideration today. We do stand in support of this bill.

This mirrors a concept that we had actually provided to the department back in 2023 and it's similar to a bill that was introduced last year. The difference between this year's bill and last year's bill is last year's bill allowed for the cash out of all types of leaves. So vacation sick as well as comp time.

You know, we, we understand that this would actually be better done through an MOU, but we'd ask the. And there seems to be a little bit of progress.

Director Johnson had said that there is a program in place already that would allow the cash out of comp time, but we don't think that that's significant to actually address some of the issues that we're trying to to resolve with regard absences.

Should we would ask though if the committee would consider passing this measure at least for the sake of conversation and discussion. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA, in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee, Nuisa Basser with HGEA. We'll send our written testimony support. Mahalo.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure here or on Zoom. Seeing None. Members we do have written testimony and support from the Hawaii Corrections Systems Oversight Commission as well as the Hawaii State AFL CIO. Members any questions? Do have some questions for DCR.

If you can please elaborate on the existing program that you referred to in your testimony, you know how that might be different from the proposed measurement.

So the program we have in place now, if an ACO who has accumulated comp time wants a payout of some or all of the comp time, there has to be some kind of valid reason like some type of emergency situation, unanticipated cost of an operation that the person may have had some other type of cost.

Give you a case in point. If the person was transferred from one facility to another one, and it was not a voluntary transfer, and they had comp time and wanted to cash in some of the comp time to cover some of the movement costs.

If they were going to relocate, then we allow them to cash in some or all of the comp time. I think the biggest concern we have is that some ACOs have thousands of hours of comp time saved up from previous year's settlements with UPW. And some have elected to, in lieu of payment, to collect comp time.

But the overtime is paid out at time and a half. The comp time is received at time and a half. So if you work eight hours of overtime, you'll get 12 hours of comp time. Right. That's unfunded. So where would that money come from? It certainly can't come out of the department's budget because we don't have it.

We're talking about tens of millions of dollars. If we allow. If this measure passes and ACOs are allowed to cash in 75% of the comp time on the books, that would take a huge allotment from the legislature.

I see. And out of curiosity, how many staff members have utilized this existing program in place?

We. I can only go with. Since I've been there since 2020, we've probably paid out maybe six to 12 times at the most. And those were verified emergency situations where there was unanticipated costs. One person we did allow to pay out because he wasn't able to work overtime because he was temporary reassigned.

We allowed that person to cash out over time, but that was a rare case. The rest of them have to do with really unanticipated costs where the corrections officer really needed the money to either help a family member or to help themselves out of a situation.

And I believe it was mentioned in UPW's testimony regarding an MOU to set up a program that's being proposed in this bill. Is that something that you guys are currently working on with UPW? What's the progress there?

No, we weren't working with them. I think what he was alluding to was that my testimony where we do allow people to cash out under certain circumstances, we are trying to get away from MOUs. We had 110 MOUs with HDEA and UPW. Collectively, 87 of them were with UPW.

And I did notify Kalani Warner through the Department of Human Resources Development that we want to go back to the four corners of the contract as much as possible. And if we do enter into an MOU that needs to be ratified the next contract cycle and if it's not, it needs to go away.

The concern we have is we have MOUs that have been in place for 30 years and it needs to be part of the contract.

I see. So the department is trying to take steps to transition away from these, I guess, more antiquated MOUs.

The antiquated some of them are outdated, some of them, they're not relevant anymore. We're trying to get make the labor relations relationship with UPW and HEA more clearer and stick to the four corners of the contract as much as possible. And again, if we enter into an MOA, then it's only until the next contract cycle.

And if the union doesn't ratify it, whether it's advantageous to us or to the union, it should go away.

Okay, thank you. Questions for UPW. Okay, so you just heard some of the comments from DCR regarding the MOU and transitioning, I guess, to ratify those into the contract is UPW. You know, you mentioned in your testimony that you did not, you know, I guess, progress with that MOU proposal.

Are you going to, you know, pursue this into your next contract that you ratify?

So, you know, I think so. To add provisions to the contract. Right there. There are two basic methods. The first is supplemental agreement. The second is an MOU. The difference being the supplemental agreement expires with the expiration of the master contract. Right.

And MOU can actually, as Director Johnson had said, it can basically exist until mutually agreed to terminate or subsequent MOU is ratified by the union. So we will continue down this route. But it's a little disheartening to hear that that's the action that the department is seeking to take.

I think morale, as everyone knows, is a challenge in the department. I think we've also proposed certain things that could boost morale and this would be one of them. But hey, regardless of what the outcome of this, we will continue to seek an MOU specifically with the concepts of this of this program.

Okay, appreciate that. Thank you. Members, again, any further questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB 378 relating to deferred retirement for police. First, to testify on this measure, we have Thomas Williams, Executive Director for the ERS with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, Members of the Committee. I'm Tom Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System. And we in fact stand on our testimony providing comments. And of course I'm available to answer questions you might have about that. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Here or on zoom? Okay, seeing none.

Members we do have written testimony and support from Kauai County Council, Council Member Addison Bulosan, Maui Police Department, Maui County Council, Council Chair Alice Lee, County of Hawaii Police Department, State of Hawaii Organizations of Police Officers as well as Hawaii State Associations of Counties all in support. Members any questions on this measure?

Okay, I do have questions for ERS. I appreciate you sending on your testimony, but if you could maybe explain a little bit about this meaningful concern that you had written into your testimony for the committee and for the public.

Yes, thank you, Chair. The meaningful concern relates to the impact on the existing retirement plan. As a practical matter, we don't have any issues with the existence of a Deferred Retirement Option Plan, so called DROP plan, but it's how that plan interacts with and affects the basic retirement plan. The ERS.

And the ERS at present has about a $14.1 billion unfunded liability. And the monies to defray or to amortize that liability comes from the contributions that the members make and the employers make, and as well as the investment earnings on those contributions. The proposed DROP plan would terminate contributions by the employee to this program.

And that's a part of the source for amortization of the unfunded liability as well as paying the benefits that are being accrued. The bill is also silent as it relates to employer contributions.

And the assumption is that employer contributions, which are now at 41% of pay for police and fire, if those contributions are ceased, that will create a significant increase in our unfunded liability.

And we provided numbers in our testimony that suggest if these benefits, if contributions are not increased, the additional cost to the system in terms of benefits and unfunded liabilities, about $1.9 billion. We wouldn't propose that as an option for us because recently a funding measure was passed that created a maximum funding period of 25 years.

So whatever our liabilities are that are being incurred, they have to be amortized in 25 years or less. We're currently at 22 with this most recent evaluation. If we were to fund this program over merely the 25 years, I think it would result in a 10.2% increase in the employer rate.

So you would add 10.2% to the 41%. That's 51.2%. A big number, I think, and also result in an $874 million additional cost to comply with where we are today at 22 years funding, we would have-

We would require a 14.1% additional or increase in the current rate that would keep us on track to where we are today, but also create 311 million in unfunded liability. And this applies only to police. It's quite frequent that these programs, when they are offered, that they apply to other groups, other classifications, firemen, teachers and others.

So we don't oppose the plan. We just want to assure that the members and the sponsors, the legislature understands the cost impact to the ERS.

Thank you. Any further questions, Members? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. House Bill 595 relating to recording of law enforcement activities. First, to testify on this measure we have Benjamin Lowenthal from the Office of the Public Defender.

Good morning, chair and Vice Chair. I'm not Benjamin, but I am Haley Chang. I'm the first deputy from the Office of the Public Defenders. And we absolutely support this bill.

It codifies what our Supreme Court has already stated, which is to preserve the rights of our citizens to express their First Amendment opportunities to record law enforcement activities with certain exceptions as outlined in the Bill. I also wanted to note something that is not in our previously submitted testimony that may be of a point of inquiry.

There has been some comment or we've heard some feedback that the existence of body worn cameras sort of takes care of this issue or adequately films or monitors police activity.

And editorially, as somebody who has represented thousands of clients over the last 18 years, and with the onset of body worn camera, the police ultimately control when they activate their camera. And we know that that doesn't always happen.

And in the height of the moment or the heat of the situation, not necessarily their fault, but it is not always executed the way that it was intended to. And our citizens do have a right to record as long as they're doing it in a respectful and lawful way. We believe that it holds police officers accountable.

And aside from that, I'll be available for questions. And we, like I said, stand in support of this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none, Members, we do have written testimony and support from the Big Island Press Club, All Hawaii News, as well as two individuals also in support. Members, are there any questions? Actually, I have a question for public defenders.

So I'm just trying to understand the necessity of codifying the Supreme Court ruling. Right. We have legal precedent confirming this constitutional right. Is that not sufficient?

I think the purpose of codifying this measure is critical because it would be another method to hold the police accountable. One of the things that's also in the Bill is creating a path for a private right of action. And it specifically addresses some of the things that we see all the time.

As I mentioned earlier, with the existence now of body cam, we are able to see and have a better look at what goes on when there are police interaction with our citizens. And one of the things that we routinely see is police officers directing citizens, bystanders, potential witnesses, to stop recording. Turn off your camera. Back up.

This is police business. And that direct conduct, which is in large part the factual basis for the State view Russo case, which we cited in our testimony, is something of concern. When you are a citizen and a police officer tells you to stop recording, oftentimes you will stop recording.

But I think codifying this and making it in the statute where it allows that will again, like we said, hold police further accountable and not allow them to direct citizens to do things that they do not have the right to direct them to do. So that, I think, is why codifying it only strengthens this position.

I see. I understand that, you know, turning into law right in HRS would provide the public that, I guess, security, but that's not nothing new, right?

Under the current circumstances, under right State versus Rousseau, that right is guaranteed that a bystander recording police activity is still allowed to record, regardless of whether that police officer directs them not to record or not.

You're correct. But I think the difference was the only reason that State v. Russo was brought to the court's attention, and ultimately our Supreme Court's attention, is because that individual was charged with a crime for obstructing government operations and interfering with police business.

Essentially, most of our witnesses are bystanders who are present for a police encounter will not be charged with a crime. But that directive to, like I said, when a law enforcement officer orders you to. To do something, most of our citizens are going to comply.

And I think if law enforcement is aware that it is, you know, not just because when you think about the practical implications of a police officer directing someone not to film, back up, put down your camera, that witness will in all likelihood stop, and then we'll never know anything about, will not be memorialized, it will not be recorded, and that witness is not going to have a method to get to the Supreme Court unless they wanted to, I guess, you know, go a different path.

But I think this holds them further accountable. It sends a message also to law enforcement that our government and our Legislature takes these matters very seriously and protects the rights of our everyday citizens who are expressing their First Amendment freedom of speech. So that's why we stand in support.

And I think it's incredibly important to send that message to law enforcement.

Okay, thank you for the questions. Members, any further questions? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 806 relating to fireworks. First, to testify on this measure, we have John Ikenaga, Public Defender from Office of Public Defender in opposition.

And good morning again, chair and Vice Chair. Again, I'm Haley Chang, the first deputy from the Office of the Public Defenders. We submitted pretty comprehensive written testimony in opposition of this measure. And I just want to make clear that as indicated in our written submission, we understand the necessity of addressing the fireworks, the problem in our community.

What we take issue with is some of the constitutional implications of the proposed Bill. And I think, you know, I don't want to recite what is written in our written testimony, but there are serious equal protection issues.

It focuses on a class of our citizens and unfairly and unconstitutionally highlights them as the people who would be impacted by this legislation. Again, our position is that we are open to dialogue and discussion. We understand there needs to be something done.

But in order to implement this specific criminal statute, or, excuse me, this statute that will then unfairly impact a certain class of citizens, we have a serious concern, and there are major constitutional protection issues at both the federal and the state level. I'll be available for questions if he has any. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Kamakana Kaimuloa from UPW in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members, again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW. We just want to echo the. The. The testimony of the Public Defender's office. We think that. I mean, we recognize that something needs to be done to address the proliferation of illegal fireworks, particularly in the wake of the Iliamanu explosion.

However, we feel that part three, which is what the section we oppose, unfairly targets active former and retiring Members of the ers. So we oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Randy Pereira, Executive Director for HGA, in opposition.

Nuisa Bass here with HGA. Yeah, we specifically oppose section four of this bill. And we kind of just want to reiterate, you know, employees pensions are earned, benefits that they have paid into and they shouldn't be touched. Thank you. Thank you.

Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Here or on Zoom? Okay. Seeing none. Members, Any. I'm sorry. Members, we do have written testimony and support from the Department of Law Enforcement, as well as two other individuals in support and two individuals with comments. Members, any questions? Okay.

Seeing none, we'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda. HB201 relating to the state Fire marshal. First, to testify on this measure we have the State of Hawaii DLNR in support.

Rob Hoff, DLNR. The Department stands on its written testimony in support.

Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, Seeing none Members, we do have written testimony in support from Lahaina Strong Members. Any questions? Actually I do have a question for dlnr. How much would you estimate the funding for this full time position would be?

I don't have a estimate on hand for exactly what it should be, but. The original appropriation was found to be too small. After consulting with the different Members of. The fire council, including the county fire departments, we look to, you know that. The counties as a potential applicant pool. And so when compared with say higher.

Level battalion chief type positions with county fire departments, it was deemed too small.

Okay. Okay, no further questions. All right, seeing none, we're going to be moving on to HB 205, relating to workers compensation. First to testify on this measure we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, in support.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Honorable Members of the Labor Committee. Jade Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony in support. You know, we recognize that reimbursement of non-prescription drugs have been billed at inflated rates in excess of the standard cost of cost plus 40%. So we're here for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Cathy Wilson, individual in support.

My name is Cathy Wilson, and I am testifying as an individual. But I'm also the founder of WIMAH, Work Injury Medical Association of Hawaii, and I am in strong support of this bill. It closes a loophole that unfortunately, back in 2014, when the law was changed and amended, it created this where over the counter medications are being reimbursed for $1,500 to $2,500.

This is something you could get at Longs for $40. The the Insurers Council, I talked to them on Sunday. They have some concerns that I would like for you guys to continue this bill so that we can talk and work out the language to satisfy their concerns that they think might open up another loophole. But I'm confident that we can get this bill's verbiage to be correct to prevent that loophole and to prevent any other ones. Thank you so much.

Okay, let's see. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony in opposition from the Hawaii Insurers Council. Okay, Members, any questions? Representative Garrett.

Thank you. Actually, I have a question for someone who didn't testify, but since they're in the room, I'm going to ask them to come up please, DHRD. As you're making your way up, Director, obviously you folks manage workers comp for the entire state. Did you folks have a chance to take a look at this bill and determine any implications for management of the program?

Thank you for the question, Representative Garrett. We are still studying this bill, and we do plan to testify at future hearings. We do believe this is an important topic. We, as you folks know, manage workers comp claims for most of the state executive branch, including including the charter schools and Hawaii Public Housing Authority, as well as the Legislature.

And the cost of not only non-prescription drugs but prescription drugs that are dispensed by physicians office are an exceedingly large, becoming an exceedingly large part of our expenditures. And so it's a topic that we are very much interested in addressing and we will definitely be presenting testimony at a future hearing on this matter.

Okay, thank you, Director. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Actually, I have a question for DLIR. So as you noted in your testimony, DLIR currently has HAR section 12-15-55, which states that shipping charges, payment for supplies shall not exceed the cost plus 40%. Effectively, this bill codifies that administrative rule into HRS. Is that correct?

That's correct, Chair. And yeah, thank you for that question. And it's clear that you've hit the ground running for your new Committee assignments. So congratulations to you.

Thank you. So I guess my question is, so right now it's already in administrative rules. If we put into HRS, how would that effect, you know, make it more effective to enforce this rule?

Well, if it's in the statute, it's more, you know, it's much stronger. Rather than if it's admin rules and you know, there's possibility it can be...

So how do you currently enforce this rule?

Let me ask Joanne, our administrator.

Good morning, Chair. Happy New Year to all the Members. JoAnn Vidinhar, Administrator for Disability Compensation Division. And currently, under the statute that or the rule that you read off, it is administered under supplies. And so it's not as clear that a non-prescription over the counter drug would be considered as supplies. And so putting it into the HRS would bring further clarification to the intent to reimburse over the counter non-prescription drugs at the 40.

I see. Thank you for that clarification. No further questions. Thank you Members, any questions? Okay, seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB... Let's see. 480. This is relating to workers compensation. First, to testify on this measure, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for DHRD, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. DHRD is providing comments on this measure. We request that the Committee consider adding an additional provision in Section 2A to clarify that the functional assessment exams should be conducted when an employee has been...

When it's been determined that the employee is not able to return to their usual and customary position. Because typically through the workers compensation process, we first of course want to return them to their regular job. And so if we were to do this functional capacity exam or whether.

Sorry, rather, if the physician were to send an employee for this exam before it's determined whether they can or cannot return to their usual job, it just creates additional costs for the employer. So as long as the employee, it's been determined that they cannot return to their usual and customary, then that would be an appropriate time to send them for such an exam. But that determination should be part of the process.

Thank you. Next, we have Director Butay from DLIR in support.

Good morning again, Chair and Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. We stand on our submitted written testimony in support. We understand the delay has been frustrating, so we support this measure which encourages timely and accurate assessment of an injured worker's physical abilities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Jeremy Creekmore, President for the Hawaii Association of Professional Nurses in support on Zoom. Okay, maybe not. Next, we'll just be moving on to Cathy Wilson, individual from the 2024 Workers Comp Working Group in support. Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none.

We have written testimony, in support, from the Hawaiian Surers Council. And that's it. Okay, Members, any questions on this measure? Um, seeing none. We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB 50, relating to state government. First, to testify on this measure, we have Director Butay, from DLIR, in opposition.

Hello, Chair. We stand on our submitted testimony, in opposition. We believe it's important for the Department to oversee its Boards and Commissions, to ensure compliance with current laws and regulations, including a budgetary limit set by the federal programs. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Next, we have Randy Pereira, Executive Director for HGA, in opposition.

Nui Sebast here with HGA. We'll just stand on our written testimony, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any persons here to testify on this measure, here or in person? Seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony from the Office of Elections, with comments. Department of Budget and Finance, in opposition. Hawaii State Center of Nursing, with comments. AFL-CIO, in opposition. That's it. Okay, Members, any questions?

Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 815 relating to health insurance. First to testify, we have Randy Pereira, Executive Director from HGA in support.

Louise Sebastian here with HGEA we'll stand on our written testimony. Again, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, any other persons here to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none. Members, we do have written testimony on opposition from Budget and Finance. AFL CIO in support. Members, any questions on this measure? Okay, well, since BNF is not here, you know, I'll ask HGEA instead. So, HGEA, your testimony, right.

Your supportive testimony essentially says that this will allow your members to have comparable benefits to the private sector. Is that about correct?

Yes, correct. So private sector employees, they're covered under the existing prepaid health care law, which caps employee contributions at 1.5% of their salary. So this would, at least for a lot of our members, would make health insurance more affordable for this, I guess, for our members.

Okay. But the contribution levels from the employer side, at the very least, and therefore employee as well, that's collectively bargained, is that correct?

True. Right now in statute, it is collectively bargained. However, currently there is no impasse mechanism. So if there's disagreement between either us, the exclusive representative, or effectively the state, you know, we can't go to arbitration like when we go to when we negotiate for raises or other terms in the effective argument.

So we're effectively kind of just held to what the employer offers when it comes to respect to UTF contributions.

I see.

Okay, no further questions. Thank you. Okay, members, any further questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 222 relating to the wage and our law. First, to testify on this measure, we have Director Butay from DLIR with comments.

Aloha, Chair. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Here are on zoom. Seeing none, members, we do have written testimony in support from the Hawaii Cattlemen's Council, as well as an individual members. Any questions on this measure? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 325 relating to medical cannabis.

First to testify on this measure, we have Department of Health in support.

Good morning. Kyle Brandt with the Department of Health. We stand by our written testimony, and support. Available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Tai Cheng, founder for the Aloha Green Apothecary, in support on Zoom. Mr. Tai Cheng?

Hello? Oh, hello. Can you hear me?

Yes, go ahead.

Sorry. Back to it on a new computer. So, thank you, everybody, Chair, Vice Chair. I'm President of Aloha Green, one of the medical cannabis dispensaries here in Hawaii, and we fully support this measure. It's a measure that's a long time coming.

There's been a few iterations of this, but we think it's very important that employees are protected as medical cannabis patients, as long as there's no inebriation or that there's any requirement in their position that requires them not to be using medical cannabis at that time. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Pamela Tumpap, President for the Maui Chamber of Commerce. I'm sorry: Lauren Zirbel, from Executive Director from the Hawaii Food Industry Association in opposition on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and members of the committee. I'm Alexis Chapman, Director of Operations for HFIA, testifying in Lawrence place. We understand the intent of this measure. Unfortunately, due to conflicts in state and federal law, for many businesses, in particular those that operate nationally, implementing this is just not for feasible.

There's also, unfortunately, some insurance and liability issues that this would create, again, especially for vendors and businesses that operate nationally and involve things like drivers and heavy machinery. So, we are in opposition at this time. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure here or on Zoom? Seeing none: members, we do have written testimony with comments from the Hawaii Substance Abuse Coalition, testimony and support from IMUA Alliance, comments from the Society of Human Resources Management, Hawaii, support from Hawaii Cannabis Industry Association, comments from Maui Chamber of Commerce.

Nine individuals in support, as well as one individual with comments. Members, any questions for this bill? Okay, seeing none. Actually, I do have some questions for HFIA. So, you mentioned the difficulty or the inability to, I guess, administer this law. Can you kind of go into a little bit more detail as to those challenges?

So, from what we're understanding from our business members that in particular those that operate on a national level, so distributors and companies that, you know, distribute locally as well as nationally, they're unable to come up with employment policies that align with this and also align with federal law.

Is that right? Because the, I guess the state-to-state medical marijuana laws differ; I guess, one from state to state as well as the federal law?

Yes.

Okay, I understand. Thank you. No further questions there. Okay, thank you. No further questions on this measure. Seeing no one else. Okay, we'll be taking a break for decision making.

Recess.

Calling back to order, the House Committee on Labor. We're going to go into decision making. First, we have HB 69, relating to Compensatory Time Cash-Out Pilot Program. Based on the testimony, I believe that, you know, this is not something that's been agreed upon yet, but it's continuing to be worked in progress, with UPW and DCR.

So, we continue to encourage both parties to work on a possible solution there. But as they mentioned, this does not necessarily need to be in statute again. So, just—we will be deferring this measure because of those reasons.

Next, we have HB 3—I'm sorry—yeah, I know. We'll be moving on to HB 378, relating to deferred retirement for police, based on ERS's testimony and concerns regarding the administrative and financial impact to the state ERS Fund, we'll be deferring this measure as well. Next, we have HB 595, relating to recording of law enforcement activities. We'll be passing this measure with amendments.

We'll just be defecting the date to July 1st, 3000. Members, any questions, comments? Any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 595. Chair's recommendations to pass with amendments. Chair and Vice Chair vote "Aye."

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next, we have HB 806, relating to fireworks. We're going to pass this with several amendments. We'll be removing language from Page 4, Lines 9 through 18, that appropriates funds to HPD. We'll also be blanking appropriations of the $500,000 on Page 4, Line 20. Instead, we'll be making reference to this in our Committee Report.

And instead of the $500,000 appropriation, we'll make it 1 million appropriation for fiscal years '25-'26, and the same amount for fiscal years '26 and '27. Again, this will be referred to in the Committee Report. We'll be deleting Part 3 from Page 5, Line 7, through Page Seven, Line 6.

We'll also be adding a defective date, July 1st, 3000, and make technical amendments for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on HB 806. Chair's recommendations—pass with amendments. Any, any votes with reservation or nays? Thank you, Chair. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have HB 201, relating to State Fire Marshal. We're going to pass this measure with amendments. We'll just be adding a defective date, July 1st, 3000. Members, any questions? Or any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 201. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations or nays? Thank you. The recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have HB 205, relating to workers compensation. We'll be passing this measure with amendments. Amending Page 2, Line 12, to clarify payments shall not exceed cost—the cost plus 40%—and we'll be adding a defective date of July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 205. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservation or nays? Recommendation is adopted. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have HB 480, relating to workers compensation. My intention is to pass this measure with amendments—adding the suggested amendments from DLR testimony, in Page 2, Line 8, to read, "Has reached medical stabilization and is permanently unable to return to the employees usual and customary employment."

We'll also be adding a defective date of July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you Chair. Members, voting on HB 480. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservation or nays? Seeing none. Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have HB 50, relating to state government. My recommendation is that we defer this measure. There was a lot of written testimony that suggested that this Bill would have negative impacts to a number of current state commissions and boards.

I also agree with BNF testimony, that the Director of a Department should have the authority to manage personnel with an attached board or Commission. So, we'll be differing this measure, again. Next, we have HB 815, relating to health insurance. We will be passing this with amendments. We'll just be defecting the date to July 1st, 3000.

Next, we—sorry. Members, any comments? Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 815. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservation or nay votes? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have HB 222, relating to the wage and hour law. My intention is to pass this with amendments. We'll just be adding a defective date of July 1st, 3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 222. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservations or nay votes? Chair, recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, we have the final Bill, HB 325, relating to medical cannabis. We'll be passing this measure with amendments, adding a defective date of July 1st, 3,000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members, voting on HB 325. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any votes with reservation or any nay votes? Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Thank you, everyone. This hearing is adjourned.