House Standing Committee on Labor

Good morning everyone. I'm calling to order the House Committee on Labor. It is Thursday, January 30th, 9:00am. We're in Conference Room 309 as well as on Zoom. We have a lot of testifiers today, so we're going to be keeping to the rules of two minute testimony.

I'll let you know when your time limit is up and ask you to wrap it up then. If you are having any troubles On Zoom, please use the chat function to contact our IT staff and we'll try to get you back as soon as we can. Without further ado, let's begin on HB 64 relating to education.

First to testify we have Keith Hayashi, Superintendent from the Department of Education, in support.

Good morning Chair, Vice Chair. I'm Tammy Chun, Deputy Superintendent representing Keith Hayashi, standing on our written testimony in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify or on Zoom? Seeing none, Members. We do have written testimony and support from the Maui Chamber of Commerce Members. Any questions? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB956 relating to iron workers. First to testify on this measure we have Kalani Warner, UPW with comments in person.

Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee. Kamakana Kaimolo, Government Affairs Manager for United Public Workers. You have a written comments.

We just wanted to note that based on the definition of iron iron projects in this bill, our Members would be in violation of this statute in the by performing the regularly assigned duties and you know, duties as you may know that are have historically been performed by public workers.

And so we just ask that if this bill moves forward that state and county workers be exempted from violations. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Hawaii Operating Engineers Local Number three in opposition.

Hello Chair, Vice Chair, just you have a written testimony. I just wanted to add on upon that that this bill, I understand what it's trying to do and protect the work of the iron workers. It does infringe upon other trades.

Here in the construction industry there is a process of arbitration when it comes to jurisdiction or scope of work disputes and that's where it should be vetted. Bringing this type of law into play will cause that other trades will start to do that.

Last night I actually drafted a bill that would actually define what the operating engineer's work is.

I think that should be added to the bill and I'm sure other trades will probably jump on the same thing because when you go through arbitration, you basically you have two things that come up, your paperwork, which is your contracts and your past precedents. Right who's been doing the work.

That's the process and those are final and binding. Now if we're looking for an edge, then you would add in a law. I don't think the Legislature wants to get involved in jurisdictional disputes between different construction unions. I think that is in the arbitration process and that where it needs to happen.

Thank you. Thank you. Next we have Cody Sula, managing Director from Ironworker Stabilization Fund in support.

Good morning. My name is Dwayne Bautista. I want to speak on behalf of Cody Sula. I represent Ironworkers Local 625 Ironwork Stabilization Fund. We do have a written testimony that was set in. But then I also want to do my. What is it called? In person testimony and I have it right here.

So like I said, my name is Dwayne Bautista and I'm a lobbyist for the Ironworkers Local 625 stabilization fund. I stand before you today representing and the hard working ironworkers of this state. I.

I'm here to express our strong support for the proposed legislation that would require individuals to engage in this assembling, dismantling or demolition of our iron projects to have complete and approved ironworker's apprenticeship program. The bill is essential to protect the integrity of our trade and the safety of our workers.

Ironworker is a highly specialized field that demands extensive knowledge, skills and training. The intricacies of structural steel rigging and load bearing calculations are not something that you can learn overnight. Allowing unqualified individuals to perform these tasks poses a significant risk. Improper dismantling or demolition can lead to catastrophic accidents and endangering workers and the public alike.

We ask that this legislation ensures that only those with proven expertise and training are entrusted with such critical work. Furthermore, this Bill safeguards the livelihood of our iron worker Members. Years of dedicated apprenticeship training preparing them for these specialized jobs. Allowing other trades to encroach on this work determines their training and jeopardize the employment opportunities.

We understand that some may argue this bill limits competition. However, we believe that prioritizing safety and expertise is paramount. The Legislature ensures a level playing field where qualified ironworkers are recognized for their special specialized trade.

We urge to pass the bill to protect the safety of our workers, maintain the integrity of our trade and to ensure that critical iron working tasks are performed by qualified professionals. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Peter Ganaban from the Laborers International Union of North America Local 368 in opposition. Thank you. Next we have Valentino Serera from The plumbers and fitters. UA Local 675 in opposition. Thank you. Are there any other persons here or online to testify on this measure?

Seeing non Members, we do have written testimony and support from Iron Workers Union, Local 625. Hawaii Laborers and Employers Cooperation and Education Trust in opposition. Hawaii State AFL CIO in support. Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters in opposition. Pacific Resources Partnership in opposition. Okay, Members, any questions? Okay. Seeing none.

We'll be moving on to the next item in the agenda, HB 1182 relating to renewable energy. First to testify on this measure we have Michael Angelo from the DCCA Division of Consumer Advocacy with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Member Capella. My name is Mickey Knox. I'm here for Michael Angelo. We'll stand on our written comments, but we're available for any questions.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Mark Glick, Chief Energy Officer from the Hawaii State Energy Office in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Representative Cameron Black on behalf of the Hawaii State Energy Office, we stand on our written testimony currently in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Leo Asuncion, Commissioner from the Public Utilities Commission with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, our representative. Leo Asuncion, Chair of the PUC. We'll stand on our written comments. Written testimony providing comments. I did want to point out probably two key areas in our testimony. One that we want to make sure that using the term prevailing wage, as in 104-1. Right. It's very broadly written.

So then it's basically would be any, you know, IPP independent property, sir, that would, could propose rate because they would be paying wages and the fringe benefits, right, to their employees, probably a very small amount. So it really opens it up. The second thing is the automatic approval of a preferred rate.

When that developer comes and provides that bonafide client, you may get a rate that is actually higher than what would be negotiated through the regular competitive bidding process that the developer has with heco. Right.

And with the automatic approval, without the Commission's review, you might end up, you know, eventually with a project that is not in the public interest just because of the rate. So with that, be available for any questions.

Thank you. Next we have Greg Shimokawa, Director for the Hawaiian Electric in opposition.

Morning, Chair, Vice Chair Representative Greg Shimokawa for Hawaiian Electric testifying in opposition to House Bill 1182. So we just want to note that this process would serve to give an avenue to circumvent really the competitive bidding process for new generation, for new projects that we have in place.

That process already has space to consider prevailing wage and other labor and other benefits and broad benefits to the community.

And so we want to make sure that we're not picking one thing that we are in interest of supporting at the to the detriment of other things that we would consider in the broad evaluation of new projects that come along. Available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure or on Zoom? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions? See, I actually do have a question for PUC.

So in your written testimony, you note that the term preferential rate refers to the rate that would benefit consumers of electricity.

This was written reference to a section in HRS 269-27.3.

Correct.

Is there a possibility of adding that language or that term into this particular Bill?

Well, in 269-27.3, it's actually the same language, but in that particular session, which is already in the book since 2009, I believe, it's for agricultural activities. So energy from an agricultural producer, they might be producing energy. They might. They could come to Hawaiian Electric or KIUC. Right. And provide a bona fide preferential rate that they would want.

To my knowledge, since 2009, I do not recall anybody coming in under that provision. So now if you just replace prevailing wage, we have the same thing and we just want to make sure.

Because the way we see preferential rate is, is towards the consumer versus the developer of renewable energy because at the end of the day, it does all flow through to the ratepayer.

I see. And you noted that the automatic approval that's noted in this Bill that could potentially have some increase to the ratepayers. Can you elaborate on that?

Well, if it is automatically approved, say, right, as I read the Bill, the developer goes to Hawaiian Electric or KIUC, and then here's my preferential rate. It's a bona fide kind cause I meet the requirements of prevailing wage. Right. And if the electric utility approves that, it comes to the PUC and it's just approved.

There's no review by the PUC. Right. So if they, if they negotiate a higher rate than would be at least for HECO through a competitive bidding process. Right. It could be lower. Then we have no way to review it and to say, hey, wait a minute, right. Here's the lower rate. Right. In the, in the regular process versus a preferential rate.

Thank you for that clarity. No, further questions. Okay, Members, again, any further questions on this measure? Seeing none, we'll be moving on to HB 1183, relating to allowance on service retirements. First, to testify on this measure, we have Thomas Williams, Executive Director for ERS, with comments.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Tom Williams, the Executive Director of the Employees Retirement System. We stand on our testimony providing recommended amendments that would seek to clarify aspects of the proposed Bill, as well as to address inconsistencies between the proposed Bill and existing statutes governing the ERS.

We're available to respond to any questions you might have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Director Luis Salaveria, from the BNF, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. Luis Salaveria, Director of Finance, Department of Budget and Finance. We did submit testimony in opposition, primarily from the standpoint of the impact that it would have to the state's unfunded liability.

But given the proposed amendments, that the ERS is, and again, I think the solutions that potentially that could address the issue, with the unfunded liability going forward, we are definitely willing to work with everybody to continue to see, to address this particular issue, for this type of class of employees.

So, we're open to continued, you know, working on this particular Bill.

Okay, thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Please come up and please state your name for the record.

Hi, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Representative Kapela. My name is Brandon Asuka, with the Department of Law Enforcement. I'm the Executive Officer there. DLE is in support of this measure.

So, it would do two things—when DLE was created, the investigators placed in DLE did not receive the same 2.5% class law enforcement that the other investigators, across the state, did receive.

So, we'd like to make that amendment. And then, the second part would provide those individuals in the 2.5% class, when they do get appointed at the Director, Deputy Director, or the Sheriff level, that they would be able to retain that 2.5% retirement.

So, currently, we do have an individual sitting in that position, and he had to give up his 2.5% to get appointed. So, he effectively would lose a large percentage in retirement, unless he goes back five years in his previous position.

So, we are open to working with Budget and Finance and ERS to make the fixes to address the unfunded liability, but we are definitely in support in creating equity across law enforcement. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any other persons here to testify on this measure or on Zoom? Okay. Seeing none. Members, any questions? Okay. I do have a question for ERS.

So, in your written testimony, you noted, rightfully so, that the contributions for the proposed positions—DLE Director, W Director, Investigators, Sheriffs, and Sheriff Division Investigators—should be contributing a higher rate. You noted that rate could be 7.8% or 9.8%, but as we noted from the BNF testimony, I think the contribution rate for this class is 14.2%.

Does that sound correct?

That is correct. We apologize. I think that we lifted or had conferred—consulted—with earlier legislation and rates. But the rate that's identified by BNF is the current rate—the current higher rate—that should apply.

I see. And, I believe, three total recommendations that you provided in your testimony, that basically would conform these proposed positions to Class A to meet the current or just, kind of, have parity with other Class A positions?

Uh, that's correct.

Okay, thank you. No further questions.

Thank you, Chair.

Members, any further questions? Okay, seeing none.

We'll be moving on to HB 755, relating to paid family leave. First, to testify on this measure we have Llasmin Chaine from the—Executive Director for the Hawaii State Commission on Status of Women, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. I'm Llasmin Chaine, Executive Director of the Hawaii State Commission on the Status of Women. I stand by my written testimony, in support of HB 755.

Thank you. Next, we have Brian Hashimoto, Director for DHRD, with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Brian Furuto, Deputy Director for Department of Human Resources Development. We do stand on our written testimony, asking for government to be removed from the, the current draft. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR, with comments.

Good morning, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Committee Members. I'm Jade Butay, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony, offering comments. We'll be available for any questions you may have and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Tina Yamaki, President of the Retail Merchants of Hawaii, in opposition, on Zoom. Okay, we'll come back to you when you get on. Next, we have Kamakana Kaimuloa for Government Affairs Manager for UPW, in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. Again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, United Public Workers. You have our written testimony in opposition and our position—it really whittles down to the fact that we believe that this benefit should be paid entirely by the employer. I'm happy to answer any questions you have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA, in opposition.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nui Sebast, here with HGEA. We stand on our written testimony, in opposition to this measure. It is our strong position that paid family medical leave programs should be a 100% employer-paid program. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Tina Andrade, President and CEO of Catholic Charities Hawaii, in support, on Zoom.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair., Members of the Committee. I'm Betty Lou Larson representing Catholic Charities Hawaii. We support this Bill because we work with Ellis families and the Ellis Initiative. We work with many low-income families and they're all struggling. They're really struggling. And a family crisis, an illness, can have a disastrous effect.

It can even end in homelessness. Many of these families are working two or even three jobs. They can't afford to lose income. And especially, on the low end, they often are working for companies that do not provide any kind of family or medical paid leave. And so, they really are at risk.

And with the high cost of living, as you know, in Hawaii, one of the Legislature's main priorities is to try to help relieve that stress and to enable our residents to remain in Hawaii, to live productive lives and happy lives with their children. So, we ask you to support this Bill. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next, we have Victor Lim, Legislative Lead for the Hawaii Restaurants Association, in opposition, on Zoom.

Hi, good morning. Chair Sayama and Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee on Labor. The Hawaii Restaurant Association represents over 4,000 eating and drinking place locations here in Hawaii.

And we just want to tell you that we really feel that—we oppose this Bill, that it is written. Since COVID, our soft economy continues to be challenging for industry, with many legacy restaurants continuing to close weekly, pretty much you can see that.

Double digit inflation in cost of food, high utility and fuel costs, medical and general insurance costs, labor costs and increases that came with the last minimum wage jump, all contribute to this condition. If you remember, beginning of 2024, we have a $2 jump in our minimum wage, from $12 to $14.

And everybody recognized the high price increases that businesses have to bear just to barely survive. And yet, we continue to lose businesses. I just want to share with you, just to remind you, that, at the end of 2025, beginning of 2026, our minimum wage is scheduled to jump to $16.

And at end of 2028—beginning of 2028—it's supposed to jump to $18. All these are very, very inflationary index. And with the high cost of not only the labor wages that's going to go up, we also have insurance rates that are just out of the world, going through right now.

And that—this is really going to be a tremendous inflation fuel for Hawaii small businesses. And we really believe that, in this situation, because this Bill that is written in 2028-2029, you're going to be putting in additional, currently unmandated costs to the businesses.

And we really feel that, really, the small businesses and the medium-sized businesses couldn't sustain the Bill—the cost increase, as it's written.

I apologize, your 2 minute time limit is exceeded. Can you please wrap it up?

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Angelina Mercado, Executive Director for Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, in support, on Zoom.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. I'm Angie Mercado, the Executive Director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, and we are the Association of domestic violence programs throughout the state. And I'd like to reiterate our position and our testimony in strong support of this man—of this Bill.

And would also like to add that this is not only, as Betty Lou Larson has indicated on behalf of Catholic Charities, important for our...families, but extremely important for our survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking. Those members of our community are also important parts of our economy in the state.

And when they lose work, or they lose their jobs because they have to deal with their abuse, go to court, etc., then we have a direct impact on our economy.

And I just want to give you for reference, for instance, in 2023, throughout the State of Hawaii, there were 5,920 cases for domestic violence petitions and 1,239 were granted. And in order to go and petition for your Domestic Violence Protection Order, you have to go in person.

And if you go to the order to show cause, you have to go in person. Or even if you do it in Zoom, that's time away from work. And in 2024, under the criminal code for domestic abuse of a family and household member, there were 5,567 cases between 2021 and 2024.

If you are the survivor that is the witness in that case, then you need to show up for court. So, I just want to reiterate the fact that we have a Chief Justice who prioritizes access to justice. We have a Governor who has, who has made Hawaii the first trauma-informed state.

And I implore you to please pass this ledger, in accordance with those priorities that we have set for our people in Hawaii. I'm available for any questions you may have. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next, we have Vicki Schabel, Senior Fellow at New America, with comments, on Zoom.

Hi, thank you so much for the opportunity to appear here today. I stand by the written comments that I submitted and want to just underscore the business impact, since I know that that's a topic.

The experience from other states that have set up programs like this, which are employer-employee contributions, have found businesses, and particularly, small businesses, to become more supportive of policies, of the paid leave policy in the state.

They've found improved retention, productivity, and not a lot of issues with cost, or with absences, or with other things that maybe businesses were concerned about, prior to these policies coming into effect. In New Jersey and New York, small businesses became more supportive during the Pandemic, and that was particularly true among businesses that had employees take leave.

But I'm, I'm here to answer any questions. I've been working on paid leave policy for the last 15 years, at the federal level, and in all of the states that have passed or sought to pass policies. And I'm really just here to be a resource, as you craft your policy in Hawaii.

Thank you.

Next, we have Keali'i Lopez, the Director for AARP Hawaii, in support.

Aloha, Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, and Members of the Committee. I'm Keali'i Lopez, State Director for AARP Hawaii, and on behalf of our nearly 35,000 members across the state, we appreciate the opportunity to testify in very strong support of this Bill.

You have my testimony, so I'm not going to go too much into it. What I'm struck by hearing, folks, is that we absolutely have great interest and concern for businesses. Obviously, families cannot put food on their table if they're not employed. But I also know that these businesses cannot survive without their employees.

The people who come in and clock in, day in, out—day in and out—and actually serve us and deliver on everything, whether you're a grocery worker or someone serving in a restaurant. So, it's good to hear these organizations, that represent the businesses, having their concerns, and we agree that it is a challenge.

But their employees have a difficult time putting food on their table. But what we're most concerned about is, they're having to choose between whether to work or take care of a loved one. My son, luckily, because he works for a large company that has thousands of employees, gets three PTO days a year.

Not everyone gets sick leave and vacation through their employer. When you're trying to take care of a loved one, even if it's for a short term, and short-term is like maybe a couple of weeks, versus years. Hawaii has 154,000 family caregivers who contribute in unpaid effort. $2.6 billion, if they were compensated for their work.

We believe these people who, whether they're family members who want to bond with their newly born child or take care of a loved one, risk losing their job or, or not be getting their paycheck, because they want to take care of who they love. Hawaii is better than that. And we ask you to pass this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Nicole Wu, Director for Hawaii Children Action Network Speaks, in support.

Hi there, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Thank you so much for hearing this Bill. So many other groups and people have put in testimony and are speaking today about the need for paid family leave here in Hawaii. So, I'm going to try to answer some of the technical questions that have been coming up today.

First thing is that this Bill does not ask employers to just cover 12 weeks, or something like that, of paid leave. My testimony starts on Page 47.

There's a—there's a graphic that shows we're trying to set up a policy like in the other states, where payroll deductions are taken, they're put into a fund, and then when workers need to be paid, they are paid from the fund.

The really key part of this is that businesses do not have to pay their employees when they're on leave. So, that actually saves businesses quite a bit of money, because they have this extra money to cover any temps or overtime, while the worker is getting paid from the fund.

We recently got some numbers from an organization—Vanderbilt University—that does these cost benefit analyses, and they believe that your Bill, or Representative Sayama's Bill, would cost 0.7% of payroll. For an average wage worker, that's $217 a year, who would make—who would be getting back $930 a week in benefits.

For a minimum wage worker, that would be $102 in premiums per year, and they would receive $504 a week back. For employers, currently, they're already paying about half a percent of their payroll for TDI, and this Bill would roll TDI into the Paid Family Leave Program.

So, employers would save that 0.5%, that they're already paying for TDI, and instead go into this much broader, more robust set of benefits. So, some employers—this Bill says employers can split the cost 50—like half and half—but it does not say it has to. In this Bill, employers may cover 100% of the premiums.

It does not require workers to pay half. So, thank you for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Next, we have Nate Hicks, Director of Policy and Advocacy, from the Hawaii Public Health Institute, in support. Not here. We'll be moving on. We have Tanya Aynessazian—I am so sorry—Principal Contractor for the Chamber of Sustainable Commerce, in support, on Zoom. Not present. Okay.

Next, we have Michael Golojuch Jr., President of Pride, at Work Hawaii, in support, on Zoom. Okay. Next, we have Sergio Alcubilla, Executive Director for Hawaii Workers Center, in support.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair. My name is Sergio Alcubilla. I'm the Executive Director of the Hawaii Workers Center. So, we organize low-wage, non—nonunion—workers to be able to organize for their rights in the workplace. You know, we have one member, he's a dishwasher at a restaurant in Waikiki.

I know we have the Restaurant Association here online. But, you know, he was so sick one day, he just couldn't get out of bed, but his employer still called him and asked him to come into work. You know, he couldn't that day, but the next day, employer called him again, asked him to come in.

He came in—still sick, very sick—but went and washed the dishes, did what he had to do, and then the next day the employer fired him. I mean, those are the real-life situations of what our workers are facing at the moment, without having paid leave here in Hawaii.

I mean, those are things that impact us as consumers. Those are things that impact workers. Those are, you know, it's just not good for the state if that type of stuff is happening. You know, I want to appreciate the Department of Labor for offering comments.

And we want to make sure that this Bill provides the resources that they need to make sure that this, you know, paid leave is carried out. There's a lot of people here that are, that are in agreement of the need. It's just trying to figure out how to make it happen.

You know, in 1974, Hawaii passed the Prepaid Health Care Act. At the time, that was groundbreaking. You know, that went against the national grain. At the national level, it was, you know, it was attacked. You know, lawsuits were happening, but our legislators stepped in and made sure that it happened.

And now, Hawaii, what, 41 years later, experiences one of the best health care coverage in the nation. I think we can make this happen. It's very much needed for our working-class communities, for our everyday workers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next, we have Joel Edwards from the small business owner—individual in support.

Her flight was canceled. She's trying to find the Zoom link.

Okay, we'll wait for her then. In the meantime, next, we have Marcella Montalto, individual in support, on Zoom. Okay, next, we have Chloe Puana Viera De La Nueva, individual in support.

Aloha, Cher Sayama, Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee Members. My name is Pua Ena and I'm from the island of Oahu. I'm a working parent and an early learning professional. I'm here today in strong support of HB755. I'm also here today for my son Kiele.

This program is for working families and Alice, families like mine who struggle to provide for our medically complex child and our sick elderly parent without paid leave. My son was in the NICU for over 5 months.

I was given only 2 weeks parent leave by a very small organization I worked for at the time who didn't need to give it to me. They did it out of the goodness of their heart. And after two weeks, I went back to work full time.

I was working nine hours a day caring for other Keiki because I was a Hawaiian immersion toddler teacher and I spent nine hours a day with other Keiki. I only saw my Keiki for four hours a week from my commute between home and the nicu. So I'm here today as a community Member.

I'm very concerned about, you know, other families too, who I've met through the nicu. And I, you know, we lost our rental apartment, we were drowning in medical bills and, you know, the high cost of living in Hawaii.

And so I had to put my career on hold several times because I prioritized my son's developmental needs and our family's mental health. So this program is not only for the economic stability of Hawaii, but for better health outcomes for babies like my Kiele, for growing keiki, for parents, for caregivers, for Kupuna and for survivors.

So mahalo Nui. Please support this measure. Mahalo for your time. Aloha.

Thank you. Next we have Leilani Kaliava, Member of Ohana Leadership co in support on Zoom.

Aloha, everyone. My name is Leilani Kaliava. Thank you so much for your being there. I am a parent and community leader on Hawaii island and I strongly support paid family and medical leave program because no one should have to choose between their job and caring for a loved one.

Eight years ago, my newborn son Jeremiah was hospitalized for seven months at Kapulani Medical Center. I stayed at his bedside to take care of him. My temporary disability insurance benefit was exhausted. There was no more income coming in.

My husband took off work from work without pay and traveled back and forth from Hawaii island to Oahu to give me a break and bond with his child. And it was important for us to be with our newborn baby for his loving care and development.

We both didn't have the benefit of paid time off and we struggled financially. There was so much caregiver burnout being away from family, and it really impacted our quality of life, our relationships, our mental health, our economy and our family units can be stronger and be able to heal and thrive.

When this bill is passed, we need this paid family and medical leave program to pass. Mahalo, nuiloa.

Thank you. Next, we have Alika Morgan in support.

Good morning, chair, Vice Chair and Members. My name is Alika. I stand before you as a mom, a mom who dealt with severe postpartum depression and suicidal ideation. Part of that was going to an OBGYN here and sharing with her. Excuse me.

Part of that was going to an OBGYN here and without receiving any medical exam or any questions asked, she walked into the room and said, I'm sorry, you're not a good fit. Turns out I actually had an issue that required two surgeries and six weeks of recovery.

I wrote a Yelp review about that OBGYN how she said I was not a good fit. And as I looked at the Yelp reviews of other women in this state, I saw so many, so many reviews of women that experienced similar things that I had a few weeks after that.

I heard you're not a good fit from an organization connected to this Doctor. I stand before you to say that paid family leave is not, not just to help moms, but caregivers and people who are not nurtured in our state. For my organization, we actually did a game.

It's a solitaire game and has 52 facts about paid family leave. And what the surprise to me is, is that a lot of people that have been playing this game, including small business owners who are women, were not aware of the actual facts and technicalities of paid family leave. They just were not aware.

And once they played the game and saw the facts start right in front of them, they were in overwhelming support of having paid family leave. These small business owners who are moms, who are women, who are caregivers, I stand before you not as someone who's low income.

I have multiple sources of income, and I am completely in support of paid family leave. I work with organizations nationally who also believe that this is possible here, just like it is in the 13 other states and in D.C. and if you have any questions, I'm happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we have Kristen Zulli in support on Zoom.

Aloha Representatives Sayama, Capella and Lee. My name is Kristin Zulli from Hilo, Hawaii and I strongly support HB755. No one chooses when or how medical needs happen.

Like when I developed perinatal depression and anxiety, which worsened during my postpartum period or the multiple times that I we randomly found my father, who has dementia, walking along the busy highway where we needed to stop whatever we were doing and wherever we were going to pick him up and caretake for him, knowing that one day we would have to take considerable time off from work to secure better housing for him.

Ohana's need to preserve their incomes and work stability. When these issues arise or they face consequences. Like my husband did when his postpartum exhaustion and caretaking for me, his sick, pregnant wife, caused him to lose his job and because he did not have the option to rest and recover with pay.

So now I'm forced to solo parent two young children for half of the year while my husband sails on cargo ships in the merchant marines. So to say this has negatively affected our marriage and our family unit is an understatement.

So the average income household of $62,000 a year would contribute only about $4 a week in payroll deductions to PFML and would be able to receive over $900 per week in benefits when eligible. So our economy and our family units will be stronger if we support workers through HB755.

And we really do need this paid family and medical leave program now. Thank you so much for hearing my testimony.

Thank you. Next we have Dr. Cassandra Simpson in support on Zoom.

Hi. Just working on my video. There we go. Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. My name is Dr. Cassandra Simonson. I'm here today to represent myself, my family and the families of all my patients in support of paid family and medical lead. The views I express are my own.

I have been a pediatrician for over 10 years in Maui and I'm urging the Legislature to support HB755 for paid family and medical leave. We are facing the threat of decreased federal funding for programs that help those most in need.

One thing we can do right now to offset these funding cuts is to pass paid family and medical leave in our state. Paid family and medical leave is a very well studied way to improve lives as well as a way to decrease the gender pay gap.

It would also help Hawaii attract and retain talented individuals, including healthcare workers and educators who might otherwise head to states with paid leave programs already in place. I am not here to speak on the extensive economic benefits or the varied ways to Fund it. I'm here to speak as a pediatrician in my job.

I see newborns, infants and children all day, every day. I see mothers shift days after delivery, right after discharge from the hospital. Which means I see mothers who arrive sometimes alone, carrying a heavy awkward car seat and diaper bag. I see moms who are bleeding, in pain, with stitches, struggling to walk. And they are often alone.

They are not usually alone because they don't have family or a partner that cares because, but because their loved ones absolutely have to work. These new mothers aren't supposed to be lifting anything, let alone everything. These moms haven't slept since they went into labor. And in case you haven't heard, they babies are hard.

They cry a lot, they make a lot of doo doo, they grumble, they make scary noises, they breathe funny, they fuss and then they oversleep when they need to actually eat. Sometimes they are sick and sometimes there are complications for mom or baby.

Studies of parenting styles in the villagers in the Amazon rainforest show that in one day a child has eight to 12 different adults assisting with their caregiving. Raising a child in most of the world is a team effort. In the US we expect a bleeding, in pain, exhausted mom to do it all, often alone.

What are the effects of modern US caregiving for mom and baby? Let me see. Trouble bothering.

Apologies, your 2 minute time limit has been exceeded. If you could please summarize your testimony.

Thank you. Mom may fall asleep and actually smother it. It could mean that the baby doesn't get enough nutrition or affection during crucial brain development periods or become depressed. It could mean fights with partners, breakups, addictions or relying on substances to cope. It could even lead to child abuse.

I won't support, I won't speak to the economic benefits as it's not my expertise. But I can tell you there severe consequences to the inadequate supportive families. I urge each Legislator to consider your legacy, your impact and what your voting record would want to reflect.

You will either reflect that you supported, rejected or ignored a compassionate plan to save while Ayes it will reflect that you did or didn't do something to attract and retain talented workers. How can you vote to shore?

Dr. Simpson, thank you for your testimony. Yeah, you've exceeded your time limit. Thank you again.

Thank you.

Okay, any other persons here to testify on this measure, please come up to the podium and state your name for the record.

Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee and Members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity. My name is Yonghee Overlee and I am testifying in support on behalf of AAUW Hawaii. Nancy Rostad couldn't join us through Zoom, so here I am.

So in addition to what she has already submitted on behalf of the organization, I do want to share with you one data point and couple of stories. One data point is in Hawaii, the gender pay gap is 84 cents to a dollar. For working moms, it's 74 cents to a dollar. We call that motherhood penalty.

Every other child you have, the motherhood penalty increases. That's a data point as a woman's organization that I would like to share. The stories that I would like to share with you is actually from small businesses here, so 3 Financial Group.

Joanna Amberg is the owner, her business in Honolulu, as well as Tina Weilberg, who's the owner of Kihei Ayes in Maui. They both found themselves paying out of their business pocket or their own pocket because they are private business owners. Maternity leave and sick leave because they valued their employees. They were all very practical about it.

It wasn't worth retraining a new person. It was worth paying it so that they could keep the employees. I hear from small businesses here that they oppose, I'll ask they really think about what are they going to lose if they lose their employees and tagged along with that.

So by the way, those two are totally in support of this measure. And so I'll ask what are we doing to keep workforce here happy? That's all.

Thank you. Are there any other persons in this room here to testify on this measure? Okay. On Zoom, please go ahead.

Aloha, Aloha Chair, Vice Chair and representatives. My name is Joelle Edwards. I live and work in Wainiha, Kauai. I am a small business owner, community organizer and current chair of the Kauai Democratic Party. Although the views today are my own, I wanted to be with you, but of course, with the storm, I wasn't able to.

But I am here for my support of HB755. Paid family leave As a young mother, I was hired about 28 years ago for my first corporate job at a large telecommunications company.

And as I signed my letter of acceptance, I was slipped another piece of paper where I was asked to provide the names and numbers of four people who I would call if my children or any family member was ill, as I would not be able to make work or meetings.

I was reluctant to sign, but did so as the job was going to provide a generous income and allow us to finally purchase a home. But I was terrified as my children were growing that I would be let go if anything happened to them or I was to miss work.

Luckily, the State of California implemented paid family leave and I'm so grateful because fast forward several years later and my very strong, capable contractor husband who was only 44 years old, began having seizures, paralysis and small strokes. He was diagnosed with spinal meningitis, but the main cause was he had multiple blood clots on his brain.

There was a lengthy hospital stay and a year of special visits and had it not been for state paid family medical leave, I would have been let go and we would have most definitely lost our home and more during the stressful time.

At the end of that, my mom became critically ill and I was able to take intermittent leave which allowed a true work home life balance again at a very stressful time.

Now, as a small business owner and a struggling small business owner, but I proudly pay my employees well above the 2028 target minimum wage as I believe it's my part to keep local families here and working. But as we all know, we are all just one catastrophic event from being able to keep a roof over our heads.

Open your Facebook every day and how many GoFundMes are you seeing due to medical. Should one of my employees have an emergency with one of their families, the added safety net of paid family leave would assist them all and give us all peace of mind.

I believe in this benefit so much that I would actually cover the minimal payroll deductions as I believe most could.

My apologies. Time limit has been exceeded. If you could please summarize your testimony.

Yep, Hawaii residents are about Ohana First, I believe it's time for this added benefit to go on board to show our families across the islands that they believe in Ohana over everything. Mahalo for your time.

Thank you. Are there any other persons on Zoom to testify on this measure? Okay, seeing none Members, we do have written testimony and please bear with me. It's quite a long list.

Office of Wellness and Resilience, Office of the Governor and support. Hawaii County Council District 2, Council Member Jen Kagiwata in support. Kauai County Council Member Fern Holland in support. Kauai County Council Member Addison Bulosan in support.

AAUW Hawaii in support. HUA Kalehua Early Learning Consortium in support. Papa Ola Lokahi in support. Hawaii Family Caregivers Coalition in support. DPH Kupuna Caucus in support. Democratic Party of Hawaii Education caucus in support. IATSE 665 in support. SHRM Hawaii in opposition.

Early Childhood Action Strategy in support. IMUA alliance in support. Hawaii Nurses Association in support. Grassroots Institute of Hawaii in opposition. ACLU of Hawaii in support. Hawaii Applesee Center of Law and Economic justice in support. The Leukemia and Lymphoma Society in support.

Highway Inn in opposition. Tiki Grill and Bar in opposition. Stonewall Caucus of the Democratic Party of Hawaii in support. 604 Hospitality Group LLC in opposition. Kuleana Rum Works in opposition. Kapolei Chamber of Commerce with comments. Maui Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Hawaii Teamsters Local 996 in support. As well as 96 individuals in support okay, Members, any questions?

Okay. Seeing none. I do actually have a few questions of my own. 1st DLIR. Thank you, Director Butay, for your written testimony. I just want to go over some of the points of concern that you had noted and just to get some clarity if not some grounds for agreement.

So you noted that the definition of qualifying exigency refers to the covered individual's family member's active duty service, but does not include the covered individual's active duty service. It's my understanding that the language in this bill was taken from the FMLA's language or definition. So I'm curious what the confusion or perhaps concern is with this particular definition.

Chair, if you don't mind, let me, let me ask Joanne Biddenhar. She, she knows the nuts and bolts of the process and procedures. Of course. She's our Disability Compensation Division Administrator.

Good morning, Chair, Vice Chair and Committee Members. Thank you for that question. Unfortunately, I am going to tell you, we're going to get back to you on that because there is a technicality there between the FMLA and that covered portion part. So that is one that we will get back to you on.

Okay, thank you. Continuing on, there was a note here of concern about the administrative burden that employers will have to report hours worked per week and wages earned per week by their employees. I was under the impression that this information is already collected under UI or TDI work comp.

Not as it's written in this draft.

It is done on a quarterly basis and so they do not collect the hourly rate.

I see.

I see. Okay. Thank you for that clarification. Furthermore, I think he noted that there was some discrepancies and potential confusion with regards to an appeals process. And it's true that this Bill references Chapter 398 for sections 7 and 8, and then it references a different section, sections 38338 for sections 11.

So I was wondering if you could perhaps elaborate on that potential confusion and differences.

So there's different processes that one would have to go through for those two different Chapters. And so with that different process, it may be very confusing for an individual going through two different types of appeals.

Are you recommending then that we just choose one or the other?

Yes, yes.

Okay. Do you have a preference?

Well, not right now.

Okay. No, we could talk about that later. Okay. And I think finally, you know. zero, sorry. I think earlier in the testimony you noted the $400 minimum working hours, I think. Right.

Just a basic calculation with the current minimum wage at $14 an hour and the, what was it, the 14 weeks, 20 hours a week, it comes out to $3,920. So your recommendation would be to increase the $400 to the $3,920?

Yes.

Okay, sounds good. I think that's about it for DLIR or actually, sorry, no, One more thing. Just wanted some clarity with regards to the approximate staff that's required to administer this particular program. Do you have a particular breakdown of the 120 positions that you had offered?

We do have a breakdown on that. And as you know this bill is very similar to TDI. TDI currently does not. The Administration of TDI is done by insurance carriers. Right. So only if a claim is denied does the Department get involved on the denials. And so we do not process claims.

So we do not have claims adjusters. And with that because we don't process claims, we would need a whole new staff for that. And so Approximately we had 120 staff based on if it was just TDI for an individual it would be a lot smaller.

But because the anticipation of the vast amount of individuals that it could cover as a covered individual, that would be a lot higher. So the 120 would be in our estimation.

And because you have a fund that's involved, when a fund that is involved, the state has to pay for not only state income, not income, the state wages, but also the fringe benefits. And so you're looking at approximately 122 staff. And I can provide you a chart of the breakdown of what that consists of.

Appreciate that. And you know I had the pleasure of visiting your guys office. Quite extensive. But you know what, I imagine when we implement and administer this program is maybe similar to the scale of UI, right? Correct. So I'm just curious, does the UI division approximately have 122. 120 staff?

Yes.

Okay, thank you. No further questions for DLIR. Question for HCAN.

Thank you.

So I just want to go over some of the points, right. That maybe you just heard with my questioning with DLIR regarding the 400 minimum earnings. Does that sound reasonable, amenable, or in line with the original intent of this policy?

Certainly. The $400 minimum was taken from the current temporary disability insurance law, so it was just transferred over into your draft.

I see.

But if it needs updating due to inflation, that definitely makes sense.

DIR also noted a concern regarding a particular definition for the term designated persons that's used in this bill. And there is no definition that's outlined right. What designated person means. But I just wanted to confirm myself that basically comes from, I think California's or really other states, paid family leave laws.

That means any individual related by blood or whose Association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship. Basically, when we choose a designated person, that's the person that the employee is going to take care of. Is that about correct?

I believe so. I haven't had a chance to read DLIR's comments carefully, so I'm not quite sure which page they're looking at. But we can certainly talk to some of the experts, like Vicky who was on the Zoom and ask her for clarification. And even if there are definitions in other states that we could adopt for Hawaii.

Okay. And with regards to again, the appeals process. Right. DLIR mentioned that, you know, we just need to pick one. Right. So I was curious if HCAN had a particular preference with which particular section of HRS to reference for the appeals process.

I don't have one at this time, but I could also again ask some of the national experts who've worked with all the other states if they have an opinion.

Okay. You know, I note that HCAN did have a considerable amount more in their written testimony with regards to the amendment. So, you know, we, we would definitely be eager to take a look at that and how that relates to some of the other testimony that we've heard today. Yeah. No. Thank you.

No further questions for HCAN. Sure. Thank you. If Vicky was there. Vicki ON Zoom. Still there.

I am still here.

Okay, great. So maybe you just heard right. With regards to the term designated person, can you provide any insight as to how we define that in this bill or how that's been defined in other state legislation?

Yeah, let us get back to you on that. I do have the definitions, but essentially this is a way of designating somebody who is like family but is not necessarily related by blood. But yeah, let us get back to you. Almost many of the states now have sort of a designated person or chosen family definition.

So this is definitely something that is done and that seems to be working without trouble in A lot of states.

Okay, thank you so much for that clarification. Members, any questions regarding this measure? Okay, seeing none, we'll be moving on to the final item in the agenda, HB425 relating to public employment. First to testify, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director for DHRD in opposition.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members. We stand on our written testimony.

Thank you. Next we have Jade Butay, Director for DLIR with comments.

Chair, Vice Chair, Committee Members. Jade Butay for DLIR. We stand on our testimony offering comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Next we have Osa Tui, President for HSTA in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Sarah Milianta-Laffin on behalf of the Hawaii State Teachers Association. We stand on our written testimony. But also I just want to thank the advocates in this because I think moms are begging our state to hear us. And you can decide today if the state is listening.

Teaching is a pink collar profession, which means it has low pay and low benefits because it's considered women's work. And you see that good policy we know can support better equality. People aren't aware. People usually think I'm a mom of a one-year-old. And they think that Department of Ed has great maternity leave.

Actually, we have no maternity leave policy. If you don't have days saved, you don't get days off. And because of that, teachers have actually had to finance our own maternity paternity leaves family leaves by seeking out donations of days from other teachers.

So right now, in the policy, the way that it sits, without paid family leave, what's happening is I'm having to knock on teacher doors and saying, will you donate a day to me so that I can spend time with my baby?

I went back to work after a traumatic C-section four weeks earlier than my Doctor recommended because I needed to have pay. My husband's Corporate job offered 12 weeks paid leave so he actually had more time to bond with my daughter than I did in that space.

I also think too, I speak as a millennial mom, where we're the sandwich generation, where we're caring for children and we're caring for our parents at the same time. So paid family leave, what this policy does is it helps all state workers, but also caring. It's so much bigger than maternity leave.

Although I will really say I'd love some dads to show up in this space because I feel like the moms are working hard to advocate for this and I don't see the dads present in the same way. So again, teacher altruism. Teachers have big hearts.

But myself, I could not make myself go ask another teacher to donate a day to me because that's just not who I am. So I was bleeding at work and I was going through it because that's what I felt I had to do for my family. And right now, good policy can take the place of teachers' big hearts.

So teachers have big hearts. Please support the work we do with this big hearted policy. Thank you.

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

Chair, Vice Chair, Members again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, UPW, you have a written testimony of strong support. Clearly from the testimony here today, there's a desire to have paid family leave. And in this case, this could be an opportunity to utilize as a tool of benefit to recruit and retain those employees who to fill vacancies.

Honestly, I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Next we have Randy Perreira, Executive Director for HGEA and support.

Hello, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Nui Sebastian here with HGEA. We'll just stand on our written testimony and strong support of this measure. Mahalo.

Thank you. Next we have Christian Fern, Executive Director for, for the University of Hawaii Professionals Assembly and support. Not here. Okay. Next we have Nicole Wu, Director for HCAN with comments.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. We submit written comments because we have no problem with more people getting paid family leaves and we certainly support our state workers, but very rarely is an entire family just made the state workers.

So for example, a teacher, if they're married to somebody in the private sector, this Bill, HB425, would not allow their spouse to care for them if they needed help. So we really hope that a Bill would cover all the private sector workers like the prior one that we heard.

In my testimony, I go into some of the differences in the cost for the state between this Bill, which simply asks the state and county to fully cover 12 weeks of paid family leave versus the system that we just talked about, which includes all of the workers in Hawaii, which makes the insurance pool much cheaper per employee.

And it also shares the cost across employers and employees. Although as I stated in my prior testimony, the prior Bill does not require employees to put in 50%. That is the cap on the most that an employer can put in. Employers in both of these bills can cover the full amount for the workers. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? Oh, yes.

Keali'i Lopez. Aloha everyone. AARP did not submit testimony on this legislation, but I want to provide comments and can provide that in writing. Definitely have been moved by hearing our state and county union workers. Clearly they work very hard.

Having been with the state as a Director for a Department, I am absolutely clear how dedicated and hardworking our state employees are. And they absolutely should be able to have paid family leave. They shouldn't have to. Teachers shouldn't have to go through what was just described.

What I am hopeful of, and my comment is that our brothers and sisters also see the importance of this type of benefit being made available to folks that aren't in your union for your family Members. We know you all support families and want that.

Would just love to see what it would take to have our brothers and sisters in the union support HB 755 and other similar programs for non state and county employees. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Any other persons here to testify, please.

Chair, Vice Chair, Members of the Committee. Sergio Alcubilla, again in support. We didn't have an opportunity to provide testimony for this, but since we were called. Since I was called out by Mili representing the dads here, you know, my daughter turned 13 just the other day and she's a teenager, right. So I'm dealing with that.

But you know, I took 14 weeks off when she was first born and those are the best 14 years of my life. I was able to help my wife when she really needed me. I was running groceries, doing other things, bonding with my daughter. And now that my daughter's 13, man, those 14 weeks were.

I wish I would have taken more, but those were probably some of the best, best time in my life. So I represent, I want to speak for all the dads in the room, but I had to stand up since I was called out and just finally, you know, there's a lot of heavy hitters in this room.

There's labor leaders, there's agency directors. You know, whether you're Republican or Democrat, or Democrat, I think we both agree that paid leave is needed. And I think we've fallen behind a little bit in the 70s. We were leading on some of these progressive policies. I think it's time for us to lead again.

And I think it's time that we can make it happen. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? Oh, please come up.

It's Jiyoung here again. This time I'm representing just myself. So in defense of fathers. So my nephew lives in one of those 13 states that have paid family leave, Massachusetts. He works for state government. His wife works for a small business and they combined took eight months off. So he took four months off, dad.

When I saw them half year ago to visit, so Abigail was 18 months old. Oh my God. It was such a pleasure to see how well bonded she was with my nephew. The four months. Spending four months being primary care pays off. I'm retired from IBM and IBM had 16 weeks paid family leave.

So I was able to take 16 weeks off when I had my son. I try to convince my employees who are fathers to take paternity leave and I couldn't convince them to do so. These were Gen X's and boomers. It was really, really good to see my millennial nephew take four months off.

So make that reality here too, please. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other persons here to testify on this measure? On Zoom Seeing none. Members, any questions? I'm sorry, I have to read off the written testimony. Let's start. Okay. ACLU of Hawaii with comments. Hawaii State AFL-CIO in support.

Hawaii Teamsters and Allied Workers Local 996 in support and nine individuals in support and one individual in opposition. Members, any questions? Oh, yes, Representative Kapela.

Thank you so much. Chair, I do want to say thank you to the advocates who have testified so passionately and shared your very personal stories. It is very appreciated. I have a question for actually one of our public sector union leaders, maybe I guess Nui, and forgive me because I'm not exactly sure how to phrase my question.

I appreciate your testimony and support of this measure. I recognize that you folks want to have the employer pay for all of it.

My question is really why, if in the previous measure you're not able, you're able to potentially bargain to ensure that the state would pay for the full portion of family leave for you folks, why can't you support this for other workers?

And have you, and also have you, have you folks checked in with your employees about whether or not this is something that they wanted you to oppose in that previous measure?

Because that's a lot of money that they could be taking home for moms and even for fathers, as we've heard today, that could really benefit all public workers. And I think it's also an asset to our state that can attract more employees.

Thank you for your question, Representative. We represent a lot of low earned, low earning income employees that are already subject to hefty payroll deductions by the UTF or ERS contributions. We cannot support another statutory tax which will bring a lot of our members on the lower end of the salary schedule to that would subject them to more financial constraint.

Furthermore, we made clear it's our position that it's a 100, that we support a 100% employer paid program because of that. Furthermore, our members are already subj-, most of the state's workforce already get 21 days of sick leave, 21 days of vacation leave a year.

And we feel that at least in the benefit structure compared to HB755 that a lot of our members would prefer to use their vacation leave where they will receive full pay versus the amount of wage that they would receive going through that family leave program.

I guess my question is could you folks not bargain for it because it's not a mandate that you would have to pay the 50%.

True. So I'm doubtful on if the employer of the state would agree to a 100% employer paid program. Kind of just looking at DHRD's testimony in opposition, you know, we are doubtful that they would agree to 100% employer paid program.

Thank you. Thank you Chair.

So Rep thanks for the question. Again, just kind of piggy back off what Nui is saying.

You know under the current contract none of our members would actually qualify for the 90% benef-,weekly benefit so they would actually be taking in some cases a pay cut rather if they didn't use their sick or vacation time and in some cases even compensatory time. Right.

So given that and the fact that they would still even on leave need to continue paying their portion of the medical premiums and this would be, you know you typically would be pre-tax right after the if they're on leave they actually have to continue paying it out of pocket rather than on the front end. Right.

So that is another challenge. And going back to the negotiation question, currently it's not negotiable. Right. Because it's not even on the books.

But given DHRD's testimony, it's unlikely that we'd be able to even get that right now if it was, we were able to secure that in writing before this Bill was passed that that'd be a different story. Right.

I think we could support it at that point in time, but in the current scheme it doesn't make financial sense for our members.

Okay, thank you. Representative Reyes Oda.

Can I make a comment or does it have to be a question?

It has to be a question.

Okay then, no thank you.

Can be creative but okay. Members, any further questions? Okay, seeing none will recess for decision making. Recess.

Okay. Calling back the order of the House Committee on Labor. We're going to go into decision making first with HB 864 relating to education. I'd like to defect the date to July 1st, 3000 and we're going to pass this with that amendment. Members, any comments? Okay. Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on HB 864. Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments.

[roll call]

Recommendation is adopted.

Thank you. Next, on HB 956 relating to ironworkers, I'm going to be deferring this measure. I think there are, as the testimony had proved, there are processes of arbitration that I would not like the legislature to circumvent.

So I'd like all, you know, stakeholders in this issue to work together to resolve them in the current processes that exist. Okay. Next, HB 1182 relating to renewable energy. We're going to pass this with amendments with a defective date of July 1, 3000.

I would, however, like to put comments into the committee report regarding some concerns regard with concerns about increasing the prices for ratepayers and would urge the next committee on consumer protection and commerce to address some of the ambiguities of the prevailing wages definition and the preferential rate issue that was addressed in the PUC's written testimony.

Members, any comments? Representative Reyes Oda.

I'm going to be voting no based on the comments that you're going to be adding.

Okay, thank you. Any other members with comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you. Chair voting on House Bill 1182. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any votes with reservation. Any nay votes? Thank you, Chair. Measure is adopted.

Thank you. Next we have HB 1183 relating to allowance on service retirements. For this, we'll be incorporating the amendments provided by the ERS.

First, we'll be making conforming amendments to the bill to require the DLE Director, Deputy Director, investigator, Sheriff and Sheriff's Division Investigator positions to contribute 14.2% of their compensation to match the the other class A members in HRS 88-45.

Second will be amending to include positions in sections the said positions in sections 88-45 and sections 88-122 subsection A, Section 1. Next, we'll also be amending the bill to remove the class A prerequisite that is contained in this bill for HRS Section 88-47 subsection A, Section 1, section G.

This is in the bill Section 2, pages 5 to 6. And finally, we're going to be putting a defective date of July 1st, 3000 and making any technical amendments for clarity, consistency and style. Members, any comments? Okay, seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Members voting on HB 1183, Chair's recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any Members voting with reservation or nay? Recommendation is adopted, Chair.

Thank you. Next, HB 755 regarding paid family leave. There are obviously from the testimony a lot of supportive testimony for this measure. I think the people of the State of Hawaii like, want, and need paid family leave program. And so my intention is to pass this out with amendments.

However, there are a lot of amendments to be made and so to give this committee time to process the testimony and then to draft amendments, we're going to be deferring decision making for this bill to next week, Tuesday 9:00am in the same committee room. Okay. That's conference room 309. Okay.

Moving on to the next bill and final bill, HB 425 relating to public employment. As I'm moving out HB 755, I am going to have a preference for a statewide program that includes both public and private employees and employers.

I believe this is not a benefit that should just be limited to state and county workers, though I appreciate the union's advocacy for their membership. I think a 100% contribution for the employer is a little bit unreasonable at this point.

And the 50/50 split that's proposed in 755 is realistic and you know, is can be negotiated in the future. So I'll be deferring HB 425. Thank you, members. This hearing is adjourned.