House Standing Committee on Labor

Good morning. I'm calling to order the House Committee on Labor. Today is March 19th. This is for the 9:35 AM hearing. I wanna thank everyone for your patience for coming from another hearing.

Today, to ensure that we get to the agenda, I wanna be respectful of everyone's time. There will be a two-minute time limit for your testimony. We work hard; we read your testimony. The...will raise his hand when you have thirty seconds left. And at the two-minute mark, I will thank you for your testimony.

Thank you very much. Okay. First on the agenda, we have SB 2543, SD 2, relating to state construction projects. This bill establishes, within the Office of the Comptroller, a five-year Office of the State Construction Manager Pilot Program, headed by a full-time State Construction Manager, to provide guidance and recommendations on design review of state construction projects administered by the Department of Accounting and General Services, Department of Education. Requires the final plans, drawings, specifications, and other documents to be reviewed for disability compliance and state accessibility laws.

Requires the Office to assign employees the responsibility of reviewing and approving payment applications submitted for state construction projects administered by the Department of Accounting and General Services and the Department of Education, establishing the Design Review Special Fund. First to testify in person, Keith Regan, Comptroller, Department of Accounting and General Services.

Chair, Vice Chair, members of the committee. Keith Regan, Comptroller for the Department of Accounting and General Services. You have my written testimony, but I wanted to offer a couple of points of clarification. First and foremost, I, I don't want the committee to think that DAGS is taking an opposing position to this bill. We actually feel that there's merit to this bill, and there's opportunity with this bill to make some really positive changes.

We just feel that in analyzing some of the, the number of projects that are actually outstanding—there's about 1,200 projects if we were to total, between DAGS and the DOE, projects that would be applicable to what's being proposed here in this measure. That's kind of concerning for us because of the volume of projects. We didn't realize actually how many were in the pipeline and that we would have to—that would be subject to this new measure. And so, that's where our testimony was coming from as we recognized the volume and the impacts that it would have to our operations. In addition to that, as it's stated in our testimony, there are concerns about being able to hire that—the, the necessary number of positions in order to be able to process and properly, handle that number—that volume of, of projects.

And so, I just wanted to mention that to you. There are aspects, like I said, of this bill that we really believe in, and we'd see that there's opportunity, especially working with the city and county DPP by being able to provide resources so that they could focus on, specifically, state projects and permitting projects that are in their pipeline. And so, we see that as an opportunity as well. And one last thing that I would just suggest is that perhaps rather than all projects within DOE and the—and DAGS—that maybe there'll be a threshold set so that it's projects over a certain dollar amount.

Perhaps the dollar amount is 1 or 2 million dollars, but whatever that threshold is so that it doesn't capture everything, but it captures the most significant projects. Thank you very much for this opportunity to testify.

Thank you, Comptroller. Next to testify, Michael Yosua, Advocate for MK Advocacy Group, on behalf of the Hawaii Ironworkers, in person, in support.

Madam chair, committee members, Mike Yosua, on behalf of the Ironworkers, in support of this bill. You know, I, I appreciate the testimony that was given by the Comptroller. Our idea is just to be able to provide a central point of contact for state projects to be able to have an oversight and ensure that there are there aren't cost overruns and, and, you know, projects that are significantly delayed. I think it makes sense to have a threshold, but to focus on those projects that really have the potential to have those cost overruns.

But in the end, I think it would really benefit the state to have somebody overseeing all the projects to ensure that there aren't these huge cost overruns and ensure the state projects continue to move forward. We got a lot of big projects coming up, including the stadium and some other projects. And so, to have that oversight to make sure that, that, you know, we don't start off with a little project, and it, it, it increases by millions and millions of dollars through change orders to ensure that the state isn't overspending money. So, happy to answer any questions. Appreciate the committee hearing this bill.

Thank you.

Next up, NIA Director, George Paris, for the Hawaii Iron Workers Stabilization Fund, in support.

Morning, chair, vice chair. Hori Sula with the Iron Workers Stabilization Fund. Managing Director Paris can't be here today. We submitted written testimony. We're standing on it.

I just wanted to highlight a few points. You know, when this bill came up, reason why we looked at it is because the taxpayers are ultimately paid for all these projects. And we're seeing hundreds of millions of dollars go into construction projects, and some people accuse and said that we might be against construction. However, we're not against construction. This is for a healthy construction industry.

Instead of having one large construction project taking up all the money, we're gonna have 10 projects, you know, giving more work to the people. But we also wanna make sure that the money is being spent accurately and efficiently, and money can be saved for more projects, or for other programs that could help our taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you. We also have Milton Nita, in opposition, in person.

Thank you, chair, vice chair. My name is Milton Nita. I'd like to let you know where my testimony is coming from. My career path was US Army engineers, military captain, construction business man, three years. I was eight years with Hawaiian surgery and construction company, so I was with a private construction company for eight years.

I was a cost engineer, buyer, project engineer, and superintendent. I was with the US Army, DOD, Civilian Force, working first at facility engineers and with the corps of engineers doing primarily construction contract management, 25 years. And within that 25 years, I did five years with the Department of the Surgeon General. I did a lot of hospitals. I did, I did triple hospital, $100,000,000.

I did Tripler Hospital, second phase, $100,000,000. I did Misawa Hospital, $300,000,000. Misawa Hospital is in Japan, by the way. Then, I worked for DAGS in the Construction Management Branch. I was a Construction Inspector.

You can see from my testimony that I was one of the lowest positions in that branch. However, with my training and my experience, I probably outdid anybody in that office, including the CM 7 and the Engineer 6, as far as experience is concerned. Yeah. I guess I lost my, my—is my time up?

Oh, you got thirty more seconds.

Okay. If you don't mind. I agree with DAGS that it's gonna be very difficult for him to man up 90 people. Most of them will have to come from retired corps of engineer people or from the OICC from the Navy because they're already trained. They already know what they're doing in construction management. If you're looking for people from the state or from the city, they're not trained. The bill has very, very small scope in what the new construction manager will do in its design review.

Mr. Nita, I appreciate your testimony. You're out of time.

Thank you.

Okay.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebast for HGEA. We submitted testimony in opposition to this measure. While we're not opposed to the creation of the office, we do have—we are opposed to language that would allow the office to employ, employ employees that would be exempt from Chapter 76. I will note in in DAG's testimony that they, they indicated that they'll need 90 employees within this office. That's a big concern if 90 employees are exempt from civil service.

So, if this bill were to move forward, we would request that language be changed, that that these employees be hired with regard to Chapter 76. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. My name is Cliff Laboy with the Ironworkers Stabilization Fund. I'm just here to also represent the Hawaii Building and Construction Trade Council, which consists of 16 different unions. We have about 34,000 construction workers out there on the market right now working and we all—all of this built. We understand this is a tough bill.

This is something that was never done before. It's gonna take a lot of coordination between our, our, our meetings and stuff like that, but it's something that's very, that need—very much need to be done. Up to 2025, we, we, we compiled a list of what we consider taxpayers wasted spending report, and we came up with $542,877. From February 2026 alone, we added another 68,000,000 in there. It's just going crazy.

Yeah. We, we understand the problem that DAGS had. We met with Keith, and we agree with what he's trying to do. It's, it's a big problem, but it needs to be fixed. So, we ask that you please support this bill and let it happen. Both sides are gonna win. The city is gonna win if we can manage to put the workers into DPP that could specifically focus on state projects. I know the Mayor likes that. I, I ran it by him.

He's excited because they got problems over there already. He just got too much work. So, anyway, we hope that you guys can support this bill and let's get this job handled. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else? Sir, please come forward.

Morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. My name is Bill Kahele. I also work with—I work with Monet. I'm here to speak on behalf of me as a taxpayer. And, also, give the committee a history of our meeting that we had with the Comptroller of DAGS.

I, I provided an email to mister—or chair, please. Yes. So, anyway, we had a good 3—3 and a half hour—meeting with Mr. Reagan from DAGS, and we went through the whole entire bill. Went through the whole entire bill.

And there was some suggestions by Senator McKelvey. Hey, why don't you guys check to see what we can do to try to fix some of the stuff that's in the current bill? So, there was a meeting—three and a half hours long, I believe. We came up with some good ideas.

Mr. Reagan came up with some suggestions that he actually included in, in his testimony that he provided to the Senate committee, McKelvey's committee. And, actually, he was addressing most of the issues that we're pretty much in agreement of—starting a pilot program, you know, a five-year pilot program, including not all of the state projects, but two—or, or two, departments. That was the Department of Education and also, projects with DAGS. There was a, a, a list of issues that we also discussed, and he recommended, hey, you know what?

If we go with two departments, we can maybe look at hiring 20 people. 20 people that would kinda, like, be part of this agency that would oversee these projects, including one and several engineers, construction managers, including staff. So, I guess after we've seen...

I'm sorry, sir. You're out of time. Thank you for your testimony.

Can I borrow somebody else's time?

Can, can you summarize it?

Yes. Yes. I just wanna summarize. So, you know, we really show strong support of this bill. We were just surprised that we didn't give—get the common courtesy—from the Comptroller's office to let us know that his position have changed, with his testimony that he provided to this current committee. Thank you.

Appreciate that. Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on this measure? We also have comments from the Department of Community Planning, City and County of Honolulu. Support from the Operating Engineers, Local 3, comments from the American Institute of Architects of Hawaii—oh, I'm sorry. With comments and...Consulting Group on behalf of the Hawaii Iron Workers Stabilization Fund, in support. Members, any questions?

SB 2014. Sorry.

SB 2014 SD1 relating to Public Employment.

This bill requires the Director of Human Resource Development to abolish vacant positions within state department and agencies under its jurisdiction that have been vacant for more than five years with certain exceptions.

Requires a list of positions abolished to be included in the director's annual report to the legislature. Requires funding allows positions to immediately lapse the department of the appropriate file.

First to testify in person, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Vice chair and members of the committee. Brenna Hashimoto here, Director of Department of Human Resources Development. We'll stand on our written testimony in support of this measure and I'm available for any questions. Thank you.

Next, we have Jade Butay, Director of DLIR, with comments.

[inaudible]

Thank you. We also have United Public Workers with comments.

Chair, vice chair, member. United Public Workers stands with it's comments

Randy Perreira, Executive Director of HGEA, with comments.

Chair, vice chair, members. Nui Sebast with HGEA. We'll stand on our comments, but I just wanna note that we caution kind of legislature to broadly abolish vacant positions because that might have an unintended consequences for our state workforce.

I'd also like to note that we've been advocating for years that vacant position money be used to increase pay for existing incumbents because many of them are short staffed and are already doing the work of positions that remain vacant. Thank you.

And lastly, Ted Kefalas, Director of Strategic Campaigns with the Grassroot Institute of Hawaii in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. Ted Kefalas with Grassroot Institute. We're in support of SB 2014. You guys have our written testimony, so I won't go too in-depth in that. I just wanna note, as you all know, we're dealing with a budget crisis here in our state, and one way to address this is to reduce spending.

So passing a bill like this, help will push us in that direction and sends the the right message to residents. I do wanna apologize in my testimony. I offered an amendment of two years, but the language in SB 3180 specifies 48 months and or 4 years. So, I'm sorry. Math is harder late at night when I'm writing these testimonies.

But, that being said, we do prefer the language in that SB3180 bill. So, Mahalo for the opportunity to testify, here for any questions.

Thank you.

Anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Seeing none, we also have written testimony in opposition from the Hawaii State Public Library System and opposition from the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly.

Members, any questions?

Seeing none. Moving on to SB2115, related to collective bargaining.

This bill would amend the collective bargaining negotiation procedure on the repricing and classes within a bargaining day for public employees. Establishes an impasse procedure to be applied when an employer fails to initiate the to initiate a negotiation. Parties fail to reach an agreement within ninety days. Appeals existing law that requires a different impasse procedure to apply in those situations. First to testify, Erna Hashimoto, director of DHEARD, in opposition.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. I'll I'll stand out our written testimony, in opposition, but I just wanted to highlight a couple of issues that we see, with this bill. First of all, we're opposed to changing the arbitration procedure from having a three member panel to just a single arbitrator, because arbitrators are not trained in repricing and pricing matters. And we also offer amendments and we are recommending that repricing disputes be directed to the Merit Appeals Board instead. That panel already hears pricing initial pricing appeals, so they're this is within their current wheelhouse, and there is union representation on the Merit Appeals Board as well as management representation and a neutral chair.

So we believe that's the more appropriate avenue to address, pricing issues and reimbursement issues. I'm available for any questions.

Mhmm. Thank you.

We have VPW in support.

Trustee, members of the committee, come on come on. You have our written testimonies for

us to support this bill. We do think the proposed changes in creating a new process for repricing is a better fit for the spirit and intent of the laws was passed two years ago. Happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Thank you.

Next, Manny Pereira, executive director, h G A.

Chair, vice chair, members, HGA, we're in strong support of this measure. And for the most part, we'll stand on our testimony in support. I do wanna note that in 2024, the legislature did pass a pricing appeal process and codified into law that pricing is negotiable between us and the employer. Pricing, the current process already ends in interest arbitration. The change here that we are advocating for is looking to establish a pricing process that is more streamlined, more efficient in helping our state tackle our the recruitment and retention challenges.

We're opposed to creation of the merit appeals board because the employ because it is a three person board and the employer appoints two person 22 individuals to that board, but the union only has one. So that would be

an employer dominated cord and that it would

eliminate any chance for any fair appeal. Thank you. Thank you.

Is there anyone here to testify anyone else here to testify on this measure? Seeing none members, any questions? Oh, sorry. We also have written testimony in opposition from the Department of Human Resources, City of County of Honolulu, from the Hawaii State Teachers Association in support. And Hawaii State AFL CIO in support.

Moving on to the next bill, SB 3095 related to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund Investment Office staff salaries. We still label the Board of Trustees of the Hawaii employer union health benefits trust fund to establish appropriate salaries for the investment officers, investment analysis of the trust fund.

First testify, Donna Tonaki, Assistant Administrator, Hawaii Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, and members of the committee. EUTF stands on its written testimony in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone here to testify in this measure?

Members, any questions?

That's all the testimony we have. So moving on to the next bill, SB 3264 SD1, relating to the Hawaiʻi Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund.

Hold on.

Trust fund tax tax salaries.

This bill applies to the Board of Trustees and the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund to establish a salary for an assistant administrator on the trust fund.

Is anyone here to testify on this measure?

We do have written testimony in support from the Hawaiʻi Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support, the Hawaii State Teachers Association in support.

Members, any questions?

I'm good for a new one. Okay.

Moving on to the next bill. SB2114 SD2 related to collective bargaining.

This bill appeals the prohibition placed on certain employees exempt from civil service law from grieving a suspension of discharge. It allows any employee who's a member of an appropriate bargaining unit to agree with any disciplinary action unless prohibited by the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

He're to testify in this measure is Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD in opposition.

Again. I'll stand on our written testimony in opposition, but I just wanted to point out two things.

Exempt employees are considered at will, and so they can be discharged for any reason, and so this giving them appeal rights to a discharge or discipline is contrary to the nature of their employment. They're not civil service. They don't have a property right to their position.

Secondly, this measure well, first of all, the statute currently allows exclusive representatives or unions to negotiate, grievance rights for exempt employees. We have contract language in four current collective bargaining agreements. So for the legislature to undermine collective bargaining by, legislating the grievance rights, I believe is contrary to collective bargaining and and undermines that process. Thank you.

Next, J.N. Musto, PhD, Chief Negotiator for the Office of Collective Bargaining Agreements with comments.

Good to see you.

Thank you, Vice chair. The Office of Collective Bargaining supports HRD in their opposition to this change, predicated on other testimony that I have given before this committee. This points out another conflict with Chapter 89 and the power of the Hawaii Labor Relations Board to designate where persons fall into various bargaining units.

Persons that would hold this kind of description typically in other settings, not necessarily ours, would be excluded from being in bargaining at all. In units 3413 and 14, there are already criteria on discipline that prevent most, if not all, of the exempt employees from grieving this charge.

Again, I my little sermonette the other day, that follows up with more. There is a fundamental look at Chapter 89 that at some point in time needs to be done with this committee. Thank you.

Thank you. United Public Workers in support.

UPW stands on its testimony in support.

Thank you. Randy Perriera, Executive director of HGEA in support.

Chair, vice chair, members. HGEA is in strong support of this measure. I just wanna note a statistic. Over the past six years, we've seen a 600 position increase or a 25% increase in the use of exempt positions. I'd also wanna note that the change in this language, and I'll just read it, in the bill states, unless the collective bargaining agreement specifically provides otherwise, we believe that should satisfy the concerns raised by the previous testifiers. Thank you.

Thank you.

Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure?

We also have written testimony from the Department of Human Resources City and County Honolulu in opposition, Office of American Community of Maui in opposition, Hawaii State Teachers Association in support, University of Hawaii professional assembly in support, Hawaii State AFL CIO in support.

Members, any questions?

Moving on to the next measure, SB 2117 SD1, relating to the Hawaiʻi Employer-Union Health Benefits Trust Fund.

This would allow impasses and disputes relating to the amount of state and county contributions to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Ventures Trust Fund to be resolved by arbitration. Repeals the prohibition against strikes by members of party and unions on issues with the amounts of state and county contributions to the trust fund.

First to testify, Seth Colby, PhD, Director of Department of Budget Finance in opposition.

Good morning. [Inaudible] written testimony in opposition.

Thank you. Next up, J.N. Musto, PhD, Chief Negotiator, Office of Collective Bargaining in opposition.

I believe that all was necessary to outstand it.

Thank you. Next, we have Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD with comments.

DHRD will stand on its written testimony providing comments and concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. United Public Workers in support.

Chair, [Inaudible]

Thank you. Randy Pereira, Executive Director of HGEA in support.

[Inaudible]...

Is there anyone else here to testify on this measure?

Seeing none. Members, any questions?

We'll be we also have, sorry. We also have committed testimony from the ops of the Mayor Tanya Mowery in opposition, University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support, State of Hawaii Organization police officers in support, and Hawaii State AFL CIO in support.

Moving on to SB 2246 SD1, relating to financial disclosures. This bill expands the scope of persons who are subject to public financial disclosure requirements.

First to testify on this measure, Robert D. Harris, Executive Director for the State Ethics Commission in support.

Commission stands on its written testimony in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else is anyone else here to testify in this measure?

We also have written testimony from the individual in support.

Members, any questions?

Mister Harris, please.

Obviously, we've discussed this idea of public disclosures in a different capacity. Well, in a different way with the bill for the Board of Regents at University of Hawaii. Can you explain to us why you chose these particular agencies to also fall under this chapter requiring public exposure of their financial records?

Sure. Just in contextually, in his you know, just giving a bit of background.In 2013, this legislature determined a set of board commissions that had substantial fiscal oversight, procurement authority, and determined that those boards and commissions would be public filers using essentially sort of the same type of determination.

The idea was to expand both to the executive directors of those board and commissions, which are paid staff, potentially have a lot of delegated authority under those board and commissions, as well as looking at four new, sorry, five new entities that do also have significant fiscal oversight such as the employee's retirement system.

Here it's the Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund, green infrastructure authority, the tech development corporation, the school facilities, or the ideas that these fit within the same parameters.

So do you expect to come back with the expanded list in the future, or do you think these are the ones that require?

I think this is a important line to draw. So there are certain boards and commissions that plainly don't have that type of oversight. We would oppose the idea of trying to have public disclosure as to those. And I wanna be very clear on this. There are certainly boards commissions where it's been difficult to find people who are willing to volunteer.

We don't wanna create more barriers to those folks participating. Again, the idea is to try to have relatively objective standards. Again, if you're overseeing hundreds of millions or billions of dollars of funds, that's the type of

Sure.

Objective factor we can point to and say that that's, that's why that port commission stands differently.

Okay. But the current members of the ERS, ETF, Green Infrastructure Authority, HTDC, and SFA, would they be grandfathered in under this, or they would become public filers as soon as if this were to pass?

We put language at the bottom, which indicates that it would be a going forward requirement. They would not be grandfathered, but it would not be retroactive as to past filings. That was one of the controversies back in 2013.

I'm sorry. Can you explain that again?

So it says in Section three, this actual only shall apply only to financial disclosure statements filed on or after 07/01/2027.

So current members would have to start filing publicly at that point going forward. Okay. Do you have any concerns that current members of these boards may resign as a matter of just being uncomfortable with having their financial disclosures made public?

I think that was one of the impacts that we saw back in 2013-14 when the the law passed.

I hope that's an opportunity to do education and outreach. So three Board of Regents resigned from 2014. And as I understand, two of them felt that it would reveal competitive information about their businesses such that they would no longer be competitive, and one resigned because a spouse indicated concerns about revealing information.

As for the two on competitive, I hope we'd have an opportunity to say that the public disclosure requirements shouldn't get into that type of depth. It's not asking for inside information about someone's business.

It's not asking for it's really looking at income and ranges of income, specifically. We don't want specific dollars and cents. It's just basically a, do you make a substantial amount of money or not.

And again, from a public policy reason why that happens is if you're looking for conflicts of interest, you are predominantly gonna be looking for, do you have a financial tie to someone who is doing matters before your board or commission, and that the idea is that this makes it transparent where those may or may not be.

So again, I hope it's an opportunity for education and outreach and sort of hopefully mollify.

We don't ask for things like personal or we don't reveal personal addresses. We don't reveal stuff that might actually put them at risk. And so the idea is to try to hold molly molly the situation and try to make sure that they understand what would be publicly disclosed.

How many disclosures are filed with the ethics commission every year? All these boards and commissions under your jurisdiction.

Approximately 2,000 or so.

2,000. And then what is the intake process at the ethics commission? Do you folks review these, like, on a spot basis? Or is it complaint driven where you only look at disclosures if someone files a complaint or asks you to investigate a potential conflict?

With regards to confidential filers, I think it's a question, but I guess it's actually fairly true of everything. We have started doing spot audits and have struggled with that, quite frankly. The degree of complexity of a lot of transactions that become before boards and commissions to be able to start trying to identify Shell LLCs, who's behind stuff is is not an easy task to do. We also try to do spot audits for accuracy, and that's a little bit easier to do.

Right.

So up to 2,000, how much are you actively reviewing, did you say?

I'd say

spot basis.

With regards to accuracy, I'd say a 100%. As to conflicts of interest, I'm probably in a magnitude of 5 to 10%.

Okay. Alright. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Robert.

Thank you.

Members, is there any other questions?

Okay. Thank you.

Sorry. One follow-up. I kinda appreciate the intent of the bill to ensure that, you know, we are having transparencies and accountability through these disclosures. Would the Ethics Commission be able to handle the additional intake of disclosures with this broadening of the requirement?

So currently, all constitutionally, all boards and commissions have to file have to file financial disclosure statements. So we already received the financial disclosure statements. They're simply confidential. They're not public. So this would simply be a matter of toggling the switch and making it public. We typically will do a review of everything before it's made public just to make sure there's something there confidentially, and that's something I think we can imminently do currently.

Okay. Appreciate that. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you.

Any other questions, members?

Thank you.

Moving on to SB2519 related to law enforcement.

This establishes new deadlines for completion of law enforcement standards board certification responsibilities.

First to testify, Adrian Dhakhwa, Chair of the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board in support.

Good morning, chair, vice chair, members of the committee. Adrian Dhakhwa from the Law Enforcement Standards Board. I'll stand on my written testimony after answering questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Victor McCraw, Administrator for the Hawaii Law Enforcement Standards Board Administration in support.

Aloha, chair, vice chair, committee members. I am Victor McCraw, Administrator for Law Enforcement Standards Board. I'll stand on my written testimony and I'm available for questions.

Thank you. Next, we have Mike Lambert, Director for the Department of Law Enforcement, in support.

Mark Tom, Deputy Attorney General. Department of the Attorney General, in support.

Chair, vice chair, members of the committee, Deputy Attorney General, Adrian Dhakhwa on behalf of the department standing in for my colleague, Mark Tom. The department is in strong support of SB 2519 aesthetic form. Happy to answer your questions.

Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure?

We also have written testimony from the Maui County Department of Prosecuting Attorney in support, the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney in the County Of Hawaii in support, and the Client Police Department in County Of Hawaii in support.

Members, questions?

Seeing none. Moving on to SB 3055, SD 2, relating to false impersonation of union representatives. This prohibits a person who falsely impersonating employee organization of the company. The statute for cause of action and penalties with these violations. First, to testify, we have UPW support.

Chair Sayama, Vice Chair Lee, Members. Again, Kamakana Kaimuloa, United Public Workers. You have our written testimony in strong support of this bill. This is a growing issue on the continent where a third party, third party anti union campaigns used deceitful tactics to get members to opt out.

There have been some efforts here in Hawaii in getting our members to opt out as well as I believe two or three other exclusive representatives, particularly those who represent workers in the Department of Education. Again, just trying to get on in front of this. We appreciate the committee hearing this bill and hopefully you can urge you to pass it. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up, Randy Perreira, executive director of HGEA in support. Thank you. Are there any other persons here to testify on this measure? We also have written testimony from the University of Hawaii Professional Assembly in support. And from the Hawaii State AFL-CIO in support as well. Any questions?

UPW. I can ask you a question. Thank you. For the units here that you said that, received the impersonation, can you kinda describe what that looks like?

So what they've been doing is, well, let me just explain to you what's happening here and actually what's happening on the continent, particularly in Oregon. So here, I think us, HSTA as well as HGEA, maybe even UHPA, basically, our members receive a mailer from I'll just say Freedom Foundation.

To their house?

To their house. Generally, I think they use publicly sourced information, cross reference it, and they're able to access that. And then basically, they'll send them stuff like holiday cards saying, hey. You could save, you know, $900 or whatever by opting out. And then what they'll have on there is a self posted pre postage paid addressed to some what appears to be union official, but they'll be in care of Freedom Foundation.

So what will happen is should one of our members decide to move forward with that, they'll send this card, fill out a card, send it to Freedom Foundation. Freedom Foundation will then take that, write up letters, send it to us. And then from there on, we have to follow-up with the member to make sure that they're the ones who actually wanna opt out.

Oftentimes, we've been able to sort of discourage this opt out because we explained to them the benefits they're actually losing out by opting out. Particularly for us, we have a workers' compensation program. And once they hear that, generally, it's effective in preventing them from opting out or choosing to opt out. So I believe the same is the case with HGEA as well as HSTA, but that's sort of the nature of things at this point in time.

In Oregon, on the other hand, there's much more deceptive tactics, dressing as union officials, telling them that they're actually union officials, putting up, you know, obviously not an issue here, but putting up billboards, getting you know, saying that such and such union is asking you to do such and such thing. We're just trying to get out in front in front of that.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Seeing none. Moving on to SB 3131, relating to personnel. This bill updates state position title by changing private secretary to executive assistant and secretary to administrative assistant where applicable. First to testify, Brenna Hashimoto, Director of DHRD in support.

DHRD will stand on its written testimony in support.

Thank you.

Are there any other persons here to testify in this measure? Members, any questions? We also have written testimony from the Hawaii State Public Library's Club. And moving on to the last measure of the day, SB 3144, SD 1, relating to the Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law. This repeals the Hoisting Machine Operators Advisory Board and its rules requiring a separate state crane operator certificate..

Allows additional time for the Director of Labor and Industrial Relations to to complete an investigation of a discharge of discrimination complaint pertaining to employees exercising rights under the Occupational Safety and Health Law without formal extension. First to testify is Jade Butay, Director of DLIR, in support.

Aloha, Chair, Vice Chair, and Committee Members. Jade Butay, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations. We stand on our testimony in strong support. And thank you for hearing this administrative bill. Following productive meetings with the operating team leaders, we have mutually concluded that Hoisting Machine Operators Advisory Board represents a duplicative layer of oversight. This measure also aligns the whistleblower investigation timelines with federal standards. Thank you for the opportunity.

That's all the testimony we have. Is anyone here to testify on this measure? Members, any questions?

Yep. Real quick. DLIR. Just wanted to clarify the intent of the bill. This is relating to the first part relating to DLIR certification of the hoisting machines. There are other parts of HRS that mandate DLIR's regulation of these hoisting machines. Is the intent of this bill to remove any oversight of these hoisting machines that currently exist under DLIR because there already exists, I guess, duplicative regulatory framework under the federal law.

You already have the OSHA certification. So it's, so it's not, you know, we're still doing the apportionment, but it's the OSHA standards already.

So removing any reference to these hoisting relations of hoisting machines in other parts of HRS wouldn't that that would align with the intent of the bill? Okay. Sounds good. Thank you.

Members, any other questions? I'm gonna take a short break for recess. Thank you.

Reconvening the House Committee on Labor for decision making. First, we have SB 2543, SD 2, relating to state construction projects. I can appreciate the intent that this issue is trying to address. I definitely want to acknowledge certain concerns offered by DPP from City and County of Honolulu as well as DAGS.

But we'd like to move this measure forward with certain amendments. First, we'll be amending page three, lines four to 12. So this section is applied to all four counties, not just the City and County of Honolulu. We'll be deleting subsection f on page three lines 13 to 16 and make necessary amendments to reflect that the positions subject to this bill are not exempt from Chapter 76 of HRS.

We'll be adding a defective date of July 1, 3000, adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Also adding in the committee report the recommended funding for this bill would be $10.55 million and the staffing will be 90 FTEs. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2543, SD 2. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. [Roll Call] Thank you, Chair. Your recommendation's been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2014, SD 1, relating to public employment. For this, we'll be adding the defective date of July 1, 3000. And note in the committee reports the recommended effective date July 1, 2028 to allow some departments to make necessary adjustments within their staffing and funding to apply this measure to their operations. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2014, SD 1. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any no votes or reservations? Thank you, Chair. Recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2115, SD 1, relating to collective bargaining. We'll just be adding a defective date of July 1, 3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB 2115, SD 1. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Any reservations? Any no votes? Thank you, Chair. Recommendation has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB3095 SD1 relating to Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB3095 SD1. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations?

Reservations.

Any no votes?

Thank you. Chair, recommendation is adapted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB3264 SD1 relating to the Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund staff salaries. We'll also be adding an effective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB3264 SD1. Recommendation is passed with amendments. Are there any reservations?

Reservations.

Reservations, Representative Reyes Oda, any no votes?

Thank you, Chair. Recommendations has been adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB2114 SD2 relating to collective bargaining. We'll also be adding a defective 07/01/3000. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, Chair. Voting on SB2114 SD2 recommendations to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations?

Any no votes?

Thank you. Chair, recommendation has been adapted.

Thank you.

Let's see. Moving on to SB2117 SD1 relating to Hawaii Employer Union Health Benefits Trust Fund. We'll be adding an effective date, 07/01/3000. Members, any comments?

Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB2117 SD1. The recommendation is to pass with amendments. Are there any reservations?

Any no votes?

Thank you, Chair. Recommendation has been adapted.

Thank you. Next, we have SB 2246 S1 relating to financial disclosures. For this, we'll be amending page four, line 16, by replacing the phrase number of shares with value of shares. This will read an amount of stock may be reported by the value of shares.

Well, I'll be adding a tech defective date of 07/01/3000 adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style.

Members, any comments?

Chair?

Yes.

I'll be voting with reservations on this one. My concern is that if this were to go into effect, we use qualified people on the ERS and the UTF just out of, kind of a protest to having to disclose his personal information. So that's my reasons for the WR. Thank you.

Thank you. Members, any other comments?

Seeing none, Vice chair for the vote.

Thank you, chair. Voting on SB 2246 SD1. Recommendation is to pass with amendments. Representative Garrett with reservations. Are there any other reservations?

No votes?

Thank you, Chair. Recommendations are adopted.

Thank you. Moving on to SB 2519, relating to law enforcement. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none, vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3055, SD 2, relating to control impersonation of union representatives. We'll be adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice chair for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Moving on to SB 3131, SD 1, relating to personnel. We'll be making amendments to this measure to apply the intent of the bill to replace the "Secretary" job title with "Administrative Assistant." We'll be adding amendments to make changes in HRS where the "Secretary" job title is referenced. We'll be adding an effective date of 07/01/2000 and adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Finally, SB 3144, SD 1, relating to Hawaii Occupational Safety and Health Law. We'll be making amendments to this bill by removing references to hoisting machines from other parts of HRS to apply the intent of this measure. We'll also be adding technical amendments needed for clarity, consistency, and style, and adding a defective date of 07/01/3000. Members, any comments? Seeing none. Vice Chair, for the vote.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, members. This hearing is adjourned.