House Industry and Labor Committee, January 28, 2026 Video: https://vimeo.com/1159382559 (a timestamp t plays at https://vimeo.com/1159382559#t=s) Page: https://georgiacommons.org/meetings/2026-01-28/house-industry-and-labor This is a machine transcript of the General Assembly's video, made by a speech-recognition model. It is not an official record and can mishear words, names, and numbers. Speakers are not identified. The video is the record: every timestamp links to the moment it plays. [0:06:42] In favor of this bill. Okay. And this bill actually helps the employers and the employees, my kind of bill. So, uh, I don't think there should be anybody signed up for this. Any comments before anybody wants to make a motion? We have a motion and a second on House Bill 1015 LC 520978. [0:07:14] All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. [0:07:21] Congratulations. You're on to rules. Um- Thank you. Let's make all of them this quick. Okay, next up, it's Todd Jones, Day and Industry and Labor. He's got the rest of the agenda. Left this to me. [0:07:43] All right, we're gonna do your robot bill first. 'Cause... Which one is that? Mr. Chairman, I would- 987. 987. Yeah. Uh, in terms of the Health Skill Portability Act, would it be okay if I proceed? Yes. Okay, great. Um, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, thank you so much. Um, effectively what 987 does, uh, is bring us very much so into the twen- twenty-first century. Um, if you think about healthcare today or just benefits in general, if we were coming out of World War II today, we most likely would not connect all these benefits to our employer. [0:08:21] 80 years ago, it was very, I guess, normal for an individual to go into the job and basically stay basically their entire life, get their pension, have their benefits there, et cetera. Today, maybe Gen Z, the younger millennials, et cetera, we're seeing job change 10, 15 times. We're seeing gig workers. And a great statistic to be thinking about is 15 years ago, one in six Georgians were basically doing independent contract work, either as a primary source of income or as a side hustle. Today, they're at one in four. And I think with the progression of the economy, the way that it's going, the way that we're seeing more and more happening within AI, within data, cyber, et cetera, my hunch is we'll be at one in three, one in two. [0:08:59] So effectively what the bill does, if I could direct you, it's a pretty short bill. [0:09:08] Line 16 all the way through l- lines 35 effectively define the hiring partner, independent contractor, portable benefit accountant, the account provider, and the benefit plan. Let me be clear, this is an opportunity for that gig worker or that contractor to effectively have fiscal discipline. That's it. And it's their voluntary opt-in that allows them to give that financial discipline. So whether or not it's a side hustle with one company, a side hustle with six companies, they can enter into voluntarily a contract that is clear and unambiguous that states, "Please withhold X amount of money from my payment so it can go into my provider account." That provider account can then be used to pay for health, dental, retirement, et cetera. [0:10:00] I wanna be clear, this does not create in any way, shape, and form an insurance policy. It does not create any type of extra burden on the state, but rather it provides that independent contractor an opportunity to opt in to effectively a fiscal discipline plan, just like I'm sure many of you have and just like I have in terms of my budget. Also, they have the opportunity at any time to opt out of this opt-in. So if they were, for instance, getting $100 taken out of every payment, they literally could opt out two weeks later and not have that $100 taken out. [0:10:33] So Mr. Chairman, I'm happy to stand for questions, but hopefully that gives a good overview of the bill. [0:10:41] Chair Lady. Chairman Hagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, what you mentioned about gig work and it increasing, I see that. Um, I've got two recent college graduates, and both of them ex- have expressed the desire to me to eventually move into what we all refer to as gig work. But one of them has a more traditional jo- a, a traditional job right now. So how, how would this affect someone like him who's in a traditional job if he, or if he were to lose that job and then move into something like drive for Uber while he's looking for another traditional job, if he were to do that? [0:11:24] How, how would th- that work here? Did I phrase that in a way that- Yeah, sure ... moving between traditional to- Contractor ... contract work, how, how would this play out? Well, Chair Lady Hagan, I would tell you this is the ultimate in flexibility. So if they are going to get their benefits, and right now I assume they're not married, if they're gonna get their benefits from their current W-2 and still have their side hustle, they don't need to worry about this. This is kind of a non-issue for them. However, we do have about 70% to 80% of some workers who are saying they want this opportunity because they're not getting benefits necessarily through their W-2, or they don't want a W-2 at all. [0:12:00] At the same time, they can go in and out of a W-2, stay within the 1099, all while having those benefits follow them. So at this point, it's attached to them and not attached to their employment, again, giving them ultimate flexibility. At some point, if they get married, they can make the decision maybe to go on their spouse's plan, stay on their plan, or again, stay within the plan that's following them and allowing them to have the fiscal discipline around this to allow them to pay it. Okay. Thank, thank you. No, thank you, Chair Lady. [0:12:31] Chairman Carpenter. Thank you. Thank you so much, uh, To- uh, Todd, uh, Chairman Jones, sorry. Um, three questions, three quick ones. First question is, are there policies out there currently or there current providers of healthcare, et cetera, to the gig industry? [0:12:48] Second question, are there people, say Uber, Lyft, that will actually supplement some of your benefits, so do, like, matching benefit funds? And the third question is, is it pre-tax dollars? [0:13:05] Okay. So on the first one, Mr. Chairman, on the policies, these policies do exist. For instance, if you're in the ACA, and you're in between, say hypothetically, the 101 to 138% of the federal poverty line, you're obviously eligible for several, I'll say, benefits that allow you to drag down that policy cost by sometimes as much as 99%. If you're above 138, up to 400%, you still get those credits, and at the same time, you have the opportunity to pay directly through your provider account. So I would say to you that, yes to number one, that definitely exists. [0:13:37] In terms of number two, I don't wanna speak for what I'll say the traditional gig companies are. But I know myself, as being in the tech industry, if I start having more and more 1099s come in who are taking advantage of this, I may choose to do some type of matching or something to that effect, frankly luring them to stay with me versus going off and doing something else with another tech provider. So at the end of the day, I'm gonna let the free market decide exactly how number two works out, and I think that's something that we're gonna see mature. We may be back here in front of Chairman Werkheiser in three or four years, having to maybe look at this bill to say, "How can we actually incent that?" But right now, we're not touching anything on the match. [0:14:12] In terms of number three, number three is all basically through federal law and also through, uh, state law. So for instance, as you know, there are cer- certain things that are done pre-tax, certain things that are done post-tax in terms of your benefits, your HSA, your HRA, et cetera. It's gonna follow the exact same tax code. We're not expecting anything outside of that. Okay? [0:14:32] Well, so the last follow is who's in control of that fund money? The actual in- the, the contract labor person is in control of those funds, or is the, the gi- the gig hir- hire employer? [0:14:46] Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. 100% controlled by that Georgian. Once the money-- 'cause remember, it's their money. They're just taking the fiscal discipline of saying, say $1,000 is due to them, they're saying $100 is going into their account. They're just doing the favor, meaning the company, the gig company, of giving me 900, putting 100 into the account. But the moment that hits, it's my money or that gig worker's money. They control it 100%. There is no clawback or anything to that effect. [0:15:12] Okay, thank you. [0:15:15] Senator McClain. [0:15:16] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, I guess, um, I wanted to... Chairman Todd, you know, I, I guess what I'd like to say is, is that I, I heard, uh, what you said about the pay withhold. Uh, and so you're saying that if I give you $100, I get my $100 back. Uh, do I get it back from Bank of America or Wells Fargo? Or- [0:15:38] Representative McClain, if I could refer you, if you don't, if you don't mind- [0:15:42] I mean, I have it in front of me, so you- [0:15:43] Okay, good. If you could look at lines 27 through 31. So effectively, I'll use Wells Fargo, giving your example, 'cause we say here in line 27, a bank or financial institution that basically has the ability to do that deposit, has the insurance, and then basically has the ability to administer this portable benefits account. So at the end of the day, using, I believe, the example you just said, if I'm due $100, and I'm not sure if you said maybe Uber or Lyft, but from Uber- [0:16:09] Mm-hmm [0:16:09] ... if according to my contract with them that I voluntarily entered into and I opted in- [0:16:13] Right [0:16:13] ... I want $50 of every payment to me to go into Wells Fargo, then $50 is moved to Wells Fargo on my account. $100... $50 comes to me just, I guess, through my business account, and that 50 is sitting there, prepared to move into... And if you look at m- um, lines 32 through 35, those are the different plans, health insurance, unemployment insurance, disability, life insurance, and retirement plans that I can use that $50 for coming out of Wells Fargo. [0:16:42] Uh, Mr. Chairman, I, I, I guess what I, where I was going with that was I just wanted to make sure that it was following the employee, one. [0:16:50] Right. Yes. [0:16:51] And two, that what I didn't want and what I don't, would not like to have is an employer saying, "Okay, uh, I would like to have more, uh, gig workers and 1099 workers and independent contractors," uh, and not, and not paying full benefits for employees. I wouldn't want, in essence, if I've got 39 employees, and I've got 10 independent contractors, I don't wanna say, "Well, I wanna reverse this. I wanna have 10, 10, um, employees and 39 independent contractors and everybody paying into it." I just didn't want that to- [0:17:28] Yeah [0:17:28] ... to be the ca- the case. [0:17:29] So Representative McClain, I think that's a very fair concern. On your first concern, it does follow the employee 100%, vested to them immediately. So there is absolutely no clawback, and I'm not gonna call it the employer, I'm gonna call it the contractor. So the contractor has no ability to claw that back from the independent contractor. The second one, look, I ran the classification bill, what, four years ago, that this committee was kind enough to work with me on for three or four years to get that through. We did a lot of great work- [0:17:56] Mm-hmm [0:17:56] ... on classification to make sure that those bad actors that would do what you're suggesting would be brought to task by the DOL. In no way, shape, or form am I looking to, I'll say, cut anyone's knees out there. [0:18:07] Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:18:10] Okay, next, uh, Government Floor Leader Seabaugh. [0:18:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman Jones, for bringing this. I think most of my questions got answered. It's voluntary opt-in. Is there any state oversight of the, of this program? [0:18:28] State oversight? No. What we're basically seeing is, is remember, the financial institution will have, I'll guess, in some way, shape, or form, the ability through the administration of this code. I should have probably brought the rest of the code in there. It basically has everything that the state respon- pardon me, that the financial institution has responsibility for in terms of making sure that it is, in fact, used for the appropriate purposes, which is, of course, moving into the benefit plans. [0:18:51] Okay, I appreciate that. My concern is Any dispute resolution and how that's handled? [0:18:57] It's inside of the code. Uh, and I gotta be frank with you, I probably should have brought that and it's my, my, my, my apologies. [0:19:03] That's fine. Thank you. [0:19:04] Again. [0:19:07] Representative Schofield. [0:19:09] Thank you. Th- thank you, Chairman Jones. I might have missed this, so I'm just probably catching up, but how does this bill interact with the federal labor and tax laws? And could a worker still be considered an employee under this federal rule, even if Georgia treats them as a contractor, Mr. Bill? How does it address that? [0:19:27] Thank you very much, Representative Schofield. Um, our test basically, which basically goes all the way through SCOTUS, and there's a lot of people sitting behind me who know that test by heart, and I don't know it by heart, but I know there's about five or six legs to it. I'm not trying to touch that test. I'm gonna be clear. The test for, I'll call it an independent contractor, remains. This bill does nothing to touch that whatsoever, other than the only thing it does is say, if this individual contractor opts into this program, that is not a reason to suddenly flip them from 1099 to W2. [0:19:58] Rather, opting into this, we should basically laud that person for their financial discipline and their fiscal discipline, and basically help them be able to do the things they need to do to be able to basically earn what they keep and keep what they earn. [0:20:12] Thank you. Just one more question, uh, Chairman. Thank you. So, um, how... If a hiring entis- entities are not currently providing benefits to independent contractors, how would this bill, uh, change that? [0:20:26] Representative Schofield, I'm not suggesting that... When, when I say hiring, I guess what you mean is signing a contract with an independent contractor, 'cause clearly they're not hiring them as a W2. But that independent contractor at this point is not due any benefits from that company that has effectively contracted with them for a certain service. It's their responsibility, may it be through the exchange, may it be through any other means, also through other financial institutions for possibly a 401, you name it, but it's their responsibility to go ahead and get out and get their health, their dental, their disability, their unemployment, et cetera. [0:21:01] This is going to allow them to just have the fiscal discipline to be able to pay for that, knowing in a sense they've created a savings account for that. What we're saying here is by creating that savings account, it doesn't change your classification. [0:21:13] Thank you. [0:21:13] You're welcome. [0:21:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:21:17] Senator Barton? Or Bonner? [0:21:20] Hey. [0:21:20] Chairman Bonner. [0:21:21] Hey, uh, Chairman Jones, thanks for bringing the bill. Just a couple of question. The, uh, and I'm assuming possibly the, the additional code you'd mentioned, does that speak in any way to, uh, specifically what these funds can be used for, uh, any penalties for using it out- using funds for outside of the intended purposes? And, and does it act like any other, like, other types of vehicles where, um, if you never utilized it for said benefits for whatever reason, at some point in the future would you be able to draw it out, uh, with- without any tax implications, that kind of thing? [0:22:00] Chairman Bonner, all that is covered primarily under federal law, even though there is some state law that comes into that. It's really no different than how the law stands today. If you are using those funds for the benefits that are described in this bill, for instance, then we have already determined that through federal law and/or state law, that's absolutely permittable. In terms of taking those funds, remember, those were your dollars to begin with. Now, if you take those and you didn't pay tax on them, to Chairman Carpenter's question about 10 minutes ago, then you're most likely going to have to work with your accountant, 'cause most likely under Section 62 of the IRS code, that's gonna be considered income and you're gonna have to pay tax at that point. [0:22:40] But basically, nothing's gonna change in terms of your taxation. [0:22:43] So you don't, so y- y- you don't believe that as a result of this legislation, that any other changes would need to be implemented in order to address the, the funds in those accounts? [0:22:55] Sure. [0:22:55] Okay. [0:22:55] Think of this as, if you don't mind, think of it just as a directed account, that I'm just having the discipline of having, I'll call it my operating account, which is getting most of the payment for my services, and I have a little savings account on the side to make sure I can make my payments every month for, for, for my benefits. It's really just an opportunity to create discipline, and also at the same time confirm that, to Representative Schofield's question, we're not looking to reclassify anyone just because they're taking it upon themselves to have fiscal discipline. [0:23:24] And then I'm, and I'm sorry, last question, and I, I apologize if someone else already asked this. Is, if, if a, if an... Could the company that they're contracted with contribute to, directly to this account as well? [0:23:40] Right now, R- Chairman Bonner, we haven't contemplated that per se in the bill. But I would expect that at somewhere down the line, you're going to see companies start to fight for talent, and that fight for talent I'm sure will include something along the lines of, "Well, if you're putting 100 in, I'll put 100 in," just as an opportunity- [0:23:57] Right [0:23:57] ... to see if I can entice that contractor to maybe do two shifts with me a year, a month, versus one shift a month. [0:24:03] But this doesn't explicitly prohibit that, correct? [0:24:05] Doesn't prohibit it- [0:24:06] Okay [0:24:06] ... or does it encourage it, either, either one. [0:24:08] Yeah. Thank you. [0:24:10] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [0:24:11] Senator Park. [0:24:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, thank you, Chairman Jones, for the bill. A, a, a few questions as I've, uh, now had a chance to kinda take a deeper look at this, um, uh, with where we are without the bill. Um, you know, 'cause this is both voluntary for both employers and employees. Um, what... Is, is this creating a new, uh, benefit for independent contractors? Essentially, can't this already be done without this codified? [0:24:40] Mr. Park, I s- I thought you said several. I apologize, Mr. Wipp. [0:24:42] I was, I was just gonna- [0:24:42] Yeah. Oh, sure [0:24:43] ... that's okay. [0:24:43] Yeah. Mr. Wipp Sure. I mean, at the end of the day, let's use an example real quick. Um, you're Uber, I'm the driver, you owe me $1,000. I could have the discipline to say, "Give me my $1,000," basically, and then I'll have the discipline to move it in Wells Fargo. As Representative McClain said, I'll put n- $100 here and $100 here. What we're trying to encourage here, and we've seen it work in other states, is having the discipline. A lot of people say, "If I didn't see it, I never got it." I'm sure some people felt that way, especially I did when I was $155,000 in school loan debt 35 years ago. [0:25:15] Um, but at the end of the day, this is just an opportunity for them to basically have Uber, in this example, in a sense, help them with that discipline, so $900 will come to me, $100 will go to my dedicated account, and then we're good to go. So you are correct. You could hypothetically do this without this bill, but this bill does one important thing. It absolutely, in a sense, says to Georgians, "We want you to have that fiscal discipline, along with the fact that we're not gonna touch your classification." [0:25:41] Uh, the second question is on that misclassification piece, 'cause, you know, a- as I'm looking at this a little more closely, you know, if, if this can already be done and the bill is really voluntary for both employers and employees, uh, with respect to participation, uh, a- at least it appears to me that the language that may have more of the legal substantive impact would be lines 47 to 51, in which any, uh, employer, uh, y- where, where, where is this now? Um, that, that, uh, for classification purposes, that that would not make them an employee. [0:26:12] Correct? [0:26:13] Mm-hmm. [0:26:13] And, and so when we're talking, you know, the m- with the excellent work misclassification bill you passed last year, or a few years ago, this would have somewhat of an impact, at least with respect to portable benefits. Is that correct? [0:26:25] Yeah, Park, uh, you're a practicing attorney. There's a few folks back here that I'm sure would have an opinion on that, so I'll give you my lay. I sign the front of the check, not the back of the check view. I don't think it cha- touches classification, 'cause in my mind, this isn't talking about control of your schedule. This isn't talking about control of your uniform. It's not talking about basically the control that we typically see in the traditional SCOTUS test. This is just saying, "Hey, we wanna be able to create this level of fiscal discipline." It's not gonna touch your classification either way. [0:26:53] Mm. [0:26:53] You, if you were a 1099 before, you're a 1099 after. In my memory, the SCOTUS test does not include whether or not you happen to have a voluntary opt-in in terms of the money that's being taken out. [0:27:02] And then, uh, just to zoom out a little bit, um, you know, you mentioned at the beginning of your presentation how, uh, more workers were being treated as independent contractors as oppo- as opposed to traditional W-2 employees. Uh, W-2 employees, of course, having a lot of benefits from employers. [0:27:17] So could I interject real quick? [0:27:18] Please. [0:27:18] Actually, I apologize if that was what you got. No, what I was saying was we had one in six 15 years ago, one in four who are participating in some way in the, I'll call it the gig economy. They could be W-2s. You're gonna see in my next bill, we got a bunch of W-2s that are running side gigs, and God bless them for doing that if they need to be able to do that for a myriad of different reasons. So I don't wanna suggest that we've went from one in six, one in four in terms of independent contractors. What I was saying is, in terms of participating in the economy, we have one in six to one in four in terms of Georgians, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're not also having a W-2 job where they just happen to have a side hustle. [0:27:54] Mm. I, I, I think the un- the underlying concern is, you know, if we're moving, if, if industry is moving more so toward independent contractors, in which, again, fewer benefits would otherwise be covered, including health insurance and things of that nature, in which these portable benefits, you know, if we're talking, you know, 5, 10, 15, $20, I don't think it would cover all of the benefits you'd otherwise receive as a W-2. [0:28:16] Mm. [0:28:16] Are we incentivizing the acceleration toward greater, you know, y- you know, gig, gig type of work as opposed to traditional W-2 employees that would provide more benefits to workers? [0:28:27] Well, I'm gonna flip it around, Whip Park, if you don't mind. [0:28:29] Please. [0:28:30] Um, some of the empirical evidence that I think you're gonna hear through some of the testimony today at that microphone is gonna speak to you about people wanting the flexibility that they pretty much found during COVID, to be completely frank with you. I think you're gonna hear from some of our, some, uh, in terms of women talking about the flexibility in terms of rearing children, raising children, having the flexibility in their schedule, and being able to stay on a 1099 or an independent contractor relationship. I think the world has morphed. Um, I'm 58. I'm Gen X. [0:29:01] I kind of lived in the W-2 almost my entire life, but I'll be frank with you. I own tech companies, and I have so many more Zs and young Millennials basically saying to us, "Hey, I wanna work X here, Y here, and Z here." And basically, I know for a fact they're serving two other clients. God bless them for being hustlers. I mean hustlers in a good way, and basically finding a way to make more money and basically have the lifestyle that they want, which is a work-life balance. Again, I think the world is morphing. The economy's morphing. We need the statutes to keep up with it, and this is just one small way to do that. [0:29:33] Thank you. [0:29:33] Yeah. [0:29:34] Plus, I think because of the competitiveness of the workplace, um, the going from W-2 to 1099 actually may benefit the employee if it gives them multiple avenues of stream, and the market always responds. They'll, they'll start matching that money or do whatever they need to keep and retain talent. [0:29:57] Yeah, Mr. Chairman, to Chairman Carpenter's point, I do think, for instance, you will eventually see matching or something to that effect, 'cause the free market will, in fact, make a move once they can realize they can retain or attract better talent. [0:30:10] Speaking of Chairman Carpenter, he's up. [0:30:12] Yeah, let me see if I can wrap this thing up in a bow for you there. [0:30:15] Mm-mm. [0:30:15] So basically, in response to Whip Park's, uh, comments, this basically just allows the employer to set up these accounts. Currently, an employee can do that on his own. He doesn't need this legislation. This legislation is needed because the employers don't have the ability to do that and initiate that account setup. Is that correct? [0:30:34] Correct. [0:30:35] Okay. Just one comment about tax-wise. Without legislation like, somebody, um... I don't know how you would get pre-tax. Like- 'Cause somebody wanted to beat the system and say, "Give me 50% of my income untaxed so I can put it in this account over there, and eventually just defer taxes." With this legislation, they wouldn't be able to do that. [0:31:04] Well, Mr. Chairman, keep in mind, I'm a 1099, so you're not withholding- [0:31:08] Okay [0:31:08] ... anything from me. If I'm owed 1,000, I get 1,000. It's my responsibility through my 1040, my Schedule A, my Schedule C, et cetera, to be able to effectively show the IRS, and eventually the Georgia DOR, my liability to you, depending on what I'm doing with benefits and otherwise. So again, I don't wanna speak for every 1099s. I'll say particular circumstance, but you're right, you are going to see. But I wanna be clear to the c- to the committee that that's all basically covered today under the federal and the state law. [0:31:35] Okay. [0:31:35] We're, we're not, we're not touching that. [0:31:37] All right. We've... Well, we did exhaust questions until McClain. [0:31:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I mean, I, I'm listening to all of this, and then I'm saying to myself, I, I hear what, uh, Chairman Carpenter says, I hear what everyone is saying, but if we already have this, and it... We can do this without this, so why are we doing this? Is, I mean- [0:31:59] Yeah [0:31:59] ... okay, my question is, why are we doing this? Is the reason that we're doing this, that we can already do this without this? [0:32:09] So Rep- Representative McClain, I was asking, m- ch- Wh- Whip Park asked me a hypothetical. Could I, as a 1099, in a sense, do this myself? And if you think about it constructively, I could. If I have the discipline, Whip Park pays me $1,000, and I just basically get the $1,000, and then I put 900 in my operating account, I put 100 into, I'm just gonna call it my savings account. That was the hypothetical I was answering to Whip Park. To Chairman Carpenter's point, this allows for the, I'll say, the employment entity or the contractor entity, because remember, this is an employment relationship, the company to be able to establish these accounts in order to do this. [0:32:47] So we do need the, the legislation for that. I was just answering the hypothetical that Whip Park gave me in terms of, could I do that on my own as a 1099, and I could, but I actually need to empower or basically use this statute to be able to allow, and I w- I think we used Uber as the example, Whip Park- [0:33:02] Mm-hmm [0:33:02] ... allow Uber to be able to establish this, Lyft, DoorDash, et cetera, or, you know, any, any of your companies. [0:33:07] So instead of moving toward you being an employee, we're moving toward people being more of an independent contractor? I mean, I'm, I'm, I'm just asking. [0:33:18] No, no, sir. I'm moving towards Georgians going after their dream. I'm moving towards Georgian wanting to have whatever work-life balance they want, and put whatever blood, sweat, and tears in they want into their job. If they just wanna put 20 hours in, God bless them, and if they wanna put 80 hours in, God bless them. If they wanna work for a law firm and bill 2,300 hours, that's their decision. But in my mind, the greatest thing that you have is the ability to direct what you want to do in life. This is giving them the opportunity to do that. [0:33:46] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Whip Park. [0:33:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, my good friend, Chairman Carpenter, uh, raised another question in my mind, uh, which would be, you know, under current law, if employers provide benefits, uh, to their independent contractors, would that in any way move them toward being classified as an employee? [0:34:09] That's that SCOTUS language. [0:34:11] Yeah. [0:34:12] And I gotta be frank with you, I don't have the SCOTUS test in front of me, Whip Park, so I don't know if you wanna, like, phone a friend, um, or ask leg counsel. Uh, but I know, I don't know if that's part of the test or not. [0:34:24] I know it's a multi-factor and that [0:34:25] I know it's like five- [0:34:26] Yeah, but it didn't come close to touching this area. [0:34:29] No. Uh, but again- [0:34:30] I do have it memorized. [0:34:31] Oh, you do? Okay. Then, then I've, I've phoned a friend. Yeah. Okay. [0:34:37] Okay. That exhausts the questions. So before anybody else lights up, was there anybody who signed up to speak to this bill? Come on up. Please tell us who you are. [0:34:50] Uh, Chairman and members of the committee, uh, my name is Mark Hyden, and I'm the senior director of state government affairs at the R Street Institute, which is a free market think tank that supports limited effective government in many areas, including the future of work, and that's why House Bill 987 is so important to us. Um, just to reiterate some of the stuff that Representative Jones has been talking about, i- in its simplest, uh, form, this legislation just defines portable benefits and clarifies that voluntarily contributing as a form of compensation or otherwise to portable benefits accounts does not constitute evidence of an employer-employee relationship. [0:35:25] And a- as we've, uh, the discussion has moved forward, I believe it's, it's clear that much of this is already, uh, permissible under Georgia Code, but in some ways it's not explicitly spelled out, and that's what's trying to be, uh, cleared up here. So this bill would clarify rather than transform the law, while still delivering some far-reaching and much needed benefits. Because with the rise of gig work, like driving for rideshare apps, Georgia's economy has, as we've all seen in recent years, fundamentally in ch- uh, changed, but our code has not kept pace. [0:35:57] Now there's over one million Georgians who are engaged in some form of self-employment, and a number of people make a living solely through gig work, and it's gig work that provides them the flexibility to earn when and however they wish. But independent contractors often have to buy their own costly benefits, like health insurance, or simply go without them. Um, we can see through, uh, some recent data that roughly 1.2 million Georgians are uninsured, and 28% of gig workers would like health insurance. [0:36:28] Uh, another national poll revealed that 80% of self-employed workers would like portable benefits, and meanwhile, there was recently a portable benefits pilot program that was conducted here in Georgia, and what the company found was that nearly 25%, uh, nearly a quarter of their independent contractors voluntarily opted into the portable benefits pilot program. So there is a desire for this, and this provides that clarification because- Since Georgia's code does m- does not specifically define or explicitly authorize portable benefits by name, some companies may fear that being involved in this may constitute some sort of evidence of an employer-employee relationship, which I believe under current law is not the case, but there is that fear. [0:37:12] So for these reasons, we appreciate Representative Jones' leadership and your time, and if there are any questions, I'd be happy to try to field them. [0:37:21] I don't see any. [0:37:22] Thank you. [0:37:23] At this time, I would entertain the wishes of the committee. Have a do pass and a second. Any discussion? All those in favor say "I." All those opposed. It- [0:37:39] Okay [0:37:39] ... Okay, we, um, the bill passes, and we'll get you a form for rules. And while you're there... Okay, we're moving on to House Bill 987, which is also in your folder. [0:37:58] No. [0:37:59] I'm sorry. [0:38:00] That was 91. [0:38:01] Oh, we had so many people signed up for this, but I guess... Okay, that one. Um, okay. [0:38:12] We had like eight people sign up for your last bill, but y'all supported it, so okay. [0:38:19] One. [0:38:23] Okay, 991, Chairman Jones. [0:38:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, members of the committee, um, first and foremost, my unders- my hunch is, uh, you've heard a myriad of things about 991 over the past, say, six hours. Uh, I am happy to say, uh, that several of the parties sat down, and I think that we have found, I'll just say, a pathway forward. Uh, so I'd like to explain the bill, and then also, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, uh, suggest a couple friendly amendments. Is that acceptable, sir? [0:38:57] That'll work. [0:38:58] Okay. Um, the bill itself is effectively intending to do one thing and one thing only. Um, for healthcare workers, for instance, a nurse, if they are utilizing a digital platform to effectively get, I'll say, contract work, gig work, then they are classified as a 1099. That is, in fact, what the bill's intent was. In order to make sure that that intent is solidified, and there was no, I'll say, second or third level intent behind the bill, Mr. [0:39:32] Chairman, if it's okay with you, I'd like to suggest the amendments right now. [0:39:35] Okay. [0:39:36] That would be if the committee could turn to line 69, strike section two, turn to line 141, strike section three, [0:39:53] turn to line 148, section four, and I'll let leg council make this decision, would become section two. Line 151, section five would become section three. And then if I could point the committee to line 54, [0:40:13] halfway through that line, after the word maintain, take out occupational accident insurance coverage, and then on 55, and. [0:40:27] Okay. [0:40:27] So shall maintain general and professional. [0:40:30] Correct. So it should... Exactly. The next amendment would be strike line 63 through 68. [0:40:50] Okay. And I'm gonna let you, um, explain those amendments in a little bit more detail. But I do wanna say this, um, anytime someone comes to me and says, "Hey, I got a bill coming to your committee. Here's the idea," the very first question I ask them is, "Who's against it?" And I always advise them, run toward them, because it might get you your bill, and that's exactly what Todd has done. Um, and I think for the last two and a half hours, we've been negotiating, um, with all parties, and like you said. [0:41:28] So explain what the amendments do and don't do. [0:41:32] Okay. First and foremost, I apologize, I misspoke to the committee. It should've been line 63 to 66 we are striking. We are keeping line 67 and 68. My apologies. Um, in terms of, I'll just start with the more detailed ones, line 54, we wanna strike the requirement of the platform company to maintain occupational accident insurance coverage. Since we are removing that requirement on 54 and the word and on 55, we needed to strike the definition in line 63 to 66 of occupational accident insurance coverage, since it now has become a moot point. [0:42:14] In terms of striking sections two and sections three, I say this tongue in cheek, but my understanding was through the workers' comp board that the sun was gonna stop shining and four of our planets would stop rotating if section two and section three were maintained. So in order to ensure there were no adverse un- re- unintended consequences, we're striking two and three to make it crystal clear that the intent of this bill is one thing and one thing only. [0:42:48] As we have right now, the statistics are pretty impressive Literally we have a series of desperate healthcare workers that are W-2s, 100%. We have as many as 95% of them that are using this platform that are W-2 workers today. So say they're W-2 at your local hospital, but they are picking up extra shifts. And I don't mean a lot of them, maybe one, two, maybe three a month. Some of them are picking them up for maybe a college loan, some are picking it up because they wanted some savings, some are picking it up because they wanna pay for a wedding. [0:43:20] It's not, none of my business why they're picking it up, but they're picking it up, and we just wanna make sure that it's clear that while they're W-2s in other places, that they're just a 1099 as they're picking up, I'll just say, gig work. Back when we did the classification bill three or four years ago, frankly, we were so focused in the tech industry we didn't think of the healthcare industry. We probably should have done that, and this is our opportunity to kind of, maybe not right or wrong, but it basically tightens up what we did a few years ago. Taking out two and three allows us to do that with no unintended consequences around workers' comp. [0:43:50] Very nice. And I appreciate all your efforts and all the meetings that you've had with the different folks. Um, so I don't see any questions, and let's leave it that way for a second, because there are several people who... [0:44:09] Okay, so no one signed up... A ton of people signed up for the previous bill but didn't speak. I have a feeling no one signed up for this bill but wanna speak. So I see one hand. Robert, come on up. Tell us who you are and your thoughts. [0:44:29] Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, my name's Robert Bourne. I'm a workers' comp attorney. I practice law in Forsyth County. And today I'm speaking on behalf of the WCCL, which is the Workers' Comp Claimants Lawyers Association. We had had some concerns with the bill, and we got together with Chairman Jones and, uh, he listened to those concerns. Uh, he addressed it. We got it sorted out, and I just wanna express my gratitude to him for doing that. [0:45:02] Thank you. [0:45:03] Thank you. Anybody else? [0:45:11] That's a far cry from my phone lighting up. Um. [0:45:19] Okay. [0:45:22] So with that, I'll entertain a motion. [0:45:28] All right, so- [0:45:29] Wait, wait, we can- [0:45:30] Hold on. Let... You know what? So we're, we have a motion on the bill and a second, so now I need a, a motion and a second on... I guess we can take both amendments together, Ms. Attorney? Can we take both amendments in one motion? Okay. Okay. [0:45:54] So- [0:45:54] So we have additional changes. Can you grab a mic and hit the button? Here, grab his. Number 13. [0:46:02] 13. [0:46:04] Okay. What? [0:46:07] Do you wanna sit down? [0:46:08] Yes, sir. So- [0:46:10] Here. [0:46:11] Give the lady your seat. [0:46:12] No problem. Just don't leave that. [0:46:17] Maybe I'll just stand. [0:46:20] We don't need it in workers' comp. [0:46:26] Put some 1099s on. [0:46:27] We need it. [0:46:29] They say you're fired before you hit the ground. [0:46:33] Uh, this is just minor. Um, in the directory language at line six, you would strike... [0:46:43] After definition semicolon, you would strike the rest of that line, all of line seven and half of line eight, three requirements. [0:46:54] Okay. [0:46:55] And then on, um, line 67, [0:47:03] I would change the little V5 to four. That's all. [0:47:09] Okay. [0:47:09] Thank you. [0:47:13] Any questions on what we're gonna call the third amendment? So don't know where we were, but I'll take, we'll do it again if I didn't, a motion on the three amendments. [0:47:29] Let's, let's- [0:47:31] So moved. [0:47:31] All right. Move and a second. All those in favor of the three amendments, say aye. All opposed, say no. Okay, to the underlying bill, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Congratulations, you're on the rules. [0:47:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee, and thank you to the workers' comp crew. I appreciate it. [0:47:58] Wow. [0:47:59] I was hanging out with these two. [0:48:02] I know that. [0:48:05] Here. [0:48:06] Oh. No, I'm getting you, uh... [0:48:10] Turn back. [0:48:12] I'll take that. [0:48:14] Yeah. [0:48:14] That's gonna be appreciated. [0:48:15] I'm sure you know none of the stakes, but, uh, you know what? We'll see. [0:48:20] Yeah, yeah. [0:48:21] How long have you, uh, been alive? [0:48:24] So I've been with a lot of you since...