Hiring locally in Alaska: rules and regulations for resident hire.

• Author: Saade, Renea I.
• Position: Special section: SMALL BUSINESS

It is no secret that many companies exhale a loud sigh when they learn of the various local hiring requirements imposed or proposed by the State of Alaska, other local governmental agencies, law makers, community organizations and other interested parties. Many companies, particularly those that are not local themselves, cringe at the idea of having to reorganize or rebuild their existing work force or to add another component to their hiring process.

The debate regarding local hiring is not new. Local hire, also known as "resident hire" and "Alaska hire," has been a hot topic for public policy forums for decades. The issue has also been the subject of various legislation, affiliated with proposed tax credits, and the focus of certain legal challenges (primarily focused on whether hiring requirements are lawful under the equal protection clause of the state's constitution). The various legal challenges have included a 1978 U.S. Supreme Court case (known as Hicklin v. Orbeck, 437 U.S. 518 (1978)) that ruled that Alaska's law at the time requiring resident hiring in the private sector oil and gas industry was unlawful; a 1986 decision by the Alaska State Supreme Court (known as Robison v. Francis, 713 P.2d 259 (Alaska 1986)) that the resident preference for publicly funded projects was not legal as it was currently enacted; a 1989 Alaska Supreme Court decision (known as State of Alaska, et al. v. Enserch Alaska Construction, Inc., et al., 787 P.2d 624 (Alaska 1989)) that declared a hiring preference to residents of economically distressed zones for certain employment on public works projects unconstitutional; and a 2003 Alaska Supreme Court ruling (known as Malabed v. North Slope Borough, 70 P.3d 416 (Alaska 2003)) that declared a North Slope Borough law requiring a Native Alaskan hiring preference for borough jobs (enacted to address the high unemployment rate of Inupiat Eskimo borough residents) unconstitutional. Although those involved in the debate vehemently disagree on what preferences, requirements or benefits should be adopted or encouraged, everyone agrees local hiring is a complex issue that will likely continue to be a source of contention for years to come. As of now, there are very narrow circumstances under which local hiring is required or where preferences are allowed.

LOCAL HIRE LAWS

In response to the 1978 and 1984 court decisions referenced above, the Alaska Legislature went back to the drawing board and in 1986 adopted a...