Existing law establishes the Department of General Services in the Government Operations Agency for purposes of providing centralized services of state government.

This bill would require the Department of General Services to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues. The bill would require the department, on or before June 1, 2027, to submit a report of the findings of the above-described study to the Legislature, as specified. specified, and would repeal these provisions upon submission of that report.

Existing law requires the Department of Technology, under the guidance of the Government Operations Agency, the Office of Data and Innovation, and the Department of Human Resources, to update, as needed, a certain report to the Governor made pursuant to Executive Order No. N-12-23 regarding the benefits and risks presented by the use of generative artificial intelligence to respond to significant developments and to, as appropriate, consult with academia, industry experts, and organizations that represent state exclusive employee representatives.

This bill would express the intent of the Legislature to enact legislation that would relate to conducting a study of the impact of artificial intelligence on worker well-being, job-quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues.

SENATE COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS

Senator Anna Caballero, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular Session

SB 366 (Smallwood-Cuevas) - Employment: artificial intelligence

Bill Summary:

SB 366 requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence (AI), as specified, and submit a report on the study to the Legislature and Secretary of the State by June 1, 2027.

Fiscal Impact:

Unknown significant one-time costs likely ranging in the high hundreds of thousands of dollars General Fund for DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center to complete the study. The UCLA Labor Center reports it has the capacity to take on the study and, based on similar studies, estimates costs of approximately $750,000 - $850,000 to complete this work. Actual costs will depend on, among other things, the scope of the study. Costs to the UCLA Labor Center will be reimbursed by DGS.

Background:

The UCLA Labor Center is a research and extension department of UCLA focused on organized labor and labor rights. A statewide joint labor-university committee created the center in 1964. The UCLA Labor Center’s programs through the years have mirrored trends in the broader economy. The early years focused on the auto industry and the post-WWII aerospace industry, which then dominated the Los Angeles economy. Subsequent programs focused on the entertainment industry and more broadly on health and welfare programs. The growing public sector also led to expanded research and education programs in that area.

Proposed Law:

• Requires DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of AI on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues.
• Requires DGS to submit a report to the Legislature and the Secretary of the State on the study’s findings by June 1, 2027.
• Sunsets these requirements upon submission of the report to the Legislature.

-- END --

SENATE COMMITTEE ON LABOR, PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT AND RETIREMENT

Senator Lola Smallwood-Cuevas, Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB 366 Hearing Date: April 30, 2025

SUBJECT: Employment: artificial intelligence

KEY ISSUE

This bill would require the Department of General Services (DGS) to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues, as specified.

ANALYSIS

Existing law:

1. Defines “artificial intelligence” to mean an engineered or machine-based system that varies in its level of autonomy and that can, for explicit or implicit objectives, infer from the input it receives how to generate outputs that can influence physical or virtual environments. (Government Code §11546.45.5)
2. Establishes the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) in the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA), and vests it with various powers and duties to foster, promote, and develop the welfare of the wage earners of California, to improve their working conditions, and to advance their opportunities for profitable employment. (Labor Code §50.5)
3. Establishes the Department of General Services (DGS), within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps), for the purpose of providing centralized services of state government. (Government Code §14600-14638.1)
4. Requires the California Department of Technology (CDT), under the guidance of GovOps, the Office of Data and Innovation (ODI), and the Department of Human Resources (CalHR), to update the State of California Benefits and Risks of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) report, as needed, to respond to significant developments and requires the consultation with, as appropriate, academia, industry experts, and organizations that represent state exclusive employee representatives. (Government Code §11549.65)
5. Provides that any report required or requested by law be submitted by a state or local agency to a committee of the Legislature or the Members of either house of the Legislature generally, to instead be submitted as a printed copy to the Secretary of the Senate, as an electronic copy to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and as an electronic or printed copy to the Legislative Counsel, as specified. (Government Code §9795)

This bill:

1. Requires DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of AI on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues.
2. Requires DGS, on or before June 1, 2027, to submit a report of the findings of the study to the Legislature and file a notice with the Secretary of State indicating the date upon which the study was submitted.
3. Requires that the report be submitted pursuant to existing law, as specified, and repeals the provisions of the bill upon submission of the report to the Legislature.

COMMENTS

1. Background:

Artificial Intelligence (AI)

With technological advancements happening faster than humans can react, we often miss opportunities to pause and evaluate its impact. Until recently, advancements in technology often automated physical tasks, such as those performed on factory floors or self-checkouts, but artificial intelligence (AI) functions more like human brainpower. AI can use algorithms to accomplish tasks faster and sometimes at a lower cost than human workers can. As this technology develops, so do fears of worker displacement in more areas and industries.

According to the Pew Research Center, in 2022, 19 percent of American workers were in jobs in which the most important activities may be either replaced or assisted by AI.^[1] Because technology can be used to either replace or complement the work of employees, it is difficult to identify which industries or occupations will be most impacted. What’s worse, recent trends on the use of AI in employment has been reminiscent of a Hollywood movie – both fantastical and horrifying.

Bill Gates himself has warned that over the next decade, advances in artificial intelligence will mean that humans will no longer be needed “for most things” in the world.^[2] Given these realities, what does the future of AI and its capabilities mean for workers? As we speak, employers are deploying AI-powered tools that monitor and manage workers, including by tracking their locations, activities, and productivity. Even more alarmingly, we are seeing employers use AI powered systems to make decisions on workers’ schedules, tasks, compensation, promotions, and even disciplinary actions.

In February of 2019, Data & Society, an independent non-profit research institute, published a study evaluating the impact of algorithmic management on the workforce. The study highlights several examples where algorithmic management is becoming more common. In the delivery industry, companies from UPS to Amazon to grocery chains are using automated systems to optimize delivery workers’ daily routes. In other industries, trends show an increase in remote tracking and managing using AI software. In retail and service jobs, automated scheduling is replacing managers’ discretion over employee schedules, while the work of evaluating employees is being transferred to consumer-sourced rating systems.^[3]

At least these examples appear to complement the tasks of workers. Below are several other examples highlighted in a 2021 UC Berkeley study that should make us pause^[4]:

• Hiring software by the company HireVue generates scores of job applicants based on their tone of voice and word choices captured during video interviews.
• Algorithms are being used to predict whether workers will quit, become pregnant, or try to organize a union, which influence employers’ decisions about job assignment and promotion.
• Call center technologies are analyzing customer calls and nudging workers in real time to adjust their behavior, like coaching them to express more empathy, pace the call more efficiently, or exude more confidence and professionalism.
• Grocery platforms like Instacart are monitoring workers and calculating metrics on their speed as they fill shopping lists.
• Robots, like, for example, “smart cart” service robots in health care, are being used to transport materials (e.g., linens, meals, lab specimens) to other workers. Meanwhile, floor cleaning robots vacuum or scrub floors along a preset route programmed by workers, who also monitor and support their operation.
• In remote workers’ homes, AI software is being used to track computer keystrokes.

The growing use of these AI tools raises several questions:

• Can AI tools ensure worker safety or do they push workers to work at a dangerous pace?
• Should workers know about AI powered tools monitoring their work?
• Do these AI tools protect against bias and discrimination?
• Should these AI tools be allowed to manage and fire a worker?
• Who should monitor and evaluate AI decisions and how?
• Do our current regulatory and legal structures protect workers exposed to decisions made by AI tools?
• How much should government regulate the use of these tools?

Now is the time to ensure that as AI enters our workforce, it is used to complement the tasks of a worker – rather than replacing them – without sacrificing worker safety, living wages, and protections against discrimination and abuse.

As noted in the UC Berkeley report:

“Technology is not inherently bad, but neither is it neutral: the role of workplace regulation is to ensure that technologies serve and respond to workers’ interests and to prevent negative impacts. Regulation is all the more important because employers themselves often do not understand the systems they are using. What we need, then, is a new set of 21^st century labor standards establishing worker rights and employer responsibilities for the data-driven workplace.”^[5]

Executive Order N-12-23

As noted by the Senate Governmental Organization Committee:

“In September of 2023, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-12-23 on generative AI (GenAI), identifying the need to deploy GenAI ethically and responsibly throughout state government and to protect and prepare for potential harms. The EO requires, among other things, state agencies and departments to support California’s state government workforce and prepare for the next generation of skills needed to thrive in the GenAI economy. Specifically, the EO requires GovOps, CDT, CalHR, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to make available trainings for state government worker use of state-approved GenAI tools to achieve equitable outcomes, and to identify and mitigate potential output inaccuracies, fabricated text, hallucinations, and biases of GenAI. The ’Building a GenAI-Ready State Workforce‘ report is available at www.genai.ca.gov.

Additionally, the EO requires GovOps, CalHR, and LWDA, in consultation with the state government workforce or organizations that represent state government employees, to establish criteria to evaluate the impact of GenAI to the state government workforce, and provide guidelines on how state agencies and departments can support state government employees to use these tools effectively and respond to technological advancements. Release of that report is still pending.”

2. Need for this bill?

According to the author:

“Some companies are already replacing employees with AI systems. Studies from MIT and Boston University estimate AI could replace two million manufacturing jobs by the end of 2025. Goldman Sachs projects AI could displace up to 300 million full-time jobs globally by 2030.

While some occupations are less vulnerable, widespread job displacement could have serious consequences for California’s economy. Fewer jobs mean less income tax revenue, which in turn reduces funding for critical services such as Medicare, Social Security, safety net programs, and transportation infrastructure like road maintenance and repairs.

The economic impact AI could have on California needs to studied and understood in order to ensure the technology grows with the communities it reaches, rather than leaving them behind. This bill will direct the UCLA Labor Center to conduct a comprehensive study on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on worker well-being, job quality, and state revenues. The study will examine which job sectors are most vulnerable and what those impacts could mean for communities across California.”

3. Proponent Arguments:

None received.

4. Opponent Arguments:

None received.

5. Double Referral:

This bill has been double referred and was previously heard in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee.

6. Prior/Related Legislation:

SB 7 (McNerney, 2025) would, among other things, require an employer to provide a written notice that an ADS, for the purpose of making employment-related decisions, is in use at the workplace to all workers that will be directly or indirectly affected by the ADS, as specified. SB 7 is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 53 (Wiener, 2025) would establish a consortium tasked with developing a framework for a public cloud computing cluster that advances the ethical development and deployment of AI that is safe, ethical, equitable, and sustainable. This bill would also create protections for whistleblowers working with specified AI models when reporting on “critical risks” and would require developers to provide processes for anonymous reporting of activities posing such risks. SB 53 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SB 238 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2025) would require an employer to annually provide a notice, containing specified information, to DIR, of all workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace. DIR is then required to make the employer-provided notice publicly available on the Department’s internet website. SB 238 is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 503 (Weber Pierson, 2025) would require the Department of Health Care Access and Information and the Department of Technology to establish an advisory board related to the use of AI in health care services. Specifically, the bill would require the advisory board to perform specified duties, including, but not limited to, developing a standardized testing system with criteria for developers to test AI models or AI systems for biased impacts. SB 503 is pending in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

SB 579 (Padilla, 2025) would require the Secretary of GovOps to appoint a mental health and AI working group to evaluate identified issues and determine the role of AI in mental health settings, as specified. SB 579 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 1018 (Bauer-Kahan, 2025) would, among other things, regulate the development and deployment of an ADS used to make consequential decisions, as defined. Among other things, this bill would require a developer of a covered ADS to conduct performance evaluations of the ADS, require a deployer to provide certain disclosures to a subject of a consequential decision made or facilitated by the ADS, provide the subject an opportunity to opt out of the use of the ADS, provide the subject with an opportunity to appeal the outcome of the consequential decision, and submit the covered ADS to third-party audits, as prescribed. AB 1018 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

AB 1221 (Bryan, 2025) would require an employer, at least 30 days before introducing a workplace surveillance tool, as defined, to provide a worker who will be affected with a written notice that includes, among other things, a description of the data to be collected, the intended purpose, and how this form of worker surveillance is necessary to meet that purpose. The bill would prohibit an employer from using certain workplace surveillance tools, including one that incorporates facial, gait, or emotion recognition technology. The bill would require the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions, authorize an employee to bring a civil action for violations, and authorize a public prosecutor to enforce the provisions. AB 1221 is pending in the Assembly Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee.

AB 1331 (Elhawary, 2025) would limit the use of workplace surveillance tools, as defined, by employers, including by prohibiting an employer from monitoring or surveilling workers in private, off-duty areas, as specified, and requiring workplace surveillance tools to be disabled during off-duty hours, as specified, and subjects violators to specified penalties. AB 1331 is pending in the Assembly Judiciary Committee.

SB 442 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2025) would prohibit a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are met, including that at least one manual checkout station be staffed by an employee. This bill includes specified civil penalties for violations of these provisions and authorizes enforcement by the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement and public prosecutors. SB 442 is pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

AB 2885 (Bauer-Kahan, Chapter 843, Statutes of 2024) established a uniform definition for “artificial intelligence,” “automated decision system,” and “high-risk automated decision system” in California law.

AB 2930 (Bauer-Kahan, 2024) would have regulated the use of ADSs in order to prevent “algorithmic discrimination.” This would have included requirements on developers and deployers that make and use these tools to make “consequential decisions” to perform impact assessments on ADSs. This bill also sought to establish the right of individuals to know when an ADS is being used, the right to opt out of its use, and an explanation of how it is used. AB 2930 died on the Senate inactive file.

SB 1446 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2024) would have prohibited a grocery or retail drug establishment from providing a self-service checkout option for customers unless specified conditions are met. SB 1446 also included a requirement that a grocery retail store or retail drug establishment that intended to implement a consequential workplace technology, as defined, must notify workers, their collective bargaining representatives, and the public at least 60 days in advance of the implementation of the technology with a general description of the technology and the intended purpose of the technology, as specified. SB 1446 also included remedies and penalties for a violation of the bill’s provisions, including a civil penalty of $100 for each day in violation, not to exceed an aggregate penalty of $10,000. SB 1446 was held in the Assembly Rules Committee.

Several other bills in 2024 addressed related AI issues including: SB 892 (Padilla), SB 893 (Padilla), SB 896 (Dodd), SB 942 (Becker), SB 1047 (Wiener), and AB 2013 (Irwin).

AB 331 (Bauer-Kahan, 2023) would have prohibited “algorithmic discrimination,” that is, use of an automated decision tool to contribute to unjustified differential treatment or outcomes that may have a significant effect on a person’s life. AB 331 was held under submission in the Assembly Appropriations Committee.

AB 302 (Ward, Chapter 800, Statutes of 2023) required the California Department of Technology (CDT), in coordination with other interagency bodies, to conduct a comprehensive inventory of all high-risk automated decision systems (ADS) used by state agencies on or before September 1, 2024, and report the findings to the Legislature by January 1, 2025, and annually thereafter, as specified.

AB 701 (Gonzalez, Chapter 197, Statutes of 2021) proposed a series of provisions designed to ensure that the use of job performance quotas at large warehouse facilities do not penalize workers for complying with health and safety standards or taking meal and rest breaks. Among other things, this bill (1) required warehouse employers to disclose quotas and pace-of-work standards to workers, (2) prohibited employers from counting time that workers spend complying with health and safety laws as “time off task,” and (3) required the Labor Commissioner to enforce these provisions.

AB 13 (Chau, 2021) would have established the Automated Decision Systems Accountability Act, which would have promoted oversight over ADS that pose a high risk of adverse impacts on individual rights. This bill was eventually gutted and amended to address a different topic.

AB 1576 (Calderon, 2019) would have required the Secretary of Government Operations to appoint participants to an AI working group to evaluate the uses, risks, benefits, and legal implications associated with the development and deployment of AI by California-based businesses. The bill was held under submission in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

SUPPORT

None received.

OPPOSITION

None received.

-- END --

1. “Which U.S. Workers Are More Exposed to AI on Their Jobs?” Pew Research Center, Washington, D.C. (July 26, 2023) https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2023/07/26/which-u-s-workers-are-more-exposed-to-ai-on-their-jobs/ ↑

2. Huddleston, T. Jr. “Bill Gates: Within 10 years, AI will replace many doctors and teachers – humans won’t be needed ‘for most things.’’(March 26, 2025) https://www.cnbc.com/2025/03/26/bill-gates-on-ai-humans-wont-be-needed-for-most-things.html ↑

3. Alexandra Mateescu, Aiha Nguyen, 2019. Data & Society. “Explainer: Algorithmic Management in the Workplace.” https://datasociety.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/DS_Algorithmic_Management_Explainer.pdf ↑

4. Annette Bernhardt, Lisa Kresge, Reem Suleiman, 2021. UC Berkeley Labor Center. “Data and Algorithms at Work: The Case for Worker Technology Rights.” https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/data-algorithms-at-work/ ↑

5. Ibid. ↑

SENATE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATION

Senator Steve Padilla

Chair

2025 - 2026 Regular

Bill No: SB Hearing Date: 4/8/2025

SUBJECT:

DIGEST: This bill requires the Department of General Services (DGS) to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues, as specified.

ANALYSIS:

Existing law:

1. Establishes DGS, within the Government Operations Agency (GovOps), for the purpose of providing centralized services of state government.
2. Requires the California Department of Technology (CDT), under the guidance of GovOps, the Office of Data and Innovation (ODI), and the Department of Human Resources (CalHR), to update the State of California Benefits and Risks of Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) report, as needed, to respond to significant developments and requires the consultation with, as appropriate, academia, industry experts, and organizations that represent state exclusive employee representatives.
3. Provides that any report required or requested by law be submitted by a state or local agency to a committee of the Legislature or the Members of either house of the Legislature generally, to instead be submitted as a printed copy to the Secretary of the Senate, as an electronic copy to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and as an electronic or printed copy to the Legislative Counsel, as specified.

This bill:

1. Requires DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of AI on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues.
2. Requires DGS, on or before June 1, 2027, to submit a report of the findings of the study to the Legislature.
3. Requires that the report be submitted pursuant to existing law, as specified.

Background

Author Statement. According to the author’s office, “Artificial Intelligence is one of the fastest-growing industries in the world. Its utility, affordability, and convenience make it one of the most effective tools available for completing many tasks. Unfortunately, many employers who recognize this have also used it as an excuse to lay off their workers. Fewer jobs mean fewer people able to feed their families and afford basic necessities. Additionally, fewer people working also leads to reduced income tax revenue, which in turn reduces funding for critical services such as Medicare, Social Security, safety net programs, and transportation infrastructure like road maintenance and repairs.”

Further, “it is critical that we understand the impacts Artificial Intelligence has had on our communities so that we can better predict where this technology is going and how we can prepare for what is to come.”

Artificial Intelligence and the Workforce. The rapid development and integration of AI into various industries is reshaping the labor landscape at an unprecedented pace. AI technologies – ranging from machine learning algorithms that optimize supply chains to sophisticated robotics automating manufacturing processes – are altering traditional job roles and work processes. While these advancements can enhance productivity and create new types of jobs, they also bring significant challenges. These include potential job displacement, shifts in job quality, and emerging skill gaps that can affect worker well-being. Moreover, the impact of AI is not uniform; different populations may experience the benefits or drawbacks of automation in varied ways, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities.

According to the website of TechEquity, a nonprofit founded to answer the question “what would it take for the growth of the tech industry to benefit everyone?” workplace technology is “expanding across all industries, both in the hands of workers and in the hands of their bosses who can use these tools to

monitor and surveil working people. What’s more, tech platforms are changing the very nature of work: turning skilled professions into bite-sized, on-demand gig work.” Further, tech companies are “leading a wave of twenty-first century outsourcing, weakening labor standards throughout the industry’s supply chain from Silicon Valley to Nairobi and Manila.”

Department of General Services. DGS serves as the business manager for the state of California. With more than 4,500 employees and a budget in excess of $1.3 billion, DGS serves the public by providing a variety of services to state agencies through procurement and acquisition solutions; real estate management and design; environmentally friendly transportation; professional printing, design, and web services; administrative hearings; legal services; building standards; oversight of structural safety, fire/life safety, and accessibility for the design and construction of K-12 public schools and community colleges; funding for school construction; and disability access. Its mission is to deliver results by providing timely, cost-effective services and products that support its customers, while protecting the interests of the state of California.

University of California, Los Angeles Labor Center. At the end of World War II, industrial relations programs were established at many universities around the nation. Two of them were set up at the UC in 1945 – one in Los Angeles, and the other in Berkeley – on the initiative of Governor Earl Warren. In 1964, the Center for Labor Research and Education was established within the UCLA Institute of Industrial Relations (now the UCLA Institute for Research on Labor and Employment) by a statewide joint labor-university committee.

The UCLA Labor Center’s programs through the years have mirrored trends in the broader economy. The early years focused on the auto industry and the post-WWII aerospace industry, which then dominated the Los Angeles economy. Subsequent programs focused on the entertainment industry and more broadly on health and welfare programs. The growing public sector also led to expanded research and education programs in that area.

The UCLA Labor Center has emerged as a resource center to strengthen the participation of women, people of color, and LGBTQ workers who have been historically marginalized within the workforce. The Los Angeles Black Worker Center, the city’s first of its kind, was launched in 2010 by the UCLA Labor Center to address the job crisis in the African American community. By 2020, the Center for the Advancement of Racial Equity (CARE) at Work was launched to continue supporting the diverse needs of Black Workers in California.

In the late 2010s and early 2020s, the UCLA Labor Center continued to expand its research and partnership with organizations such as the Autonomous University of Querétaro in central Mexico to launch Mexico’s first ever labor center, Centro Laboral UAQ. Centro Laboral UAQ is the first of three new labor centers set to open in Mexico with the support of the UCLA Labor Center’s Global Solidarity team. To address the systemic issues affecting marginalized communities in California, the Prosperity, Opportunity, and Worker Equity Reimagined (POWER) in Workforce Development program launched to focus on institutionalizing solutions that align with the high road training partnership (HRTP) framework.

The UCLA Labor Center has been at the cutting edge nationally in the field of labor research and education and will continue to play a crucial role in research, education, and policy development that serves the interests of workers and their communities in Southern California.

Executive Order N-12-23. In September of 2023, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order (EO) N-12-23 on generative AI (GenAI), identifying the need to deploy GenAI ethically and responsibly throughout state government and to protect and prepare for potential harms. The EO requires, among other things, state agencies and departments to support California’s state government workforce and prepare for the next generation of skills needed to thrive in the GenAI economy. Specifically, the EO requires GovOps, CDT, CalHR, and the Labor and Workforce Development Agency (LWDA) to make available trainings for state government worker use of state-approved GenAI tools to achieve equitable outcomes, and to identify and mitigate potential output inaccuracies, fabricated text, hallucinations, and biases of GenAI. The “Building a GenAI-Ready State Workforce” report is available at www.genai.ca.gov.

Additionally, the EO requires GovOps, CalHR, and LWDA, in consultation with the state government workforce or organizations that represent state government employees, to establish criteria to evaluate the impact of GenAI to the state government workforce, and provide guidelines on how state agencies and departments can support state government employees to use these tools effectively and respond to technological advancements. Release of that report is still pending.

Reports to the Legislature. State or local agencies required to file reports with the Legislature must submit a printed copy to the Secretary of the Senate, an electronic copy to the Chief Clerk of the Assembly, and an electronic or printed copy to the Office of Legislative Counsel. The Assembly and Senate each compile a list of reports received. The public may access and search agency reports by keywords, agency, authority type, recipient, or due date online at www.agencyreports.ca.gov.

An article in CalMatters from December of last year titled “Most reports ordered by California’s Legislature this year are shown as missing,” noted that at the time, of the 867 reports due between January 1 and December 9 of 2024, “84% have not been filed to the Office of Legislative Counsel.” Further, of the “16% that were submitted – 138 reports – 68 were filed late. Another 344 reports are due by Dec. 31.” The article notes that the “data is in line with previous CalMatters reporting that found 70% of about 1,1000 reports due between February 2023 and February 2024 had not been filed to the Office of Legislative Counsel. About half of those that were filed were late.”

Impact of AI on Worker Well-Being Report. This bill requires DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center to conduct a study evaluating the impact of AI on worker well-being, job quality, job types, different populations, and state revenues. Additionally, this bill requires DGS, on or before June 1, 2027, to submit a report of the findings of the study to the Legislature.

Policy Considerations. This bill was recently gutted and amended, and given the limited time to analyze the bill, it may be worth considering a couple of items in the future should this bill move forward. As drafted, the bill requires DGS to contract with the UCLA Labor Center. However as mentioned previously, other options exist including the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Additionally, the University of Southern California’s Dornsife College houses the Center for Health and Labor Economics. Expanding the bill to clarify that DGS must contract with either a public or private university may grant greater flexibility to the department in finding the right fit for the study.

Additionally, while DGS serves as the State’s centralized business management agency, and is required to provide centralized services including, but not limited to, planning, acquisition, construction, and maintenance of state buildings and property; purchasing; printing; architectural services; administrative hearings; government claims; and accounting services – there may be more appropriate state entities to contract for and report on the impact of AI on worker well-being. For example, the LWDA trains workers for good jobs, enforces labor laws to keep them safe and secure; and administers benefits to help them in times of transition. The agency oversees seven departments, boards, and panels that serve California employers and workers.

As mentioned above, EO N-12-23 requires GovOps, CalHR, and LWDA, in consultation with the state government workforce or organizations that represent state government employees, to establish criteria to evaluate the impact of GenAI to the state government workforce, and provide guidelines on how state agencies and departments can support state government employees to use these tools effectively and respond to technological advancements.

Suggested Amendments:

Amendment #1. (b) On or before June 1, 2027, the department shall submit a report of the findings of the study described in subdivision (a) to the Legislature, and shall file a notice with the Secretary of State indicating the date upon which the study was submitted.

Amendment #2. (d) This section shall be repealed upon delivery of the report to the Legislature.

Prior/Related Legislation

SB 7 (McNerney, 2025) among other things, requires employers to notify affected workers in writing when an automated decision system is used for employment decisions, maintain and update a list of all such systems, and provide workers with access to and the ability to appeal decisions made by the systems, as specified. (Pending in the Senate Labor, Public Employment & Retirement Committee)

SB 238 (Smallwood-Cuevas, 2025) requires employers to annually provide a notice to the Department of Industrial Relations of all the workplace surveillance tools the employer is using in the workplace, as specified. (Pending in the Senate Labor, Public Employment & Retirement Committee)

SB 579 (Padilla, 2025) requires the Secretary of GovOps to appoint a mental health and AI working group to evaluate identified issues and determine the role of AI in mental health settings, as specified. (Pending in the Senate Appropriations Committee)

SJR 2 (Cortese, 2025) among other things, resolves that classified workers should receive notification and the opportunity to provide significant input about the implementation of electronic monitoring, data, algorithms, and AI technology in their workplaces and should receive high-quality, professional training as new technologies are introduced. (Pending on the Senate Floor)

SB 833 (McNerney, 2025) requires a an operator, defined as a state agency in charge of critical infrastructure, that deploys AI to establish a human oversight mechanism to monitor the system’s operations in real time and review and approve any plan or action proposed by the AI system before execution, as specified. (Pending in the Senate Governmental Organization Committee)

SB 259 (Seyarto, Chapter 148, Statutes of 2023) requires a state agency to post on its internet website any report required or requested by law and requires the Legislative Counsel to make available to the public a link to the list of state and local agency reports submitted by state and local agencies to a committee of the Legislature or to the Members of either house of the Legislature generally, as specified.

FISCAL EFFECT: Appropriation: No Fiscal Com.: Yes Local: No

SUPPORT:

None received

OPPOSITION:

None received

DUAL-REFERRAL: Senate Governmental Organization Committee & Labor, Public Employment & Retirement