Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Oh, excellent. All right. Well, welcome, everyone, to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. Testimony's in person, but we do accept written testimony through the Position Letter Portal on the Committee's website. We also have an email address set up that you can use to email us your testimony. The email is ALBR dot Committee at Assembly dot CA dot gov. Madam Secretary, if you can take a roll, please, to establish quorum.

[Roll Call] Quorum established.

All right, we do have quorum. And the first item of business, I would ask if we could have a motion on adopting the adoption of the consent calendar with AB 1050, Arambula and AB 1121, Haney. A motion and a second. Madam Secretary, if you take roll on the consent calendar.

Consent calendar is AB 1050 and AB 1121. The motion is do pass consent to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, so consent calendar is passed, and we'll get to the bill presentations. I do want to make one announcement regarding that. Assembly Member Aguiar-Curry will be presenting her bill, AB 338, out of file order at approximately 2:30 PM. So we'll have a start time at 2:30 or as close as possible, depending upon if we're finishing up another item.

And so let's go ahead to the first item on the agenda, AB 235, Assembly Member Rubio. And just as a reminder, witnesses up to two minutes for each side. That's going to apply to every hearing this afternoon. You obviously don't have to use all the time or have two witnesses, but that is the maximum two witnesses each side and in support and opposition, two minutes each.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present AB 235. AB 235 establishes a labor trafficking unit within the Civil Rights Department, which would provide much-needed guidance and enhance enforcement to address labor trafficking. This measure will provide the much-needed coordination with the Labor Enforcement Task Force, the criminal investigation unit, the Department of Justice, and the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement within the Department of Industrial Relations.

This Committee is at the forefront of fighting against labor trafficking, and we all know too well how our most vulnerable populations are most impacted. Unfortunately, no specific California State entity is responsible for labor trafficking according to state statutes, and similarly, there is no agency required to keep data on the number of labor trafficking cases. Ensuring consistent direction and statistics from the state in regards to our enforcement efforts against labor trafficking would provide a critical tool directly benefiting constituents across the state.

Not only will this help, as wages will be recorded, leading to more revenue through the form of tax for the state, but victims of labor trafficking will get the resources that they deserve. The Civil Rights Department must spearhead this unit to ensure that victims do not stay victims, but rather can become survivors. The Governor agrees with this fact as seen in his veto message of a similar Bill, AB 1820, from last year.

Just want to make sure that you know that we talked about the veto message and we crafted this Bill to make sure that that was addressed. I do not want to read any more LA Times articles on these terrible acts of evil and will continue to work with all parties on this labor trafficking unit. I want to take a moment to thank the support and co-authorship of this Bill. This Bill has received from Assembly Members Davies, Grayson, Rodriguez, and Santiago.

I have two witnesses in support here today. Our sponsor, Leigh LaChappelle, on behalf of the Coalition Against Slavery and Trafficking, as well as Ethan Rarick, on behalf of the Little Hoover Commission. Thank you.

Thank you so much. And each witness, up to two minutes each. So please proceed.

Thank you. Assembly Member Rubio. My name is Leigh LaChappelle, and I'm the Associate Director of Survivor Advocacy with the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking. We're one of the nation's oldest and largest comprehensive anti-trafficking service providers. Despite the staggering rates of human trafficking that we see in our state, there is no state entity that is tasked with tracking data or responsible for handling these labor trafficking cases.

And although various state agencies do currently respond, what we've seen firsthand is that there's jurisdictional issues and a lack of communication. That means these survivors are left behind and they're not treated the way that they should be within our systems. I'm here today to urge you to support AB 235, which would establish the labor trafficking unit within the Civil Rights Department to receive, investigate, and prosecute complaints alleging labor trafficking and take steps to prevent it ultimately.

This unit would also coordinate with various state departments and follow all protocols to ensure that survivors of labor trafficking are not further victimized by the process of prosecuting traffickers. The Civil Rights Department is the ideal placement for this unit, as they will ensure that investigations utilize a human rights approach that's trauma-informed and centers survivors and shields them from criminalization and re-victimization.

AB two through five will position the state to take a coordinated approach to the prevention investigation of labor trafficking while working to protect survivors by informing them of their rights and connecting them to appropriate social and legal services. California has an urgent opportunity to be the global leader in antitrafficking efforts, but that starts by protecting our most vulnerable people. In closing, I want to thank the Assembly and also Assembly Member Rubio for standing in solidarity with labor trafficking survivors.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. My name is Ethan Rarick. I'm the Executive Director of the Little Hoover Commission. In 2020, the Commission conducted a series of hearings on the state's response to labor trafficking and issued a series of reports, including one of which was entitled labor trafficking strategies to help victims and bring traffickers to justice.

During our study, we found that on average, there are fewer than 30 convictions for labor trafficking in California each year, despite there being hundreds or more cases each year, probably thousands of cases. These cases are resource-intensive. They require well-trained staff with the capacity to devote sufficient time to each case. They're complex. And yet, as the Assembly Member noted, no state agency at this point is tasked with pursuing labor trafficking. Though there are some referral mechanisms in place, we lack formal agreements.

The state lacks formal agreements and other procedures necessary for a holistic response to labor trafficking. The Commission found there is no centralized referral tool for service providers and survivors. Though several services are available to help labor trafficking survivors, we lack a means to centralize information regarding survivors and resources statewide. We believe this Bill, by creating this unit, will address these issues, and we respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Are there any witnesses in the room in support of AB 235? Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 235? All right, so we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or motions. We have a motion by Assembly Member Ward. It's after lunch, so we're just getting our bearings back together again, letting the second cup of coffee kick in. But we have a motion from Assembly Member Ward seconded by Assembly Member Ortega.

If there is no further comment, I just want to thank Assembly Member Rubio for bringing this forward. Clearly, labor trafficking is a major epidemic in our country, frankly, but certainly here in California. And I appreciate your efforts to try to really have us very consciously focus on this pervasive issue. And so for that, I'm very grateful and grateful to witnesses for being here as well. Would you like to close?

Yes. Just want to thank you and the Committee for all your help and respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we can have roll taken on AB 235?

Motion is do pass to Public Safety Committee. [Roll call]

All right, that bill is out. Thank you so much. And we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. And Assembly Member Ortega. Typically, we have our Committee Members go last, but the exception is when there's no other author in the room. We're more than happy to hear from our Committee Members, and so we'll be doing that right now. Senator Ortega with line item 10, AB 1007.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 1007 today. AB 1007 would require the use of plume scavenging system in all settings that perform electro or laser surgery to protect healthcare workers and patients from surgical smoke. Surgical smoke is a byproduct produced during surgical procedures. This surgical smoke contains toxic chemicals, infectious particles, and gases, which pose a threat to the health of our healthcare workers and patients alike. Protection from surgical smoke is relatively simple.

A smoke evacuation device should be used every time electro or laser surgery is performed and surgical smoke is generated. AB 1007 would require that a smoke evacuation device is always used during electro and laser surgery. Today, I have witnesses testifying in support, John Chabon with the California Nurses Association and Gabrielle Fendell, a nurse with Kaiser.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please.

John Shaban.

California Nurses. Appreciate you hearing and sponsoring this bill, Member Ortega. What you just laid out is basically in my support letter, so I'm not going to take up a bunch of time today. But I do want to give, cede the remainder of my time to Gabrielle to speak about her piece.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Kalra and distinguished board. My name is Gabrielle Fendell. I've worked as a registered nurse since 2008, and in the name of patients and staff who work in operating rooms, I'm asking you to advance AB 1007 to make surgical smoke evacuators mandatory in the operating room. My story is a cautionary example of how exposure to airborne toxins in the operating room can destroy a life.

When tissue is cut, cauterized, or destroyed, this smoke and plume emits toxic gases and vapors which contain human tissue, carcinogens, blood, drug resistant bacteria, fungi, viruses, pathogens, and even malignant cancerous cells. Surgical plume can contain more than 135 chemicals and 17 known carcinogens. Staff can breathe this plume into their lungs, which can cause multiple health impacts like eye, skin, and respiratory irritation, asthma, pneumonia, infectious disease transmission, and possibly even cancer. This is a picture of a smoke evacuator.

These devices have been available in the operating room for many years and can be used to remove surgical plume from the air before staff can breathe it in. But smoke evacuators are rarely used in practice. The surgical masks we wear protect patients surgical sites from contamination, but don't protect staff and us from breathing in hazardous aerosols and gases. I was a certified operating room nurse for 14 years throughout the State of California, but I can no longer work and function in this capacity after being poisoned while working.

There were toxins in the air of the OR, just like surgical plume. In 2018, I inhaled toxins while working in the OR. I became woozy, nauseated, and confused. My brain was spinning, and I had severe head pain. My breathing felt restricted. I was disoriented, and I started having unrelenting retching, vomiting, and diarrhea. Other staff were also ill. I called for engineering and manager help, but none ever came because, just like surgical plume, the toxic gas assaulted our bodies.

And it's invisible, but it's still harmful. Devoted to my job, I tried to work the next day, but I was too ill. I left and I never returned to the OR. My career as an OR nurse was over. Recovery was cruel. Eventually, I was diagnosed with exposure to carbon monoxide gas, encephalopathy, brain inflammation, and PTSD. The encephalopathy took my will away, and I had slurred speech. My memory was impaired.

It took me multiple years, over tens of thousands of dollars of my own money, weekly doctor visits, diagnostic imaging, invasive procedures, meeting with numerous specialists to return my broken body to any semblance of normality so I could resume my work as a nurse. You see, the toxic gases in plume affect practically every organ in the body. While I was exposed to a high level of carbon monoxide, I am sharing my story so you can understand the serious impacts of being exposed to toxic air in the workplace as OR staff.

I don't want illness, financial ruin, and lifetime health uncertainty to happen to anybody else. There is no mistaking the fact that surgical plume is dangerous because many of my colleagues in the OR have experienced health impacts. Many of my colleagues in the OR have experienced health impacts because of exposure to surgical plume. Not only does CNA stand behind the use of smoke evacuators, the Joint Commission and Association of Operating Room Nurses have issued statements in support.

Several states have already passed legislation to make smoke evacuators mandatory. And I ask, why hasn't California? It's not necessary to cause further harm. When the equipment and technology is readily available. You have the power. Please make the operating room safer for the staff, and especially for patients who deserve the greatest protection. It's an easy choice. Make it right for us. And thank you for letting me tell my story.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else in the room here in support of AB 1007? Please just state name, organization, your position on the legislation. If we can have the microphone. Thank you. One moment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? See a couple people coming up. Does anyone else please line up at the microphone? Thank you.

I'm Julie Baird, and I'm an OR nurse, pardon me, at Kaiser in Sacramento.

Thank you.

Karen Boxley, nurse at Mercy San Juan in PACU and recovery room.

Thank you. All right. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 1007? Yeah. Please make your way up. You can sit in the front up here.

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Rony Berdugo here on behalf of the California Hospital Association and I have my colleague here, Gideon Baum with CHA, as well. Unfortunately, we need to take an opposed unless amended position on this Bill. We definitely hear the author and the sponsor and their concerns around surgical plume. I would suggest that our amendments are. We're trying to find a reasonable place to land on the Bill.

We are in alignment with the author and the sponsor about the goals of the legislation. However, we believe that, as currently written, the language is overly prescriptive and could create patient safety issues. We recently shared amendments with the author, and they were very recently shared and so we do apologize for the timing on that. It just took a while to get the feedback that we needed from our members to try to land on some common ground.

But we hope that our language will address some of the concerns to ensure that a plume regulatory process does move forward. We know that the author and sponsor are currently reviewing the language that we've submitted and look forward to continuing that conversation. So thank you.

Thank you.

We haven't seen the language yet, so we can't comment.

Sure. Yeah, we'll allow for those conversations to continue. If this Bill were to pass today, I would hope that everyone will continue those conversations. Anyone else in the room in opposition to AB 1007?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, and Members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce, in alignment with the amendments from the Hospital Association. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. Congratulations on your first bill in your tenure here in the Legislature. Excited to have you here today and I know that we all share an appreciation and an effort to be able to support workplace standards that are advancing, given new technologies, and certainly inconsistent with our commitment to make sure that workplace safety is foremost for those that are doing the important work that you do do and your colleagues do.

And I recognize that I'd be excited to learn a little bit more about how these amendments might actually be able to help something to play out in practice as well. I think things have generally gotten better with ventilation systems and, of course, our increased reliance or maybe heightened standards when it comes to masking requirements and other elements of safety. How these all gel together in coupling with maybe the advanced technology that would be studied through OSHA under this Bill.

I think it'd be very, very smart towards the same outcomes. So good luck with those ongoing conversations. I'm happy to move the Bill and support this measure today.

Thank you.

Is there a second? All right, we have a motion and a second. Any other comment or questions? I also want to thank the author for bringing this forward. We have known of dangers of surgical smoke since the 1990s. Our friend, who is now the Superintendent of Public Construction and was Assemblymember Tony Thurmond introduced a Bill in 2016 and 2017. In 2018, the CNA opted to instead petition for his standards since the legislation wasn't able to move forward at that time.

And now here we are in 2023 still trying to get standards in place. If this Bill is approved, we're talking about standards being in place by 2025. That's nine years after the first efforts. And so I think the nurses have been very patient in asking for what I believe is reasonable accommodations for a healthy environment as they're doing the work to protect and heal all of us.

And I appreciate the opposition being here and the willingness, I hope, for all parties to sit down and take a look and see if there are any issues that could be resolved going forward. So thank you very much. Assemblymember Ortega, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to say thank you to the Chair and the Committee staff for your diligent work. I also want to give a special thank you to Gabriel for having the courage to share her story today, as well as the thousands of other registered nurses who are waiting on this important piece of legislation to become law. I am open to continuing that conversation and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Secretary. If you can take a roll call on AB 1007.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]. That Bill is out.

All right, that Bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you, Chair.

And up next is item three, AB 587. Assembly Member Rivas. So whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Mr. Chair, Members, thank you. And this legislation proposes to make an important clarification in state law regarding access to certified payroll records from public works projects.

Under current law, contractors on such projects are required to keep accurate payroll records and make such records available to multi-employer Taft Hartley Trust funds and joint labor-management committees with the purpose of helping ensure compliance with all relevant labor laws here in our state. We have made significant strides in making these records accessible and easy to review by allowing the electronic submission of these payroll records to the state labor Commissioner, while also requiring contractors to maintain a physical copy of these records.

Unfortunately, many labor compliance entities have reported that when they come across a suspected inaccuracy in the electronic record and request to review the physical or traditional record, which is the source material, they are just provided the electronic copy, again hindering their ability to protect workers on California's public works projects.

And so this legislation seeks to correct this problem by proposing that labor compliance entities are entitled to review the traditional certified payroll record when necessary, and that a copy of the electronic certified payroll record alone is insufficient. So with me here to testify this afternoon and to answer any subtext of questions is Matt Cremins, who is here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Cremins.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are the proud sponsors of AB 587, which will provide a small yet important clarification related to public works certified payroll record access by way of brief background, existing law provides two requirements on contractors as it relates to maintaining and making available for inspection certified payroll records.

The first can be found in Labor Code Section 1776, which mandates that all contractors on public works projects must maintain, at their principal office, certified payroll records and also make those records at their principal office available for inspection. And existing law dictates that they must make those records available for inspection to labor representatives, to the awarding agencies, to the Labor Commissioner, and additionally to the public. Although the public must make the request to get those records through the awarding agency.

Additionally, Labor Code Section 1771.4 provides a separate record submittal requirement that mandates that contractors must also submit electronic certified payroll record to the Labor Commissioner on a monthly basis, and these records are also accessible to joint labor-management committees and the public. It's important to note on the electronic certified payroll side.

While this system has streamlined and enhanced the way that joint labor-management committees access these records, the electronic side is hand data entered by the contractor and quite often can contain an accidental error or omission or something that could cause concerns.

So in these situations, our joint labor-management committees will need to make a records request pursuant to 1776 for the in-house records in order to verify, and they have recently come across an issue whereby they are simply just being provided the same exact electronic copy that they already have access to.

So in order to clarify this, this Bill would provide that a copy of a certified payroll record shall not satisfy a records request made by a joint labor-management committee and would simply also clarify that the records, if requested under 1776, shall be provided in the manner specified in that code section. Happy to answer any questions or concerns. This is intended to be a noncontroversial clarification of existing law and respectfully request your Aye vote.

Be careful when you start saying a Bill is noncontroversial. Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Todd Bloomstine, representing the Southern California Contractors Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters in support.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Nicole Trujillo-Rice, on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 587? There is not. We'll bring it back to Committee. We do have a motion. Any other questions or comments? Madam Secretary. Oh, actually. Mr. Rivas, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an Aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. If you'll take roll on AB 587.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that Bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. On item four, AB 647, Assembly Member Holden. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee for your work and assistance on AB 647, the Grocery Worker Protection Act. During the COVID-19 pandemic, grocery store employees were among the essential frontline workers helping our communities receive the resources they needed. Despite their continued service, many of these workers have become collateral damage in the wake of mega grocery store chain mergers.

Most recently, the well-known chains Kroger and Albertsons are gearing up for an unprecedented $25 billion merger. As a consequence, we will likely see large-scale layoffs and an exacerbation of existing food deserts in some of our most vulnerable communities. AB 647 seeks to prevent this by strengthening and expanding statewide grocery worker retention and hiring laws.

This Bill will close a loophole that incentivizes prolonged grocery store closures after a merger, expand grocery worker retention law to include warehouse employees, and increase the worker retention period from 90 days to 120 days. In addition, this Bill provides enforcement provisions that will allow for the Labor Commissioner to enforce and grant a private right of action for aggrieved employees. I've heard the concerns raised by the opposition with regard to the retention increase, inclusion of warehouse employees, and food deserts.

Let me begin by saying that, as amended, the section referring to food desert regulations has been removed. As for the 40-day retention increase, private equity companies have played a large role in grocery store consolidations. This has resulted in the overall health of the firm being jeopardized for a longer period of time. AB 647 expands the retention period by 40 days to allow for the new consolidated and acquired company to adjust and in return allow for the workers to maintain security during this transition period.

This Bill expands protections to warehouse employees for the simple reason that these mergers are not solely focused on the retail stores, but also include the company's distribution facilities. Distribution centers center workers are also at risk for facility closures and mass layoffs and are deserving of the job protections provided in AB 647. With that said, with me to testify in support of AB 647 is Jassy Grewall from the United Food Workers, Food and Commercial Workers and Brian Baxley, a produce manager at Albertsons.

In closing, AB 647 will protect workers by preventing mass layoffs and ensuring consistency in food safety and pharmaceutical knowledge within our communities. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much. Each witness has up to two minutes.

Good afternoon Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jassy Grewall, Legislative Director with UFCW Western States Council, and I'm here today to testify in strong support of AB 647, the Protect Grocery Workers Job Act, and thank Assembly Member Holden for authoring this important Bill. UFCW is a private-sector union representing workers in the food and retail sectors.

UFCW Members are your local grocery store clerks, warehouse workers, and farm workers who make sure your food is safe and accessible, and the retail workers who shop, package, and deliver essential food and goods. These are the same workers who put their lives on the line during the pandemic to make sure Californians remain fed. Now, these same workers are asking the Legislature to protect their jobs from any fallout of a merger or acquisition in the grocery industry.

In October 2022, Kroger and Albertsons announced pursuing a $24.6 billion mega-merger, joining together the first and second largest grocery chains in the country. California has more of these two grocery chains than any other state in the country, so our state will undoubtedly feel the effects of the potential merger the most. The merger threatens to substantially reduce the workforce of the two grocery chains through employee layoffs due to the elimination of competition.

The companies have said they may have to divest up to 650 stores nationwide to secure antitrust approval from the Federal Trade Commission or the FTC. The FTC uses various mile markers like 1, 2, 3 miles to determine if grocery stores of the same employer or different employer are close enough to encourage competition in a specific area. If there isn't enough competition, then the FTC will mandate a specific number of grocery stores to be divested off or closed down.

In Long Beach and Anaheim, there are 54 of 61 Kroger stores within two and a half miles of at least one Albertson store. That is 88% of the total stores in this area that are at risk for divestiture or closure. In Los Angeles, 110 of 138 Kroger stores are within two and a half miles of at least one Albertson store, or 80% of the total stores in the area that are at risk for divestiture or closure.

From the FTC's perspective, the proposed merger would give the combined company too much power and have a very negative impact on consumers and workers in these areas, leading to closed stores and highly concentrated areas. Adding to the closed doors, we know the first casualties of the removal of competition will be the employees who were only needed when competition existed. Staffing needs will decrease, leading to job loss, worse service for consumers, and worse pay, benefits, and working conditions for the remaining workers.

Knowledge about the stores, customer, and communities will also be lost with job turnover. Our communities depend on these companies. When good jobs are lost, the standard of living goes down for everyone, not just those who lost their jobs.

In order to avoid mass layoffs of trained and skilled grocery store and pharmacy workers and ensure a level of consistent food safety and pharmacy knowledge in our community grocery stores, it is imperative that the Legislature strengthen the existing grocery worker retention law and adopt a process for grocery workers to be recalled and rehired. It is for these reasons and more, UFCW strongly urges your Aye vote on AB 647.

Thank you.

Hello Chair and Committee Members. I'm Brian Baxley, a produce manager at Albertsons in La Marta. I've worked for Albertsons for 32 years and during my time I've seen far too many acquisitions of the grocery industry. I went through the Alberson's acquisition of Lucky's in 1999 and then again the company bought Safeway in 2015. Got worse every time.

I've seen just how bad mergers can affect the workers in our communities, and I'm here today to ask California Legislature to heed the lessons of these mergers and protect workers, communities, and California by passing AB 647 by Assemblyman Holdman. I've been lucky during the past mergers, my store wasn't closed or sold to Hagen, but I knew lots of people that suddenly were out of a job and had to work for a new company they didn't know.

When I started working at Albertsons'in 1992, it was a good job. I needed a place where I could get benefits and I could support my children. They were like a family store. I met Joe Alberson's so it was like a really close-knit knit. As these private equity companies have bought it, it has changed greatly. But by now my coworkers and I are struggling to get by. Alberson's property equity owners only care about making money and getting out of their losing investment.

Alberson's is not building a family. If the proposed merger between Alberson and the grocery giant Kroger does go through Albertson will still be looking at selling off the investment. And that's bad for me and my coworkers because we have an uncertain future. We don't know who's going to purchase us but we have seen many of these store closed or sold to new companies. It's typically the union stores that are closed first.

My brothers and sisters at Local 400 in Washington DC are going through this process right now with Kroger. Buildings and warehouses will also sit empty. Eight years after Hagen some of those stores still sit empty like the ones in Tustin remain closed today. And not just going to the grocery stores. Businesses who rely on the anchor of our stores will be failed too. In Southern California, almost 6,000 workers could be out of a job and this merger goes through.

That's 6,000 jobs that keep communities standing of living high. I spent over 30 years working my way up to pay scale in Alberson's. And if my store closed because of the merger without protections I'm at risk of losing my hard work benefits I've earned and I would start over at the bottom where I should be instead of focusing on my retirement. We need the California Legislature to step up and protect working jobs in our communities.

Store closures would come at the loss of knowledge workers have in store our general I'm sorry practices, grocery industry, OSHA, and our general skill level that we have learned over our time in the stores. AB 647 is critical legislation that to ensure the skilled trained workers like myself will continue to provide our communities with access to safe food, good, and medicine. By retraining and rehiring skilled, knowledgeable workers our communities will be certain to be healthy and thrive. From all the essential grocery workers like myself. I respectfully request you to vote Aye on AB 647. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Those in support, please come on up and express name, organization, and your position.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Thank you.

Shane Gusman with the Teamsters in support.

Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty in strong support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition? Please, you can come up here. There's two chairs, if you would like to, if you're testifying in opposition. Yeah.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Louis Brown. Today on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition to AB 647. There's been much made about this Bill and its focus on a pending merger. That merger is pending, and it's before the Federal Trade Commission, which is a highly regulated process that will analyze any number of issues before approving or denying whether or not that merger takes place.

One of our biggest concerns with this Bill is that it just doesn't impact the companies involved in a merger. This Bill impacts any closure, any transfer of ownership of any store, and frankly, has a disproportionate impact on the small retailers in the State of California, the minority-owned retailers in the State of California, and really gives a disadvantage, or a disadvantage incentive for their opportunity for growth.

The analysis discussed and the witnesses brought up the idea of the last merger and Hagen coming into the State of California and how that didn't work. It didn't work. Hagen came in, they bought off more than they can chew. They declared bankruptcy, and then Albertsons repurchased some of those stores, and then a number of other grocers purchased those stores.

At the end of the day, there were no more than five, maybe 10 stores out of that merger that actually resulted in a closure in the State of California. We are a healthy industry. For the last five years, we've had steady growth. We have 350,000 employees in the State of California, over 8,000 stores. There's been no justification or data proven as to why the changes in this Bill are needed. I stated that it has a disproportionate impact on the small retailers.

There's other elements of the Bill that just kind of show up. We now have this issue dealing with a separated employee and whether or not they have to have a 15-mile commute. This is a big state. 15 miles in Assembly Member Flora's district is much different than 15 miles in your district, Mr. Kalra. In some areas of the state, you may have to travel 2530 miles just to get to another grocery store. And so what magic does 15 miles have?

And why is that now an element of it? We mentioned the new enforcement elements, a rebuttable presumption that anyone who was actually let go from a grocery store in the past 12 months had been let go for an economic reason, meaning they now are back on the rehiring list.

So not only does a successor employer have to look at the current list of employees, has to go back and look at any of those that were in the business within six months or a year of that because of the rebuttable presumption. Again, we have the existing law on the books. The existing law has shown that in this last merger, we did not have a significant decline in the grocery industry in the State of California.

Our concern is if we allow this Bill to go forward, it will disincentivize expansion. It will actually create more food deserts, not less food deserts in the State of California and simply needs to be rethought. We ask for a No vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to AB 647?

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition.

Sarah Pollo Moo with California Retailers Association in opposition.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee for any questions, comments, motions. We have a motion to move the Bill of Senator Ortega. Is there a second? And we have a second from Senator Haney. Any other questions or comments? Well, I want to show my appreciation to the author for bringing this forward. I think it's a very big bill in terms of its impact, but the reality is that these stores have a big impact and a big footprint in our communities.

I think about the grocery store down the street where I live, where it's a union shop, and I've seen people that have been there for 30 years that have raised their kids, send their kids to college, and have made a decent life for themselves in one of the most expensive places to live in the nation. I think that there's good public policy to really have these considerations in place on the impact on the workforce.

Certainly encourage the opposition if they feel that the mileage or some of these other issues can be improved upon. Offer up suggestions and amendments and conversation with our author and the sponsor, because I know this author to be one that certainly is more than willing to come to the table. So with that, would you like to close, sir?

I think you just did my close. I would concur with everything that you said.

I think that there are always opportunities to think about the fullness of impacts, but just fundamentally, the Bill is doing all the right things for all the right reasons, because it is too easy that when these mergers do go through that there will be victims in that and those are going to be workers, Not to mention the fact that it has a desperate impact on the customers as well, but not having the same number of choices so with that, I would respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we could take a roll on AB 647?

Motion is do pass to Judiciary. [Roll call]

So we'll place that Bill on call and await the absent Members. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

File item two. AB 338. Aguiar-Curry. Whenever you're ready.

All right.

A moment ago, we had no authors. Now we have all the authors here. Fantastic. Everyone stay put.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 338 expands the definition of public works to include fuel reduction activities performed as part of a wildfire mitigation project. This will better protect communities from wildfires by ensuring that workers responsible for these projects are well-trained using the safest practices in our paid prevailing wage. Members, I understand and respect the opposition's concern for project delivery in the short term, which is why I unilaterally added a phased implementation.

Nobody is more committed to delivering these projects since at one point in the fall of 2020, I had every one of the six counties in my district on fire. AB 338 makes clear the local workers performing hazardous, labor-intensive work deserve to be properly prepared for their jobs and be paid a livable wage for their duties and it establishes a structure for attracting employees to jobs that can be a career protecting the towns that they live in.

But every one of our opponents has also cited a workforce shortage. I am no economist, but you don't fix a labor shortage by paying people less. As we ramp up this work over the coming years, I want to prevent a project delivery crisis in the future by providing training, well-paying jobs, and benefits for this dangerous work. With me today to testify in support is Tim Cremins from the Nevada-California Conference of Operating Engineers and James Thuerwachter from the California State Council of Laborers. Thank you, gentlemen.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman and Members. Thank you. Tim Cremins, International Union of Operating Engineers. I think you heard the author lay out the rationale of the Bill. I think it might be helpful if I mention a couple of things the Bill does not do to give folks some ease and some clarification. It doesn't apply to volunteer work. It doesn't apply to Conservation Corps work. It doesn't apply to Indian lands. It also only applies to occupations within the building trades, apprenticeable crafts, and performance of this work.

And it applies to contracts only over 100,000, so it exempts smaller contracts and I think that's a nod to some of the work the nonprofits do and work in some of the smaller communities. And I think we view this as kind of a rational extension of prevailing wage law that you've all debated and voted for in this Committee.

These are the same trades that are performing this work you would do on traditional public works projects and paid for on public funds and working on public assets. We believe this is just a natural extension, a rational extension of public works policy. And I'd also mention also, as a Committee, you quite often deal with climate change and impact on the workforce. And some folks are calling it just transition.

And I think you could faithfully say and look at this, this could be the gold standard for just transition in that you can leave a project, if you're working on a road project or an oil refinery, you take those exact same wages, those exact same health benefits, the exact same training and program, leave that project and go right up to a climate change project like we're addressing here. So I think it's actually excellent public policy. And thank you very much.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Good afternoon. James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers, proud co-sponsor here. We're comprised of about 70,000 men and women who, like the operators, build California's water, energy, and transportation infrastructure. Eighty percent of our members identify as a person of color and many of them come directly from the criminal justice system. And that's all relevant and important because what we're doing is providing them pathways into the middle class. They have good-paying jobs, retirement plans, pensions, and many of them are becoming homeowners.

So we're really proud of that. This Bill does two important things. First, it creates, and I don't want to be too redundant, but it creates a real pathway into green jobs. We've had a lot of conversations about just transition and what that means for policymakers, for workers, and for the economy. We've been increasing our presence in the renewable energy space. We support solar, wind, and hydrogen projects, amongst others, and wildfire mitigation work is dangerous work, but it's not dirty work.

In fact, it's the work that policymakers often reference in their conversations when they're talking about a green economy. The reality is wildfires aren't going anywhere. It's critical that we both create and retain jobs in this space and this Bill does both. The second thing is that AB 338 prioritizes workers' safety. Now opponents are going to argue that smaller companies aren't able to reach the prevailing wage status and thus will be priced out of the market.

But this Bill is about setting standards to protect workers. The unfortunate truth is that some, not all, but some of these smaller contractors have cut corners by not providing the proper PPE and training for their workers. And that negligence has resulted in egregious workplace injuries. Our self-funded apprenticeship programs are both flexible and robust. They prepare our workers the right training and hands-on experience to avoid these kind of injuries. I want to be as unequivocal as I can.

The health and safety and well-being of our workers is not up for negotiation. So with that, we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. I'm going to actually have to go present in local government. And so I'll be back, but I'm going to hand over the gavel to our Vice Chair. And for right now, those in support, please come up and express your support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Vice Chair. Todd Bloomstine representing the Southern California Contractors Association in support and a co-sponsor of AB 338. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Nicole Trujillo-Rice on behalf of the California State Building Construction Trades Council, we align our comments with the Bill co-sponsors. We are in strong support and also proud to co-sponsor this.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Thank you very much. Anybody else in support? AB 338? Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to AB 338? Come on up.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. Good afternoon. Staci Heaton with the Rural County Representatives of California, representing 40 rural counties statewide. 80% of our state's US Forest Service land resides in our member counties, and our counties, the vast majority are forested counties. And the vast majority of our counties have suffered from catastrophic wildfire in the past 15 years.

Our member counties often have tight budgets, represent socioeconomically disadvantaged communities, and are heavily dependent on state and federal grant dollars to do fuels treatment projects and forest resilient projects in order to safeguard their communities from the impacts of these wildfires. We appreciate the author's intent with this bill. The forest resilience workforce is crucial to counties, resource conservation districts, Fire Safe Councils, and collaboratives in order to get these projects done and to help California meet its forest resilience pace and scale goals, which are very important.

Our concern is that the bill will not have the intended effect, but will actually do the opposite for local workforce. Public works places small local contractors at a disadvantage due to necessary resources to become prevailing wage employers. And these are contractors, when we're talking tree removal and where we're talking forest resilience, that have decades of experience. A lot of them are family owned businesses and are experts at their craft. So I wanted to make sure I threw that in there.

When we're talking prevailing public works projects, projects often become dependent on out of area contractors because local contractors do have trouble competing for the bids. And that might be okay for some project types, but it's not ideal for crucial fuels treatment projects. This bill, we believe, will not only cause delays, but will put small local contractors out of business.

When you factor in substantial added costs for these projects because of prevailing wage, and unless the state is going to make a much more robust forest resilience commitment in its grant programs to meet the pace and scale of community hardening goals, we feel that this bill will not only delay projects, but it will also shrink the pace and scale of California's forest management goals.

We're committed to working with the author, and we are already facilitating discussions with locals to help better kind of communicate and understand the challenges of this bill. And with that, we respectfully oppose the bill today and would ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to AB 338? Name and organization, please.

Kris Rosa on behalf of Calforests, in opposition.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of Humboldt Redwood Company, in respectful opposition, and look forward to working with the author on amendments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of Kern County Board of Supervisors, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Jason Bryant on behalf of the Mountain Counties Water Resources Association. We're in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts. We don't have an official position at this time. We do have some concerns we've outlined in our letter and look forward to working with the author on those. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Bringing it back to the Committee. Any questions from the Committee? Got a motion. Anybody? A second. Your question, Mr. Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity. I want to say thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. Last year, I supported the bill, and I'm honored to support it again. And I'm a firm believer that the skilled and trained workforce as well as the apprenticeship programs that the trades provide are second to none.

So I'm very, very honored to support this bill. Also wanted to ask a question to you. I've had some local governments contact me in terms of saying that based on the bill, some of the impacts of the bill would mean that their inability to reduce the potential impact of wildfires and their inability to meet its fuel reduction and wildfire prevention goals. As you know, there is a projected budget deficit coming this year go around, and some of that budget deficit would be going to wildfire funding.

So I respectfully ask you to continue to work with the stakeholders to see if there's a way to provide some additional flexibility for our local governments and our nonprofits that are in this area to ensure that they can maximize their limited grant funding as much as possible to make sure that funding goes toward project implementation as opposed to administrative costs. So any type of latitude with that, I'd be grateful. But with that, really honored to support your bill.

Thank you, Assembly Member. If you don't mind me just responding to that, there's no doubt about it that we have made the amendments are to make sure that we implement this correctly. And so we exempt contracts less than $100,000 to protect smaller entities doing this work and specify that public works only applies to apprentice crafts under the provisions of the bill.

We also enshrine tribal sovereignty by exempting work done on Indian lands, and we also did to make sure that state departments and nonprofits responsible for wildfire mitigation have time to implement new prevailing wage requirements. So we delayed the implementation for one year for specified entities and for two years for nonprofits. So we listened, but we are continually going to work with the opposition.

Thank you. Anybody else from the Committee. Any questions? When would you like to close? Or can we take it that is your close?

That'll be my close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That bill is on call.

We had you as a no. That's weird.

Kalra, aye. That bill is out.

That bill is out. Thanks.

Great. Thank you very much.

Yep. Yeah. All right. We have item five, AB 685, Assembly Member Ramos. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 685 will expand the Californians for All Youth Job Corps Program to youth in all areas of the State of California. When the program was announced, only 20 cities of the 482 in California and only eight of the state's 58 counties were selected to participate in the Californians for All Youth Job Corps Program.

The main focus of the program is placement and subsidized work experience opportunities in key service areas targeting low-income former foster, former foster justice-involved, and unemployed youth and young adults between ages of 16 and 30. Californians for All includes wraparound services like case management, resume preparation, and special job training to help ensure both the short and long-term success of the youth enrolled.

In its current form, this program left out thousands of underserved youth in all areas of the state and was not accurate to the diversity of our large state. Disadvantaged youth in California, held in a social economic instability, can critically utilize programs like this. My Bill aims to expand the opportunity for youth to gain critical job skills while making a positive, lasting impact in all of our communities. This program will open up opportunities for youth young adults, providing them with a large variety of vocational and educational opportunities.

With me testifying in support of this Bill is Isis Medina Orellana, policy analyst for the California Workforce Association.

Thank you.

Chairman Kalra, Members of the Committee. My name is Isis Medina Orellana, policy analyst with California Workforce Association. First, we want to thank Assemblymember Ramos for bringing this Bill forward. We also want to thank Assembly Member Garcia, who joined as a joint author, and to thank the bipartisan group who joined as co-authors. CWA's mission is to support California's 45 local workforce development boards through strategic advocacy, partnership convening, and capacity building.

CWA wants to express its full support for the Californians for all Youth Job Corps Program. The Californians for All Job Corps is an innovative partnership between the state and local governments to help underserved youth find employment. AB 685. By expanding the program through all of California, young people in all areas of the state, particularly in rural and low-income areas, will gain critical job skills.

As part of Governor Newsom's California Comeback Plan, the Californians for All Youth Job Corps Program created a $185 million investment in youth workforce development activities. As reported on March 17, Sacramento Bee, the City of Sacramento launched its job program aimed at employing 600 youth within two years. By expanding the program through formula-based funding process, all cities and counties will have the opportunity to create career pathways to underemployed youth populations. California volunteer projects have the potential to exceed outcomes produced by the comparison program.

Californians for all projects serve a much broader population, ages 16 to 30, compared to the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act, or WIOA, ages 14 to 24. Additionally, WIOA funding for work experience is insufficient to meet the need. Most paid work experiences under WIOA are very limited in terms of the hour and the number of hours. The half-time and full-time positions funded through California volunteers far surpasses what is available in WIOA and fills a much-needed gap.

Lastly, the California volunteers' funding overcomes some of the restrictions and limitations of WIOA. We therefore respectfully request your Aye vote on AB 68. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 685? Is anyone here in opposition to AB 685? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions or comments or motions? We have a motion, and we have a second. Any other questions or comments? Assembly Member Ramos is someone who represents one of the cities that did and has benefited from the incredible youth have been part of this program.

I don't think any youth should be denied participation simply because of their zip code. And so I really appreciate you bringing this forward. I would love to join on as a co-author as well, and please... love to give you the opportunity to close.

Thank you. And love the opportunity to offer that extension to any other Committee Members to come on as a co-author on this Bill. It's very much needed in all of our communities.

Yeah. Mr. Haney is taking you up on it.

All right. Thank you, Madam Majority leader. Well, thank you for that. And certainly, it's much needed, and I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, if we could take roll on AB 685, please?

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

All right, that Bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Up next, item eight, AB 1381.

Assembly Member Weber. Okay. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you, Committee, Chair, and staff. I accept the recommended amendment. I'm here to present AB 1381, which aims to protect California's call center workers by retaining jobs in California. Call centers are important economic lifeline for many communities in California. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, there are more than 200,000 call center representatives in California. Call center work is accessible and provides a path to a career for many individuals from historically underserved and marginalized communities.

Last year, my Assembly Bill 161 was passed and signed by the Governor, which prevents private companies that outsource call center jobs from receiving any state grants or tax credits for five years. This bill extends the same intent to include state agencies and departments. Historically, California used to require all call centers' customer service jobs to be conducted entirely in the state. An existing law requires any state agency authorized to enter into contracts relating to public benefit programs to be solely with workers employed in California.

However, this does not apply to other programs administered by various state agencies and departments, resulting in many contracts with vendors with centers outside of California. AB 1381 simply requires state agencies that enter into a contract with a private vendor after 2025 to have a majority of its call centers in California. I understand that some state programs have contracts with private entities that are not exclusively for call centers but are included.

This bill allows flexibility to phase in the requirement of no less than 75% of call center work be conducted in California after 2027. This bill is sponsored by the Communication Workers of America and supported by the California Labor Federation. Here with me to speak in support of AB 131 is Ignacio Hernandez, representing the Communication Workers of America.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of CWA District 9, which is the headquarters for CWA locals covering California, Nevada, and Hawaii. We are the sponsors of the bill. Let me just add that we have been having discussions with workers in call centers here in California, and we keep hearing story upon story how the call centers used to have 200, 300 employees and now there was one that we spoke to a few days ago down to 20.

And these are call centers that are servicing state departments and state agencies. There was one story where the call would go to Florida and then if there was a problem and had to move up the chain, then the call would be rerouted back to California. But the bulk of the call center workers were in Florida, while the very small percentage of folks who handle the next level of calls are in California. So really this is about protecting taxpayer dollars.

If California is going to be spending public dollars, taxpayer dollars, on call center work for state agencies and departments, let's create the jobs here in California. Let's not pay for jobs in other states, which we used to do, and now we want to move towards that. I appreciate the work of the Committee and working with us on some amendments and look forward to the support of this bill.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support, please approach the microphone.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, also in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition?

Hi, good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We just have one very small kind of concern with the bill specifically, provision A2. So, as mentioned, this bill also requires contracts that are not primarily about call center services. So contracts where call center services are merely incidental to also have, at first, 50% of call center jobs being California and then 75%.

And so we have some members that have a lot of concern because they have existing infrastructure of call centers throughout the country where they funnel a lot of work coming from various contracts or their own customers, what have you, to those call centers.

And so by enacting this requirement, it would significantly increase the cost of being able to actually provide the services to the State of California, to having to potentially build a call center here or hire additional staff to be able to meet some of the requirements as far as how quickly calls must be answered under these contracts. So we would like to try to work with the author's office about those contracts specifically that are not really focused on call centers. So I do have a meeting coming up with the author's staff. So really appreciate that. Just wanted to express that concern today. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in opposition? All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments, motions? Yes, Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Dr. Weber, thank you for all the work that you're doing in this space. Our communication workers of America absolutely need this type of protection. California taxpayers need this kind of protection. So I thank you for doing this. And with that, I would move the bill.

We have a motion and a second, our Vice Chair. Oh, you're good? Okay. Anybody else? Any comments or questions? Yes, and I also want to thank you, Dr. Weber, for continuing your movement in this area. I think it's very important, as our Majority Leader indicated, for our state, for our workers, and for our taxpayers. Please, would you like to close?

Well, I just thank you for allowing me to present this bill. I look forward to continuing to work with the Chamber to address their concerns. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we could take roll on AB 1381.

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you. And our last bill is item six, AB 380, Assembly Member Arambula, whose other bill already went out on consent. So you already one for one. Whenever you're ready, Dr. Arambula.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. With that in mind, I will make sure our colleagues and presenters have opportunity, but I will respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And so each witness, up to two minutes. So please, whenever you're ready.

Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez, Policy Advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty, proud to be a co-sponsor for AB 380 that would further combat labor trafficking in California. As many of you know, the root cause for labor trafficking is poverty. Numerous studies have shown the correlation between individuals or families who are in extreme poverty and work in low wage sectors are more vulnerable to labor trafficking, especially undocumented immigrants who lack access to critical social safety nets.

In some instances, individuals who are lured into labor trafficking have been promised enrollment in educational programs or job training are a secure job. Unfortunately, some individuals will take these promises at their face value and fall into forced labor in hopes to move themselves and their families out of poverty. AB 380 is a critical measure to ensure that California has multiple agencies combating labor trafficking so workers aren't exploited. And for these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Members of the Assembly's Labor and Employment Committee. I am Anabel Martinez, the Policy Associate for the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative at Loyola Law School, where we focus on survivor-focused policy work on the local, state, and federal level. I'm here today to ask the Members of this Committee to vote aye on AB 380 and thank Assemblymember Dr. Arambula for authoring this Bill.

AB 380 will protect labor trafficking victims by ensuring that more labor trafficking cases are thoroughly investigated in California, as most law enforcement and social services efforts have focused on sex trafficking. More must be done to identify vulnerable labor trafficking victims. A labor trafficking unit within the Department of Industrial Relations will go a long way to ensuring that more labor trafficking victims are supported. Too often, labor trafficking victims are not correctly identified, are not seen as crime victims, or are arrested for their own victimization.

As we saw last year, victims of labor trafficking were arrested during a raid on a black cannabis farm in the Mojave Desert. These arrests and others like it happened to the lack of understanding of the complex dynamics of labor trafficking, dynamics that are far easier for an agency like DIR to investigate and adequately handle due to their expertise in workplace violations and the complex dynamics of different workplaces.

With AB 380, California will be giving DIR the power to investigate labor trafficking cases and survivors another avenue to report their cases. We are thankful for the work the Civil Rights Department is already doing to address human trafficking. However, we need to ensure that all agencies with worker expertise are engaged on this issue.

Since DIR has the largest investigative capacity and is very likely to initially encounter labor trafficking victims, DIR must be encouraged to take a leadership role in identifying and preventing trafficking, on collecting data on labor trafficking, and on coordinating referrals to services for survivors. The formation of a labor trafficking unit within this vital agency is urgently needed to address the needs of all labor trafficking victims in California. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Members of this Committee to vote aye on AB 380. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support?

Mr. Chairman. Ethan Rarick with the Little Hoover Commission in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. James Michael Powell with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees also in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Trujillo-Rice with the California State Building Construction Trades Council in support.

Thank you.

Marvin Pineda, on behalf of CHIRLA, the Coalition for Human Immigrant Rights, in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to AB 380? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee and there's already a motion on the table. Any comments or questions? Assemblymember Reyes.

Dr. Arambula, I want to thank you for bringing this back again. Your AB 1820 made it to the end almost, and I appreciate that you brought it back and I think it is important where it's housed. I wasn't here when our colleague was presenting her Bill and I'm certain that the two of you will be able to chat about how to move forward. But there definitely needs to be a place to house this. And I sincerely appreciate your work throughout the years. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And I will just say I believe they're complementary and not competing measures. It simply provides another avenue. An avenue, though, that our workers are used to going to. They go to DIR for labor rights and for wage violations. And so we're just trying to be consistent.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Yeah, I think that, as our majority leader alluded to, you may have noticed we have two similar bills that would establish labor trafficking units in separate departments that we've heard today. I decided to have both bills heard today to advance the support and policy discussion and give the authors sufficient time to not only work with one another, this is going to other policy committees and also working with the Administration.

Of course, there was a veto last year, but I think giving the opportunity for more dialogue is important. I didn't want to, in the first policy Committee, make the determination myself. I think that we can allow for that further dialogue between the authors moving forward. But we're here to help. My staff is here, certainly to help in any way that we can in that dialogue.

Obviously, labor trafficking is a serious issue in California and it is critical that we pass legislation to combat it and ensure that victims receive appropriate support services and proper restitution, which is, frankly, not happening today. And that's why we're seeing so much interest in this area. With that, Dr. Arambula, would you like to close?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, if we can call the roll on AB 380.

The motion is due pass to Public Safety. [Roll Call].

All right, so that Bill is out and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members and we're going to go back now. There's one Bill on call, item four.

AB 647 Holden and so, Madam Secretary, if we can call the role on the absent Members on AB 647.

Reyes. Reyes, aye. Ward.

So that bill is out and let's just go through the role or through the votes here. First of all, on the consent calendar, absent Members, please, Madam Secretary.

Flora,

This consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

All right, let's just go one by one and see. I think we had some absences on some of them. Item number two, AB 338. Oh number one, sorry. Number one.

AB 235, [Roll Call]

Okay, item two, Aguiar-Curry.

AB 338, [Roll Call]

Okay, item three, AB 587

[Roll Call]

Item four, AB 647 we just did. Item five AB 685.

[Roll Call]

all right, item six, we just did. And we're just waiting for Assemblymember Ward on that one. And then item eight, AB 1381 Weber

Ward.

And then item 10 Ortega, AB 1007.

[Roll Call]

Okay, so that one's done. All right, so we're just going to hold out and wait for Assemblymember Ward. But you've completed your task for this afternoon in the Labor Committee. Okay, I'll hang out a little bit. Yeah, exactly. He's coming back for his shades for sure. I don't know about his binder. Let's just go through the ones for which Assemblymember Ward was absent so he can post his vote.

AB 338. Ward. Ward aye. AB 647 Ward. Ward aye. AB 685 Ward. Ward aye. AB 380 Ward. Ward aye. AB 1381 Ward. Ward aye.

Yeah, I think he voted on that. We'll double-check. All right, we're adjourned. Thank you.