Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

That's the guest. Yeah. There we go. Good morning. The Senate. We're not in church. Good morning. There you go. Very good. Okay. The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will come to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 8772261863 and the access code is 718778. Each side will be permitted an equal amount of time.

Lead witnesses will have two minutes each, and there is no reserving time for other witnesses. All others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measure. Testimony taken via the teleconference service will be limited to a total of 20 minutes. We are holding our Committee hearing at 1020 N Street, room 100. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present in room 100 so we can establish a quorum and begin our hearing.

Okay, we have 16 bills on today's agenda. For those following along at home, file item number 12. SB 685 has been pulled from today's agenda. Before we hear presentation of bills, let's establish a quorum. Emma, please call the role.

Senator Cortese. Senator Wilk. Present. Wilk. Present. Senator Durazo. Here. Senator Laird, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas here. We have a quorum.

Great. We have a quorum. Yeah, let's go ahead and move at this point. Let's take up the consent calendar, which is SB 327 SB 422 and SB 432. Do I have a motion? The chair recognizes Senator Durazo.

Please call the roll file items number 815 and 17. Senator Cortese. Senator Wilk aye. Senator Durazo aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas aye. Those bills are on call and currently have three aye votes.

Thank you very much. Now let's move to our first author. So welcome, Senator Durazo. And I believe you have two bills up before us today. Are you going to begin with SB 686. Yes. All right, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

And Members, for too long, the workers we entrust care for our loved ones in our homes have been marginalized and dehumanized by intentional exclusion from our health and safety law. Yet these workers are regularly exposed to health and safety threats like toxic cleaning products, extreme heat, wildfires, home, and lifting injuries in the home workplace. In 2021, the Governor signed my Bill. Oh, sorry.

In 2021, the Governor signed my SB 321 Bill. Which created an Advisory Committee composed of domestic workers, employers, and occupational health and safety experts to develop voluntary, industry specific health and safety guidelines and make policy recommendations to the Legislature to strengthen the health and safety of household domestic service employees in the home work setting. The Advisory Committee met throughout 2022 and earlier this year released their report with voluntary guidance for household domestic service employers and the Advisory Committee's policy recommendations.

Their top recommendation was to remove the household domestic services exclusions from CALOSHA. So SB 686 does just that. And additionally, the Bill establishes a financial assistance program to help low-income employers make their homes safer workplaces, and it expands the existing outreach and education program. Employers played a critical role in developing the Advisory Committee recommendations, and this Bill takes the next step to provide resources and tools to support them as employers, ensuring health and safety protections for the people that they hire.

With me here today to testify are Evelyn Alfaro Mujeres Unidas y Activas and Doug Boshen, hand in hand, the Domestic Employers Network.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Each lead witness has two minutes.

Hola. Mi nombre es Evelyn Alfaro y hola y gracias a los miembros del Comité por esta oportunidad de presentar hoy. Durante los últimos 13 años he sido trabajadora doméstica limpiando casas y cuidando niños. Ahora soy organizadora de Mujeres y Activas Unidas y mujeres activas en el Área de la Bahía y líder de la Coalición de Trabajadoras Domésticas de California.

Hello. My name is Evelyn Alfaro and hello and thank you to the Members of the Committee for this opportunity to present today. For the last 13 years I have been a domestic worker cleaning homes and taking care of children. Now I'm an organizer with Mujeres y Activas United and active women in the Bay Area and a leader of the California Domestic Workers Coalition.

Durante cuatro años trabajé en casas de otras familias usando productos de limpieza tóxicos. Cada vez que los usaba, experimentaba efectos agudos en mi salud, ardor en los ojos, el sabor a lejía en el fondo de mi garganta y un olor tan fuerte que no podía respirar. Estuve expuesto a estos químicos diariamente, de ocho a 10 horas al día. Cuando llegué a casa me dolía la cabeza y me sentía mareado.

For four years, I worked in the homes of other families using toxic cleaning products. Every time I used them, I experienced acute health effects, burning eyes, the taste of bleach in the back of my throat and the smell so strong that I couldn't breathe. I was exposed to these chemicals on a daily basis, eight to 10 hours a day. When I got home, my head ached and I felt dizzy.

Sólo después de involucrarme en una organización comunitaria aprendí cómo protegerme contra estos peligros en el trabajo. Estas condiciones no son humanas y, desde 2020, las trabajadoras domésticas de todo el estado se han estado organizando para ser reconocidas como trabajadoras y ganar finalmente los derechos a la salud y la seguridad.

It was only after becoming involved in a community organization that I learned how to protect myself against these hazards on the job. These conditions are not humane, and since 2020, domestic workers across the state have been organizing to be recognized as workers and to finally win the rights to health and safety.

Este año, después de un largo proceso con el Comité Asesor SB 321, Cal OSHA y el Departamento de Relaciones Industriales publicaron las primeras pautas de seguridad y salud ocupacional para la industria del trabajo doméstico. Fue un momento histórico y un primer paso hacia el reconocimiento de nuestra industria. Gracias por dejarme hablar hoy.

This year, after a long process with the SB 321 Advisory Committee, CalOSHA and the Department of Industrial Relations published the first occupational safety and health guidelines for the domestic work industry. It was a historic moment and a first step to the recognition of our industry.

Sin embargo, esto no es suficiente. Hoy en día, hay cientos de miles de trabajadoras domésticas, en su mayoría mujeres de color, mujeres inmigrantes como yo, que todavía sufren las mismas condiciones todos los días porque estamos excluidas de las protecciones básicas en este estado.

However, this is not enough. Today, there are hundreds of thousands of domestic workers, mostly women of color, immigrant women just like me, who are still suffering from these same conditions every day because we are excluded from basic protections in this state.

Ha llegado el momento de que estas exclusiones, arraigadas en tantos años de racismo y devaluación del trabajo de las mujeres, lleguen finalmente a su fin. Todo el mundo merece un lugar de trabajo seguro.

The time has come for these exclusions, rooted in so many years of racism and the devaluation of women's work, to finally come to an end. Everyone deserves a safe workplace.

Les pido que voten a favor de la SB 686 y que continúen planteando este tema y concientizando al Gobernador hasta que termine esta exclusión. Gracias.

I ask that you vote in favor of SB 686, and that you continue to raise this issue and raise the awareness to the Governor until this exclusion is ended. Thank you.

Members of the Committee, my name is. I live and work in Napa Valley. I'm a member of vineyard and a winery and my wife and also a domestic employer. I'm speaking today because I would like. To see the safety protections and resources thank you.

I would like to see the safety protections and resources that exist for the employees at my business extend to the domestic workers in our home. At my business, I manage four full time employees and dozens of part time workers. I have worked with some of my employees for more than 20 years. I repeatedly say that safety is our top priority, and despite the dynamic and physical nature of our vineyard and winery work, OSHA regulations have helped provide a framework to keep us safe in our home.

Marta worked for us as a nanny, while Sylvia and Shelly have both worked for us as house cleaners for several years. It is easy for me to obtain safety guidelines and resources at the winery, but that contrasts starkly with the situation with our domestic employment situation, where I have to rely solely on the experience that comes from managing my business.

For example, our winery work emphasizes how different cleaning agents come with varying health risks, and proper PPE, such as masks and gloves, are necessary to protect against those potential risks. I'm glad to see that through SB 686, we are implementing the recommendations of the SB 321 Advisory Committee that Governor Newsom move forward back in 2021.

The voluntary health and safety guidelines are a good start toward offering domestic employers information we need to keep our employees safe, and Senate Bill 686 would take the next crucial step by providing employers like me with the necessary education and support to be able to carry out those guidelines. I believe it is self evident that Marta, Sylvia, and Shelly should receive every possible protection.

Having clear rules and the appropriate tools and resources facilitates our ability as employers to keep our homes safe, not only for us, but also for the domestic workers we employ. Thank you for supporting SB 686.

Great. Thank you so much. So because we're in this venue, we're going to change the format a little bit. So instead of going to opponents, what we're going to do now is if you are. Me, too. In support of the Bill, if you could cooperate with the sergeants, and we line everybody up. So, looking for your name, any organization that you're affiliated with, and your position on the Bill, which should be support.

Hello, I'm Peter Camacho with the Filipino Association of Workers and Immigrants, South Bay and I support SB 686. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Juan, with carrying cross generations in hand, in hand and strong support of SB 686. Thank you.

Rita Medina with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights LA. Strong support of SB 686. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Ellen San Felipe. I'm a member, Filipino Association of Workers and Immigrants, South Bay, San Jose. I'm a home care worker. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Anita Brown. I support SB 686. Thank you.

Hi. Amanda Trinidad. I'm a part of the Filipino advocates for. Sorry. Filipino Advocates for Justice. I'm a part of the domestic worker Committee. I support SB 686.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Sweet Lao. I live in Oakland, California. I'm a worker organizer with the Filipino Advocates for Justice, and I support SB 686.

Hi, good morning, everyone. My name is Christina. I live in Fremont. I work as a home care worker, and I strongly support SB 686.

Noor Janaka Alim from Union City, California. I'm with Filipino Advocates for Justice, and I support SB 686.

Hello, good morning. My name is Maria Riola. I'm from San Francisco. I am a leader and a member from Women's Collective, and I'm here to support six, SB 686. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lourdes. I come from San Francisco and domestic workers. We need to support SB 686.

Hola buenos dias, mi nombre es Adriana Sanchez soy trabajadora de lugar en San Francisco Colectiva de la Mujeres support SB 686. Gracias

My name is Agun. I am a Member of the Chinese Progressive Association. I am a domestic worker, and I support SB 686 in support of workers health and safety and our futures.

My name is Winnie. I am a staff Member of the Chinese Progressive Association in San Francisco. I'm a domestic worker and I support SB 686, and I hope all of you will support as well.

Hi, I'm Aki Soriana Versosa. I'm the Executive Director of the Filipino Workers Center of Southern California Organization of Home Care Workers, and I'm in support of SB 686.

Amara Eger, on behalf of Breast Cancer Prevention Partners in strong support of SB 686.

Hola mi nombre es, Mirna Rana yo vivo en Oakland. Soy de mujeres unidas y activas yo estoy SB 686. Gracias.

Hello, my name is Alyce Desrosiers. I am the founder and Executive Director of the Institute for Families and Nannies in San Francisco. I'm a very strong supporter of SB 686. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in strong support Thank you.

Victor Kiros, Assistant Director, Region Six Western States, in strong support of SB 686.

Hello, my name is Marquise Gold. I am a nanny employer, and I'm also the owner of a nanny and staffing agency. I'm from here in Sacramento, California. I am a proud member of hand in hand, and I strongly support SB 686. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Eli Conley. I live here in Sacramento. I'm a Member of Hand in Hand, the Domestic Employers Network, and my family employs house cleaners, and I'm strongly in support of 686.

Good morning. My name is Ishel Chavez. I live in Berkeley. I used to be a nanny, and now I am an organizer for the National Domestic Workers Alliance, and I am supportive of SB 686.

I'm Thomas Manley. I live in Oakland. I'm with hand in hand, the Domestic Employers Network. I utilize service workers in my home. I'm a strong supporter of SB 686.

My name is Jeannie Emai. I came from Marin this morning to support SB 686. I'm an employer of a house cleaner as well as, in the past, home health care workers. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Burens, San Francisco. I'm a minister, religious leader, and an employer of domestic workers, and I strongly. Support SB 686.

Good morning. My name is Megan Ortiz. I'm the Executive Director of the Instituto de Educacion Popular del Sur de California in Los Angeles, representing hundreds of domestic workers and day laborers in strong support of SB 686. Thank you.

Buenos diaz. Mi nombre es Francisca Cortez. Vivo en Hayward. Supportivo SB 686.

Thank you.

Bueno Diaz presentes yo soy Maria Seja vengo de la cuidad de Gilroy e vengo trabajadoras de lugar con y yo apoyo SB 686. Gracias.

Mariko Yoshihara. On behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, a proud co-sponsor SB 686. Strongly urge your support.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lorena Molina. I live in Hayward. I am a domestic worker and member of Mujeres Unidas y. Activas, and I'm here to support SB 686. Thank you, thank you.

Hola, mi nombre es Maria Beatrice vengo en San Francisco. Apoyo SB 686.

Hello, my name is Addison, and apoyanto SB 686.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Cynthia Montenegro. Soy miembre Unidas y Activa vivo en San Francisco. apoyo SB 686.

Good morning. My name is Margie Guggenheim. I'm from Marin County, and I employ a couple of domestic workers, and I strongly urge you to support 686. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Beatrice Hernandez and on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, a pros co-sponsor of the Bill in support of SB 686. Thank you.

Morning. My name is Malcolm Harris. I'm based in Los Angeles. I'm with caring across generations. I'm a caregiver for my 93 year old grandmother and here in strong support of SB 686.

Hello, my name is Kayla Shore. I'm from Los Angeles with hand in hand the domestic employers network. I'm an employee of a house cleaner and home care worker, and I'm strongly in support of SB 686.

Thank you. Hello. My name is David Valencia, an organizer with La Collectiva de Mujeres in Dolores street community services, where we strongly support SB 686. Thank you.

Hola mi nombre es Karen Muñoz, La Colective de Mujeres soy de San Francisco yo apoyando SB 686.

Hola mi nombre es Hicela y La Colectiva de Mujeres vengo a San Francisco, California yo apoyando SB 686.

Hola, buenos días mi nombre es Marlene Sanchez. Vivo en San Francisco California. Soy a La Collective de Mujeres yo a trabajo a lugar. Apoyo SB 686.

Hola, mi nombre es Libia Fernandez. Soy de San Francisco. Soy de la Colectiva de Mujeres y apoyar SB 686.

Hola, buenos dias, mi nombre es Margarita vivo en San Francisco. Soy De La Colectiva de Mujeres. Soy una trabajadora domestica y apoyo SB 686. Gracias.

Hola, buenos dias mi nombre es Jenny Avila y soy trabajadora de lugar. Y soy apoyando la SB 686. Gracias.

Hola buenos dias mi nombre es Thomasa Ramirez. Soy de La Colectiva de Mujeres. Vengo a San Francisco soy trabajadora de lugar estoy apoyado la SB 686. Gracias.

Hello, my name is Meyer Khan Malimban. I live in Santa Clara, and I'm a part of Filipino Association of Workers and immigrants, and I support SB 686.

Hello, my name is Mariam Kadim. I'm from Union City, and I work with Filipino Advocates for Justice, and I support SB 686.

Hi, this is Kay from Chinese Progressive Association. We are from San Francisco. Strong, strong support in SB 686.

Good morning, I'm Karin Umfrey . I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at Worksafe, and we support SB 686. Thank you.

Good morning my name is Ariel Hernandez I'm from Berkeley I'm a volunteer with Filipino Advocates for Justice and I'm in support of SB 686.

Good morning, my name is Maria Jose Vastias. I am an English teacher at Mujeres Unidas y Activas, and I'm here to support SB 686.

Hello my name is Philly Medina From the Filipino Association of Workers and Immigrants. I'm here to strongly support SB 686.

Good morning, my name is Tina Shaf Bahar, Oakland, California. California Domestic Workers Coalition. I'm the proud family member and community member of many domestic workers in strong support of SB 686.

Hello, my name is Natalie Bautista, I'm from San Bernardino, California. I'm the daughter of a domestic work. My mom. My mom is a domestic worker, and I am in strong support of her health and safety protections and passing SB 686.

Hi, my name is Alexandra Early I'm an organizer with the California Domestic Workers Coalition. I live in Oakland, and I also employ a house cleaner, and I'm in strong support of SB 686.

Anyone else out wanting to testify as me too/in support? Okay. Seeing none, we will move to the opposition. We can have up to two primary witnesses that each get two minutes. Seeing no primary opposition witnesses, is there anybody in the room that wants to lend their voices a. Me, too, in opposition? Seeing none. Let's go to the phones. I guess I should read that's. Moderator, would you please. Yeah, my fault. I'm a half step behind this morning.

Moderator, if you would, please prompt individuals waiting to testify in support or opposition of SB 868, we will begin. Just to remind people on the phone name, affiliation of any organization, if applicable, and yay or nay. Thank you, Mr. Moderator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 24. Your line is now open. Line 24, your line is open.

Oh hi. Sorry, I didn't hear. Hi. My name is Lucy. I'm Saddlegate. We are proud to sponsor SB 686, and we all share support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 48, your line is now open.

My name is Susan Friedman. I live in Santa Rosa, California. I'm a registered nurse, a member of Hand in Hand. I am an employer have been an employer of home care, house care and domestic workers. I am fully in support of SB 686. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Line 71, your line is now open. And pardon me once again. Line 71, please respond. Your line is now open. We're going to move on to line. We're going to move on to line 70. Your line is now open. Yes, sir. Line 74, your line is open. Line 33, your line is now open.

My name is Ruth.

Please go, Ruth.

My name is.

Go ahead, Ruth. I'm sorry. We're going to move on to line 69.

Hi, my name is Kenya, and I work for the Moxita Nexion, and I am an ally of the California Domestic Workers Coalition, and I support SB 686.

Thank you.

Line 47, your line is now open.

Hello, my name is Michael David. I live in Los Angeles, California. I'm a Member of Hand in Hand and I employ a nanny. And I'm calling in support of SB 686.

Thank you.

Line 75.

Hi, my name is Claire Anne Miranda. I live in San Francisco, and I am an ally and member of GABRIELA Oakland, and I support SB 686.

Thank you.

Line 52.

Hello, my name is Vanessa Barba. I work the California Domestic Workers Coalition, and I'm in support of SB 686.

Thank you.

Line 29. 29, your line is now open. We're going to move on to line 55.

Hi, good morning. My name is Rabbi Dr. Sophie Catherine Woodley Von-Rothschild. I'm an employer and I'm a member of hand in hand, and I arise in strong support of SB 686. Thank you.

Line 65.

Hi, this is Ian Camos with the Filipino Workers Center of Southern California. I'm an ally and in strong support of SB 686.

We're now going to move on to line 37.

Hi, this is Fonis Fontanaris from Filipino Workers Center in Orange County. We strongly support SB 686. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, just another moment. We have more people who've signaled that they wish to speak. We're just processing them throughout. Line 62, your line is now open.

Buenos dias. Mi nombre es Mariana Angeles vivo en de Orange y soy estoy aqui para apoyar SB 686.

Line 35.

Hello, this is Sybil with the California Green New Deal coalition. We're in strong support of SB 686. Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, we do have additional people who signal they wish to speak. We're having trouble processing some people through as they're not responding. Just a moment, please. Mr. Chair, if there's somebody in the room who can provide instruction in Spanish as to how to queue up to ask a question by pressing one, then zero. Give us a second. Thank you. We're going to move on to line 76. Your line is now open.

Hello. Hi.

Please go ahead.

Hello, my name is Jasmine. I lived in Los Angeles. I'm with the Filipino Workers center, and I'm full support of SB 686.

Line 80.

Hi, my name is Irene Maligi. I am a Member of Filipino Workers Center, South Bay Area. I am a caregiver and I support SB 686, the Health and Safety for all Workers act. Thank you.

Line 92. Line 92, your line is open.

Hi, my name is Guadalupe Garcia. I live in Los Angeles. I work at Mujeres en Accion, and my cousins are domestic workers. I support the SB 688, the Health and Safety act for all workers.

Line 93.

Ruth Silvertope, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition in strong support of the Bill.

Line 63.

My name is Marie Grace Diaz. I'm from Orange County. A home care worker and a member of Filipino Workers Center strongly support SB 686. Thank you.

Line 29. Line 29, your line is now open.

We're going to move on to line 88.

Hi, my name is Ivana Castellanos, toxics and plastics campaigner with Physicians for Social Responsibility, Los Angeles. And on behalf of our organization, PSRLA and the Californians for a healthy and green economy coalition, I express our support for SB 686.

Line 101, your line is now open.

My name is Crystal Santiago. I live in San Diego. I am a caregiver and a Member of PwC, and I need health and safety protection. So I strongly support CB 686.

Line 42, your line is open.

...

Line 96.

My name is Dorothy. I live in San Diego. I am a caregiver and Member of California Domestic Worker Coalition. I support SB 686 Health and safety protection Bill.

Line 83.

Hi, good morning. My name is Teresita. I live in Los Angeles. I am home care worker and a Member of the Philippine Workers Center. I strongly support SB 686. Thank you.

Line 94.

Hi, my name is Elisa Jimenez, and I'm from Domestic Worker Coalition. And then I support the SB 686.

And just in a moment, Mr. Chair, thank you again for your patience as we are attempting to try and process people into the queue.

Mr. Moderator, is that concluded the teleconference line?

We have one more.

Okay, thank you.

I heard you say, go to line 111.

Hi, my name is Shalise Haas. I live in Los Angeles. I employ a house cleaner. I'm a Member of hand in hand, and I am in strong support of SB 686.

Mr. Chair, we have one additional person. We're going to go to line 113.

Hi, good morning. This is Josefine Viclar from San Fernando Valley, and I am a Member of the Filipino Workers center, and I support SB 686.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Please continue.

Thank you, moderator. Appreciate your effort. We'll bring it back to the Committee now for discussion and comment. Why don't I go ahead and kick it off and try to keep things moving? Now, we have a lot of sidebars going on up here, but we'll give the Committee Members a chance to comment or get a motion on the table here momentarily. Back to the author. Senator Durazo, I want to thank you for bringing this Bill forward today.

As usual, you're taking on something that's been a festering issue for a long time and trying to get it solved, and I think everyone here, including me, is very grateful for that. Obviously, it's a little more complex. We think in terms of implementation than a lot of other areas that we go in and try to do OSHA type work in, just because of the nature of the business and households and so many other things that are not fixed in the environment itself.

I completely agree with you as the author that these workers do deserve those same protections, though, when they go to work. We just have to be very careful how we enforce labor law specific to these circumstances. And I think probably that this industry, the specific area of workforce, needs its own set of standards, regulations and penalty schemes because on the one hand, we have very vulnerable workers. On the other hand, we have essentially private residences as private homes.

And as we've seen in other areas of work that this Legislature has tried to do, when we get into neighborhood environments, we start getting pushback. That causes us one step forward, two steps back, and I think we're all concerned to make sure that doesn't happen. But putting the stake in the ground or the water, take your metaphor as you will, and moving forward is important. So I'm supporting your Bill today.

I do hope that we can continue to work on these sensitive issues and continue to explore the best route for directing dir to issue standards that are, again, more tailored to this particular set of circumstances that we face. Again, that is really more of a concern about unintended consequences than anything else. Obviously, the intent and the vision behind the Bill is solid. So, Senator, I don't know if you want to respond to any of that.

We did not have an opportunity or feel we had an opportunity to really get more specific than that as a Committee and as a Committee staff. Sometimes, as you know, that give and take can lead to a slightly better Bill or slightly better product, but at least wanted to flag had we had an opportunity to do more work, that's the direction we would have gone in as a Committee staff. Any response or reassurance from you would certainly be welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Obviously, these people have been working on this for many years, passive domestic workers Bill of rights several years ago, and steps, good steps have been taken over and over. The household domestic workers are covered by workers comp, they're covered by minimum wage. There are all these laws that already cover them. This is just one more may be the last big area of their rights as employees. So they already are classified. They are formal employees of an employer when they do this work.

I'm really grateful to all of the employers who were here today. Thank you, Mr. Boshen. Everybody from hand in hand who are working side by side with their domestic worker their domestic employees, they have provided valuable insight which have led to the voluntary industry guidelines right here, very specific as to what is recommended to be implemented, and then take that out and do a real campaign. This is not meant to be a I got you type of situation. I got you violating the law.

This is where both the employers, the domestic employers as well as the employees really want to have a safer home workplace for everybody. And so I'm really grateful to all of the work that's gone into doing this. Now we just need to take that final formal step of eliminating their exclusion from calocia and providing some. We'll have to deal with that as a different subject, but to establish a Fund for Low income household employers so that they could have the most safe and healthy conditions.

But everybody's been very sensitive to the issues and worked really hard around it, and I'm very confident that they've either already been addressed or we have the mechanism to keep addressing them. So thank you.

Thank you, other Members of the Committee.

Yes, I just want to thank the author for this Bill and for the movement behind it. It's been a long time coming. My great grandmother was a domestic worker. My grandmother was a domestic worker.

And because of racism, because of the exclusion of the freed slave, because of the exclusion of the black, largely black women by the new deal, folks who have left out of that great plan are now making sure we're rebuilding it and making it work for all workers and for our community. So I am very grateful to see this Bill, and I appreciate what you talked about in terms of the employer partnerships.

We need this kind of partnership in other industries where we want to make sure everyone is safe. This is a model, and so it's important for us to take this step. So we have something to point to, not just in domestic work, but in other industries where employers and workers truly come to the table in a model of care. So thank you so much, and I'm happy to move this motion toward vote.

Okay, well, thank you. There's no other discussion at this time. We do have a motion, and I'll give Senator Durazo an opportunity to close.

Thank you all for your comments. This is a women's caucus priority, and we're finally going to take, California is going to lead the way and take the step and provide dignity and safety to hundreds of thousands of California's workers. So thank everyone who came, who traveled from far away for taking the time to do. We really appreciate all of this. Thank you.

Thank you again, Senator. And thank you to everyone who showed up to testify. In case you're wondering, there's many of us who are on multiple committees literally at the same time today. So when you see people coming and going, and I'll say this for the future attendees of the meeting who might be listening, please know that we want to be here 100% of the time, but we literally have to be in three or four places at the same time to continue voting in other committees.

And that's the only reason you see that happening. But we do appreciate you all being here to a person. And with that, I'm going to ask the assistant to call the role on a motion which she will restate. That was made by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

File item number one, SB 686. The motion is do pass, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo aye. Senator Laird aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas aye. This Bill is on call and currently has four aye votes.

All right. The Bill is on call with four eye votes, which, as this audience seems to know, is enough to get the Bill out. But we need to allow the absent Member, in this case, to vote later on. So thank you again for being here. Before everyone recesses, if you could stay put for just 1 second, I need to make an announcement that has to do with another Bill later on. I just want to do it while it's still quiet. File item number 12.

SB 685, which is authored by Senator Hurtado, has been added back to today's agenda. It was taken off previously. It's added back SB 685. We will hear that Bill towards the end of today's agenda. That's just a public announcement for people who are interested in attending the hearing on that Bill later on. With that, we're going to take a five minute recess so the sergeants can help everyone get in and out, and we will resume the Committee hearing after five minutes. Thank you.

All right, if we can have order in the Committee hearing room, please. We're going to move on to file item two, which is Bill number SB 723. Also, Senator Durazo, I see her reentering the hearing room. Senator Durazo, whenever you get situated and are prepared to proceed, please do so. Yes, whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, I am proud to present SB 723, which will remove the sunset to the existing rehiring rights enacted for hospitality workers at the start of the Covid-19 pandemic. Low income workers in the hospitality industry, primarily immigrants and women of color, were laid off and anxiously waited to see if they could get the jobs back. Most of the job losses were among hotel housekeepers, mostly women of color, and over the age of 50.

Research has shown that following economic recessions, women over 50 are affected the most in their experience of long term unemployment. At 62 or older, they are 50% less likely to be rehired. According to the Urban Institute, these workers had no source of income or security, and after many decades on the job, many older workers feared that employers would only rehire younger, newer workers at lower pay rates.

That is why the Legislature worked to pass SB 93 in 2021, which provided rehiring rights to employees working in the hospitality hotels, event centers and airport service and hospitality providers who were laid off due to a nondisciplinary reason related to the Covid-19 pandemic, including lack of business, a government shutdown order or public health directive. SB 93 was clearly needed as the tourist industry reopened for business.

In fact, the labor Commissioner cited the terraneo resort for violating the law in not offering 53 workers their jobs back when the resort reopened. The workers included housekeepers, banquet servers, bartenders, junior sous chefs, and massage therapists who are essential to the running of a high end resort. Overall, the hospitality industry is now among the country's fastest growing employers. The hospitalities industry industry's rapid rebound is in part thanks to the rehab hiring rights established in SB 93 that provides a skilled and experienced workforce.

As the industry reopens, however, these hiring rights are set to end. SB 723 seeks to make these rights permanent. The Bill removes the sunset and the reference to Covid related reasons for layoffs from the existing hospitality rehiring rights. Making this law permanent will allow employees working in the hospitality industry to return to their jobs after temporary layoffs through no fault of their own and provides job security to those workers.

What's really important to take note of is that the industry has not completely gone back to normal or to the highest level. The economic reverberations of the pandemic are far from over, and no one could have predicted how long the pandemic was going to last and have an impact on our economy. So today I have with me two witnesses to speak in support of this Bill. Sara Flocks, the California State Labor Federation, and Sandra Fallister, a hospitality worker.

Good morning. My name is Sandra Fallister. I worked for the standard West Hollywood Hotel for 16 years. I worked as a dishwasher. Food prepare, kitchen, shipping and receiving. I did everything I was asked to do. On March twelveth, human resources told us that the hotel will close because of the pandemic. She told us we're all fired. I was depressed.

My work covers all my living costs, my housing, food, shelter, basic needs. Everything is covered. The expenses of my four children. My labor covers all those expenses. As of today, I have not been recalled. My hotel has not recovered completely. I spent 16 years of my life working for that company. Not to be called. I'm afraid they won't call me because of my age. I have looked for other jobs, and unfortunately, I haven't found one.

I am afraid it's because of my age. I'm afraid it's because they will prefer to hire younger employees. It is difficult for me to start in a new company. I'm 51 years old. I ask you to vote in support of the extension to recall rights for workers. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there another lead witness? Please proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, one of the sponsors of this Bill and supporters of SB 93 that put this law into place. And we are sponsors of this Bill because recall rights have proven to be good in protecting workers, expediting, hiring and supporting economic recovery for workers. Sandra's story is one of many, many workers spend decades working their way up in the hospitality industry, in jobs where they can support their families. And so mass layoffs are devastating.

They're devastating to the workers, and they're devastating to entire communities. What recall rights do is relieve the anxiety and keep workers connected to that job with the hope that they will be able to go back. It also prevents age discrimination and salary discrimination, as we've heard, and discrimination against people who might have been advocates who have spoke up for their rights on the job or were stewards. We also think that it's good for employers.

Recruitment, hiring, training, this is all really expensive, and employers are struggling to find workers, especially in the hospitality industry. We know that there's huge vacancies, especially in LA and San Francisco, and they can't find enough workers. This is also good for the economy in General. Economists have found that keeping workers connected to their jobs reduces long term unemployment and helps the economy bounce back faster. It's especially important in hospitality because that's the industry's hardest hit during economic downturns.

People stop traveling, they stop going to restaurants, and so those workers are impacted first. It also has a proven track record. Santa Monica has had a similar law since 2001. It's been 22 years. The city and County of LA made their recall law permanent. Long beach has also followed suit. So there is a track record of saying, hey, this is a law that works. It makes sense. It's good for workers and employers. It gives an orderly way to have rehire when the economy comes back.

And so we would urge your support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Member. Shane Gusman, on behalf of Unite here international Union and the Teamsters in support.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. We can move now to anyone who wishes to express the support position in the Committee room. Name, affiliation and support.

Kimberly Rosenberger, with SEIU in strong support.

Lorena Lopez-Masumi, Director of the hotel and restaurant employees throughout Southern California. In support.

Victor Quiroz, UAW region six Assistant Director, UAW supports SB 723 Durazo.

All right, thank you. I see no one else come forward on the support side. We will now ask. There is a lead opposition witness. You may come forward and you'll have a couple of minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm Julie Melanowski Ball here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. We have an opposed position on this. Understand you know the purpose of it during the COVID restrictions and the potential for unemployment. And then of course it happened. But that's just not the case today. In today's market, we have the lowest unemployment rate and are struggling to find employees to fill hotel positions. In many areas today, there's actually a 20% vacancy rate in hotels.

So it is clear that there's positions to be had. And we are focused, of course, on those who have experience, first and foremost. So we're looking at those who, former employees and new employees. To fill these positions, we think this needs to sunset as originally planned. We believe also that it's complicated, it's costly. It is opening up hotels to simple paperwork violations because of the steps that you need to go through.

And we've surveyed our Members and found out it's actually slowing down employment because of how much contact you have to make and the steps that you need to go through. So we say that today in this current market, because of how complicated it is, how it's slowing down the process, this needs to sunset along with all the other Covid restrictions. And we ask for your no vote. Thank you.

All right. Appreciate your testimony. Is there anyone else in the hearing room who wishes to express an opposed position?

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition to this job killer Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart on behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Amelia Zamani, California Travel Association, in opposition.

All right. Seeing no one else come forward moderator if we may, we would like to ask you to queue up both support and opposition on teleconference line. If there is any.

Ladies and gentlemen, if you wish to speak in support or opposition of this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We're going to go. Line 77, your line is now open.

Hi, this is Joe Summers with the Contra Costa Labor Council. We support this Bill.

And, Mr. Chair, we have several more people who've signaled that they wish to speak. One moment, please. Thank you. We're going to go next to line 121. Your line is now open.

Hi, my name is Lauren Arnes, and I'm with the North Valley Labor Federation in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Line 119, your line is now open.

Good morning. This is Glenn Loveall with Napa Solano Central Labor Council in strong support of SB 723.

Line 44.

Hi, this is Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Moderator we will come back to the Committee itself, ask if there's any comments, concerns or a motion on the Bill. All right, there's a motion by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We'll ask the assistant to state the formal motion right after we give. Senator draws an opportunity to close and call the role. Senator, please close.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Members. No. I spent decades in the hospitality industry as a union leader organizer. And there was a tendency after every economic downturn, when the industry came back up, there was either an attempt to do away with and not recall the employees that they had, even though they were highly more experienced and skilled, because they wanted to take advantage of that moment to hire newer people, they could pay less with no benefits, whatever they wanted.

So we're used to this cycling, the comments about how this is going to hurt the industry. There's no proof, there's no evidence, there's no examples of that. All of the hotels, there are hundreds of hotels and event centers that have followed this. There's no issue. And so I really urge us, the sky is falling type of argument just doesn't work here. And for the sake of those employees who are loyal, it's not for disciplinary reasons that they've lost their job.

They should be allowed, and they should be given the protection to be able to get their jobs back. With that, I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you again, Senator. And back to the assistant.

File item number two, SB 723. The motion is do pass, but first, re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo aye. Senator Laird aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas aye. This Bill is on call and currently has four aye votes.

All right. Bill has four aye votes, which is enough to get it out, but it's on call for the absent Member. And while the room is adjusting here, we are going to lift the call on the consent calendar. Please. Assistant, would you please call the role on that file?

Items number 815 and 17, all on consent. Senator Cortese aye. Senator Laird aye. These items are out five to zero.

All right. The consent calendar is out on a unanimous vote. Thank you. We are now going to continue in file order. If Senator Seyarto is here. He is not yet, so we will pass and we'll go to the next in file order, which is Senator Becker, who has two bills to present, starting with SB 322. We'll announce the second bill when the time comes. Senator Becker, you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Cortese and Members. Thanks for opportunity to present SB 322, a bill that will support business development and workers in underserved communities with high paying, stable jobs as California leads the transition to a green economy. To meet the clean energy goals outlined in SB 100, 1020, as well as electric vehicle adoption targets, California will need to manufacture and purchase large amounts of lithium batteries.

Additionally, as California increases its use and manufacturing of zero-emission vehicles, it is imperative that state incentives supporting this industry also support high quality, equitable jobs. Historically underserved communities and workers in the manufacturing industry are most impacted by the transition towards a non-fossil fuel future and would thus most benefit from additional high road job transition support. Battery manufacturing plants can establish equitable, good paying jobs for Californians again if they have these high road workforce and job quality standards.

So this bill will establish a ranking system to prioritize businesses who establish a workforce plan to employ individuals with employment barriers when applying for the zero-emission vehicle battery manufacturing grants. By doing so, SB 322 will prioritize quality jobs for Californians as we lead the transition to a green economy. And I have two witnesses here with me today.

All right. Thank you, and we'll go ahead and ask the lead support witnesses to come forward. You have a couple of minutes each. Please self-identify.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Tom Hintze, on behalf of UAW. I am an international rep with United Auto Workers and UAW proudly supports SB 322 to ensure that public funding for electric battery manufacturers creates high quality, sustainable jobs for workers in the battery manufacturing industry in California. California has budgeted substantial funding to transition the state to EVs, including 25 million dollars in grants related to battery manufacturing.

The state has the responsibility to ensure such financial support offered to business also creates high quality jobs, labor standards, workers' rights, career pathways, and community benefits. SB 322 will link climate goals with high road jobs by conditioning eligibility for funding on complying with labor, workplace safety, anti-discrimination and leave laws and proper classification of workers. To ensure that the development of the battery industry also protects the air, water, and soil our communities rely on, the bill also requires applicants to submit an environmental safety plan.

SB 322 amplifies the impact of public funds used to meet California's climate goals by requiring applicants to complete a workforce application. This competitive scoring system evaluates applicants based on their payment of living wages, investments in training programs, compliance with health and safety and labor laws, and adoption of labor peace agreements. By attaching high road standards to public subsidies and prioritizing job quality, SB 322 reduces emissions while also reducing income equality. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Wetch.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the IBW. Represent workers throughout America that manufacture batteries. We support the bill. Look forward to continuing to work with the author on fleshing out some of the issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Others who wish to express the support position? We've had two lead witnesses already.

No, you only had one.

Actually. I'm sorry. Please proceed.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Sorry about that confusion. I should have been standing behind. My name is Victor Quiroz. I am the Regional Director for Region Six UAW. I'm a proud member. Yesterday, I had good news. UAW sent me a pen that says I've been a member for 35 years. Very proud and very grateful. Because of those issues, such as battery manufacturer, I've been part of this.

So with that, we employ about 20,000 people in the State of California, including manufacturing power suppliers. But with that, UAW members are fighting for a just transition to ensure that changes in the U.S. automotive industry result in quality, safe jobs that benefit workers and communities. California's investments in EV and battery manufacturing offer a critical opportunity to revitalize U.S. industry and transition workers to build AYES vehicles or whose jobs are the AYES supply chain to quality jobs in the EV supply chains to promote economic and racial justice.

UAW and members know that transition to zero-emission vehicles presents an opportunity to preserve and grow high quality jobs in the EV supply chain, including in battery manufacturing. SB 322: Becker capitalizes on this opportunity by ensuring that battery manufacturers receiving public funds follow our laws, protect the safety of workers, and provide family-sustaining jobs for workers that serve as engines of economic development for the communities.

These policies will encourage high road employment practices in highly strategic sectors of California's economy, as well as strong financial investments to every local city and county within the state, thus ensuring strong financial support for services, including public safety, education, and the ongoing need to repair or expand infrastructure for decades to come. With this, for these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote for this and support. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you again. We will now go to anyone in the room who wishes to come forward and express the support position. You'd be limited to your name, affiliation, and support.

Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Hi. JB Tengco, Vice President of the BlueGreen Alliance. We bring labor environmental groups together in support.

All right. Seeing no one else come forward on the support side, is there a lead opposition witness who wishes to come forward? There was none identified; it's my understanding. That said, anyone who wishes to express opposition may do so at this time. Name, affiliation. All right, we are going to move to the moderator's line now, having heard from everyone in the hearing room. Moderator, would you please queue up any support or opposition on the teleconference line? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill on the phone line, please press one then zero now.

And, Mr. Chair, there is no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right. Thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee for any comments or concerns. Yeah. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Well, first I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. It's always exciting to see high road opportunities and making sure that businesses are prioritizing that and particularly underrepresented workforce. I fully intend to support this bill. I have a question about how your thoughts in terms of individuals who have been historically left out of these kinds of sectors. I'm thinking about women. I'm thinking about formerly incarcerated workers.

When you say employ individuals with barriers, is the intention to make sure that that is a very clear and specified--we say individuals, right, that that's being clearly spelled out and bringing those groups into the conversation?

Yeah. Thank you, and I want to appreciate this Committee as well as the last Committee. We spent a lot of time on that definition, and I don't--I apologize--I don't have it exactly right here, but I think it's quite expansive in ways that you would appreciate, and we can get that to you. But we did work to make sure that we did have a good definition, that we really did focus on a broad definition of folks with barriers to employment and to these industries.

Yeah. I was glad to see some of that language and just really calling in women and really calling in those communities, being in the community and working with union partners in particular, where we had a shared vision about what that workforce could look like, but also clarity on the barriers and the challenges. Sometimes you have to get almost razor-sharp on those definitions, so I'm glad to hear that you are continuing to work through that process. Really happy to move this vote forward, and I'd like to make the motion when the time is right.

Thank you. Senator Laird.

Thank you very much. There we go. I'm glad the analysis mentioned Senator Durazo's high road labor standards bill from last year. I'm sorry she's presenting a bill and can't be here right now. And just to add, last year in the Climate Working Group, we had an animated discussion about this and we wanted to have it be a filter for all the projects that were dealing with green energy in some way.

And it resulted in a high road labor standards bill in the Assembly, in a Durazo bill that was more global and really addressed these issues through different kinds of projects and try to do it. And we were unsuccessful in the Assembly and moving that bill. So what has happened this year is that there are many bills that sort of take pieces of it and move it ahead. And that's what this is.

And so I just wanted to salute you for doing that because it's sort of a determination that we're not going to take that one bill going down over there last year as the final answer. And it was exactly the concerns that were raised by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas that led to sort of what the agreement was between people throughout.

And I should say on the more global level, it gave some people who had the high level of concern about workforce and labor standards comfort in supporting some of the green energy projects that were other parts of the package. And I felt let down by the fact that we couldn't get that through the Assembly because it was part of the overall direction that we all had.

So I just appreciate your answers to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas's questions, and appreciate for you taking the piece of this and look forward to supporting her motion when she makes it.

Well, thank you. And I just want to say for a moment, I just really appreciate your leadership of that working group, and as you said, it was a big topic of conversation, and excited to be able to kind of keep that moving. And again, building on recognizing her previous legislation and building on that.

Thank you. I just add my own comments here which are coming from a supportive but slightly different place. This is important. It's going to be important beyond, of course, this Block Grant Program getting working standards in this space. This is, of course, one program, and we've got this massive emerging battery area that needs to be covered.

There's not a prevailing wage established yet, which if there was, we would have asked you to add that into the bill as probably in a sense, the minimum standard that the Legislature would ordinarily put in. But what I really want is, but you did as much as you can in this bill with this Block Grant Program at this time, given what we have available to work with.

To my colleagues' comments, this is really a good icebreaker into an area where we need absolutely comprehensive workforce standards that are the equivalent to the best standards that we have. I just want to say, the labor piece component here, as we all know, is sort of the very first building block in terms of any kind of labor management situation other than maybe card check neutrality, and those are just things that we almost take for granted in California to create labor peace.

We often hear people concerned, and so far, I'm taking these as justifiable concerns. This is not you, Senator Becker, as the author, but we hear in the larger debate, 'don't slow down, don't bad labor standards, don't do that,' and then end up slowing down either the implementation or the rollout of these investments.

The fact of the matter is, and I'd be willing to debate anybody on the subject having been now an elected official for 30 years, the best thing you can do to avoid slowing things down is put your labor standards in upfront like this, put your labor peace standards in, and get that done ahead of time because the thing that will slow things down, and I absolutely hope we don't ever get to that point on the climate investments because we're in a hurry, but the thing that will slow it down is labor strife.

When people start shutting down plants and shutting down deliveries because of the fact that labor standards haven't been established, that's going to exacerbate the crisis. So kudos to you for saying what I can do now is get these labor peace standards set up and let's do more later on. So I'm very happy to support the bill. Anyone else? If not, I'll--Senator Becker for his closing.

I appreciate all those comments and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you. We'll have the assistant state the actual motion here and the roll call.

File Item Number Five: SB 322. The motion is 'do pass, but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll call]. This bill is on call and currently has three aye votes.

But enough votes to get out of Committee, but of course, we'll get the absent Members. Thank you, Senator Becker, and you can move on to your SB 382 if you wish at this time.

Thank you. 382 is also called the California Pay for Success Act, and what this bill does is it creates a process for a workgroup of stakeholders under the California Workforce Development Board, which I was proud to serve on for about seven years, and Labor Agency to develop a pay for performance workforce program tool that will target people with barriers to employment. The pay for performance model conditions public funding of training services on the placement of program participants in high-quality jobs.

This bill would require the grant program include contractual and enforceable commitments to high road outcomes, and will contractually obligate training providers to achieve high road outcomes for training program participants using the same employer and job quality standards found in high road training partnerships. In the event that the grantee does not achieve the goals for workers that they set out in their contract, the state would be able to only pay for the results that the grantee achieved.

The bill will create another workforce development tool by creating an enforceable commitment to high road outcomes without the workforce board accepting risk. This pay for performance policy is already in use in a few other states and other areas of state government, and this bill will allow us to use that same model to help train workers in emerging industries. And with that, I have one witness here today, Helen Dowden from the San Francisco Jewish Vocational Services.

All right. We will welcome to the podium the lead support witness from the San Francisco Jewish Vocational Service at this time.

Thank you very much.

If you could state your name for the record, we'd appreciate it. Thank you.

I'm Hellen Roth-Dowden from San Francisco Jewish Vocational Services, who's been serving underserved workers in the Bay Area for the last 50 years. SB 382 takes high road training partnership standards. Those are living wages, upward mobility, and outcomes, and these are in the April 18th amendments. And it puts the risk for obtaining high road outcomes not on the state as in current law, but on nonprofit training providers, including unions who serve those with barriers to employment. And this is also in the bill.

It defines these in statute, and these are women, former incarcerated, homeless, minorities, those with barriers of employment. It sets up a workgroup using volunteers to shape the program under the Labor Agency Workforce Board with an evaluation back to the Legislature. And the original bill had a separate board, but now this is just a working group under the existing workforce group. By putting the risk on the provider, the hope is that this will streamline the process and reduce the time it takes to implement contracts.

It's based upon a successful pay for performance model that was implemented in Boston by Boston JVS, our sister organization, and it's received numerous awards, including from the Federal Reserve Board in the eastern area. It isn't mandated, but it's another tool. It incorporates social-innovated funding models that are also used by ETP currently in corrections under an Atkins bill from a couple years ago, into programs under the Workforce Board.

You know, there's a looming economic crisis in California, and this would provide a nimble response that conditions public funding on outcomes with the risk taken by the private sector. And for that, we ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We will now move to anyone in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position. I'm assuming there's not another lead support witness, but you can come forward and say you support the bill. All right, we'll now move to opposition. I do see an opposition witness coming forward. You'll have a couple of minutes. Please self-identify. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Amy Hines-Shaikh. I'm speaking in respectful opposition to SB 382: Becker on behalf of the Hospitality Training Academy, otherwise known as HTA. The HTA is a 501c3 nonprofit labor management partnership and a Taft-Hartley fund that serves as the training arm of UNITE HERE Local 11 and its contributing employers.

Local 11 is a labor union with 150 plus affiliated employers in the hospitality, food service, tourism, and leisure industry and represents 32,000 members employed in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino counties, as well as in the State of Arizona. The HTA is dedicated to creating pathways into the hospitality and food service industry for low income adults aged 18 and older, including individuals who are housing insecure, justice-involved, transition age, foster youth, veterans, immigrants, or transgender people, along with others from vulnerable and marginalized communities.

HTA now offers a prep cook pre-apprenticeship program and four U.S. Department of Labor and California Division of Apprenticeship Standards registered apprenticeship programs. HTA reviewed SB 382: Becker to determine its impact on the workforce ecosystem in Southern California, and it is an unnecessary bill that negatively impacts marginalized and vulnerable communities by only funding organizations with a proven track record, which many of the small CBOs in low income neighborhoods do not possess.

Small startup grassroots organizations are desperate for government dollars to do community outreach, organizing, and training, and this bill does nothing to infuse those programs with much-needed funding. It takes focus away from the high road training partnerships in high road construction careers programs, which include all the pieces of good quality jobs, not just in three or more classifications that are certainly not at the level of that classification, thereby diluting the strong impact of those programs.

In particular, they include good wages and benefits, career pathways, and worker voice and agency and efforts to mitigate climate change. This bill creates an unnecessary program that is duplicative of the other programs and its pay for success funding. SB 382 gives the California Workforce Development Board additional work without any additional funding. It forces the Labor and Workforce Development Agency and the California Workforce Development Board to convene and staff a workgroup for this new program, and we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the hearing room who wishes to express an opposed position? If so, please come forward at this time. All right, seeing no one, Moderator, if you would please give us a teleconference support and opposition on this bill, we would appreciate it.

For those of you who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one than zero at this time. Okay. We're going to go first to line 44. Line 44, your line is now open.

Hi. This is Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association in support. Thank you.

Next, we're going to go to line 11.

Morning. This is Jake Segal from Albany, California, and I serve as the vice president and head of the California office for Social Finance. We are in support of SB 382.

Line 12.

Good morning. My name is Mark R. Edwards. I'm with JVS SoCal. We are one of the bill cosponsors. We've been in business for 92 years, and we speak strongly in support of this bill. Thank you.

Line 127.

This is Rochelle Qued, on behalf of JPAC, Jewish Public Affairs Committee of California. Has a coalition of over 30 Jewish community organizations; is strong support of SB 382.

And, Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, Moderator. Thank you for continuing your excellent job, and we will bring it back to the Committee at this time for any remaining discussion or debate, comment or emotion. We have a motion by Senator Laird, and before we formally take that up, we'll give you an opportunity to close, Senator Becker.

Thank you. I appreciate the concerns raised, and our last minutes are limited, but the board concerns--we're happy to continue discussions. Certainly, the Labor Agency has been receptive to this bill. And again, this is just one tool the Labor Agency can use. So we do not think it will distract from other programs, but just highlight this exciting one and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your usual diligence in working with opposition to try to try to remove it. Thank you, and we'll move to the assistant to state the formal motion and call the roll.

File Item Number Six: SB 382. The motion is 'do pass, but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. This bill is on call and currently has three aye votes and one no.

All right. Again, three votes. Enough to get out, but we'll keep it on call for the remaining votes. Thank you, Senator Becker. And we will now move to Senator Seyarto, who's got a couple of bills. And everyone can leave as quietly as possible to help us keep moving here. Keep people as on time as possible. And I know, Senator Seyarto, we've been trying to stick to the file order and we're in a different room. Thank you for your patience.

Thank you.

You can begin whenever you're ready.

So fortunately, I'm a minimalist. So we're going to try to get through these bills quickly. Thank you, honorable Chair. And I'm here to present SB 276. SB 276 would uphold basic labor equality by ensuring the same overtime protections that are currently enjoyed by private sector employees pursuant to Labor Code Section 510 are also extended to legislative staff employees. The Legislature has had a well-documented history of inequitable and sometimes unhealthy work environments for legislative staff.

Many of these experience have been brought to light in recent years, which prompted reforms to the way Legislature, the Legislature addresses harassment, discrimination and abuse. In 2019, the Legislature took a significant step in addressing internal abuse by establishing the workplace conduct unit. However, there still exists statutory inequities that the workplace conduct unit does not have the authority to address. Campbell vs. Regents of the University of California established judicial precedents that most labor laws do not apply to public sector employees unless explicitly clarified in statute.

Consequently, certain abuses relating to working hours and compensation are still permissible under statute and may be used for implicitly discriminatory or retaliatory purposes. SB 276 would continue to bridge the gap between the workplace reforms we aspire to as a Legislature and the inequities current statute continues to enable. We have the opportunity right now with this Bill to propose--or to promise--a better workplace and improve our lackluster retention of legislative staff by holding ourselves to the same standard that we hold the private sector to. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Any support witnesses?

No, that's the minimalist part. I did not bring support witnesses.

You're not a minimalist. We just have a minimalist program today.

Thank you.

Got it. And we will ask if there's anyone who wishes to step forward, express a support position in the hearing room in terms of public comment. Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to be the lead opposition witness? Seeing no one. Anyone who wishes to simply express an opposed position, please come forward at this time. Not seeing anyone coming forward.

So we will go to the Moderator and ask Moderator if anybody got on the teleconference line that wishes to express a position on this Bill. Thank you.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. In a final call, please press one, then zero. If you wish to speak with regard to this Bill. Mr. Chair, there is no one.

Thank you very much, Moderator. we're going to bring it back to the Committee. I'm going to just go ahead and express my opinion on the Bill first, if the Committee will indulge me in that. And that is from a pure workforce or labor standpoint, I support the Bill.

I have no idea what the appropriations consequences are, nor is that our jurisdiction here, although I suspect that they would be pretty significant, as significant as perhaps any Bill we're hearing today, so I don't know how to deal with that. Of course, Committee staff can only observe those kinds of traits in a Bill. But again, I, for one, without getting into excess detail, have a tremendous amount of empathy and sympathy for some of the wage and workforce issues that are out there with our own group.

And I think it's important in this Committee for me to say we're not going to take a different approach to advancing our workforce here than we would elsewhere. Again, how much of a tough road do you have on this one in terms of figuring out where that money comes from, et cetera, is a whole nother issue that could cause anyone, including me, to be less supportive down the road. That said, I'll turn to my colleagues and see if anybody wants to add anything. Senator Laird?

Senator Laird moves the Bill. Senator Wilk?

Yeah. Just one quick comment. So he talked about not necessarily related to this Bill, but how we've addressed sexual harassment and those type issues. And I want to give the Pro Tem and the Rules Committee a lot of credit in cleaning that up when the Me Too movement struck. Different leadership at that time, and nothing was in place. And I think we've come a long way on that. But on your proposal, I think it's really only the right thing to do.

We impose these on other industries, but we don't impose them on ourself. I know me and my staff last night, we were here till after 11:40 in Judiciary Committee, which started at 09:00 a.m. And we were in before 08:00 to prepare for this Committee and another Committee. So they work really hard and for not fair compensation. So with that, be happy to support your Bill today.

Thank you. And let me say, I know the author knows this and my colleagues know this, but for others listening, including staff, I mean, when I say appropriations, it's not just somebody's judgment or another Committee. There's constraints, I think, as we know, on what this Legislature is statutorily allowed to invest in. So we'll see how that all plays out if the Bill passes. And we do have a motion by Senator Wilk.

I just want to add one. I agree with you, Mr. Chair, in supporting this Bill. I have some other worker classifications, I hope we'll have support on it. I think raising standards is important across the board. As well as we know there's an effort, and I think this Committee will hear that later about raising standards in terms of voice at work for legislative staff. So I'm hoping this is the beginning of raising standards for workers who are here doing the business of democracy.

So I just wanted to say welcome to the fight for raising standards for workers.

All right. And it was actually Senator Laird who was prepared to make the motion. But I do want to give you an opportunity to close.

Well, thank you. I appreciate that. And I'll be brief. Thank you for the support. I super appreciate it. But more than that, I think our employees appreciate it. They do put in long hours. And also with respect to the costs, when that gets costed out, there is an exemption. If an employee makes two times the minimum wage, they are exempt from overtime requirements. So this winds up being the employees that don't make that. That will be a limiter on how much this item costs. And so with that, I would appreciate an aye vote, and thank you.

Okay, so again, Senator Laird is formally making the motion, and we'll have the assistant state that and call the role, please. Thank you.

File Item number 3, SB 276. The motion is do pass, but first rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese? Cortese aye. Senator Wilk? Wilk aye. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Laird aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas aye. This Bill is on call and currently has four aye votes.

All right. You have enough to get out of Committee, and we'll pick up the other vote one way or the other later on, we hope. And you can now move into SB 300, your other bill presented today--to be presented today whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Yes, I'm ready. And thank you again to the Chair and the Committee for hearing this bill. And first, I'd also like to thank the Committee for working so hard with us on this, and we are going to be accepting the Committee recommendations and the amendments.

If you could pause there, Senator, and I just want to sort of state those because its been so late in the process, not in literal terms, but we know that Committee staff has put those amendments in writing, and I guess what we're trying to do is--we've tried to do is narrow the focus on the bill a little bit. I think probably quite a bit.

I won't again try to state anything in exact terms here, but the sentiment was that given the conflicting and complex information we get when some of those bills come through this very Committee, that the judgment here is that it might be helpful to have the LAO involved, but on a much narrower framework. So again, those amendments have been accepted by the author. Please proceed.

Yeah, thank you. So, Members, the economic impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic has revealed problems in many sectors of the state government's finances that have long been ignored, and one of them is the California's largest pension system. And that's our Public Employees Retirement System. CalPERS and related pension systems, the retirement system for California state and public agency workers, suffered investment losses of almost 30 billion dollars in 2022, while ever rising obligations showed a 70 percent shortage of what is needed to meet the undeniable obligations of the system.

CalPERS lost billions of dollars more than was previously reported in the volatile markets of 2022. The system announced that its investment losses were -7.5 percent for the fiscal year, which was a further downgrade from the initial 6.1 percent returns reported in 2022.

Widening the already large gap between CalPERS's assets and its potential liabilities, the 2022 annual loss was the first since the Great Recession and actively eviscerated the fund that provides benefits to California state employees and nearly 3,000 counties, cities, and special districts, and other employees. Through the years, CalPERS's failure to meet its assumed rate of return has been the main driver of the system's unfunded liability, and with the latest investment losses applied to an estimated CalPERS's debt is now 164,000,000,000 dollars, translating to over 4,000 dollars of debt for every California.

After the fiscal losses of 2022, CalPERS has reported that its funded ratio plummeted from 81 percent in 2021 to 72 percent as of June 2022, which means the pension system now has just 72 cents of each dollar needed to provide the pension benefits that have already been promised to current workers and retirees. And that's higher than it's been in the past. So that's a good thing, but it's still not what it needs to be.

California has guaranteed public sector workers pensions that are guaranteed by the state, meaning the state and local taxpayers will ultimately be on the hook for CalPERS's debt. The state must compensate for the debts through increased contributions, likely causing state and local governments' contribution rates to rise as taxpayers on the hook to make up for the difference between the assumed rate of return of 6.8 percent and the MICE 7.5 percent loss that they have suffered.

In both the Senate and Assembly, Committees have already implemented rules for legislation submitted to the Committee in order for it to be taken up for consideration to steer policy, although not always a Fiscal Committee, from impact of timetable analysis in the Senate Health Committee to data analysis of past and purported tax revenue in the Assembly Revenue and Tax Committees. During this time of economic uncertainty, many CalPERS stakeholders recognize the lack of uncertainty, oversight, and planning that has kept so many public pension systems underfunded for the last few decades that exist.

My bill, SB 300, seeks to remedy this by requiring any bill to be heard in the Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee as it specifically relates to CalPERS, must produce a fiscal analysis provided by the nonpartisan body that is the LAO, Legislative Analyst Office, public pension plans, and thus taxpayers especially vulnerable to financial shocks they may have in the past.

California must prioritize solutions to minimize these risks in the future by making CalPERS more resilient and prepared to deal with the ups and downs of the certain economic future--uncertain economic future. Members, I respectfully ask for an aye vote on this so we can address some of these ongoing issues.

Thank you, Senator. Any support witnesses?

No, I did not bring any support witnesses with me. As a minimalist, I'm trying to limit the time it takes to get through these.

Thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to speak in support? Name, affiliation, and support. Here meaning in the hearing room. All right, we will ask if there's anyone who wishes to be lead opposition witness on this bill. Please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, respectfully with a concerns position on this bill. CSEA was founded based on the belief that all public employees, especially those dedicating their careers to public education, should have access to a stable and secure retirement. Classified employees and all public sector employees generally often earn less than their counterparts in the private sector, with the promise of a secure pension waiting for them in retirement.

School employees and other public employees elect CalPERS board members to protect their retirement, and the CalPERS Board, with guidance from their expert staff, analyzes and takes positions on bills before the Legislature based on how those bills will impact the fund as a whole. CalPERS itself is the best institution equipped to analyze how bills considered by the Legislature will affect our public pension system, and they frequently do so.

Put simply, we believe this bill is an unnecessary extra step when CalPERS itself will often be consulted by the LAO with respect to how bills affecting CalPERS impact the fund. Thank you.

Thank you for expressing your concerns.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association, also in opposition.

Anyone else here who wishes to express opposition along with their name and affiliation? I'm seeing none. Moderator, can you please check the teleconference line for any support or opposition testimony at this time. SB 300.

For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one then zero if you wish to speak to this bill. Mr. Chair, we have one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment.

Thank you.

We're going to go to line 122. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. California Chamber of Commerce in support over concerns over fund solvency. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thank you. We'll come back to the Committee. And I made some comments earlier with regard to the amends. The only thing I really want to say in addition to that in this case is this narrowed focus of the bill is simply a call for information. There's some sentiment within the Committee that that information isn't unnecessary, but would actually be useful in helping Committee staff do analysis going forward.

That's my opinion as a Chair. It's not just other people's opinions, and with that, I'm willing to support it with the amendments accepted. I understand the concerns and certainly respect the sentiments of my colleagues in whatever they want to do here. So that's not a hard recommendation of any sort on my part. Again, just a willingness to support the bill and see what happens going forward with appropriations and all the other issues that we have to deal with. That said, I'll turn to other colleagues now. Senator Laird.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I was prepared to oppose this bill before the amendments, and I still have concerns, in particular in relation to divestment and requiring an additional report there. And divestment actually has worked and a lot--I spearheaded as a mayor 35 years ago a divestment related to apartheid in South Africa. And the criticisms were always, this will really bounce our pension system. This is going to force them to sell things at different times. And it didn't happen. It just didn't happen.

And it's the same debate now with regard to divestment in fossil fuel. And the author of the bill that's moving through the Senate has taken amendments, including from this Committee, that allow 12 years to deal with the fiduciary responsibilities and that, I believe, addresses the issue of whether or not there's going to be a financial impact because it can be dealt with over time in a way that there is not a loss to the system.

And the statement that was made was overall about the entire system. And then this bill isn't necessarily tied to some of those other issues that are leading what's going on in the system. And so I'm willing to go along with the Chair and give you a chance to continue to work on this, but I just thought I should give voice to those concerns. Thank you.

Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I agree with what's been said by my colleagues and the Chair, but the amendments are being accepted? I wasn't sure. I was unclear. Okay. That's what--I wasn't clear. So we are accepting the amendments that came out of Committee?

Yes.

Got it. With that, I just want to add, divestment is an important tool. I remember growing up and my mother being a part of pushing for divestment from apartheid South Africa. And we saw, as you, Senator Laird pointed out, that that divestment changed the world. And at the end of the day, the workers were still made whole and the program remained solvent and growing far after that. So I'm glad to hear that the amendments are being accepted and I look forward to supporting this bill.

All right. Anything else? If not, we are at that point where we can let you close and then entertain a motion.

Great. Thank you so much. I just wanted to answer to the opposition to this. What this bill does is protect exactly what they're talking about, and it helps us if we are going to insert the Legislature into the process of determining what is a good investment and what isn't, that we at least have the information available to us so we understand what we're doing, what the potential repercussions of that are, and that comes from the LAO, because the LAO is an independent body.

So they can give us their best estimate, so that when we are making these decisions regarding pension plans, which are extremely important to the people that are retired--I have a family full of teachers, and many of them have put into their pension for years and years.

And I want to ensure that there can still be a political say in what's going on, but however, that we don't do actions that actually force us to invest in things that are not going to help make sure that we have the amount of money that we need to make the pension system whole. So with that, I appreciate the discussion and the dialogue, and I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you, Senator. And just for nothing, since we're already past the close, no more interaction with the author, but I just wanted to say, to make sure with the utmost respect that we acknowledge that this Committee staff, that we have tremendous confidence in their analysis without any other analysis, and the same for the other House.

So this isn't any kind of an indication of concern about deficiency there. As I said, this falls into that 'information might be useful' category. So with that, we are going to ask Senator Wilk if he wants to make a motion.

I'd be happy to move the bill. Sorry.

Senator Wilk makes the motion and the assistant will state the exact motion and then call the roll.

File Item Number Four: SB 300. The motion is 'do pass, but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. This bill is on call and currently has four aye votes.

And thank you, and my apologies if the Committee thinks I was slighting them. Not in the least. Okay. Thank you.

We understand. Thank you, and congratulations, and we'll keep it on call for the other--for the other voting Member. One moment please.

That doesn't mean that the Committee can't continue, and that's probably what we'll do, but I reserve the right to call recess if it starts to get, to use Senator Seyarto's word, too minimalist in terms of attendance here, especially if we're only going to be gone for five or ten minutes. So just a heads up about that. That's all. We'll make a decision sometime soon while we watch our text messages. Thank you, Senator. You may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you. I will say this is the first time I'm presenting from a left-sided dais, so I'm a little bit mispositioned, but thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Thank you. I'm on your right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of Committee. I'm here to present Senate Bill 375, the Covid-19 Employer Regulatory Compliance and Tax Credits.

For three years, we know California employers have complied with stringent emergency workplace safety requirements relative to Covid-19 and during that time, more than 61,000 California businesses permanently closed their doors and roughly 2.5 million Californians have lost their jobs.

Senate Bill 375 creates a tax credit to reimburse employers for the cost of complying with nonemergency Covid-19 workplace safety regulations that will be in effect for all of 2023 and 2024. I want to make clear that Senate Bill 375 is not saying that the regulations are unnecessary. This bill does not weigh in on the merits of the regulation.

Simply keep in mind that where there are increased risk of contracting Covid-19 at work, such as in health care settings, there is already a regulation in place to protect health care workers. But this new regulation applies to all workplaces, and in dealing with protecting people from a community spread virus, this regulation places incredible costs on employers and makes employers the social safety net for a global health challenge.

If these regulations are needed to protect against the spread of Covid-19, the primary, public policy purpose is relative to public health and not in dealing with the risk that is inherent to workplace safety, and recognizing that SB 375 proposes to shift the cost of achieving that public policy purpose from individual employers back to the state. In short, the state should be at the backstop for public health, not our small mom and pop employers who are barely hanging on.

Senate Bill 375 provides this reimbursement by making a credit available to employers while paying their payroll taxes to EDD in their final report at the end of the year. When an employer files their last report, the employer will have an opportunity to claim a credit for the quote, unquote, 'variable costs of complying with Covid-19 regulations.' That credit would be capped at 100 dollars per employee for small employers, an employer with less than 100 employees, and 50 dollars per employee for large employers.

With me to speak in favor of this bill are Michael Miller with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers and Sabrina Debayo Lockhart from the California Attraction and Parks Association.

Thank you, Senator. Please self-identify and you'll have a couple of minutes each to speak in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members, and thank you, author. My name is Michael Miller with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. We are the sponsor of this legislation. I thank the author for her courage and leadership in taking on this issue.

To her point in her district, this is a big issue, and it's actually a big issue for small growers all over California who are facing--still recovering from the 2020 Pandemic where direct sales were shut down, wine prices took a substantial dip, and they're still in recovery. In 2020, we faced an unprecedented global pandemic. We were all faced with a shutdown.

So in 2020 and in 2021, the state and federal government created policies that told employers to pay employees to stay away from work if they have Covid or if they have Covid symptoms. Recognizing that this is incredibly costly, the Federal Government backfilled behind all those costs. In 2022, we were coming out of the pandemic, but the state wanted to make sure that all Californians faced no impediment to getting tested or vaccinated.

So the Legislature passed legislation requiring employers to pay every employee for up to 80 hours of leave in 2022 for anything related to Covid. But that was only for one year. Then in December, a new nonemergency Covid-19 regulation was adopted for all of 2023 and 2024. Those are regulations of a two billion dollar annual cost with no reimbursement to cover those costs. I want to be clear. We're not saying that Covid is over.

We're not saying that Covid is behind us, but it is no longer what it was in 2020, 2021 or 2022. The new regulation is primarily focused on stopping the spread of a virus in the community. This is not a unique workplace exposure issue where there is an inherent risk in doing the work. Therefore, it only makes sense that, like any other public health program, this should be paid for by the state or federal government, not by each individual employer.

The initial statement of reasons for this regulation, prepared by the Occupational Safety Health Standards Board gets into more details on the cost and benefits of this regulation, which are highlighted in the opposition letter. On page 49, the document specifically states all benefits attributed to the proposed regulation traced back to avoided Covid-19 illnesses. The document then goes on to explain how the state relied on community-based data, not on worker transmittal data to make its calculation of benefits.

If there's any confusion about this, on page four of that same document, the document states the following: 'data for the number of Covid cases, the number of cases of Covid-19 infection, and number of hospitalizations and deaths attributable to workplace exposure to Covid is not currently available.' We've asked for this data for three years.

There is no data on workplace transmittal of Covid. Therefore, if there's no data on workplace transmittal of Covid, the estimation of tens of billions of dollars of benefits to employers is based on community-spread data, not worker data. And to be clear, if there were really tens of billions of dollars in benefits to California's employer community, why would every industry organization in the state oppose those regulations? That assertion is not substantially real.

When looking at all of this, common sense dictates that this regulation is primarily about a community-spread public health issue. It's not about health and safety concern in the workplace. And that is why we believe employers recovering from the pandemic should not be burdened with these costs. That's why we're sponsors of the bill. Again, we thank the author, and we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Miller. Next speaker, I will remind you two minutes.

Yes. I'll keep it in the minimalist tradition that we've established this morning. Good afternoon. Thank you for the opportunity. My name is Sabrina Demayo Lockhart. I am the Executive Director of the California Attractions and Parks Association. We represent permanent amusement parks, water parks, attractions, and family entertainment centers. Our members are publicly traded companies, multigenerational, family-owned small businesses, and nonprofits, and our industry was among the hardest hit during the pandemic. Some of our members were closed for 14 months.

During that time, our members still helped their communities. We opened up our parking lots for mass testing, vaccination clinics, and even food bank giveaways for our neighbors in needs. We pushed for a responsible reopening because safety is at the core of everything we do. Keep in mind the regulations in place today are substantially similar to when they were introduced--first passed in December 2020. To put that in context, that's before we had vaccines, regularly available testing, and boosters that were available to everyone, or even antivirals.

And that was a time when the federal government offered a tax credit as well. Fast forward today, the costs of compliance are still there, and they're in place until 2025. And the federal tax credit is long gone. Committee staff handed you a substantial packet of papers. One are the regulations. They're very detailed. They're 11 pages long. And then there's a separate document that helps employers understand those regulations that is almost two dozen pages long.

You've also been handed the model Covid prevention plan that employers must fill out once they put their details into that. It's almost 20 pages long. So you just want to underscore how detailed these regulations are. Our members have at least one person tasked with ensuring that we're in compliance with these regulations, in addition to the myriad of other workplace safety rules that we gladly follow. In some parks, complying with Covid-19 regulations can nearly become an entire full time job.

Keep in mind, its close contact isn't just six feet within 15 minutes--or 15 minutes within six feet like it had been for most of the pandemic. Now employers have to take in cubic footage of their workplace, so there's different rules if you're over 400,000 cubic feet and under 400,000 cubic feet. At this point, efforts to protect the public from Covid-19 are clearly a public health issue and should be funded like any other public health protection effort. We support SB 75 and ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Excellent effort trying to keep it under two minutes. Since I know you, I'd cut you a little slack. Okay. I'm sorry. We were in session till 11:40 last, and I'm so burned out. So do we do need to support and then we do opposite? Anybody here need to support? Love to hear from you. Again, name, affiliation if you have one, and support position.

Mr. Chair and Members of Committee, Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association as well as the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Emellia Zamani with the California Travel Association in support.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also in support.

Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturing Technology Association, in support. Thank you.

Margie Lee, on behalf of the California New Car Dealers Association and the California League of Food Producers, in support.

Thank you. Okay, now we will go to opponents. Do we have any lead witnesses? I will give you some leeway if you need it.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, here in respectful opposition, and we thank the author and her staff for meeting with us in hearing our concerns throughout this process. I want to start by talking about the Cal/OSHA Covid-19 prevention standard that is in place now. This is a transition from the temporary standard that was put in place as an emergency precaution when the pandemic hit.

The federal government and the state government--now that the emergency declarations are over--have moved from that emergency standard into a standard that reflects the new normal. The fact that though the pandemic has abated, it's still present, and we are facing the threat of new pandemics that could shut down the economy as well at any time. The new standard, the nonemergency standard, is very similar to the temporary one, with a couple and one very important distinction. The temporary standard included exclusion pay.

That meant that employers had to pay workers when they were sent home so that they could recover from Covid. In this standard, there is no exclusion pay. So employers are still required to send workers home when they have Covid during the infection period, but they're not required to pay them. So workers have to rely on the three paid sick days they have under the law, if they still have them, or employer paid sick days. But there is no exclusion pay under this standard.

That is a huge loss to workers who do not have this benefit, and employers don't have to pay for that leave. So that is one big difference and one of the reasons now that there's not the emergency standards, that there aren't these subsidies. This is the new normal. In addition, there have been benefits to employers with the standards that have been put in place to reduce infections, to keep workers healthy, to keep customers healthy, so that business and the economy should thrive.

This is not the Department of Public Health that are putting out these regulations. This is Cal/OSHA. They're in charge of worker health and safety in the workplace. And in addition, we in California expect when laws and regulations are passed that business, individuals, workers comply with those and don't have to be paid to comply with laws that are passed by the legislation or regulations that are passed by rulemaking bodies. And so for those reasons, we would oppose and urge your no vote. Thank you.

We have another primary witness in opposition? Seeing none, any #MeToo testimony? Seeing none, let's go to the phone. Moderator. This is that same moderator that worked with me last night. Moderator?

Pardon me, Mr. Chair, your audio changed a bit there.

That was on me. So thank you so much. Again, so this is going to be SB 375. We're taking #MeToo testimony both in support and in opposition. Name, affiliation if they have one, and their position on the bill. And it's all yours, Mr. Moderator.

Thank you. For those of you who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero at this time. And we're going to go now to line 125. Line 125, your line is now open.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, as well as my colleague at the California Restaurant Association, in strong support.

Thank you.

Line 130.

Dean Chalios with the California Association for Health Services at Home, in support. Thank you.

Line 17.

Nick Champi, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 131.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in support. Thank you.

Line 73.

Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Excellent job, Mr. Moderator. Thank you. All right, we'll pull it back to the Committee. Questions, comments, concerns? Anyone willing to make a motion? I'm willing to make a motion, but I can't make a motion because I'm the Chair. Yeah. Well, okay. Then I guess we're going to wait on this and we'll entertain a motion when Senator Cortese comes back.

Okay. Thank you.

Well, I'd just make a brief comment, Mr. Chair, that I know we're hampered by the fact that Senator Cortese wanted to talk on this and express sort of a general direction, and I think a lot of us are anxious to hear that and follow the general direction. We want to give the author a chance to work on this, even though there are some concerns that have been represented. So I don't know if our format will allow for him to do that when he comes.

No, he told us that he would like to do that when he comes back.

Okay. I just looked at a bunch of blank faces. I was like, why is nobody saying anything?

We're waiting for direction from our Chair, right?

Okay. Thank you very much.

I guess you can close.

Reserve the privilege of closing after the comments, just in case there's some things to amend. Is that okay? Okay. All right. So I will recuse from the dais to allow for my colleague to continue under your discretion, and then I will be wait to be called back? Great. Thank you so much.

All right, don't kill me like that.

Senator Laird, I've just been called to Education, so--

And I'll be very quick.

When Senator Umberg handed me the gavel yesterday during the cast hearing before the 300 witnesses, he said he'd be quick too.

Well, I'm no Senator Umberg so--

Will move to item number nine, Senate Bill 765. Senator Portantino, welcome to the Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members, we have a huge teacher shortage in California. This Bill creates an incentive to bring retired teachers back into teaching. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote we're carrying this Bill. On behalf of Superintendent Thurman, we have Blake Johnson from the Department of Education, and Joey Sumberg, principal from Valley View, who will also testify.

Let's get teachers back in the classroom and help them do it, and not appropriately will express, oh, I have to say I'm going to accept the technical amendments outlined, but not the substantive amendments. And I am committing to continue to work with stakeholders to try to get to consensus, though I'm not guaranteeing we're getting to a consensus. And I know the chair shares some concerns and we'll be working with the chair as well. I got a thumbs up from staff. All right, witnesses, let's go.

Where are you? I got six minutes.

Six minutes? How did he get six minutes?

No, I'm just me. I have six minutes.

Oh, he's got to get out of here in six minutes. I thought, zero, no, he doesn't get to extend our time frame. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair. Committee Members. Blake Johnson, on behalf of the city litter of public Instruction, who's a proud co-sponsor of SB 765, like to thank Senator Portantino for leadership. Important Bill. SB 765 is a critical piece of legislation that will enable our schools to meet the immediate needs of students with qualified educators and offer long term solutions to combat the California teacher shortage.

I also want to stress that this Bill is consistent with previous efforts that provided great effectibility for Calstar's retired Members to assist with pressing staffing shortages and has been proven to be an effective tool in addressing these shortages in the past. I also understand that it is going to take a multifaceted approach to address our teacher shortage. That is one part of the approach.

The other parts include doubling the teacher Regency grant and providing Cal grants to prospective teachers, which will be critical to building out our robust teacher pipeline. This three pronged approach will be integral to ensuring our les have a robust teacher workforce to ensure our children receive the best possible education. For these reasons, the Superintendent is proud to sponsor SD 765 and urges an I vote, try to be as succinct as possible.

Thank you very much. Do you have a second lead witness, Mr. Morton? Well, somebody's waving and self identifying so, yes, let's do that. I identified welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Luckily, all the people who heard me in the education Committee have left, so you're all first timers on my speech. Thank you for having me here today. I'm here to give you a little bit of the view of what it looks like in the classroom. As you know, we have a teacher shortage, and there's also a lack of qualified substitutes.

My mission as a principal that I'm pretty passionate about is to drive the instructional program, and when there's an absence or vacancy, make sure that my students have instructional continuity and ensure that my students are in a safe space. During my 20 years in schools, I haven't seen the high level of vacancies or absences that I have in recent years, and more than 25% of my positions at my school this year were vacant.

I sought to fill those vacancies with retired teachers who were willing to work only to be told that they were still in the 180 day wait period or they had reached their earnings cap and therefore unable to step in. That meant that instead of having an experienced and credentialed educator with the knowledge to create a safe space where students could still experience academic success, instead of having an experienced educator who could teach to the standards with or without a lesson plan, classes were split up.

Or when we could get them, they had substitutes. And in the latter case, just so that you know, this is what some of my students experienced. Subs who were on their phones all day, subs who had students playing games all day, watch movies all day, do push-ups in order to be able to use the restroom, which I believe is corporal punishment.

To be fair, this isn't always the case, but try as we might, principals cannot always provide support to those brave enough to come into the classrooms as substitute teachers. SB 765 will go a long way to removing the barriers to those who want to continue to serve our students and support those who want to enter the profession, thus ensuring our students receive quality instruction. Despite a high number of vacancies or absences, retired teachers have a wealth of knowledge and experience.

If you could begin to wrap.

I can and I will. They bring a lot of good stuff to the classroom. I'm just going to say that they can teach, they can mentor, they fill in and do really good stuff for kids. That's really the gist of what I have to say. Safe, continued learning. That's really what I'm after.

Thank you very much. Appreciate your comments. This would be the opportunity for me, too, in support name, affiliation, whether you support, and I know since you're a former staffer of mine, you couldn't be brief if your life depended on it. So let's make an effort.

Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, strong co-sponsor and strong support.

Thank you very much.

Go ahead.

Hi, Andrea Ball here on behalf of four organizations in support, the California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Central Valley Education Coalition, the Orange County Department of Education and the twenty-eight district superintendents, and the Long Beach Unified School District. Thank you. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much.

Carson Aids, on behalf of the California Charter Schools Association in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Anna Ivy, with Los Angeles Unified School District in support.

Thank you very much.

Elizabeth Escovell, California Association of School Business Officials, also on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. Could you indulge me in a tweener, a couple points on that?

A Tweener, yes, a very brief tweener.

Very brief, two points. So we appreciate the Senator bringing this Bill. We recognize that the teacher shortage is severe and appreciate all the creative ideas that this has been introduced. We're working with the Superintendent and the author to strengthen protections against abuse that this provision may bring when bringing back retirees. So thank you guys so much for your great work.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else for me to support, this is the opportunity for anybody to speak in opposition. Seeing no one moderator we will go to the teleconference line. And this is the opportunity for anybody to just briefly state their name, their affiliation, and whether they support or oppose the Bill.

Ladies and gentlemen, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. At this time. Press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, we have at least one person who signaled they wish to speak. Just a momentum. And we're now going to go to line 137. Your line is now open.

Thank you. Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified in support.

Thank you very much.

Line 136.

Hi. Leticia Garcia, on behalf of the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and the 23 school district superintendents of Riverside County in support, thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

There is no one else.

I appreciate that last night in judiciary, we got the line 3200. So, I'm very happy that we're still low in this hearing today. I don't have a comment or question, and I know that I was prepared to support the Bill. I know that the chair wanted to make some comments and deal with this. And he's presenting his Bill at the education Committee.

And I spoke to staff about those comments.

And so I think what I'd like to do is, and I can't make a motion, the presiding officer can't. So there's no ability to have a motion now. So what I would ask is if you would like to close and if you would like to speak to what his comments were, if you choose to, even though we don't have them yet.

So again, I'm taking the technical amendments. I'm not taking the substantive amendments. We're going to continue to talk. I'm not guaranteeing that we'll get to consensus, but we'll try to get to consensus and we'll try to address the chair's concerns. And I think he was going to make a comment to that, if you want to. And just to clarify, we're also taking the Senate policy, the Senate Education amendments, correct. We have to adopt the Senate Education amendments that we couldn't get in education Committee.

So we're taking those sets of amendments and when appropriate, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And I'm sorry that everybody's off in the universe, but when the Chair is back, we will deal with that. Thank you very much, Mr. Portantino. We're going to move to File Item Ten: Senator Limon: Senate Bill 526. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Acting Chair. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee's amendments. SB 526 will require the Department of Industrial Labor Relations to create a domestic violence awareness poster with important information like the phone number for the National Domestic Violence Hotline. These posters will be available for businesses to post in break rooms and common areas, but will not be required. The workplace can be one of a few places where a person can be away from their abuser.

This can be an ideal space for a person to receive information about domestic violence hotline and offer other assistance and resources. Several other states, like Oregon, Washington, and Ohio have created similar posters for the workplace as a tool to help survivors reduce workplace violence. With me today, we have Ken Oplinger, Executive Director of Domestic Violence Solutions, to speak in support of the bill. Hi, Ken.

Right. Welcome.

Ken Oplinger from Domestic Violence Solutions for Santa Barbara County. We provide a 24-hour hotline for domestic violence survivors in the county, 75 emergency shelter beds across two shelters, and we also run a number of programs to help folks who are experiencing domestic violence. On average, nearly 20 people per minute are physically abused by an intimate partner in the United States, and in fact, intimate partner violence accounts for 15 percent of all violent crime in this country.

The prevalence of domestic violence has negative impacts on all parts of our society, including in the workplace. Survivors can be distracted at work, miss work, arrive late, or leave early, and be more likely to leave their job. 54 percent of employers have reported that domestic abuse caused the quality of the employee's work to suffer, and 56 percent said that it led to absenteeism.

SB 526 will ensure that employees have information readily available to them about how they can address the impacts an abusive relationship is having on their lives. By using the workplace poster system already in place, we can easily provide national and local contact information for domestic violence services directly to employees.

This information will provide access to programs like ours at DVS all across California, getting survivors the help that they need. Once in our programs and addressing their trauma, survivors can more quickly build new lives away from their abuser or get back to their lives and their work, thereby limiting productivity impacts for California's employers. California will also be joining a number of other states, as the Senator said, that have already created domestic violence posters to be placed in the workplace, including Washington State.

These states have already seen the benefit of this easy solution, and it's time that California joined them. On behalf of DVS's survivors all across California, thank you for considering 526, and we stand ready to help you get this passed this year. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We have no other primary witnesses in support, so this would be the opportunity for anybody in the room that wishes to do a #MeToo support for this bill to come to the microphone and do it. Seeing none, then this would be the opportunity for anybody that wishes to be a lead witness in opposition to come to the microphone. Seeing none, this would be the opportunity for anybody to just say they're against the bill.

Is there anybody there? Then seeing none, we would go to the teleconference center, and this is the opportunity for anybody to express their name, their affiliation, and whether they support or oppose the bill. Moderator, do we have anybody waiting to do that?

For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one then zero to speak in support or opposition to this bill. And Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you very much, Moderator. We'll see you in a little bit. And let me just say to the author that as one person, I cannot make a motion here. It is clear from both the room and the analysis that there's no opposition, and I thank you for bringing this bill forward and looking forward to making the motion or having a motion made. And we will get to it whenever the Education Committee finally adjourns and people can come back.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes, they're lifting calls in Education, and we have a feeling that they'll be back here. Then I think--I think we're going to take a recess for five minutes and hope we get a real Committee back here. And if we don't, I'll call it back to order and we'll start rolling through the bills again.

All right, we're calling the Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee back to order. And if we can have order in the Committee hearing room, that would be appreciated. All right. All right, we're just going to pick up--we're going to post recess here, pick up on some unfinished business while we had so few Members here and only a Chair.

Thank you very much for presiding, Senator Laird, that we need to go back and entertain motions on two or three bills. The first one we're going to take up is File Item Nine, and again, this bill has been heard. Anything that needs to be on the record has been put on the record. It's File Item Nine: SB 765: Portantino. So the only question is, do we have a motion?

I would move that bill.

Senator Laird moves that bill. Any further comment on the bill? Senator Wilk, we're on File Item Nine: Portantino. We're just about to state the motion and call the roll. Everything has been heard on that bill, and everything's on the record on that bill. So assistant, please go ahead.

File Item Number Nine: SB 765. The motion is 'do pass but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

All right, thank you. We're going to numerically back up to the bill that was heard prior to File Item Nine, that's File Item Seven: SB 375. That was Senator Alvarado-Gil's bill. So it's been heard. Everything's been put on the record that anyone wanted or needed to be put on the record.

She wanted to come and do a close. Have we reached out to her?

She did not--

I asked her for close in the hearing.

Oh. Because she had said she wanted to wait for you to do the close.

Yes, so, I would say that if--I suggested you might be making comments, and so if you don't make comments, I don't think there's a requirement for a close.

I appreciate the diligence on everyone's part. There was just a discussion about whether or not there'd be enough said prior or on the motion that would be necessary to have the Member here either to rebut or answer questions.

I don't think that's necessary because I think I'm the only one that perhaps has any kind of a comment at all, and it's really just that I intend to give our colleague my courtesy vote. I have reservations on the bill, and those reservations will stay intact going forward, but I made a decision that I want to see her with the opportunity to work through remaining issues, of which there are several. So, just putting on the record my justification for my vote, that's all.

I'm happy to move the bill at the appropriate time.

All right. We can come back to Senator Wilk for the formal motion if anybody else wants to comment on the bill. All right. That said, Senator Wilk--it's moved. Essentially, the author has dispensed with the close, even though based on the comments I just made, and with that, we'll ask the assistant to state the motion and call the roll.

File Item Number Seven: SB 375. The motion is 'do pass, but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. This bill is out with three aye votes and one no vote.

All right, the bill is out on a three-one vote with one abstention. Now we will move on to file item number 10. This is Senator Limon's bill, SB 526. This was also heard with only one member present, which was when Senator Laird was presiding without any of the rest of us. So we have been informed that everything's been heard and on the record. But I'm going to turn to Senator Laird.

I'm going to say everything was heard and on the record and there was no opposition with a lead witness in the room or on the teleconference center. And I would move the bill.

Great. All right. And Senator Limon has moved on, so no close on this one. Senator Laird moves SB 526, file item 10. Assistant?

Assistant file item number 10, SB 526. The motion is do pass, but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Senator Durazo. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

The bill is out on a five to zero vote. We now, in file order, move to item 11. However, we aren't going to do that. Everyone has a boss, okay? My boss tells me that we need to move to file item 16, and we're happy to do so. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, whenever you're ready you may present. Thank you.

...

You all hear me okay? There we go. Traditionally, fabrication of custom sheet metal ducts for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems took place at a job site. Advances in prefabrication tools and practices now allow the fabrication of custom sheet metal ducts either on-site or off-site. Offsite fabrication increases safety, productivity, and efficiency by using permanently installed computer-guided plasma cutters and by allowing project planners to schedule the needed fabrication at each stage of construction.

Unfortunately, offsite custom fabrication has also been used to increase developer and contractor profits by evading prevailing wage requirements. A 2014 appellate court decision upheld a determination that offsite custom fabrication of metal is not subject to prevailing wage, even though the same work would be if it were performed at a job site. This creates an incentive for contractors to evade prevailing wage by constructing significant portions of their projects outside the local area using low-wage workers that don't have the same protections of a prevailing wage. Allowing this to continue undermines state prevailing wage policy and denies workers their rightful wages. SB 830 would follow the lead of other states that have specified offsite custom fabrication of sheet metal for HVAC systems is itself a public work.

This will ensure off-site fabrication is used to benefit the efficiency and safety of public projects, not to dodge prevailing wage. I have with me today from the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, Scott Wetch to testify in support and Rob Stoker to answer any technical questions you might have on this issue.

Mr. Wetch, please proceed.

...

Excuse me. As the analysis points out, the purpose of prevailing wage is to ensure that local wage rates are not devalued by a race to the bottom and that we provide a level playing field for all contractors. Unfortunately, a very poor appellate court decision from a number of years ago creates a situation where sheet metal, duct, and other sheet metal systems that are engineered and designed specifically for specific projects. Not ductwork that you can go buy at Home Depot or off the shelf from a wholesaler. But ducts that have been designed and engineered specifically for a project are exempt from prevailing wage if they're fabricated off-site. This bill attempts to close what we believe is an unfortunate loophole, very narrowly crafted.

I'd like to point out that the opposition, my very dear friend Scott Govenar, who will be coming up here shortly, is going to argue that if we do this, the prevailing wage enforcement will be very difficult to do in prevailing wages. This committee is well aware if you do work on a project site, on a public works job, you have to provide a certified payroll every pay period. This would be no different.

To comply with this, a contractor could choose just to fabricate the ductwork on site, in which they would then obviously comply and pay prevailing wage. If they choose to continue to do it off-site at a prefabrication shop, they would still just submit the same payroll so that then the DIR and other enforcement entities could make sure that there's compliance. I have with me today Rob Stoker, the political director for Sheet Metal Local 104, to testify. And for technical issues, I have Tom Enzo, our legal counsel. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee. Rob Stoker, Sheet Metal Workers. I'll just quickly add that everything that Scott just mentioned is true and what the author said, but also we're seeing now that workers are actually being displaced. So just over the course of the last, just say, 20 years, and I've been in this almost 40 years and have gone through every level from pre-apprentice, apprentice, journeyman, general foreman.

And finally, before I came over and was able to represent Sheet Metal Workers, I ran the sheet metal division and one of the largest mechanical contractors in the East Bay. I know this industry. Part of what my job was is to how do we bring jobs in quicker on time, safer. Part of that was whatever we could do in a shop where we could control the environment, the safety, all of those things, the coordination.

Let's do that, and then we'll bring it out to the field and we'll install it quicker, more efficiently, all those things. Well, for a union contractor, that's fine, but it goes back to kind of closing this loophole where some may choose to do things on-site, some may choose to do things off-site. Technology is moving some of these jobs off-site.

We're not in these projects when the steel is going up and figuring out where the duct run is going to go, it's all done off-site on a computer, prefabrication. We used to bring the pieces out one by one, assemble it here at the building. That doesn't happen. It's pre-manufactured, prefabricated in large components, then are brought out to the project. So again, that's part of what it is. Technology is changing jobs, and these workers deserve these prevailing wage protections. So I'll just leave it at that unless you had any questions.

No, but as a committee that got moved off-site today, we can understand the concept.

Not at all.

I hope they're still getting paid.

Mr. Chair, members committee, Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors Association. We are signatory with the smart union. They are brothers and sisters. We work together. We support prevailing wage. We do have.

This is a me too section only. So we've had two supporters.

I'm a tweener.

Pardon me?

Tweener.

There's no extra time for that. But if you want to speak under opposition, you can. If we have something available in the four minutes, but we're beyond that. I apologize. It's a committee rule. I got to be the same with everybody or I'm going to have a First Amendment lawsuit on my hands. Yes.

Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. All right, anyone else who wishes to express support, name, and affiliation on this particular bill? Seeing no one's come forward, now we'll move to opposition. Is there an opposition lead witness?

Mr. Chair and members, Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, our members are signatory to the carpenters and laborers. We have a vested interest in ensuring the long-term longevity of the union construction industry. We don't believe this measure is the right approach, nor do we believe that we are evading anything because this is not the law of the land. This is how we operate today. This measure is very simple. And in being so simple, there are a whole host of questions that remain unanswered.

My dear friend Scott Wetch is right. We just have to do certified payroll records. However, when a worker is on-site, we know the amount of time they are there on that project. Here in a fabrication shop, that worker can perform work on a public works project, a private works project, or a different public works project in the same day.

Therefore, there is an issue for liability for us in tracking those hours and what wage rates, because that wage rate will change depending upon the work they are performing. It's unclear how this would work. We don't know which prevailing wage is applicable. Proponents spoke about ensuring kind of a local workforce. Is the worker fabricating a project in Fresno entitled to the same wages where the project is being built in San Francisco? Which prevailing wage applies? We don't know the answer to that.

That's not in the bill. We don't know what wage rate is due. Is DIR going to have to do a wage survey because this is manufacturing? Are they going to do wage survey for manufacturing in San Francisco, for example, or where the product is made in Fresno? Again, we don't have an answer to that. What is non-standard if you buy duct at Home Depot and cut an inch per specifications that constitute a non-standard fabricated item? We don't know. Bill doesn't say that.

And then what happens if products are produced in other states or countries where the state has no jurisdiction? California can't simply say products from Arizona can't come in because you're not being paid California wages. There's a commerce clause problem there. We don't know what happens. And then lastly, given the state's interest in housing, which many of projects are sub prevailing wages, we are talking about a fairly steep increase in pricing from the non-union rate to prevailing wage rates.

For example, in San Francisco, that could triple the wages. Again, we have a vested interest in ensuring the longevity of the union construction market. We are concerned that measures like this push the union sector exclusively to public works, which over the long run is not healthy for the market. So we are opposed.

Mr. Govenar, if I can ask a question.

Of course.

Are you suggesting on the prevailing wage that it should be the higher of the two geographical locations? Because I'm pretty sure the author would consider that amendment.

No, I'm suggesting it should be where the product is actually fabricated as opposed to where it's installed.

We'll both suggest that the author continue to work on that issue. Thank you. Is there anyone else that was designated to be a lead opposition witness on this bill? Anyone who wishes to express opposition on this bill? Name, affiliation, and opposition. Now we'll go to the teleconference line as a moderator to bring forward anyone who wishes to express by teleconference opposition or support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. And, Mr. Chair, we have one person who signaled they wish to speak. We're going to go to line 132. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. WECA is very concerned about this bill's impact on other materials, and we are opposed. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Anyone else, Mr. Moderator?

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right. Thank you. Should have given you a chance to say that. Appreciate your effort and we will at this point, come back to the committee for comments. Senator Durazo, anything?

Yes, if I could ask one of the witnesses to comment.

You may.

Okay. Yes. Mr. Wetch, could you respond to the issues raised by the opposition?

Yes. Thank you, Senator. I consider those arguments to be complete canards. Today, it's very common on construction job sites, prevailing wage job sites, for one of our members to be at the school job site for three or four hours, and then get called by the contractor to go to a private job, and the contractor just keeps a record of how many hours worked. The certified payroll is the total amount of hours you worked on the prevailing wage job.

It's very common in construction for workers to move on and off, private to public, all of the time. On the geographical issue, the prevailing wage rate which would apply would be, of course, at the site where the job, the public works, is actually located. And a contractor could avoid any of those concerns by simply fabricating the material on-site. And then the assertion that this could lead to a 300% increase in labor wages in San Francisco is laughable.

We all know that labor is 17% of a construction job. I don't know. I didn't major in math. But even if this was, if labor costs were 300% higher, which, of course, they wouldn't be, that would not increase the total cost of the project by 300%. Labor is only 1700%. We would argue that this is a prevailing wage avoidance, and actually, that they're avoiding paying what the original intended intent was. So thank you.

Thank you. Senator Durazo, anything else? You have the floor. All right. Let me just ask the author. Well, first of all, let me just say I appreciate you bringing forward the bill and the hard work of working through the bill. I know Mr. Stoker and others have been concerned about this for some time, and it really is one of those things that I think comes directly out of lived experience in the industry, and also very much evidence of this era that we're in, where we're starting to see more and more of our labor and employment code incapable of addressing the actual practice, customs, and practice that are developing, especially with technology the way it is.

So to delve into that, as some of our other authors have in coming to this committee this year, is admirable and laudable, and appreciate you doing that. And I'm sure you'll keep trying to work through the nuanced issues around concerns as you wade into this area further during the course of the year. With that, you're welcome to close.

No, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and I really appreciate the technical support on this. We have to stay ahead of the technology. We have to make sure that we don't lose the gains that we fought for in terms of prevailing wage. And as we see prefabrication becoming more and more part of the construction sector, it is upon us to make sure that the supply chain, so to speak, has a higher standard.

So I also want to note that coming out of the nonprofit, it is very common to have to adjust your accounting and your payroll to support whatever type of funding stream you have and to meet the requirements of that funding stream. And certainly, if we can do it in the nonprofit sector, I'm certain that the construction sector can figure this out. I want to say I will certainly consider continuing to work with this between the folks who spoke today and our team to make sure that we come out with the highest standard possible for workers and for our community. So with that, I call and ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you for that. And Senator Durazo has made the motion, and we'll have assistant state the motion and call the roll.

File item number 16, SB 830. The motion is do pass, but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. No. Wilk, no. Senator Durazo. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is on call and currently has three aye votes and one no vote.

All right, the bill has three votes. It'll get out of committee and it will stay on call. And we do appreciate all the testimony, both sides, on this. I want to make that clear. Obviously, there'll be continuing discussion on that issue. Now, Senator Padilla, who has been waiting patiently. We appreciate your patience, since earlier today, I might add. The clock move from morning to afternoon, or at least the one on my wrist. I think the one here doesn't work now that I look at it.

Welcome, and you may proceed to present File Item 11, SB 534, whenever you're ready.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Members, colleagues. I'm pleased to present SB 534. I'd like to start by thanking the Committee for collaborating with my office. We'll be accepting Committee amendments modeled and inspired by the GI Bill. SB 35, excuse me, 34 would create a pilot project program focused on providing access to workforce development training and education with the goal of helping them gain employment in industries that serve as a critical part of California's economic future and economy.

California, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, is rapidly--as I've said on many of my bills this session--becoming a tale of two economies: frankly, one that is distinguished between entry level and low-wage workers--despite the fact that we have some of the most generous social safety net programs and minimum wage standards--that also experience and suffer from one of the highest working poverty rates in the nation. The distinction between those workers and some of the greatest wealth in the state, in the nation, and indeed, around the world. And also the distinction and the disparity between often rural poor areas and wealthy coastal regions.

A growing percentage of these historically disadvantaged communities across California find themselves economically stranded. Rural and inland communities tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower levels of education, which is completed, and more families struggling to put food on the table. According to the Little Hoover Commission, inland and rural regions are the most impacted by climate change and environmental pollution, and the most vulnerable to potential job losses from measures designed to address climate change that produce unintended consequences.

Ironically, many of the resources and workforces in these areas of the state are areas that California looks to for the future economy of our state. Addressing the gap between the two California economies is reiterated by the state's future workforce compensation, who state that, quote: "Just five large California counties make up more than two thirds of California's economy in terms of economic output and employment." That means that in all of our jobs, economic growth is driven in five of the 59 counties across the State of California.

Put simply, California's current approach to meeting these ambitious goals are unsustainable. Funding for workforce development programs remains largely inaccessible for rural, low-income, and underinvested communities across the state. These are the communities hit hardest by this reality. We can't allow jobs to disappear as industries change and allow entire sections of our state without the economic drivers that were present for many prior generations. We cannot leave these Californians stranded.

We'll need significant additions to a trained and skilled workforce as we grow our clean energy industries and our future economy. These training projects must be made available to all of California, not just concentrated in a few regions. And this is why I introduced this bill.

It would establish the equitable access to job opportunity pilot program to provide individuals from rural or low-income communities with financial aid for workforce development, training, and education in exchange for their commitment of service to the state and helping us actually achieve these goals. It would identify emerging industries and focused training programs on these sectors, creating a workforce which would be specialized in modernizing California's economy. We cannot afford to continue to push forward by only bringing certain communities with us.

With me today, I have Marco Cesar Lizarraga, Executive Director of La Cooperativa Campesina. And following his testimony, Mr. Chairman and colleagues, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and welcome to the podium. You may proceed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think the button is off.

Green light. Okay.

If you want to repeat anything, you can.

No, it's fine. I just said that my name is Marco Cesar Lizarraga, and of course, I'm the Executive Director of La Cooperativa Campesina. I'm here to testify on support of SB 534 to create a pilot program focused on providing access to workforce development and wraparound services in exchange for helping the state meet our ambitious goals and driving local economy--economic development.

La Cooperativa Campesina is in support of SB 534 because of its focus on ensuring access to the green economy for all of California, and most importantly, even rural communities. La Cooperativa Campesina has been around for over 50 years and primarily providing services to the farm workers throughout the State of California, especially focusing on employment and training.

Unfortunately, given the underinvestment of workforce dollars in rural communities, and we know that because we continue to struggle to try and get funding for our farm workers to be trained, California's farm workers are being continually left out of workforce development opportunities geared at providing entry into the green economy. California's ambitious goals and the economic benefits that will come with it should be accessible to everyone, especially the people who work hard to put food on our tables.

Rural and inland communities tend to have higher unemployment, lower educational attainment, and more families struggling to put food on the table, while at the same time being the most impacted by climate change. Rural communities face many challenges to access workforce development training, and many of the interests are dying or rapidly changing. That is why SB 534 is so important. It will help identify critical industries related to the state's ambitious goals, while at the same time providing the training needed to gain a job in those industries.

By focusing on creating jobs and providing the training needed for those jobs in rural communities, SB 534 will help California meet our ambitious goals to focus in on communities that have long been forgotten. There's one huge impact that is occurring in the ag industry. The automation in the fields is also displacing farm workers that need training, not only because they're being displaced, but also to work in the industry that they work in because it's becoming heavily automated. For these reasons and more, La Cooperativa is in support of this bill and respectfully asks for an aye vote.

Thank you for your testimony. Anyone else here who wants to express the support position on this bill, please come forward.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the City of Imperial, in support.

Thank you. Not seeing anyone else come forward in support, we'll move to opposition. Is there an opposition lead witness on this bill, SB 534? Seeing none. Anyone who wishes to express an opposed position in the hearing room? Seeing none. Moderator, please check to see if there's anyone who wishes to express support or opposition on the teleconference line. Thank you. SB 534.

For anyone who wishes to express their support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero if you wish to express your support or opposition to this bill. And Mr. Chair, we have at least one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment please. Thank you again for your patience. It'd be just another moment.

And we're going to go to Line 144. The line is open.

Yes, good afternoon. This is Camilo Garcia from Imperial County, and I'm in support of SB 534. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

Thank you, Moderator. Come back to the Committee for action or comment.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank the author and the organizations that you're working with to bring this forward. It seems like if we don't, on a more consistent basis, push for these kinds of programs to reach our low-income and rural areas, it's just not going to get there. It's such a sad thing to say in this day and age we're still having to do that, especially our farm workers. So I appreciate all very much. Just a quick question I was trying to see here. There was an issue of when it would be implemented in '24 or '25. There was a question of would you be ready to implement for that one year pilot area?

Yeah, Mr. Chairman, Senator, the Committee staff recommended we broaden and push back the time frame, first to provide an opportunity for program development and modeling to be able to then, in turn, go operational. The original draft, I think, was a little more constrained. So we worked that through. We accepted those amendments.