Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

And second, we will be limiting testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill, and each will have three minutes to speak. Everyone else must only state their name, organization, and position on the Bill. Also, before we begin, we need to establish a quorum secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

It appears that we have enough Members and we've established a quorum. The first Bill that will be heard is Zbur, AB 1484. Good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 1484 a Bill that strengthens rights for temporary workers, alongside with our sponsors, SEIU, the California Labor Federation, and AFSCME. And I want to thank the staff today for all of your hard work and engagement on this Bill. Temporary workers are a vital contingency of our workforce and help employers meet short-term staffing needs, such as absences, emergencies, and workload increases.

But in recent years, cities and counties across the state have been using temporary workers to fill long term staffing needs, often rehiring them year after year. Cities and counties have grown increasingly reliant on temporary workers. Instead of creating permanent positions in some jurisdictions, as many as 40% of the workforce are now temporary workers. This reliance has created an overlooked group of workers who often do not receive retirement, health insurance, disability, or union benefits.

This inequity is further amplified as temporary workers are disproportionately identified as women and people of color without college degrees. AB 1484 addresses the inequities created by the misuse of temporary workers by allowing a union representing permanent workers to request that temporary workers performing similar work be included in the same bargaining unit. This Bill does not restrict a city or county's ability to hire temporary workers, nor does it give temporary workers permanent status. This Bill merely gives these employees the option to bargain alongside their permanent colleagues.

With me today is Sandra Barreiro of SEIU California and Gabriel Maldonado of AFSCME, co-sponsors of the Bill, to provide additional testimony and assist me with questions. Sandra?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, and thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. For authoring this Bill to strengthen the public sector and public services. The growing number of temporary employees destabilizes the public sector workforce and lowers wages for both permanent and temporary employees. In the City of Oakland, about 40% of the workforce is now temp. I just wanted to quickly address some of the concerns raised by the opposition. One is that this Bill fails to recognize the complexity of collective bargaining with temporary workers.

First, this is already done. There are several employees who include temporary workers in their collective bargaining agreements with permanent employees. Two are in healthcare centers settings such as San Francisco and then the Alameda healthcare system. So they're already coming to the table and negotiating together. The other is that some employers negotiate with temporary workers separately if they are represented.

So this is actually more burdensome because that means public employers are going through two negotiation processes, so it would actually be more efficient to combine it into one. But ultimately, what this Bill comes down to is whether employers want to continue to designate these workers as temporary, despite working for five or 10 years to divide workers, or if they want to recognize them in one unit and help to stabilize their workforce. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Members of the Committee. My name is Gabriel Maldonado. I'm a member of AFSCME Local 829 in support of AB 1484. Thank you so much for taking up the issue of equity, respect, and fair treatment for public sector workers, even those of us who have been stuck in the category of temporary extra help for years. I am a youth counselor for the Human Service Agency of San Mateo County. I work with teenagers, foster youth who are enrolled in therapeutic programs that last six months.

As you can imagine, it's work that's badly needed in the community. And even though it's very rewarding, it's also very stressful. I have been doing this work as extra help for 29 years. The needs of foster youth didn't take a pause during the pandemic, and neither did we. Because of our dedication to our community's youth, we showed up every day. Nearly half of my coworkers are extra help or temporary employees like me.

In San Mateo County alone, a lot of our extra help workers have been working 5, 10, 15 years. Nearly half of all extra help workers are working 40 hours a week. You can't really call these positions extra help anymore. That is a deception. We're doing exactly the same work as permanent staff employees without receiving any of the benefits, like pension, medical, time off, or sick time. My status became truly frustrating during the pandemic.

Like all extra help I was experiencing the same level of risk as my permanent coworkers. My family was just as much as risk as theirs, but I did not have the privilege of sick time to recover from COVID It is not a good feeling to be treated as a second class when you show up every day putting your whole heart into your work.

It's not right to have a two tier system where you have employees working positions that should be permanent, where counties aren't giving those workers the ability to become permanent employees. Here is just the fact from San Mateo County, the San Mateo County workers, 45% of the county workforce with just extra help, work full-time hours without receiving benefits and vacation. We need AB 1484 and I urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please only give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you Madam Chair Members and staff Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsors of the Bill urge your support.

Alia Griffing with AFSCME California, also co-sponsor I urge your support.

Thanks. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning Chair, Committee. Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California representing California's 40 rural counties. The provisions of this Bill have broad impacts and will increase the cost for public employees and will seriously discourage public agencies from hiring temporary employees. Temporary positions provide income stability and flexibility for working parent students and those entering or reentering the workforce, among others, and are often important stepping stone to long-term public employment. There are several concerning provisions within AB 1484 that will have unintended consequences.

First, the definition of temporary employee is too broad. It includes staffing agencies, consulting service providers, seasonal employees, retired annuitants, and paid interns, all of which raise distinct and difficult issues detailed in our letter. The Bill would inflexibly mandate that temporary employees must be included within the same bargaining unit as a permanent employee, regardless if there is a community of interests, and precludes local jurisdictions from creating a specific bargaining unit shared by all temporary employees with similar interests.

AB 1484 mandates that temporary employees be granted access to their grievance process if discharged. This may be argued to create a constitutionally protected property interest. Perhaps most critically, AB 1484 provides temporary employees with the rights in excess of those provided to permanent employees. The Bill proposes that temporary employees who have been employed for more than 30 calendar days shall be entitled to use any grievance procedure in the MOU to challenge any discipline without cause.

By contrast, nearly every public agency has a probationary period for permanent employees, often six to 12 months, during which the employee may be released without cause and without triggering a grievance. This probationary period is a critical part of the hiring process, and if public employers cannot use this process for temporary employees, they will be vastly less likely to hire them. Lastly, the Bill includes difficult and unworkable notification provisions that conflict with existing law for permanent employees.

In conclusion, temporary employees are brought in for a temporary and urgent need, and the provisions of this Bill severely limit local agencies ability to utilize this workforce and ultimately impacts our ability to provide services. For these reasons, RCRC opposes 1484 and we look forward to working with the author to address our concerns.

Thank you, Madam Chair Member Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here with a respectfully opposed unless amended, position on AB 1484, I'd echo the concerns of my colleague from RCRC. However, our concerns hinge around the unique nature of the healthcare workforce. California's public and district hospitals often operate. Both clinics and hospitals utilize temporary employees to ensure they are adequately staffed to care for patients. Specifically, AB 1484 requires public employers to include temporary employees in collective bargaining agreements.

Hospitals and clinics may use temporary employees for short or long periods of time. Temporary employees, particularly registry nurses, have been an essential part of the healthcare delivery system for years and have proved to be especially necessary during emergencies such as Covid-19. In this environment, it is more important than ever that public hospitals maintain the ability and flexibility to rapidly address access concerns and meet fluctuations in patient activity and demand.

California law appropriately requires providers in a healthcare setting to provide specified meal and rest periods to employees, operate and maintain certain staffing levels, have adequate patient provider ratios, and allow employees sick bereavement and other emergency leaves. Without the ability to rely on temporary employees to fill gaps, public and district hospitals may fall out of compliance with other requirements to the detriment of their existing workforce.

AB 1484 fails to account for the complexity of collective bargaining agreements and the challenges and expenses associated with adding employees to these agreements. Temporary employees may charge significantly higher rates than the negotiated existing staff under a collective bargaining agreement. While public industry hospitals have no control over what rates they pay for temporary employees, this pay discrepancy in some cases will force open their existing collective bargaining agreements.

While AB 1484 may attempt to avoid application to temporary employees not directly employed by a public agency, it remains unclear. The principle of joint employment allows individuals to hold an entity responsible for employment related matters, even if that entity is not the individual's employer of record.

Thus, it remains unclear if a public or district hospital could be considered the employer of an employee employed through a staffing agency such that the individual would be covered under the Bill and need to be added to the collective bargaining agreement. AB 1484 does not account for public entities who provide healthcare services and will negatively impact the ability of those healthcare providers to deliver care in their communities.

We look forward to the ongoing conversations with the author and sponsors, but at this time ask our respectfully opposed unless amended and would urge your no vote. Thank you.

Are there any more witnesses? In opposition, and please mute your phones. Thank you. State your name, organization, and position only.

Good morning. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in opposition. Thank you.

I usually have to bend Alyssa Silhi on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks District, in opposition, and also on behalf of my colleagues at the California Special Districts Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban counties of California, along with my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties, also want to register opposed unless amended position from the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems.

Good morning. Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities and the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers, respectfully opposed for the reason stated.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses, I'd like to bring it back to the Committee for questions. Assemblymember Haney thank you.

And thank you, Assemblymember Zbur, and to the sponsors. I'm sure you're going to continue to work on some of the issues that were raised by the cities and counties. I will say, and I know my colleagues here as well, came from local government. As a former county elected official, I could not be more strongly supportive of this effort. It was something that we saw in our county and also in our school district.

We had employees who were there for decades who were still classified as temporary employees. These were folks who were doing the same jobs, who deserve the same protections. And if we believe that public employees, which I know we do here, should have representation, that it ensures not only the benefits and the salaries and the conditions and the rights that every employee should have, but also it strengthens the services that our residents receive.

When you rely so much on temporary employees who do not have these rights, it actually hurts the services that our residents rely on. So I very strongly support this. I would love to be added as a co author, and I know that the conversation will continue around some of those questions around seasonal employees and interns, and I'm sure those things need to be worked out. But temporary employees should have the right to bargain and to be able to be included. And I hope we also through this move towards a system that doesn't rely so heavily on temporary employees. So thank you very much for authoring this in your work.

Thank you for your comments. Any other Members questions? The Bill has been already moved by Addis and seconded by Haney. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yeah, I just wanted to raise a couple of the issues. I think some of the issues related to the definition of staffing is something we'll continue to work on. I think here's some misinformation about sort of what this is intended to apply to, and there are certain employees that are coming through staffing agencies that it wouldn't apply to. So I think we'll address some of the concerns, but we'll continue working with some of the, with the opponents on that set of issues.

I think we have resisted, I think just excluding the hospitals and healthcare workers because we think those workers are important workers that need protections. And I think the thing we would say is that the process of collective bargaining is one that allows for flexibility. When you're using these temporary workers in a routine basis, you can work out these kinds of things to allow for the intermittent use as part of the collective bargaining agreement.

And I think that's the intention of the Bill and I think would allow public hospitals to continue having the flexibility. But we've resisted just excluding public hospitals because really all of our public employees are serving the public and are important too. But we will continue to work with you and really try to focus on some of the details of the Bill. And so with that, just like to know close that where was the California Labor Federation.

I think in their letter really articulated the real reason for this Bill when they said, over the past few decades, corporations have shifted to reliance on contingent work. Rather than hire workers directly or maintain a full time workforce, they've moved towards the use of contractors and temporary workers to cut costs and avoid paying benefits. The result has been an increase in income inequality as jobs once offered, workers economic stability and a career path have been replaced by precarious work.

Unfortunately, this trend has not been limited to the private sector. Even in our state, our cities and our counties have moved towards this contingent workforce. This doesn't just undermine worker standards, it threatens the quality and sustainability of public services as we see higher turnover, prolonged vacancies and reduced accountability. Historically, the public sector has offered a pathway to the middle class for people of color. As job quality has been eroded, it has undermined this promise.

Today we see that workers classified as temporary are disproportionately women and people of color underscoring the inequity of this two tier system. This Bill will help improve working conditions. So I want to thank you all. Want to thank your staff. Again, we will be committed to working with the opponents to address some of the details in the Bill and ask for your aye vote today.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I've been hearing a lot about temporary employees and how it's growing at every levels of government in California. Now. I respect that some people are fine with a temporary government job, and some employers use temporary workers to fill critical needs when needed. So there's a place for temporary workers. But overall, how much public employers are increasingly relying on using temporary workers instead of permanent employees, it's deeply concerning.

There's a lot of vacancies in California in government, and there's a lot of people that need work and they want to have good jobs, that have sick pay. They want to have good jobs, that pay retirement and vacation. And so I think the employees of California deserve that and I recommend an aye vote on Bill AB 1418. Secretary, please call the roll 1484,1418 is mine, sorry.

The motion is do pass and re-refers to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We'll place it on call. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next up, Grayson. AB 1020.

Good morning madam Chair and Members. I am pleased to present AB 1020, which seeks to bring uniformity and fix inconsistencies that govern disability retirement for public servants like firefighters and law enforcement. Industrial disability retirement, or IDR, is a type of retirement benefit available to employees who are unable to perform their usual job duties as a result of work related injury or illness. In particular, firefighters facing retirement because of an IDR fall under two retirement systems, CalPERS, or county employees retirement law, otherwise known as CERL.

Firefighters that fall under CalPERS use presumptions specified in the labor code, and firefighters who fall under CERL use a different set of presumptions found in the government code. The presumptions listed in the government code do not align and fall short of including the presumptive injuries listed in the labor code. Specifically, these missing presumptions are hernia, pneumonia, meningitis, and post traumatic stress.

Not only are the presumptions different depending on the retirement system, but under CERL, a firefighter may be required to prove that the injury arose from work duties under a different standard than the workers' compensation system. Due to the difference in presumptions between the two retirement systems, firefighters are faced with a difficult and burdensome process when simply seeking retirement benefits that they clearly deserve. Notably, while under CalPERS, a disability retirement claim is automatically approved and conversely, the county employees' retirement claim can be manually denied.

This results in firefighters having to relitigate their IDR process, creating an expensive and stressful situation. AB 1020 will make changes to the government code by including the same presumptions that are listed in the labor code. By establishing parity across retirement systems, AB 1020 will ensure that all public safety employees who have sustained career ending injuries in the course of their work are able to retire with care and with dignity.

No public servant who has dedicated their livelihood to the protection of those who live in California in our state should be forced to repeatedly fight for the retirement that they have rightfully earned. With that, I have witness with me through the chair who will self introduce.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members Doug Subers. On behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, we are pleased to sponsor AB 1020 and would like to thank Assemblymember Grayson for bringing this measure forward. We'd also like to thank the Committee for their engagement and thorough analysis. Mr. Grayson did a really good job of walking through the entire Bill and the issue. I think we have over 34,000 Members, firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide.

We have 11 locals that are in 1937 at county retirement systems, including Los Angeles, Marin, Contra Costa, San Bernardino and others. And these Members, when they have a job caused illness or an injury, particularly meningitis, tuberculosis, post traumatic stress, when they access the workers compensation system, they have a worker's compensation presumption where the burden of proof is shifted, it's deemed to be job caused unless otherwise rebutted by the employer for that same injury, that a worker may be getting care under the workers compensation system.

In a county retirement system, if they go for an industrial disability or service connected disability retirement, they have a different burden of proof that will be applied to that determination, and they would have to prove under a different standard whether that meningitis, post traumatic stress injury or tuberculosis, for example, were job caused.

We think that this Bill really does drive at parity to ensure that every firefighter that has committed their life to service and has a job connected injury or illness, should they regrettably have to pursue a service connected disability retirement. This ensures that they will be treated under the same standard. In the county 37 act retirement systems, there are already five presumptions within the existing system, so this creates parity with the labor code. For all those reasons, we would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more. Any witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization and your position.

I follow orders. I am a 37 act fire captain of 35 years with the LA County Fire Department. My name is Dave Gillotte. I also serve as the 7th district Vice President for the California Professional Firefighters. And I stand to speak in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Tim Edwards, President, CAL FIRE Local 2881.

Seeing no more witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. I'll bring it back to the Members. Any questions? So the Bill has been moved by Addis and second by Nguyen. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, for your consideration, respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I recommend an aye vote on AB 1020. Secretary, can you please call the roll.

Next. Do I see Reyes? AB 1032, Pacheco. We have a motion by Addis and a second by Nguyen.

The motion is do pass. [Roll Call]. That Bill has five votes we will put it on call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Today I present Assembly Bill 1032. In 2001, SB 371 by former Senator Escutia established the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act to establish an interpreter employee workforce that would help with language access. Unfortunately, it did not go far enough in helping recruit and incentivize courts to hire court interpreters as employees rather than independent contractors. Some regions of California have 68 percent of assignments being completed by independent contractors as recorded in fiscal year 2017-18.

Courts are currently not hiring court interpreters and relying heavily on independent contractors who are not required to be available on an all-day basis in courthouses. AB 1032 would update the Trial Court Interpreter Employment and Labor Relations Act to ensure greater recruitment and retention of court interpreters as employees instead of independent contractors.

It would also allow court interpreters to receive bonuses and other incentives other court employees receive, along with adding provisions to help facilitate cross assignments for borrowing court interpreters across counties to help out our rural areas who have an even greater need.

This bill would not do away with independent contractors. It merely helps to incentivize courts to hire court interpreters as employees. So with me today, I have two witnesses in support. I have with me Janet Hudec, Vice President of California Federation of Interpreters, and also Ignacio Hernandez of Hernandez Strategy Group.

Good morning, Members of the Committee, and good morning, Madam Chair. I want to thank you for the opportunity to come before you. My name is Janet Hudec. I am a certified court interpreter in the Spanish language for the County of Madera and have been an interpreter of that capacity for 18 years. Half of it was me being a contractor and the other half being an employee.

In 2001, the California Legislature adopted the California Interpreter Act with a specific intent to create the interpreter employee workforce in the state. Until then, all but 20 interpreters in California were independent contractors. Then we only had an independent contractor workforce--I'm sorry--when we only had an independent contractor workforce, it led many gaps of language access services since these contractors could not be required to be in the courthouses on a daily basis.

This resulted in countless cases being delayed, postponed, canceled until the court can schedule an independent contractor to be assigned to a specific case. When the Interpreter Act--I'm sorry--with the Interpreter Act, California created the legal and procedural protocols to allow for some independent contractors, but also to transform into a largely employee workforce. This included collective bargaining guidelines as well as specific guidelines as to when courts must offer employment to independent contractors.

More than 20 years later, it is time to update the Court Interpreter Act and clean up some of the obstacles that we face in trying to create a robust employee workforce. Some counties still have a 60 percent or more reliance on independent contractors. This legislation will help us fulfill the original intent of the 2001 legislation and ensure court users who need an interpreter will have access to language services and will be able to meaningfully participate in their court cases. I thank you, and we ask for your support in this bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Ignacio Hernandez, also here on behalf of CFI. Let me just add briefly that providing an interpreter in a court hearing or proceeding is a requirement of the California Constitution. It's also a requirement of federal civil rights laws, and in fact, just a few months ago, the United States Department of Justice entered into an agreement with the State of North Carolina requiring that interpreters be provided in every case and at no charge to the individuals.

And so it is something that has been an ongoing push throughout this country and in California to ensure that we have court interpreters available. Let me make a couple real quick points on this. While the Interpreter Act was intended to develop a robust workforce for employees--and that's the direction that we're going; in fact, this Legislature, two years ago, and the Governor allocated 30 million dollars to help courts in this transition--we're helping to help spend that money right now--we also build into the bill some additional flexibility and assurances for independent contractors.

So, for example, a court can hire an independent contractor for a half day basis or a full day basis, and that takes away the gaps that we were having where they just hire the independent contractor for a single case, and then that's a lot of money, and they're not available for other cases down the hall. So we do build that into this bill as well.

So we think it strikes a really good balance where we build the workforce that we need, but we also allow for independent contractors where we need them, especially when we have so many languages in California. So for those reasons, we ask for your support.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there any more witnesses in support? Please come forward. Please state your name, organization, and your position, please.

I'm Carmen Ramos, certified Spanish interpreter. I have been working as a certified court interpreter for 33 years. I am a staff interpreter for San Joaquin Superior Court, and I am the Secretary Treasurer for--

Ma'am, I'm sorry. Name, organization, and position.

Carmen Ramos, certified court interpreter, and I am a staff interpreter in San Joaquin Superior Court. I'm the Secretary Treasurer for the union representing court interpreters.

And your position?

I support 100 percent.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, the bill has been moved by Addis and seconded by Nguyen. Member, would you like to close?

Thank you again, everyone, for your time, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I'm bringing it back to the Members. Are there any questions? No questions. I recommend an aye vote for AB 1032. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. That bill has four votes; we'll place it on call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member, I'm glad to hear your voice is better.

Thank you. Hopefully your voice gets better soon.

Thank you. Next we'll have AB 658: Assembly Member Fong.

Thank you.

The bill has been moved and seconded.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First, I would like to thank your chief consultant for his help on this bill. And I accept the Committee's suggested amendment. AB 658 is a district bill. The City of San Gabriel is a small, historic, beautiful city of nearly 40,000 residents in my district and employs nearly 200 people. In 2021, the California State Auditor released a report expressing significant concerns about the city's financial situation and ranked the city as high risk for financial instability.

As part of its long term recovery plan, the city negotiated memorandums of understanding with the four employee representatives and one unrepresented employee group. Under this plan, the city will provide higher wages to employees in exchange for a reduced level of health benefits upon retirement. This will only apply to employees hired beginning January 1 of 2023.

AB 658 authorizes the City of San Gabriel to implement this agreement and allowing the city to make these changes will help the city achieve its long term financial stability and to better serve its residents. And here to testify in support of this bill is San Gabriel City Councilman Denise Menchaca and city manager Mark Lazzaretto. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Honorable Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Denise Menchaca, Councilwoman for the City of San Gabriel. First of all, I would like to thank Assembly Member Mike Fong for authoring AB 658. San Gabriel is a proud city of nearly 40,000 residents in Southern California. It is the birthplace of the Los Angeles region and home to the fourth of the 21 California missions.

Though the city is currently on firm financial ground, approximately five years ago, we were in a deficit position, and then you had Covid, which I happened to be mayor at the time, was a real challenge for all of us. It was a difficult time, but we got through it. Through the hard work of the City Council and city staff, we spent the last five years making tough decisions that have resulted in a more sustainable financial future.

As you'll hear from our city manager, Mark Lazzaretto, one of these tough decisions was to negotiate with our employee unions to reduce some of their benefits to levels that are supportable by our revenues. Assembly Bill 658 would allow us to implement the two tiered retiree health benefit that the employees have already agreed to. Thank you for your time. And again, thank you to Assembly Member Mike Fong for his assistance.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Mark Lazzaretto, the city manager of the City of San Gabriel. Thank you very much for your time. And thank you, Assembly Member Fong, for authoring this bill that will help us hopefully aid in our fiscal recovery or continue that fiscal recovery. We had a generous, probably overly generous benefit program for our employees, and it became one of the factors that, as you heard from the Assembly Member and councilwoman Menchaca, drove us into a deep financial situation.

I'm happy and proud to say that with the hard work of the council and the staff, we are in a very good position today. We have over 20% in our rainy day fund and are continuing to add to that. We've done that while maintaining salaries that are competitive and we're able to attract really great employees and retain them. But this retiree health benefit was costing the city millions of dollars a year, and that liability was only getting bigger as time went by.

So we worked with all four of our employee groups and received unanimous support in order to sunset that benefit for future employees. All of the existing employees are still covered under the old program and would be grandfathered in, so to speak. Any new employees would have that more realistic tier, which is what most cities have already gone to. As I said, we would continue to pay those benefits to the existing employees, and it has not resulted in any problems for us in attracting future employees.

The last few months, we've seen great employees continue to come through the door. The benefit change will reduce our future liabilities by millions of dollars. It will help our ranking with the State Auditor, and this was one of the key points that the State Auditor pointed out in her report of us three years ago, that one of the things that we needed to right size for the size of our city.

Again, thank you all for your time and urge your support of AB 658. It will help us to continue to be a great city, maintain resident services, and also retain our employees. Again, thanks to Assembly Member Fong for your help.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing no witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses. The bill has been moved by Nguyen and seconded by Addis. I'm going to bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions? Assembly Member Addis.

Just a brief comment. I want to thank you for your work coming from local government. I know how hard Covid was on local governments and appreciate you thinking about how to move into the future and absolutely support this. But appreciate the work that you've done and the Assembly Member for bringing it forward. Thank you.

Any other questions? Comments? Assembly member, would you like to close?

Madam Chair, Members, respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you so much.

I recommend an aye vote for AB 658. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass, as amended and re -eferred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] We have five votes. Replacement on call.

Thank you. Thank you so much.

AB 504 will protect public employee's right to honor a picket line when a public employer is engaged in a primary labor dispute. Last year, the University of California engaged in a labor dispute with graduate workers, postdoctoral scholars, and academic researchers represented by the United Auto Workers. The dispute focused on primarily low wages and unfair labor practices conducted by the UC. The dispute culminated into the largest higher education strike in the nation's history, which lasted six weeks.

Thank you. Next we'll have AB 504, Reyes.

During this strike, UC workers, represented by unions such as Teamsters and UCAFT, were unable to support their colleagues due to clauses in their collective bargaining agreements preventing sympathy strikes. Non UAW represented workers were forced to enter hostile work environments and withhold support for their colleagues, who were fighting for fair wages and job security, issues that inherently affect every worker. Having the right to stand in solidarity with colleagues engaged in a strike should be protected.

Our workers should not have to fear losing their job because they honor a picket line. Here to testify in favor of AB 504 is Rafael Jaime, President of UAW and UAW 2865 and Matt Broad, representing Teamsters.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Rafael Jaime, and I am a graduate student worker at the University of California, Los Angeles in the English Department, and I'm also the President of UOW Local 2865 which represents 36,000 teaching assistants, tutors, readers, and student researchers at the University of California system. Last fall, UOW 2065 and our sibling union, UOW 5810 went on strike for six weeks over the UC's unfair labor practices and bad faith bargaining.

During our strike, we fell solidarity from every corner of the California labor movement, including UPS Teamsters, who have the contractual right to respect picket lines and turn their trucks around at our pickets. However, we also witnessed firsthand the moral injury that is caused when public employers do not respect the First Amendment rights of workers to abide by their conscience and honor or at the picket line.

Other workers, like UC FT lectures, were forced to cross the picket lines, violating their dignity and pressured to pick up workers struck labor, creating a hostile work environment. Public unions and workers rights have been severely eroded over the years as employers face few consequences for breaking labor law. During UAW's contract negotiations with UC, Perp issued 15 unfair labor practices practice complaints against the University, which was not compelled to correct their actions until we went on strike.

It is the breakdown of union power and collective bargaining at the hands of the employer which necessitates AB 504 as a corrective to decades of lopsided bargaining in favor of employers, which has greatly reduced the standards of living for public sector in the working class. AB 504 will protect the right to honor picket lines as an essential right for all public employees.

And enshrining to California law this First Amendment freedom, it will encourage good faith bargain negotiations towards a speedy resolution so that workers can get back to the work they want to do: serving the people of California. I respectfully urge your aye vote on this bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Matt Broad here on behalf of the California Teamsters, we're proud co-sponsors of AB 504, which is a very important bill. I just want to briefly talk about the impetus for the bill.

I think we've heard a lot about the UAW strike. What we saw was really the dichotomy between the teamsters on the private sector and the public sector. The private sector, as Mr. Jaime explained, UPS teamsters in both Northern California and Southern California were able to sanction a strike, respect the picket line for our over 10,000 members that work as administrative professionals at UC. They were forced to cross the picket line because of this contractual provision.

And I think that one thing that we need to focus on is that this actually sort of creates a hostile workplace because you have workers who don't want to cross the picket line. They see members of their own union who don't have to cross the picket line, and yet they're forced into coming against their own conscience. And we find that very problematic. Just as the last point, we're very cognizant of the concerns outlined in the Committee analysis.

I had the opportunity to talk at length with Mr. Bolden yesterday about how we can address those moving forward. I think we were pretty aligned, and you have our commitment to do that. So with that, I would urge your aye vote on this bill, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization, and your position. Wow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsors, urge your support.

Good morning. Scott Brent. I'm the Assistant Director for the State of California Legislative Board for Smart TD. We are in support. And on behalf of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen, they are in support, too. Thank you.

Alia Griffing, AFSCME California, in support.

Tom Hintze, international rep with UAW on behalf of UAW region six in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Joshua Kernick, State Building Trades, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Arvison, UAW 5810, proud to co-sponsor and support.

Daniel Sherrell with SCIU Local 1000 in support.

Hi, my name is Marshall Nakatani with local UAW 2865 in support.

Good morning. Marissa Wu with UAW 2865 in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals. Proud to be a co-sponsor. Thank you.

Sandra Barrero on behalf of SCIU California in support.

Neil Sweeney, President of Local UAW Local 5810 in support.

Laura Lucia with UAW 5810 in support.

Elias Bunting, UAW 2865 in support.

Catherine Locke, Local UAW 2865 in support.

Brennan Gonenering, UAW 2865 in support.

Alissa Yum, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support.

I'm seeing no more witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward.

Good morning, Chair, Members. My name is Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities and I'm here today in respectful opposition to AB 504. First, I'd really like to thank the author's staff for taking the time to hear out our concerns. I'd also like to thank the Committee staff for doing a robust analysis on this bill. I'd like to give you a brief overview of our major concerns regarding AB 504.

State laws governing collective bargaining are in place to ensure fair process for both union and public entities. AB 504 does upend the current bargaining process, which allows striking only in specified limited circumstances. This poses a serious problem for public agencies that are providing public services on a limited budget and in a time of a workforce shortage. Allowing for any public employee, with limited exception, to join a striking bargaining unit in which that employee is not a member could lead to a severe work stoppage.

This bill would remove an agency's ability to plan and provide services to the community and the invent of any bargaining unit deciding to strike. A local agency cannot make contingency plans to provide the community with essential services for an unknown number of public employees that do decide to participate in a strike. We are not disputing the right of the employee organization to engage in the protected activity of striking.

However, AB 504 would avoid local bargaining MOUs regarding what they say about the employee's ability to sympathy strike and allow for the ability to participate in that sympathy striking with limited exception. The no strike provisions in local contracts have been agreed to by both parties in good faith, often due to the critical nature of the employee's job. As local agencies, we have a statutory responsibility to provide services to our communities throughout the state.

This bill jeopardizes the delivery of those services and undermines the collective bargaining process. And for those reasons, we respectfully oppose and urge your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition?

Latifah Alexander with the Association of California Healthcare Districts in opposition.

Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and behalf of my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the California Association of Joint Powers Authority in opposition.

Thank you. I would like to bring it to the Members. Any questions or concerns? Assembly Member Schiavo.

So thank you so much for bringing this forward. And I was on the picket line. It was very inspiring to see the statewide unity and organizing that was happening by the students and solidarity from others, and would love to be added as a co-author to the bill, if you would have me. I wonder if you have responses to the opposition that you wanted to share.

Through the Chair. Matt Broad again for Teamsters. I would say just with respect to the opposition's concerns that you're looking at, for example, the UAW strike was a six week strike, right? And the reason that it lasted so long was because you have the ability of a public employer to create and enforce a provision in a collective bargaining agreement that allows for people to waive their right to honor a picket line. And what that does is it elongates the length of a strike. Right.

Because there is not that massive, overwhelming response where you could have Teamster members who would be able to join in and honor the picket line and may actually bring public employers to the table to respond quickly and more urgently instead of making the strike last longer. And I think that that goes a long way towards restoring parity between the union and the employer. Obviously, when workers go out on strike, it's not an easy decision. It really hurts people's bottom lines, and we want to be able to make that as short as possible. And I think this bill will kind of help restore the playing field there.

Senator, Member Haney.

I also want to thank the author and the sponsors. I was pretty shocked when I was briefed on this bill that this isn't already a fundamental protected right. Sympathy strikes and solidarity strikes at the workplace are something that are really a core part of organizing and ensuring that the rights of workers are protected. These types of strikes are very rare.

But as you said, the conditions for workers at a site where a strike is happening, I can't imagine folks being forced to choose between either losing their job potentially or crossing a picket line alongside their colleagues. It's incredibly damaging for their working conditions and also for the workplace ability to moving forward, deliver on the services. Or at the UC, if your colleague crossed the picket line, that makes it a bit awkward when the strike ends, and they should be able to have this protected right. So I really strongly support this, and thank you for your leadership. And I know there will continue to be conversations, but I'd be proud to support this today.

The motion is do pass, and re-referred to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call] That bill has five votes. It is out.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else? The bill was moved by Addis and seconded by Schiavo. Author, would you like to close?

I think protecting a worker's right to respect the picket line is a basic human right, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Reyes. As a former labor union member, I strongly support labor unions, but I'm also strongly support collective bargaining and firmly believe that what belongs in the collective bargaining process should be dealt with in the collective bargaining process. But I recognize that this bill remains a work in process, and I recommend an aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll.

Thank you.

Next. Assembly Member Flora, AB 1254.

Thank you, colleagues. Thank you, Chair. Today I present AB 1254, which requires the state to pay state firefighters within 15% of the average salary for corresponding rates within 20 specified departments across the state. And it must be implemented through collective bargaining. I will keep my remarks short. I've got two witnesses with me, Mr. Terry Mchale and my former local President, Tim Edwards.

Madam Chairman, thank you for letting me be here this morning. First of all, I want to thank Assemblyman Flora for carrying this Bill. Assemblyman Flora is a former firefighter. And not only a former firefighter, but an esteemed and highly respected former CAL FIRE firefighter. There seems to be a certain pattern in this Committee that everyone congratulates the staff on the excellent analysis that gets written and that is absolutely true in this instance also. This Bill boils down to this.

Assemblymembers, CAL FIRE works the longest hours of any fire Department in California. They have a 72 hours work week and they get paid less than virtually every other major fire department. And at a time in which there has been profound loss due to these fires, it has highlighted what our firefighters have gone through.

And as the analysis pointed out, this low pay for firefighters who are extraordinarily well trained, working for a diverse fire department, that there's the problem with cannibalization, that other fire departments are trying to take them away. And so we need this Bill because we want to keep our firefighters and we want to continue to protect the State of California. I am joined today by my friend, the President of CAL FIRE Local 2881, President Tim Edwards.

Good morning, Chair and Committee Members. Tim Edwards, President of CAL FIRE Local 2881, representing over 7000 plus men and women of your state fire department, CAL FIRE. And we stand in strong support of this Bill and we appreciate Mr. Flora bringing this Bill forward. I have been involved in collective bargaining for this union since 2006. And since 2006, every salary survey has showed us at least 80% behind our local counterparts. And in that time we have not progressed.

We have not gone away from that 80% level and base salary. In order to get even close to a 35% comparison, we have to work additional work hours, 72 hours a work week. What this Bill does is, I would argue that it doesn't take away collective bargaining, but it brings back the true meaning to good faith bargaining to come to the table and actually look at those salary surveys and compare us to our counterparts. CAL FIRE is a 24/7 operation. We've responded to floods, the pandemic, earthquakes, civil unrest, but yet we are not seen as equals to our counterpart. So I strongly urge a yes vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in strong support and would echo the comments of President Edwards and Mr. McHale. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, I bring it back to the Members. Any comments or questions?

I just would like to thank the Assemblymember and the witnesses for bringing this forward. Having a district where there's plenty of CAL FIRE very much support this. And if you're taking co authors, would like to add on.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Any other Members?

Thank you.

Thank you. The Bill has been moved by Assemblymember Nguyen and seconded by Assemblymember Lackey. Assemblymember, would you like to call?

Just appreciate your time, Chair, and your staff and your great analysis on this Bill. And one of the greatest privileges of my life was to work for the state and work for CAL FIRE for a number of years and to get the men and women who are on the front lines. I mean, even with this record snow that we mean, we've got CAL FIRE employees on snowmobiles running around digging homes out right now. So this is truly an all risk department and they deserve to be paid properly. So we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I recommend an aye vote for AB 1254. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and will be referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]. That Bill has 7 to 0. Bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is AB 1699: McCarty.

Move the bill.

Okay, I'm the last one. Looks like we have support. Thank you for allowing me to present this bill. This will help classified school employees expand career opportunities. Right now we have shortages at school sites for educators, not just teachers, but bus drivers, cafeteria workers. Many times people who work there would like to apply for the other part time job, but they're not always given ample opportunity.

So it really is--sometimes it's the Walmart Effect where they put people in 25 hours, don't want to have them benefits, and some of these workers would like to apply for the other job to be able to serve the school, help themselves, but they can't. So this would give them the right to have a first crack at those job openings at school districts. With me are representatives from the Federation of Teachers and SEIU. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown with CFT--Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, here as a proud cosponsor of this bill. We heard from our members we represent, a number of classified up and down the state who have been subject to frustration as they have been able to obtain part time assignments at their work sites and then see that same district hire again and again more part time work where they would be more than willing to pick up the extra hours and make a living wage.

The staffing crisis is something that I'm sure you've heard of time and time again, and the education system is not immune to that. So we are unfortunately faced with the political--I'm sorry--the economic realities that a food service worker, for instance, might only have a few hours per day in their shift and could make far more of a living at an In-N-Out Burger stand than they can as a public employee here serving our children.

So rather than force everybody into a minimum hours or something that would be way more intrusive to the system, we thought that it would be prudent to allow individuals who already work as a classified employee right of first refusal for extra hours that are posted. Secondarily, the classified jobs share a lot of the same basic skills, and you can move around from assignment to assignment relatively easily. There are some exceptions such as bus drivers who require a special license and special permitting with the CHP.

And so if a member were to go out of their way and obtain these basic requirements of whatever the job posting is, we think that they too should be allowed to obtain more hours if that works in their schedule.

Maybe in reverse is a good example of a bus driver who has collected all of the children, come to campus, now has a number of hours without an assignment, and might be able to help out with, say, the food service prep or help out with the custodial staff or even be a paraeducator helping children with their needs in the classroom and then return back to their other assignment as the afternoon bus driver. So we think this makes a lot of sense to allow folks to gather those hours to make a living wage, and with that, we ask for an aye vote and here for any questions.

Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, also proud cosponsors. I'll be brief because I think my colleague summarized it well, but our members are very dedicated. Most of the classified positions are entry level. What they do require is dedication and our workers have that tenfold. This allows them to piecemeal together better hours, better benefits, and allow them also a career pathway because many of these jobs then can allow them to go to full time to go to the next position up. So we think it's just good policy. Happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization, and position.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with California Labor Federation, in support.

Good morning. Thank you. Jessica Hay with the California School Employees Association. Proud cosponsors. Thank you.

Alia Griffing, AFSCME California, in support.

Seeing no more witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition?

There's two seats. You can come up here if you want.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed today. We have appreciated the opportunity to discuss some of our concerns, but it boils down in light of the staff shortages to longer recruitment periods, new on the job mandated training, and longer vacancies to the detriment of students and other school employees. The sentiments of our opposition are captured in the analysis well.

We think the Committee analysis also does a good job of the real-world issue of right to first refusal for existing employees, and again, the on job training component. We need greater flexibility and discretion for positions that have specialized knowledge, training requirements, or other prerequisites. One practical example of the challenges created by AB 1699 is demonstrated by the implementation of statewide universal transitional kindergarten.

As we look to staff up paraprofessionals, we appreciate the mention by the sponsors of that need and possible opportunities to bring on existing staff. There are many that would not be the appropriate experience or background to work with children in that setting. And then in that case, would we have to host for those interested parties paraprofessional training if we don't have such an on the job training program?

Would we then have to contract out with an institute for higher education to offer that? We don't know where the on the job training ends, and if the individual decides midway through that training, 'this isn't the right fit' or the employer makes that determination, what happens then to that employee's prior position, creating ongoing challenges, further vacancies, and further delays? Our districts have shared that they do offer opportunities when there's vacancies for overtime and additional assignments, knowing how critical our employees in this area are for our students and the other staff members.

Unfortunately, 1699 creates new costs and also maintains various vague terms such as 'reasonable.' Reasonable might create flexibility. We think it creates opportunities for dispute and inequitable implementation statewide. We also need clarity on when the employee is considered to have accepted or rejected the position, what is considered adequate notice for existing employees, and we are again concerned that this will just further exacerbate staffing shortages.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the bill, and my colleague from the Association of School Business Officials would also like to register her opposition. She's in another hearing this morning. Thank you.

Good morning. Leilani Aguinaldo, on behalf of the Schools Excess Liability Fund. I think ACSA did a wonderful job summarizing the concerns that we have about AB 1699. The only thing that I would add as an example to hone in, given the example that was provided a few minutes ago about bus drivers, for example, who are very well capable of being able to step in and get additional hours, for example, to help in the nutrition services sector.

The counterpoint I would give to hone in on the example that ACSA just gave about on the job training is the reverse of that would be very difficult, and it could be interpreted that AB 1699 would require us to provide on the job training for someone that wanted to apply for additional hours as a bus driver, for example, right, if they don't already have the certifications, et cetera.

For those types of positions that require additional specialized training, AB 1699, we believe, could be interpreted that LEAs would be required to give that on the job training. And in addition, if I could also do a #MeToo in opposition on behalf of the Association of California Community College Administrators. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in opposition?

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Reefe, on behalf of the California School Boards Association, in support, to associate our comments with those for my--did I say support? Oh sorry--opposition. Sorry. I have to rush over here. You're welcome, Mr. McCarty.

Thank you.

Stairs. Stairs will do it. And I also have authorization to also share our opposition from the Riverside County Office of Schools under the Office of Superintendent. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd like to bring the questions back to the Members. Any questions or concerns or comments? Assembly Member Schiavo.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward. I know as a PTA mom and a schoolsite council mom and a leadership council mom, I've been involved in budgeting, I've been involved in looking at staffing and challenges around that. At my daughter's school, the school library was just not staffed for a really long time, many, many months, and the kids could not go get books out of the school because they couldn't find someone to do that part time work.

And if there were availability for them to do that part time work and also pick up another part time position to make it full time, I feel like there would have been more opportunity for them to be able to fill that position and fill a number of positions that are challenging to fill. We know that support staff and the education staff at schools are not paid what they need to be paid.

And I know that's a continual struggle, and so to also have part time work on top of that when it's so difficult to make ends meet. I don't know how folks are surviving on some of these part time jobs, honestly, and I think that there is a real opportunity to make sure that these dedicated staff like you were talking about who greet us every day at the school gate and really our support for our kids are supported as well, so I'd love to be added as a coauthor and I thank you for bringing forward this bill.

Assembly Member Addis.

Yeah, I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward and the witnesses for being here and just share a personal story that my mother-in-law was a cafeteria worker but had to work two jobs to be able to make ends meet and eventually had to leave the school district after Covid into a different position because it was impossible to get enough hours to meet her expenses, especially on the very expensive Central Coast, which much of California is facing the same issues, and so I think this is incredibly important. Would also like to be added as a coauthor if you're taking coauthor requests.

Thank you. Any other Members? The bill was moved by Assembly Member Nguyen and seconded by Assembly Member Addis. Assembly Member, would you like to close?

Yes, thank you. I just want to address the first time I've heard some of the opposition issues and arguments, and there are some technical details that we're willing to work with and clarify some of the language, but the overall tenor I think misses the point is that we're not asking for any special rights that other people wouldn't get. If someone gets hired off the street, they're going to have to get the same training coming in the door like anybody else.

We just want to make sure that people work at school sites who are literally sometimes paid poverty wages can benefit for some public benefits, have the opportunity to fill that job that's opening right now so they can get more hours and not leave and go somewhere else. And if you go to any school district across California, they'll tell you the crisis right now, they can't find people.

Well, sometimes we have people right there, they're only working 25 hours, so why not give them a chance to fill another role? And then, yeah, there are some jobs that we're not going to put people right away into a teacher position if they don't have the qualification. So you have to follow whatever is a qualification for that position. So we can certainly work to clarify those issues, and thank you for the comments, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Assembly Member McCarty, this bill makes a lot of sense to me and seems like a really good public policy. We have a number of classified employees who, by the way, are some of the lowest paid public employees in this state, having to take additional assignments to make ends meet.

What does that say about our society, and especially in California. Giving these employees the first opportunity for vacancies, which would include full time vacancies where they can make more money to support themselves, their families and communities, makes sense to me. If the employees don't take that opportunity, then the employer can notice the vacancies to the public again. It just makes good sense.

I will say that I agree with some of the concerns expressed regarding need to already have some kind of skill set, as you said, Assembly Member, and I encourage you to work on that as you move the bill forward. I recommend an aye vote. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Higher Education.' [Roll Call]. That bill has five to two votes; that bill is out.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have to step out for a moment. I will turn the gavel over to Assembly Member Lackey. The next bill will be Haney: 1246--1672.

You may proceed.

Thank you. Good morning, Members. Some of us have the opportunity in a lifetime to be able to tie the knot and get married. And for those of us that get married, we hope that it lasts forever till death do us part. Sometimes that isn't always the case, but you're able to find love again and get remarried. This bill here will allow our retired CalPERS members who divorce after retirement and subsequently remarry, designate their new spouse as a beneficiary to the member's share of retirement.

I also want to note that this bill in no way will impact the former spouse's beneficiary retirement benefits in any way. With me here today is Mr. Aaron Read from California Association of Highway Patrol and CAL FIRE Local 2881.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Aaron Read, representing those groups, and the retired public employees, also all cosponsors. You explained it perfectly. I can't add anything. I do want to thank our author for carrying this bill, and she has a heart for this because public safety is important to her. And what brought this to us was the public safety folks, who, unfortunately, have a super high divorce rate.

But that said, I also want to thank Michael Bolden, the Committee Consultant, who always does a thoughtful and thorough job on his analyses. Always. And so, thank you for your work and urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses who would like to express support? Any opposition? Looks like none. We'll come back to the Members. Any comments? Might need a motion. Okay. I didn't get that, but sounds good. We have a motion. A second. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote on my happy spouse, happy house bill.

Very good. We'll go for the roll call, please.

The motion is 'do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call]. We'll place this bill on call.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Assembly Member Haney, you may present.

Thank you Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 1672, which would allow our incredible, essential, compassionate, committed, in home supportive services, providers and employers, many of whom are here in the room with us today to negotiate their contract and wages at a state level instead of a county level. Getting care in the setting of your choice is a human right and a basic freedom. It's also the most cost effective way to deliver care.

But the long term care system in our state is broken and the promise of delivering long term care in the comfort of an individual's home is threatened. This is in part due to the fact that our IHSS workers are leaving the workforce at alarming rates because of low wages and poor benefits. While IHSS wages vary across California, there is not a single county that pays IHSS providers a living wage. Five counties still pay caregivers the minimum wage.

Another 23 counties pay less than a dollar above the minimum wage. 24 more counties pay less than $2 above the minimum wage, and only six counties pay $2 or more above the minimum wage. The state has estimated that the population of older adults will double over the next 10 years. Without action that will help increase workforce retention, the crisis in caregiving will become a full blown catastrophe.

Unfortunately, the current fragmented structure of the IHSS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage or filling the impending long term care shortage. Caring for all Californians is a statewide endeavor requiring bold vision and leadership. To match the size of the challenge, caregivers with frontline experience must have a recognized voice at the state level.

By transitioning the collective bargaining process from the county level to the state, AB 1672 will professionalize the workforce, provide IHSS workers with living wages and benefits, and ensure a more equitable distribution of long term care funds while allowing the state to meet its long term care demands.

I want to thank the sponsors who you're going to hear from and all of our IHSS workers, as well as the California Association of Public Authorities, State Association of Counties, County Welfare Directors Association for engaging with our office and the sponsors. We are willing to continue those discussions in a collaborative effort. I know we share the goal of supporting our long term care workers and ensuring that every Californian has access to care who needs it.

Here to testify with me today is Marisa Mora an IHSS provider from Trinity County and Sydney O'Connor in IHSS provider from Kern County. Additionally, we have Tiffany from SCIU California, who is available to answer any technical questions for us today.

Thank you, Assembly Member. We should have two witnesses speak. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Marisa Mora, and I'm an IHSS care provider in Trinity County. That's up by Redding. So I care for my daughter, who has cerebral palsy and quadriplegia. She became disabled when she was 18 months. She stopped breathing, and my life completely changed, and so did hers. So I just want to kind of let you guys know a little bit of the things that she's capable and incapable of doing. She stays home with me, and basically, she requires 100% care.

I need to diaper her. She relies on me for changing. She has a tube in her tummy that she has to eat from. I connect a machine to it. It's right here with a bag that has her food in it. And the reality is that Emma is going to need me for the rest of her life. The reality is that I am a fully committed mom.

And just like many of the other providers who care for people in their home, we give people the dignity to be able to stay in their homes, in the homes that if you're an aging person, it's the home that you've raised your children in. It's the home that you have married your spouse in and have these wonderful memories in. And we give people that dignity back.

It's a hard thing to be an aging person and to come to the realization that I can no longer do for myself the things that were simple for me, I could no longer do. I can't bathe myself. I've slipped and fell a few times. I can't go to the bathroom by myself. I can't get my shirt on. How am I going to cook? I've burned so many things, and it's a hard thing to accept as a human being.

But the IHSS care providers, we give that dignity back to people. We lift and empower our recipients. We lift them up and we empower them. We encourage them. We let them know that they're valuable, and they have worth. A lot of times, once a person gets an IHSS care provider in their home, you see this huge change. You see that they're happy, they're brilliant. They have these people coming to visit them, and they're helping them. They're taking the load off.

So I want to emphasize on that also. We do a lot of work for a little bit of money. We give a lot of love, and we don't get a lot back. We don't have retirement. We don't have anything to secure our future whatsoever. I myself make $16.85 an hour. And my daughter, like I said, 100% care. And it's hard. We deal with cleaning up messes that nobody should. I mean, somebody's got to do. Somebody's got to clean them up. And I ask you to just explore our work, our hard work, what we do, and consider us when you make the judgment on this. I would like to see my.

I'm so sorry. We're three minutes.

Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you.

Good morning, Committee Members and Chairperson. Thank you for your time today. My name is Sydney O'Connor. I am Kern County representative of UDW United Domestic workers district five and bargaining team Member in Kern County. I am a home care provider to my partner, Jacob, who has battled diabetes and kidney failure since his entire life. Since he was seven years old, he was diagnosed with type one diabetes, and that was in the 70s so you can imagine. He was one of the first people to actually have human insulin.

So he's seen the whole process. He was told he wouldn't live past 18, but science has evolved with him, and he's still here. And I'm very grateful for that because I love him very much. And he is also blind because in his late 20s, he had diabetic retinopathy.

So the diabetes was starting to take a toll on his health, and his kidneys and his pancreas, of course, didn't function properly to begin with, so he had a double transplant in 2016, and he's been living with that ever since. He's still blind, and I have to be his eyes. So, I am one of over half a million care workers in the state, but I happen to live in one of the counties where care work is blatantly undermined and undervalued.

In my seven years as a caregiver in Kern, County, I have seen our Board of Supervisors actively choose to spend funds, fighting IHSS workers with lawyers and even paying penalties of nearly $800,000 rather than bargain with us in good faith. We are proof that the current county by county bargaining system continues to fail caregivers and the Californians in our care. It has created inequality across the state and forces us to bargain for pennies that result in low wages, poor benefits, and lack of training and growth opportunities.

And because the job pays so poorly, I make $15.50 an hour. There simply aren't enough care workers to properly serve the seniors and people living with disabilities who need and have a right to our care. Our system is leaving over 40,000 of our state's most vulnerable residents with more than 31 million unmet care hours each month. This is why we need statewide collective bargaining. This is why we need AB 1672.

AB 1672 would help streamline the bargaining process, professionalize the IHSS workforce, and give us the wages and benefits we deserve regardless of where we live. Not only that, but with better wages and benefits, we can retain more care workers and attract more people into this important field. AB 1672 is a necessary next step to address our state's care crisis. On behalf of the nearly 600,000 care workers and the people in our care, I urge you to support AB 1672. And I am very hopeful and happy to be here and have this opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please state your name, organization, and position. Thank you.

Alia Griffing AFSCME California in strong support.

Adrian Mohammed with United Domestic Workers, co sponsors of the measure, obviously here in support. And I've also been asked to voice the support of the California Federation of Teachers as well. Thank you.

[Speaking in Spanish].

Excuse me. I'm sorry. State your name, organization, position.

My name is Martha Ruiz, Sierra County, and I'm provider for 12 years. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Lupe Smith. I'm a provider for 17 years. I am from SCIU 2015, and I hope you do pass the AB 1672.

Thank you.

Mi nombre es Patricia. Patricia Ornelas, y soy de condado de Yolo, de local viente y quince y yo soporta la proposition.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Teresa Schnacker and this is my son, Kevin. We're from Del Norte County, which is up by the Oregon border. I'm an IHSS worker, and I hope that you support AB 1672.

Thank you.

And my name is Belinda Wells from El Dorado County, and I am a caregiver. I've been a caregiver now for three years, and I support AB 1672, and I am sure hoping that you all will, too.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation in strong support.

Thank you.

My name is Paul Henderson senior. I'm a caretaker with the IHSS, and I'm also a provider member of the SEIU 20. I've been a provider for five years and I hope in support of 1672. Thank you.

Hello. My name is. I'm from San Joaquin county. I'm an IHSS caregiver for family, and I am in support of AB 1672.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Janelle Brancato. I live in Placer County. I'm an IHSS provider, and I am a union Member with UDW, and I care for my 22 and 21 year old, both sons who have autism and I support AB 1672.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Alicia Gelch. I'm from Placer County. I'm an IHSS provider of my mother in law, and my union is UDW, and I hope you support AB 1672. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Nelda Weary. I'm a recipient, and this is my father, my provider, and I support AB 1672. There he is with UDW, and I'm from Placer county. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Manuel Chan. I support my daughter. Big problem. The Placer County. I support the AB 1672. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Antoinette Skiles. I'm from Humboldt County. I'm elected care member and I've been doing caregiving for over 31 years, and I hope you support AB 1672.

Thank you.

Committee Members. Chair. My name is Keith Umemoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans in strong support of AB 1672.

Thank you.

My name is Anitra Smith. I'm from Kern County, and I'm in support of AB 1672.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Brenda Garner, and I'm representing over 300,000 IHSS workers. I'm a union member for SEIU local 2015, and I will very much like for you all to support 1672. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello, good morning. I'm Daphne Danstan. I'm an IHSS provider from Solano County. I'm taking care of my two special needs sons. I support AB 1672. Please. We're asking you to support AB 1672. Thank you so much.

Hello, my name is Jude Equidique. I'm from Sacramento county. I'm an IHSS provider. I take care of my son. I support Assembly Bill 1672, and I implore you to support it as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Deborah Dun. I'm from Merced County and I support AB 1672. And go for it.

Good morning. My name is Kim Evon. I proudly serve as Executive Vice President of SEIU 2015. On behalf of the 420,000 caregivers across the State of California we represent, we strongly encourage you to support AB 1672. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties, also speaking on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association of California. As the author noted, we are working collaboratively and active engagement with the sponsors as well on this Bill. With the Chair's permission, we don't have a position yet, but wondering if I could briefly highlight the key areas.

I'm sorry, yes.

Okay. Awesome. Thank you so much. So, we are engaging on three key areas, ensuring that, providing clarity, that the state would be responsible for the costs of wage and benefit increases agreed to in state bargaining, strengthening and preserving the funding and functions of public authorities outside of collective bargaining, and then examining the items that would be included within the scope of representation and potential county and public authority role within the statewide bargaining unit, and look forward to continuing to work together. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Kim Rothschild, on behalf of the California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS. So we just want to echo CSAC's comments. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Gladys Teyes and I'm an IHSS provider. I'm also a member of UDW. I've been a home care provider for 12 years. I take care of my mom. That's 85 and a half now, and I will continue to do that. And I support AB 1672. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition, I'd like to bring it back to the Members. Assemblymember Addis

I want to thank the Assembly Member for bringing this forward, but equally as important, if not more important, thank the witnesses and the folks that showed up to be here today. I know you traveled a great distance to voice what's important to you, and it's my belief that you're really doing God's work. Our family has benefited from IHSS workers, and I've also worked in programs for medically fragile children.

And so know that not just the toll that this takes on families, but the value of caring for a loved one, being able to do so in your own home, and being able to earn a small, I'm not going to say earn a living, but earn something small that can help you get by. So I'm very, very supportive of this and thank you for your time being here.

Assemblymember Nguyen.

Thank you, and I'm not sure if she moved the Bill, but I'll move the Bill. I wanted to say it before you sat down, but I wanted to actually hear from everybody. I echo everything my colleagues has said. You do the work that is so difficult, and I sat here listening to you speak, and all of you speak. I know how articulate you are and how you can go out there and make the millions, but you choose not to.

You choose not to because you choose to take care of your family member, of your loved one, or of somebody that you fell in love with and want to care for. And you do that with the pay through your heart, right? But you should also be taken care of as well, too.

And so I want to thank the author for pulling this together because I have had the honor of meeting so many IHSS workers, so many of them in my previous job, and making sure that members that were unable to fill out the application, unable to understand, unable to get payments, get it done. And there was a system that was broken, but through folks like you all advocating for it, we were able to fix it. But there's still more that needs to get done.

So thank you so much for being here. I would have had you go first because they have to go back to take care of their family members. If I would have known how many showed up. Thank you so much, Assemblymember, for pulling this forward. This is probably the best thing I'm going to vote on today. Here, this one right here.

Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah. Let me just say that this recognition is long time and coming. What I'm very thankful for is each of you IHSS workers consider service over self. And a lot of it, as was just stated before, you have other options, but your caring perspective and your commitment to service needs to be taken note of. And this is the smallest thing that we can do to address the inequity that you face on a daily basis.

And I wish society would learn and appreciate the fact that service needs to be rewarded when we can and we can't reward it near enough. And especially the work that you guys do, you engage in tasks that few people would be willing to carry out, even temporarily, much less in a permanent setting. And what a great example you were as a witness today. And the routine sacrifice needs to be given recognition. And this is one of the only ways that we can do that.

And I'm very proud to be able to express this level of support to a deserving part of our society that rarely gets acknowledged. So thank you so much for what you do every day, because very few of us would be willing to do that. And we're very, very thankful for your work. And I'm happy to support this one measure that will recognize this opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm sorry, Assemblymember Schiavo.

I just wanted to thank the author, the sponsors for bringing this forward. I know this has been a long, hard road and a lot of effort to get here and appreciate everyone who's come today, because I know how hard that is to get away from the work that you do. As someone who is in the labor movement for 20 years, I have a strong belief in the power of bargaining, and statewide bargaining, I think is the smartest solution here for everyone involved. And just think that this is a real opportunity to give the kind of dignity and respect to the work that deserves it. So thank you. And I'd love to be added as a co author.

Assemblymember Addis.

I'll second if the motion.

Thank you. I was going to ask.

And if the Assemblymember is accepting co authors, I would like to co author, as well.

The Bill has been moved by Assemblymember Nguyen and seconded by Assemblymember Addis. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Yes. Well, I want to thank the Committee for those very powerful, articulate words and for your support. And you, Chairwoman, for your support as well. I want to thank our witnesses, Marisa and Sydney, for their testimony and for their work. I know they are representing hundreds of thousands of providers all over the state. And not just the providers, but you're also representing the recipients and the people that you care for.

Everyone that we heard from today is not only representing themselves, but they're representing people that they've devoted their lives to care for, their health, their happiness, their well being. And I want to say in closing, I appreciate the support of this Committee. We have a lot of work ahead of us to get this done. There are certain things that are so essential, that are so critical for the constituents that we represent, that they are a level of state concern that we have to take responsibility for.

We did this with childcare workers. We have to do it with long term care workers as well. So I take all of that support and also commit to working in partnership with all of you so that we can actually get this done and take responsibility as a state to ensure that long term care has the support that it requires. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember. I would also like to be a co author of this Bill. And with that, I recommend an aye vote on AB 1672. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The motion is do pass and will be referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call].

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you. Last but not least, we have Assembly Member Nguyen, AB 1240. I took my break. Sorry. We're going to take up the bills that are on call. Secretary, please call the roll.

Seeking no more business, this Committee is adjourned.