Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

The email address is albr.committee@assembly.ca.gov. Again, that email is albr.committee@assembly.ca.gov. We do not have a quorum yet, but we will start as a Subcommittee and we will start with file item two, AB 524 Wicks, since she is here. So whenever you're ready, Assemblymember Wicks.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I believe, yes, my witnesses are here. Perfect.

Before you begin, Ms. Wicks, just as a reminder for everyone, for all of our bills, each side, I can have two witnesses for up to two minutes for each witness.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and member and staff. Employment actions like termination, refusal to hire, or demotion may be based on biases about how workers who are caregivers will or should act without regard to the workers' actual performance or preferences. Mothers and fathers of young children, pregnant, and breastfeeding people, and employees with aging parents or sick spouses or partners may encounter caregiving and discrimination. In April 2020, a group of hotel chain janitors were laid off because of the pandemic closures.

When things started to open up, everyone but the mothers were called back. The hotel manager assumed they were busy helping kids with remote schooling. Indeed, many of those mothers did want to return. They needed the income. AB 524 prohibits discrimination against employees based on their family caregiving status. This bill requires that workplace policies do not discriminate against people because they are family caregivers. It does not require employers to make exceptions to policies for family caregiving.

More than 200 local jurisdictions and states, Alaska, Delaware, New York, and Massachusetts, have already outlawed employment discrimination against parents and other caregivers, covering almost 30% of the American workforce. California has not. This bill is supported by a number of great organizations, and we have been in ongoing conversations with the chamber to work on some of the definitions and some of the challenges that they have raised, and I am committed to continuing those conversations should this bill move out of this committee. With me here to support to testify in support is Liz Morris from the University of Hastings Center for Worklife Law, and Julia Parish from the legal aid at work to dispel claims of increased lawsuits and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Assemblymember Wicks. You may begin. Which our witness wants to go first?

My name is Julia Parish and I'm a senior staff attorney at Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit that advocates on behalf of low-wage workers and their families. I'm also a proud co-sponsor of AB 524. Discrimination against workers because of their family caregiver status is real. Although the norm of a mother staying home, caring for the family is a thing of the past, if it ever existed at all, assumptions and stereotypes pervade the workplace and harm workers from receiving lower wages, being denied promotions to being fired, or never hired in the first place. In addition, family caregiving is increasing. One in six Americans assist with the care of an elderly or disabled family member and over one in 12 care for both children and elderly or disabled adults.

Part of the sandwich generation, family caregivers contribute to everything from the well-being of children to reducing nursing home stays. In addition, family caregiving has a disparate impact on mothers. Particularly women of color are even more impacted by family caregiving. At a bare minimum, we can protect workers who are family caregivers from facing discrimination at work.

One of the examples we heard about through our helpline we hear from thousands of workers across the state was a woman who was planning on returning for maternity leave, and when discussing her return date with her employer, they fired her in that conversation, saying that they foresaw her childcare responsibilities as being a disruption. She had not yet returned from her leave. They had no basis for assuming that. But nonetheless, she lost her job because of those assumptions about her caregiver status.

And the employer's decisions are not made based on performance, but rather harmful stereotypes about who caregivers are and where their responsibilities lay. This bill simply prevents employers from entreating their employees. Worse, because of their family caregiving status. It is the most basic employment protection that those who care for those who love should not stand in the way of employment opportunities. We urge your support of AB 524.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Liz Morris. I'm the deputy director at the Center for Worklife Law at the University of California Law, San rancisco. Employment discrimination against family caregivers is well-documented, harmful, and pervasive. It jeopardizes the economic security of families, and it weakens our economy, particularly by driving women out of the workforce. The question is what to do about it. AB 524 offers a viable solution that has already been tested in four states and hundreds of local jurisdictions around the country.

What we've seen in New York, Minnesota, Alaska, and Delaware is that these laws work for employees and businesses alike. Why is this true? Unfortunately, many employers are not attuned to the fact that acting on biases against caregivers often violates other existing employment laws, like prohibitions against sex or race discrimination. AB 524 would provide clarity that discrimination against caregivers is unlawful.

It would incentivize employers to recognize and weed out this form of bias and by doing so would help employers to avoid not only caregiver discrimination but also other employment actions that are already unlawful. In California, we've learned from other states that the impact of caregiver anti-discrimination laws is that employers retain valuable employees, they reduce gender inequities, and they avoid litigation. I want to be clear. The idea that these laws are not going to increase litigation isn't just wishful thinking.

It is the documented experience of businesses in those four other states. A rigorous 2021 analysis by the Center for Worklife Law found that the likelihood that a company is going to be sued under one of these laws is essentially zero. In the states that already prohibit caregiver discrimination, there was less than one lawsuit filed per state per year on average. The reality is that directing employer awareness to caregiver discrimination and explicitly prohibiting it would provide clarity to employers that acting on caregiver bias is illegal. In many cases, litigation would be avoided under AB 524 due to this increased awareness. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of AB 524? Name organization if you have an affiliation and your position on the bill. Thank you, Mr.

Chair and members, Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co-sponsor, strongly urge your support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council, here in strong support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, proud co-sponsor in support.

Thank you.

Hi, Samantha Gordon, on behalf of Tech Equity here in support, as well as for the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Malcolm Harris, with caring across generations and the Care Can't Wait, California Coalitions, here in strong support.

Thank you.

Ruth Silver Taube, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jenna Shankman with Family Caregiver Alliance and the California Coalition on Family Caregiving, in support.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in strong support.

Thank you.

Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP California, in support.

Thank you.

Katie Duberg, on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition, proud co-sponsor, also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support, the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, the California WIC Association, the Center for Law and Social Policy, CLASP, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Grace and Child Poverty in California. NARAL Pro-Choice California, the National Council of Jewish Women Los Angeles, Public Council, and Worksafe. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, also here in support.

Thank you. Is there opposition? And as the opposition makes her way up, actually, let's take a moment. I'll ask Madam Secretary, if you can please call rolls so we can establish quorum

[Roll Call]

Have established quorum, so opposition. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli with the Hollywood Chamber. In the deepest of respect of the author, we are opposed, as we were in the Judiciary Committee, on two items. One is the expansion of FIHA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act, and secondly, the broad definition, we believe, of family caregiver status. FIHA, as you may be aware, applies to public sector employers as well as private sector of five or more.

The concern from the employer community is the significant potential damages that you can obtain under FIHA, including attorneys fees, injunctive relief, and punitive damages. So today it includes 18 protected classifications. This would add a 19th, and there's significant liability with the expansion of FIHA. That's of, again, grave concern, especially to the small employer community. And this is one of those measures that I would hope you place in context.

Every year, looking over the last 16 or so years, the Legislature has adopted anywhere from 40 to 60 new additions to the labor code in California. That's a lot to keep up with Hiscox Insurance. Granted it was 2017, but still they estimated about $166,000 to defend a general employment discrimination lawsuit. So you can see the employer concern. The definition, we think, is very broad. I know that the Assembly member included it in her leave bill, her for leave bill of last year of 1041.

However, again, this is expansion of liability under FIHA and not a leave. I would also note that that provision allows the employer to limit an employee to one designated person per 12-month period for that leave. And so there are a number of other leaves. Just 10 seconds, including parental leave, including child care, and of course, CFRA, that are available in these situations. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Opposition. As the author noted, we have had conversations with the sponsor and the author's staff, and I really appreciate their continuation to meet with us on this bill. This is the third time the bill has been introduced. This version of the bill does not contain language amending the reasonable accommodation section of FIHA. However, we do have some concerns that practically this could really turn into a de facto reasonable accommodation requirement. Understandably, the concept of a caregiver is very intertwined with needs of caregiving, such as time off, schedule changes, what have you.

On a related issue that was in front of the California Court of Appeals related to folks who were associated with others with disabilities, that court actually agreed that even though accommodation was not an issue in the case, the fact that the employer had not accepted the employee's scheduling change request and therefore had to terminate the employee because of their refusal to work a different schedule was actually discrimination. So the two concepts are very intertwined. So that is something we are discussing with the author.

I did also want to just touch briefly on the litigation points. A number of the states that have similar laws are actually far more narrow, focusing more on parenthood or living with minor children, what have you than this bill is also, according to that same Hiscox study, when you look at the chances of an employer being sued under FIHA or similar employment litigate statutes, California has about a 56% chance of being sued where the national average is only about 10%. And if you look at again, a lot of the jurisdictions, they are more narrow than they are here. And we just believe that California has oftentimes a much more robust, litigious plaintiffs bar than in these other states. So we don't really think that is a fair comparison. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in opposition? Please approach the microphone. Name, organization and position on the bill is AB 524. Hold on one second. Go ahead.

Mr. Chair and members, Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Jaime Huff on behalf of CJAC, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ryan Elaine on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition, thank you.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden on behalf of the California Manufacturers Technology Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Izzy Swindler. On behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's bring it back to committee for any questions, comments, motions. We have a motion from Assemblymember Ortega, second from Assemblymember Reyes. Any questions or comments? I just want to thank the author. I know this has been a journey. I also want to show appreciation for the opposition.

I know there's been a lot of dialogue on this particular piece of legislation, but I do appreciate the fact that we have evolved, I think in a good way, in terms of what a family caregiver is. And I think that this reflects, I think, appropriate change, societal changes, and the demands that workers and family members have. So happy to have a do pass to appropriations recommendation. Would you like to close with Assemblymember Wicks?

I just want to thank the Chair and members to hear us out today and committee staff as well. And as mentioned by opposition, it is the third time. Third time's a charm, though, right? It's a saying for a reason. And I know that there were some other arguments made around the idea that we have other leaves, which we do.

But in the end of the day, I know there's one study that found that mothers were 79% less likely to be recommended for hiring, half as likely to be promoted, and on average, make $11,000 less in salary for the same position as similarly qualified non-mothers. And there's no leave policies that are going to accommodate those issues. And so this is really trying to ensure that we're protecting our caregivers, and not just mothers, but everyone who has family caregiving responsibility. I know we've been having those discussions in other bills as well, but we're trying to modernize our laws here in California. So with that, we would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary, if we can take role on the vote for AB 524.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. We'll keep the ball open for abstinence.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hold it. You have a bill here today. Whenever you're ready, sir.

Okay. Takes me a minute to adjust. Banging my knee. Thank you. Mr. Chair and Committee, I'd like to show my appreciation for the ability to present AB 1228, a bill that would require that a fast food restaurant franchise share with its fast food franchisee all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the franchisee's labor violations. As many of you know, California's fast food industry employs over 556,000 Californians, the highest number of any state in the country.

Of those fast food workers, nearly 70% are people of color. We have heard fast food worker's experiences of wage theft, violence at work, sexual harassment and assault, denial of earned sick days, intense heat, poor workplace safety practices, and retaliation for speaking out. While this does not imply that all fast-food franchisees mistreat their workers, it is clear that we must ensure that our fast-food workers are able to thrive in their workplaces and in their communities.

Last year I had the opportunity to listen to fast food workers, franchisees, franchisors, and even members of the legislature regarding joint liability. During our discussions, there was a common theme that was voiced: there needs to be an opportunity for franchisors to address labor violations before there is joint liability. That's what this bill does. AB 1228 states that no civil action shall commence against a fast food franchiseor prior to 30 days after receiving a written notice of the alleged violation.

The time period is extended to 60 days if a franchisor makes written requests to the noticing person for additional time to complete the investigation. The bill further states that the franchisor would not be liable in a civil action if the franchisor cures the alleged violation within the applicable time period. Finally, the bill would provide that a waiver of this bill's provisions or any agreement by a franchisee to indemnify its franchisor for liability is contrary to public policy and is void and unenforceable.

With me to testify and support are Maria Sabina, Oakland Mcdonald's worker, and Ruth Silver Taube, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University and coordinator of Santa Clara Wage Theft Coalition, and she is also an expert in answering any technical questions.

Thank you. Senator Holden, each witness up to two minutes, and we will account for any translations that's necessary. We'll be sure to account for that appropriately.

Yes, my name is Ruth Silver Taube, and in addition, I'm also the supervising attorney of the county Santa Clara County's Office of Labor Standards Enforcement Legal Advice Line. Employment law violations are rampant in the fast food industry, and the franchise model contributes significantly. According to a recent survey, a shocking 85% of California fast-food workers have experienced wage theft. The fast food franchise model incentivizes wage theft by employing what Professor David Weil calls fishering: placing intermediaries between themselves and workers -

- that allows the global brands to siphon off profits and evade liability. Franchising agreements allow franchisors to dictate most aspects of the business. By removing nonlabor variables, franchise agreements compel even the most well-intentioned franchisees to minimize labor costs to increase profits. Franchisors often evade liability under current law, which narrowly construes joint liability despite franchisers' control over relational mechanisms such as manuals, training, intensive monitoring, and evaluation tools.

California has long recognized joint liability as key to enforcement and extended it to industries with rampant violations, like janitorial, construction, nursing homes, and major fashion brands. AB 1228 will require large fast-food parent companies to share responsibility for providing safe workplaces that comply with California laws that protect workers from wage theft, sexual harassment, and injuries.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[Forgein language] Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Maria Sabina. I'm a McDonald's worker from Berkeley, and I'm here to ask for your support of AB 1228. [Forgein language] During my 15 years at McDonald's, I have experienced a lot of problems at work that come directly from the pressures and policies McDonald's places on workers in a store.

[Forgein language] McDonald's has an emphasis on how fast orders must be completed. But at peak hours in our tiny kitchens and not enough workers, we are bound to make mistakes. [Forgein language] When orders take too long or aren't exactly right, we face the rock of customers. They get mad.

They yell, they throw food and hot coffee at our faces. [Forgein language] When McDonald's required my franchisee to renovate the store to match the new look corporate warrant... [Forgein language] our workplace got even more dangerous. [Forgein language] They took away our security officers. [Forgein language] Barriers between the lobby and the back kitchen became easier to get around, leaving us more vulnerable.

[Forgein language] Now, with the renovations, the window to the drive-through does not close properly. We have to manually close the window or leave it open. If we don't close the window, strangers try to grab things from inside. [Forgein language] An angry customer once got off of her car and jumping through the drive-through window into the restaurant.

[Forgein language] McDonald's made 9.9 billion in profits in 2021. The company needs to do more to protect workers and support franchises. [Forgein language] They have created conditions where is too much pressure upon workers and franchises to line their pockets with profits. [Forgein language] AB 1228 will make sure the franchises do the right thing.

Incorporation, share their responsibility for keeping us safe and make sure our franchises have what they need to follow labor laws. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 1228, approach the microphone. Name organization and position on the bill.

Afternoon Chair Kalra and Members, James Michael Apollo with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in strong support. Thank you. Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara. On behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender. On behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation here in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Perla Martinez. I'm from Wasco, California. I'm a healthcare worker and I stand in solidarity for AB 1228.

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Thank you.

My name is Alisha Walker. I'm from Lifelong Medical Care in Oakland, and I am in support of AB 1228.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Marina Ariaga from Little Caesars here in Carmichael, and I am here to support AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Olivia Garcia. I am from San Jose, California. I work for Domino's Pizza. Please, just vote for AB 1228.

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Gracias.

[Forgein Language]

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Megan Durazo. I am from Bakersville, California. I work with SCIU 521. And I am here standing in solidarity with our fast food brothers and sisters. In support of AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Hugh Archiback. I work at Carl's Jr at Carmichael, and I am here in support of AB 1228.

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Gracias.

[Forgein Language]

Gracias.

[Forgein Language]

Gracias.

[Forgein Language]

Gracias.

[Forgein Language] Thank you.

Thank you.

[Forgein Language]

Good afternoon. My name is Tina Diep. I'm from Alameda County, so I'm community health workers. I'm SEIU 1021. I'm support SB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Angel Valdez. I work at a clinic in Oakland, and I'm a pro member of 1021, and I'm here in support of AB 1228.

Thank you. All right, good afternoon. I am Brandon Dawkins. I am with SEIU Local 1021, and I work for the San Francisco Department of Public Health, and I am also here in support of AB 1228. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Mabel Bermudes Chen. I am in support of AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Micdalia Callan, and I'm a healthcare worker, and I'm here to support our workers. AB 1228, thank you.

Hello. My name is Eva Marquez, and I work as a medical assistant at Tiburcio Vasquez Health Center in Union City. AB 1228, Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Jason Eames from San Jose, California, and I stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in the fast food industry and support AB 1228.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? If not, we'll ask opposition if there are primary witnesses to please approach the table. Yeah.

Whenever you are ready? Yeah. Good afternoon Chair Kalra and the Vice Chair Flora, and Members. I want to thank you first for your service to our state and our country and allow me to speak to you here. My name is Sisi Yen, I opposed to AB 1228. I immigrant America at age 26 search of American dream with $20 in my pocket. No. more. No five minute old friends, not speak English.

In 1984, the franchise system gave my family and me the opportunity to become Mcdonald's local franchise owner in Oakland. And the ownership, the proud ownership and entrepreneurship and Mcdonald's support training provides the ability to grow and create jobs giving back to the community we love and share with others the same opportunity. AB 1228 will eventually destroy the proven success franchise system by making the corporation responsible legally for the employee decisions by local owners like us.

And that will kill all the incentives and the entrepreneurship of our country was based on. And it also will destroy the almost 5000 franchisees in California largely owned by minorities and immigrants like myself, along with your family and dear love the community. It also will cut off the pathway for immigrants and minorities like me to own restaurant and become business owners and give back to America and fulfill the American dream. So I respectfully ask for your no vote to AB 1228. Thank you.

Good afternoon chair Kara and Members of the Committee, many of you already know me. My name is Michaela Mendelsohn and I am a proud transgender businesswoman who owns and operates six El Pollo Loco restaurants in Los Angeles and Ventura counties. I'm proud to be sitting here again today. The last time I sat in the seat was with Senator Laura, sitting right there. We wrote a Bill together to protect transgender employees. Today though, I'm speaking on behalf of local restaurant owners in California who strongly oppose 1228.

I grew up washing dishes in our family's restaurants. Unfortunately, my dad passed suddenly at 56 years old. But in 1998, I was able to follow in his footsteps and opened my first El Pollo Loco restaurant in Los Angeles. Franchising is the epitome of the American dream. California alone, tens of thousands of individuals have had the opportunity to carve out their own businesses and provide for their families and their employees.

Now, 35 years later, I pride myself in creating a safe, inclusive workspace for my 175 employees including more than 50 transgender employees I've hired over the past decade. But like any other life endeavor, it includes risk. We are not impervious as franchisees to downturns in the economy. During the 2009 recession, I lost over half my stores and my family home. Now I'm worried about another recession. I have fewer people coming into my stores and those who come are spending less.

Now this, AB 1228 will end the franchise model in California. If franchisees are on the hook, if franchisors are on the hook for my business decisions, they will be forced to take control of my businesses. Franchisors will be forced to rethink issuing new franchise agreements. Instead, they will choose to operate corporate restaurants or only work with large conglomerates who can protect their interest. This is a direct attack.

Be not mistaken, this is a direct attack on local franchise restaurants and will literally eliminate the American dream for thousands of franchisees like myself. Please vote no on AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 1228, please approach the microphone name, organization, and your position on the Bill, please.

Yes, my name is Regina Yen. I'm a social worker and a Mcdonald's operator for 40 years and I oppose the Bill.

Thank you.

Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in Opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Bollinger, on behalf of the California Asian Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Georgia O'Hall, a franchisee for Wendy's Northern California and I'm strongly opposed 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Courtney Escalante, a franchise owner in Sacramento and strongly opposed to AB 1228.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Che Azari. I've been an operator for 19 years. Mcdonald's franchisee and I operate the business here in Sacramento. I'm in opposition of 1228.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Don Preisler. I'm a professional photographer working for the University of California and I oppose this Bill.

Thank you.

Harris Lou, 23 years as a Mcdonald's franchisee and advocate for our team Members. Strongly opposed 1228.

Thank you.

Tim Lynch, on behalf of the diversified restaurant group, owner of multiple Taco Bell franchises up and down the state and we oppose the Bill.

Thank you.

John Moffatt. On behalf of Arby's, Baskin Robbins, Buffalo Wild Wings, Dunkin, Sonic, and Jimmy Johns, in opposition.

Thank you.

Randy Powell. On behalf of the International Franchise Association and the California Restaurant Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Julian Canete, on behalf of the California Hispanic Chambers of Commerce and our over 125 diverse and Hispanic chambers throughout the state, in opposition.

Thank you.

Hi, Mary Liu. I'm a Mcdonald's owner operator in Solano County, Yolo County and Sacramento county for over 15 years. I represent and am part of one of over 15,000 franchise owners in California. 80% are women and minorities. We oppose 1228, thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Tamuri Richardson, President and CEO of the Solano County Black Chamber of Commerce, largest chamber in Solano County, as well as founding a chartering board Member of the NAN network in Solano County. And we oppose 1228 as well.

Thank you.

Hi, Zen Hunter-Ishikawa. I'm representing CloudBlazer LLC, operate in Yolo, Sacramento, Solano, Napa, and strongly opposed 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aram Tanapandien. I represent Galaxy Solutions, a management consulting firm. This Bill, I don't think anybody can oppose better working conditions. But the real intention, the real consequence.

Just your position, sir.

I respectfully oppose.

Thank you so much.

David Phommavong the Asian American Business Club. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Thomas Quach, owner of Koja Kitchen in downtown. I oppose the Bill.

Thank you.

I'm Chang Ke, the owner of the Maritime Grill. In opposition of AB1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Jamie Heffosejak, respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

My name is Tommy Lin. I'm the owner of the small restaurant called Dumpling House in Sacramento. I also the owner of the hardware recycling in the Yuba county and logistic warehousing in L.A. County. I strongly opposite the Bill.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Vicki Beaton. I'm the California State Railroad Museum docent. I strongly opposed 1228.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Sean Yang, owner of small business Nora West, Imaging Consultant, LLC. Respectfully opposed AB 1228.

Thank you.

Hello Ryan Allain, with the California Retailers Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members Paul Gladfelty. On behalf of Mcdonald's owner operators employers over 125 in California, and we strongly oppose.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition? If not, we'll bring it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, or motions. Senator Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for your indulgence in time. I understand that franchises own and operate their own restaurant and they have control over their brand standards. But when it comes to employment decisions, safety inspections, daily operations, they are bound by the overall brand itself. Doesn't AB 1228. What's one of my fears by virtue of the franchisee put that liability on the business operating or owner themselves?

Mr. Chen, I'm not sure I understood your question. Is the question specifically in regards to who operates correct restaurant?

I appreciate your answering. Let me go ahead and ask the author first and go from there. No, not at all, and then able to give an opportunity for you, ma'am, as well as Mr. Yen. Thank you for being here to answer, but if the author would. I'm just worried about the transfer of the liability to the.

Mr. Holden respond and then we'll come to you Mr. Yen.

Thank you Mr. Chair.

Yeah. I feel that this helps the franchisee because there's dual responsibility now, there's joint and several responsibility. Now it's all on the franchisee. But this way it'll share responsibility. So I think this is actually a Bill that helps the franchisee, because right now there's so much control and the only variable is labor. And so if there is joint responsibility, then there'll be an incentive of the franchisor to make sure that labor laws are followed.

Mr. Yen.

Yeah, well I've been as a franchisee for 40 years almost since was your age. And the dispute learned that the fundamental success of franchise system is to give each local franchise has to be local local franchise owners in their fine homes nearby their communities that be the owner and 100% ownership. Especially on legal side, we're 100% responsible. We get collective training, support, and learning. Yes, that's always good.

Because this highly competitive market to compete, be successful in entrepreneurial system that requires highly competitive service to customer the cost. You create more jobs whilst we go and more families involved. Now we give franchise store the power legally not naturally of so called natural, so called American system. We actually manually to do that.

It's against the nature success of the model. Then I lose the pride and control and respect actually I lose it from my employees, from my community and I lose from my family. All the drive and ownership, all the entrepreneurship and that's fine. Cost wise better for me responsibility. I say okay big daddy, take care of all the troubles. Then what happens? You know that, you all have a, you'll be in kiss your parents. You know what know, right. It's not good. Seriously.

You love them, but it's not good. That's why the American system became successful. I come to America just for that reason and let me do my best and I be responsible for it. That's really the spirit. Otherwise you killed it, period.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Yeah, please.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if I have just one more question. I understand for the author, timing wise, that there's been a Bill from last year of referendum that we are still waiting for the results. That answers some of the questions in regards to the intent that you're trying to solve for AB 1228. I'm just questioning the timing is why not wait for the results of the referendum and let the people decide.

I think what we're trying to address here is an important issue. This was in the Bill from last year. But in the conversations in trying to find an equitable balance, this piece was taken out of the Bill because we were trying to find balance.

To make sure that some of the issues that are being discussed today and the weight falling on the franchisee. And we've written bills before to protect the franchisee, who came to say we need protection because the franchisor is not playing fair when we're trying to sell our businesses and not getting the full cost of what we've invested in the business.

So what happens with the Bill from last year and the referendum, which, quite frankly, anyway, what happens in terms of going forward? The voters will decide, but this is an element that is not in that Bill, and so we're dealing with it separate and apart.

Any other questions? Comments? Yes, Senator Reyes.

Thank you. Now, does this just called in for joint and several liability. Am I correct? I think that was part of your testimony.

Joint and several liability, yes.

I'm sorry?

Yes, it is joint liability and several liability, yes.

Okay. And I know it's double referred, so I'll get to see it again in judiciary and we'll get to look at the legal aspects of it. And I understand that the franchisor, once he's notified or she is notified of the violation, then they have time to cure the alleged violation. Correct?

Correct, exactly. And it's common in other areas, too, where you name both and the cure is very its not in a lot of bills. So this is really an important part that they have that opportunity, but it's to, yes, let them determine themselves. Exactly.

Thank you. With that, I would move the Bill.

Any other questions or comments from Members? And Senator Reyes is correct. This is the First Committee hearing, and I saw a wide grin from our judiciary chair when that was, as the motion is, do you pass the judiciary? And I think a number of us also serve on that Committee as well. But I think a very appropriate question with Senator Chen regarding the referendum that this piece was removed in an effort to compromise by Senator Holden last year.

And so it is kind of separated out even from the issues that involve, although I know that the author did that in an effort to try to get compromised. There's still, the referendum was still placed on the ballot, but this is still separate from that. And I think that although we have jurisdiction of the labor component, I do think the legal component clearly reigns supreme on this issue, given that.

And I think we'll have the opportunity to have even further discussions and insight from the very capable judiciary staff and chair as well. And so at this point, the recommendation is do pass to judiciary to allow for that further conversation, that further analysis. I do know that we have an author that is certainly amenable to compromise. I don't know, on an issue like this that that will be able to be reached, but time will tell.

And I think that's what allows for this kind of iterative process for us to move forward. But we do have a motion do pass judiciary. Would you like to close, Mr. Holden?

I just thank the Committee for its analysis and for the comments today. And we look forward to the next committee to continue the conversations more specifically on the legal components. But certainly, as you pointed out, I always am amenable. But I will say once burned.

And I try in good faith to balance and understand and hear the concerns. And I show that. When you have workers who have real problems, and I'm not saying all franchisees create these problems, we have two exemplary franchisees in front of us, but not all are like that. And we had workers, many of whom are here today, who were sleeping out in the park last year, to make sure this process, that they were heard because they were dealing with real issues.

And so for that Bill to go forward through the process, for us to take out a very important component of the Bill with the expectation that we'd be moving forward in a way to get something that would be responsive to those who were seeking the petition of the representatives for them as well. And so here we are today with that Bill basically in the penalty box, unable to be implementing the very important things that these people have been looking for.

So we're now dealing with this piece because this is still an issue. And I think this is a fair cure period. Fair to allow for there to be a cure and to give everyone the ample opportunity to reach that and to make sure that the workers are working in an environment where they're safe and they have the protections that they require. So I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. If we can call the roll on the vote for AB 1228.

Motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]. That bill's on call.

So that Bill will be placed on call. We'll wait to absent Members. Thank you all very much. Oh, absolutely. Thank you. All right. Mr. Judiciary Chair, it's always good to see the future before your eyes.

Preview of coming attractions. Right?

Coming attractions as they say. So, yeah. Mr. Maienschein, whenever you're ready. This is AB 594, by the way.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 594 will expand and strengthen the tools available to public enforcement agencies to protect workers from labor law violations and protect responsible employers from unfair competition. Despite the best efforts of the Labor Commissioner and local agencies, enforcement of labor law violations is inadequate to meet the needs of California's immense workforce. Wage theft is widespread in California and is particularly egregious in low-wage industries.

In 2021, almost 19,000 workers filed claims with the Labor Commissioner, adding up to more than $338,000,000 in lost wages. Companies continue to develop more sophisticated ways to evade accountability for labor law violations. These techniques make the already backlogged wage claim process even more complicated and time-intensive. It is essential we maximize the tools available to public enforcement agencies to give workers access to justice and hold companies that break the law accountable. AB 594 expands public enforcement in the following ways.

It broadens the authority of district and city attorneys to enforce labor laws and seek injunctive relief to stop violations, clarifies that public enforcement agencies are not bound by arbitration agreements signed by individual workers, and authorizes the Labor Commissioner to issue penalties for willful misclassification in the wage claim process. We appreciate engagement by stakeholders as we continue working on this Bill.

Moving forward, we will be narrowing the Bill by removing the Labor Code divisions that apply to workers compensation and workplace safety, which are specialized sections of the Labor Code. We also intend to work with our friends in the building and construction sectors to ensure collective bargaining agreements are not impacted.

This is an important measure to protect workers, and I respectfully request your Aye vote. With me to testify in support are Caitlin Vega with the California Labor Federation and Ruth Silver Taube, Director of the Wage Theft Coalition of Santa Clara County and a Professor at Santa Clara Law School.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, proud to sponsor this legislation. This Committee held a hearing several months ago on the issue of enforcement, and I think we all agree that while California has many of the strongest and most protective labor laws, we have a problem with enforcement. We just heard on the last Bill stories from fast food workers about all of the kinds of labor law violations that they are facing.

We hear that over and over in so many different industries, we know that we have to come up with new strategies and new tools to make sure that the important labor laws that get enacted in this state are actually meaningful because they change workers' lives. Workers have the ability to get justice when their rights are violated. That's what this Bill seeks to do.

It seeks to give workers more options when their rights have been violated, to send a message to abusive employers that there will be consequences, that they can't count on an overburdened and underfunded system, or abuse the court appeals process to cause delays to prevent justice. But also enforcement is really important to responsible employers that follow the law, including most union employers.

We can't expect employers, especially those that have, to compete for competitive bids, to go to all the lengths required to follow the law without holding those that undercut them accountable. And so we think this Bill strengthens enforcement in many important ways. And ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you.

My name is Ruth Silver Taube and I supervise the employment law practice, including a workers' rights clinic at the Alexander Community Law Center at Santa Clara University Law School. And I'm also supervisor of the legal advice line of our county. Every day I see low-wage workers at the clinic and workers who call the legal advice line, who have had wages stolen, been misclassified, faced retaliation, and a host of other employment law violations. We know that existing resources for employment are totally inadequate.

AB 594 creates new tools to protect workers. It expands the authority of local public prosecutors to enforce labor laws. This gives workers another avenue to bring claims. It expands injunctive relief for public prosecutors so we can actually stop violations from continuing. It clarifies that the Labor Commissioner can issue citations for willful misclassification when workers bring claims. This is really important. This helps to streamline the process and ensure that the worst violators face penalties.

The Bill also addresses the challenges faced by public prosecutors when they seek to enforce the law and the company claims the public agency is bound by agreements with individual workers to waive rights. Enforcement agencies must be able to proceed in holding violators accountable without regard to any underlying waivers by individual workers. I wish you all could hear directly from the workers I talk to every day about how employment law violations have disrupted their lives, caused significant financial hardship, and even impacted their physical and mental health.

It's essential that we strengthen the tools available to workers and enforcement agencies to seek justice. That's exactly what AB 594 seeks to do. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 594?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Thank you.

James Michael PauLA with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, AFSCME, in full support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, in support.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender with Equal Rights Advocates, in support.

Thank you.

Matt Broad with the Teamsters, Unite Here, Machinists, ATU, ESC, and Utility Workers, in support.

Thank you.

Mark Shock with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity Collaborative in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Committee Members. Louie Costa with the California State Legislative Board of the Sheet Metal, Air, Rail, and Transportation Workers, SMART Transportation Division, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Nicole Trujillo Rice with the California State Building Construction Trades Council in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee Chair and Assembly Members. I'm Greg Hardeman with the Elevator Constructors, Local Eight, and we support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman. I'm a tweener. I was in support, but with the statement of the author, I want to voice my concerns about the amendment that's being proposed. I want to make sure that my unions want to make sure that our members have the right to file suit, and if another union includes it in their collective bargaining agreement, that that doesn't preclude my workers who may be working for that contractor, to be able to pursue their rights under the Bill.

So with that, I'm going to withdraw my support and work with the author.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? All right. Opposition?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. I do want to thank the author staff for having conversations with us about the Bill, and we really do appreciate the amendments that will be narrowing the scope of the Labor Code that this will apply to. Enforcement is extremely important to us. We just have some concerns about some of the approaches in this Bill related to public prosecutors.

The first is concern of double recovery and double litigation of issues. So under the Bill, essentially, if a prosecutor was to successfully seek owed wages or penalties, what have you from a business, or if they were to settle a case on behalf of certain employees, there's really nothing in the Bill that would actually prohibit then that same employee who signed a release or it was part of that settlement, what have you, from bringing a PAGA lawsuit?

There's a lot of case law about how PAGA is seen as a case filed on behalf of the state. So even where a worker has settled their individual claims or has been actually deemed to not have a valid claim in another forum can continue to serve as a PAGA plaintiff.

Second, related to public prosecutors, we have had some other issues in areas of their law, with certain prosecutors enforcing laws differently than others in different counties and to the point about existing authority that I believe was raised in the analysis.

Yes, some DAs and state attorneys do have the right to cover some of the Labor Code presently, but it's a very small section and a lot of what we would be dealing here are sections open to a lot more interpretation, like overtime exemptions, reimbursement of business expenses, retaliation claims, coercion, other issues. There have been multiple proposals actually to have local enforcement of FIHA.

Those have undergone significant amendments or actually been rejected by the Legislature due to concerns raised not only by this Legislature but also a working group about potential conflicts related to conflicting or duplication of work. In fact, there is an existing Bill pending on that issue, and it was significantly amended for those reasons by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to AB 594?

Mr. Chair, Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden on behalf of the California Manufacturers Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Nick Chiappe on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, thoughts, motions? I will second it.

Thank you.

And I think this is such an important Bill. In the years that certainly I've been Chair of Labor, I've had numerous conversations and strategy sessions trying to figure out how the Labor Commissioner can possibly speed up and do more when they're so under-resourced. And I know there are a lot of really effective prosecutors, district attorneys, city attorneys, county councils that are more than happy to take on this responsibility.

And I know that on the one hand, the opposition will say, well, they already have some of this authority, then, on the other hand, says that, well, it'll read inconsistent results. And the reality is right now we're not getting any results because we're not giving the authority to our local jurisdictions. And so I think this is an incredibly important Bill. I would love to be added on as a co-author, and I appreciate the author for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and Members. I agree. I think this is an important Bill. I think this adds some real enforcement abilities to what is a very real large and growing problem in California. So I'm pleased that we're able to present this to you today, pleased with all the work that the sponsors have done to help move this through the process.

We're certainly going to continue to work with the Chamber and Mr. Wetch and others who have issues with the Bill as we move this forward. But I think this is a very important step and important resource for workers up and down our state. And with that, I'd request an Aye vote.

Well, the recommendation is do pass to Judiciary, so you'll certainly have more opportunity to work on these issues and work with opposition and those that have concerns. Madam Secretary, if we can call the role on the vote for AB 594?

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

So that Bill will be placed on call. Thank you. Up next, we have AB 747, McCarty. So, Assemblyman whenever you're ready, just take your time and get settled in. 200-year-old chairs.

All right.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. I'm pleased to present AB 747. This is related to the issue of non-compete agreements, which I know probably you and people in the labor community are well aware of. I personally wasn't quite as aware of them. I'm sure the public isn't aware of them as well. President Biden mentioned this in his State of the Union Address a few months ago, and I think it's a shock to many people across California.

These agreements, while unlawful, are unfortunately inserted in too many of our employer contracts, trapping employees. These have been unenforceable for over 100 years, but they certainly are still there. They have a chilling impact on our workforce, on our economy. One in five workers is bound by these non-compete clauses and they stifle entrepreneurialism. I just was learning earlier today that one of the reasons that Silicon Valley thrived is because they didn't have these and people could go on and focus on other opportunities.

Economists show that this impacts our economy as well. Collectively impacting workers' income by 250,000,000,000 plus nationwide impacts things like the healthcare sector, consumer prices. This is a really common sense Bill that creates an enforcement mechanism for these non-compete clauses which employers and legal counsel unfortunately continue to use to deceive and unfortunately manipulate and undermine workers. The State Bar of California is an agreement that these provisions should not be used.

It's also important to again reiterate that these impact all of us, not just the workers who are under these, but consumer choices, competition, innovation and so forth. With me today are representatives from the American Economic Liberties Project and as well as the California Nurses Association.

Thank you.

Thank you, thank you Chair Kalra and Committee Members. My name is Mari Lopez, legislative advocate for the California Nurses Association and on behalf of the more than 100,000 registered nurses in our state, we are a proud sponsor of AB 747 and thank Assembly Member McCarty for authoring this important Bill to protect nurses and all workers in California.

We also thank Chairman Kalra for his past leadership on AB 2588 which was a Bill that ensures workers too, who provide to direct patient care, including nurses, are protected from repaying employer-mandated training. AB 747 would bar all workplace debt contracts for all workers where employers force workers to repay an alleged debt if they quit or are fired.

For nurses, these employer debt contracts are often tied to minimum work periods of work, and if a nurse quits before the end of the contract period, the nurse is required to pay the cost of the alleged debt or be financially penalized. And some nurses today face threats of collection from their employer or third-party debt collectors when they try to get a better job or better pay elsewhere.

Nurses in employer debt traps report being locked in a job for years with unsafe working conditions for themselves and their patients, locked in low wages, or even kept out of a union, or else they'll have to pay a substantial penalty, sometimes in the thousands of dollars. Last year, in a survey of nearly 1700 nurses nationwide, 19% of nurses who took the survey reported that they were required to enter into a training repayment contract as a condition of their employment.

Right now, nurses in California are still being forced into these types of employer debt traps in order to get or keep a job. Sometimes debt traps are buried in piles of onboarding paperwork. Training repayment contracts are just the tip of the iceberg.

Nurses also experience other kinds of employer debt traps, for example, so called hiring bonuses that are actually loans that lock them into a job for years, or contracts that immigrant nurses are forced to sign to repay alleged costs of international recruitment if they seek employment elsewhere. So we ask that you protect California nurses and patients and make all employer debt traps unlawful so that no one would be forced to work because their employer traps them through debt. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Kalra, and thank you, Committee Members. Lee Hepner. I'm legal counsel for the American Economic Liberties Project. We are a nonprofit and nonpartisan organization that fights concentrated economic power to ensure free and fair opportunity for all. I also want to thank my colleague Ms. Lopez from the California Nurses Association, who spoke about training repayment agreement programs. When I speak about non-competes today, I'm also speaking about various other contracts that restrain worker mobility that are referenced in this Bill.

We know about the harm in the healthcare industry and how that impacts nurses, how that impacts patient care. We also know about the harm caused by non-competes and other worker restraints across industries. Even before the Federal Trade Commission announced its proposed rule to ban these clauses nationwide, we've heard stories about the harm to workers in media and news, the tech industry, retail and restaurants, professional sports.

We've heard stories about hairstylists who won't give haircuts to their family members for fear of violating a non-compete clause, which verges on the absurd. Non-compete agreements deprive workers of the ability to seek alternate employment and better pay and working conditions. Across the country, 30 million workers are subject to non-compete agreements that studies estimate, as the Assembly Member noted, deprive workers of $300 billion per year in pay.

California is one of three states with a law on the books that for 150 years has deemed these agreements void and unenforceable. But we know that they are still inserted into employment contracts. In November of last year, state Attorney General Bonta released an advisory stating that they are routinely included in employment contracts, particularly as to low-wage workers, and have a, quote, tremendous effect on deterring workers from seeking better pay and working conditions. These agreements are bad for small businesses, too.

Studies estimate that if non-competes are banned, new business formation doubles. The inverse of that in jurisdictions where non-competes have been enforced more aggressively, new business formation actually declines. So these are actually good for small businesses and entrepreneurs and workers who are seeking to start their own ventures. There are currently at least 19 other states pursuing some form of regulation of these agreements. California's Bill is at the vanguard for restricting them. This is a pro-worker Bill. It is a pro-business Bill.

I'm happy to answer questions either here or offline, and thank you for your support.

Thank you very much. Anyone else here in support of AB 747?

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, our lawyers see these clauses still all the time. We're in strong support.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in support.

Thank you.

Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity Collaborative in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, also here in support.

Thank you. All right, anyone here in opposition, please approach the table. You can make some space. We need a couple of chairs. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Is it on? Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Sorry about that.

This isn't moving and sorry. And I didn't want to swipe the microphone from the. Anyways. Chris Micheli in respectful opposition, Hollywood Chamber, among others. I wanted to draw the Committee's attention to the enforcement provisions of this Bill. The first is in adding page seven, in Section Five of the Bill, we're adding a new provision to the business and professions code with a minimum statutory penalty of $5,000 per employee. There's no judicial discretion, there's no variation for size of employer or anything.

And then that's in B1, and then in B2, a private right of action, which, of course, is of considerable concern, especially to smaller businesses who lack legal departments and often legal counsel. The other thing is that this Bill, also on the enforcement side, beginning on page eight of the Bill, in Section seven, would add a new Labor Code provision, which, of course, means it's subject to enforcement by PAGA.

But this Bill also sets forth that in subdivision B, the Labor Commissioner can enforce the section, and in subdivision C, there's a private right of action. All of those amount to considerable concern, again, for a small employer who is faced with the daunting task of complying with these types of provisions. And there's ambiguity or less than clear guidance from case law as it relates to non-competes. For example, when you're represented by legal counsel and there's a choice of law provision, is that prohibited or not?

Does that fall under this? The definition of trade secret has been litigated in regards. So there's not a tremendous, if you will, black and white as to what constitutes a non-compete. And then when this Bill would set forth two significant enforcement mechanisms in both the Labor Code and the Business and Professions Code that gives us great concern for how this Bill will be enforced. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again, Mr. Chair and Members Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition, and do appreciate some of the conversations we've had with the author's office. So our understanding is the impetus for this Bill largely comes from employer-mandated training, where the worker was required to repay the employer afterwards. And I do want to highlight that this really is already covered under Labor Code Section 282 which explicitly requires employers to reimburse employees or pay for employer-mandated trainings included.

There's a lot of very clear case law on that point, so it's not really clear essentially what gap this Bill is seeking to fill there. And also there's a section that has to do with a restriction on what is called really employee debt. But unfortunately, a significant consequence of that is that it adds a restriction on certain benefits to workers.

I know hiring bonuses was mentioned earlier, but in our experience, a lot of employees actually like upfront hiring bonuses, especially when they are given the money upfront at the start of the job, which may help for living expenses, what have you. And yes, understandably, it does oftentimes come with a requirement to stay with the employer for a certain amount of years because no employer is probably going to give you a hiring bonus if you could quit two days later.

Also, a lot of our Members have tuition-type programs. Employees often cannot afford to put up the full amount of tuition on their own up front. And so the employer helps out with that so that actually the employee is not going into a debt. And these are not required trainings or education. These are just for the benefit, really, of both the employer and the employee to broaden their skills, which are transferable to other jobs.

This Legislature has, as far as I understand, also considered grant programs and other bills with related requirements that if you receive it, you have to work in a certain program or a field, what have you, for a certain number of years. And then finally, we don't believe that the independent contractor being included in a lot of this Bill really makes sense, especially in Section four, which talks about fees, payment at the end of a termination.

A lot of that is really worked out in the contract with the contractor, and so there's some conflict there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition?

Mr. Chair Members, Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gaiden with the California Manufacturing Technology Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Nick Chiappe, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. I'll bring it back to Committee for any questions, comments, motions?

Well, first of all, I appreciate the work on the Bill and will be supporting it. And definitely some of the examples that were given are especially egregious and should be prevented. I wonder if you could respond to some of those examples that were given by the opposition. Example like a hiring bonus that somebody might have but requires them to stay a certain amount of time.

Would that be prohibited under the Bill? Or the example of an educational program where you're in an ongoing college program or something that they're paying for that has some requirements around your commitment to the job? Are those things that would be prohibited under the Bill and that you're intending to prevent entirely?

Yeah, if I could, Mr. Chair, in our testimony from our representative for the nurses, we talked about that, but maybe you can reiterate it and any other examples you have.

Yes, of course. Thank you so very much for your question, Assembly Member. So certainly we've had nurses that reported that they were provided a hiring bonus or offered a hiring bonus that they accepted, but when they attempted to leave the job, that the bonus was actually added to the loan. So they were indebted to the bonus or was treated as a loan as part of the package.

So it wasn't a bonus in itself, but a debt that they were now incurred as part of the package initially when they signed.

And I'll just add Assembly Member and thanks for the question. There are a couple of discrete exemptions to the prohibition on traps in the Bill, one for union-affiliated apprenticeship programs. Another exemption for fees that are paid by an employer for the maintenance of state-required licenses. And I think that those are very reasonable and narrow carve-outs from what is generally a broad prohibition on these training repayment agreement provisions.

And I'll also just add that nothing prevents an employer in these situations from keeping workers engaged and on the job with better pay and better working conditions. And if that's the reason why an employee or a worker is seeking to leave their place of employment, that there's no justification for binding them in those conditions.

Any other questions or comments? Is there a motion? We have a motion. Is there a second? We have a motion and a second. I appreciate the author for bringing this forward, and the recommendation is do pass to Judiciary. So I think there is some tightening up of some of the language, but it's the first committee hearing, and I think that any Bill needs works as you move forward. And there's plenty of opportunity, I think, for opposition to express what they feel may be appropriate exemptions.

And the author and the sponsor can take that under consideration as well as Committee. I know our Committee has a couple of different recommendations to take under consideration. And as it goes forward to Judiciary, I'm sure Judiciary staff may also have some recommendations. Oftentimes, as you know, it's really about making sure things are in the right code place or make sure the language is consistent with other language and other parts of the code.

And so those are the kinds of things I'm certain will continue to be worked on. And in terms of these kind of anecdotal issues, if there really is an issue there, I know the author can certainly continue to work on that. I really like the Bill, and I would love to be added on as a co-author, if the author would allow for that. And. Would you like to close, sir?

Yeah. Thank you. I appreciate the conversation. I was just thinking, I was on this Committee a lifetime ago. I think it was my first two years, and then I haven't been here for five or so years, and I had a big Bill that I authored a few years ago, Fair Chance Act, banned the box. And I remember I sat right across here from the Cal Chamber and others at this first Committee, and I'll say the same thing I said then, is that I'll work with the opposition.

We won't undermine our values and our principles, but there are some issues we can address and implementation and definitions and basically the overall direction. So, like you said, this is the first committee. We'll go on to the other policy Committee, and as we move forward, that's certainly my commitment. But overall, this is a big issue.

And I thought, find it very interesting half of the argument against it was about enforcement of it and how you're going to go about, well, don't do it in the first place, then we'll be a non-issue. Right. And this shouldn't be the law in the first place. People say it's already in law, then let's find a way to not have these happening for one in five employees across California. So with that, it's a righteous issue. And thank you for your recommendation. And I ask for your Aye vote.

Thank you very much, Madam Secretary. If we can take role on the vote for AB 747.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call].

All right, that Bill is out, and we'll keep the roll open for absent Members. And we have Mr. Garcia here. Just take your time, sir, and get settled in.

Thank you. And this is item five, AB 1593.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present this bill. Bill would prioritize employment for local residents during the development of lithium in Southern California. Imperial County, specifically our district, is known as Lithium Valley. Bill will track and monitor the rate that residents are hired to work on Lithium Valley development.

We have a great opportunity for economic development for the state, but for this region that has historically trailed with unemployment rates up to 2829% at times. So respectfully ask for your aye vote appreciate the work that your team did on the analysis.

Thank you very much. Anyone here in support of AB 1593?

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, also, my colleagues with the State Building and Construction Trades Council had to go to another Committee hearing. They're in strong support of the bill.

I would just mention that when we began to build large utility grade solar projects in the Imperial Valley, the agreements, the project labor agreements that we achieved on those projects contained local hire agreements similar to the impact of this. As a result, the IBW built a training center and an apprenticeship center in Imperial for the first time. No other building trades has ever done that.

And at the height of all that solar construction, we had over a thousand apprentices, not from San Diego County, but from Imperial County in that program. So it's a great concept, and we'd urge, and aye vote, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members: Caitlin Vega, for the California Labor Federation. We are also here in strong support. I want to thank the author for prioritizing not just the development of lithium in this region but good jobs for the people who live there. That's something he's fought very hard for for a long time. We strongly support that and support the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members: Mark Schacht with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, also in support of the bill.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition? Any more support? Anyone in opposition? All right, bring it back to committee. The motion and a second. And thank you so much, Mr. Garcia. As was mentioned, I agree that you've always fought very hard for your community members for good quality jobs. And I think that the promise is there. But without good legislation to ensure that we're creating pathways to good quality jobs, nothing's guaranteed. And so I appreciate your leadership on this. Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary. If could take roll for the vote on AB 1593.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call] That bill is out.

Right, that bill is out. While we keep the roll open for absent Members. Thank you, Mr. Haney. You have AB 871.

Thank you, Chair Kalra, Vice Chair Flora and fellow committee members. I'm here to present first AB 871, the residential elevator safety bill. I will be accepting the Committee amendments and thank you and your staff for working with us on this bill. AB 871 will ensure that standards and safety measures required for commercial elevators are also in place for private residential elevators inside the home. Private residential elevators are becoming increasingly popular among homeowners who install them out of necessity or convenience.

However, without proper regulation and safety standards in place, these elevators can pose serious risks to riders. In order to ensure the safety of homeowners, their families and their guests it is crucial that private residential elevators are subject to the regulation and oversight similar to commercial elevators. Currently in California, only commercial elevators are subject to post installation safety inspections. Additionally, these elevators are subject to annual inspections by Cal OSHA, elevator and unit inspector. Private residential elevators are not subject to these same safety standards and codes.

Private residential elevators which are not regularly inspected are more likely to have crucial safety system errors increasing the likelihood of severe injury or death. This bill would ensure that private residential elevators meet the same rigorous safety standards and inspections as commercial elevators. Help disenfranchise communities with safer access to in home transportation. Encourage more apprentices while providing a skilled and trained workforce for one of the most dangerous occupations in regards to on the job fatalities. AB 871 is sponsored by the International Union of Elevator Constructors.

And today we have Greg Hardeman from local eight and Scott Wetch to testify in support of the bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the Statewide Association of Elevator Constructors Union. The time has come to include residential elevators and lifts and other conveyances into the inspection program. I think the analysis did an excellent job of citing the statistics which I think bear out the needs to do this expansion.

The second part of the bill increases the number of hours that one needs to have in the industry in order to be able to sit for the certification test to become a certified elevator mechanic. I did the bill 20 some years ago with Senator Tom Torlickson to create that program. What we're doing in this bill today is bringing that requirement up to par with the majority of the other certifications.

For instance, the electrician certification program requires 4000 hours and so we're doing that to be consistent with, really, industry standards. I urge your aye v ote.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and committee members. My name is Greg Hardeman. Like Scott said, I represent the Elevator Constructors Local Eight, and I have the full support of our counterpart down in local 18. Private residential elevators are not regulated, as you heard right now about. There's 325,000,000 elevator riders per day. Very few of those you see an injury. But when it comes into the private residence elevator sector, those accidents and numbers are quite different.

There's no really regulation, so there's no way to know how many accidents there are and what goes on there. And without licensing of contractors or mechanics, it poses a risk to the riders, the service workers. Just last year in San Francisco, a San Francisco firefighter fell down a elevator shaft 15ft was rushed to the ER. Fortunately, he survived. Earlier this, in March, there was a two year old toddler that fell down a hoistway in an elevator shaft down in Atlanta.

And that child is lucky to be alive. Last year or in 2021, there was a child in North Carolina that fell down a hoistway on a vacation rental while vacationing with his family and grandparents, and that child did not survive. North Carolina has since adopted a private residence elevator bill, similar to what we're trying to do here. Nevada currently has one and so does Alabama.

Sorry. Let's see.

And then with the addition to the increase of hours. Our trade is a very dangerous trade. I'm an elevator mechanic in the field for 14 years. We've had, on the average for the last 30 years, about six to eight on the job fatality. And that number is only with 30,000 workers out there. So that's significantly higher than some of the other crafts out there. And in the last four years, that number has gone down to three to four on the job fatalities.

So the inclusion of apprenticeship, licensing and that ratio of one to one will help ensure the safety of the workers. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in support?

Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, also here in support.

Thank you. Anyone in opposition to AB 871? All right, we'll bring it back to the committee. Is there a motion? All right, we have a motion and a second, and there's a recommendation for a technical amendment, so there'll be an opportunity, I think, as it goes forward, to appropriations for the author and his staff to take a look at that. Senator Ward, thank you.

Thank you for bringing the bill forward. I totally understand the need to get private residential standards up to speed since we have you here just kind of a curious question in the moment. How's the workforce capacity to be able to meet the inspections needs that are out there? We often see in commercial buildings write permits that have been out of compliance for a couple of months. And I know that you're trying to get around to things.

Yeah.

Right now the state has job openings for state inspectors and we are working with our membership to get retired members and members that no longer can work in the field to work with the state to increase their capacity as inspectors.

Thank you for that question. I just met late this morning with DIR Director Katie Hagen that oversees this amongst all the divisions there. DIR has had hiring constraints because of some practices of a previous Director. The state HR Department has put constraints on their hiring abilities. They have to go through some extraordinary processes.

Director Hagen has kind of cleared the pathway on that and has instituted a bunch of different new reforms that is going to allow the DIR to hire up not just in this division, but really across all the divisions that are suffering from having open positions. So we're very confident that they'll succeed in doing that.

It's good news. Thank you very much.

And I believe the operative date is July 1, 2024. It'll give some time for apprenticeship programs and get folks trained up and hired up. And I think it's particularly regarding demographic changes that we're seeing more and more people are aging at home and staying in their primary residence for many, many years. And we're seeing more and more of these home installs of elevators and elevator type mechanisms. So I think this is definitely the time for this now.

And so we have a motion on the table, Mr. Haney, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary. If you take roll on the vote for AB 871.

motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you so much. And we have one more for Mr. Haney. AB 15301356.

Yes, thank you again, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1356 will strengthen California's Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act, or the WARN Act, by expanding protections for workers impacted by mass layoffs. The WARN Act is something that went into effect in California many decades ago. It's an important protection for workers in the case of mass layoff events, helping them have an adequate amount of time and notice to be able to transition and protect their family and care for their family in that process.

We've seen, unfortunately, many thousands of layoffs over the past few months in particular. And that's helped us identify some of the loopholes that unfortunately exist in our state's warrant act. One of the big loopholes that exists that this bill would address is the fact that contract workers are not included in these layoff protections.

Many contract workers doing the same job that other employees at a company are doing, whether they're engineers or they're working as cafeteria workers, as janitors, received absolutely no notice at all when their colleagues did. Some were laid off right during the holidays and were told to leave by the end of the week. They should have the same exact protections and notice requirements that other employees have. Under the WARN Act, 60 days is also, frankly, not enough for people to be able to transition effectively.

We saw a number of employees who actually were here on immigration visas. That wasn't enough time for them to be able to find another job, particularly to be able to stay here and continue to contribute to our economy. So this ill would extend that notice requirement to 90 days. Lastly, there were a number of employees who were actually required to sign away their rights as a requirement to receive what they are owed under the WARN Act.

We want to make it explicit that that should never be allowed. The two months pay that they are legally entitled to should not be used to compel workers to waive their rights to litigation. This is a very important bill, especially right now as we're seeing these larger layoffs. It only applies to large companies and large layoff events. And it really just requires that there's that adequate level of notice and respect so that workers can transition and again, hopefully be able to stay here in California.

This is about protecting our workforce, which really is our greatest asset, and it will help the industries to be able to survive here if we protect workers. With me to testify in support of this bill is Yuri Murayama, a contract worker at Google, and Caitlin Vega from the California Labor Federation.

Thank you. Please.

Hi, everyone. zero, need to move the mic. Hi, everyone. I'm Yuri Murayama, a proud member of Alphabet Workers Union, CWA . Google says, I can't say I work for Google, though. Instead, Google requires I say I work for Vaco on site at Google, meaning Google didn't hire me. Google contracted Vaco to hire me. Google directs my work at Vaco, where I do quality assurance testing for Google's products.

Google considers my job essential to their business so much that I'm required to be on campus to test and live in a high cost area to get there. And in spite of all that, when Google has mass layoffs, workers like me are often left with no protections or economic support. As it stands, contractors often don't benefit from the California State WARN Act.

My team spent the last five months asking if our rolling one year contract would be renewed or else if we'd be included in the company's latest rounds of layoffs. Even in the final weeks, the best answer we could get was don't worry about it. Of course, we did worry for five months, and when they deigned to respond, it was less than three days before the contracts end. The good news is that our contract was renewed and I still have a job.

The bad news is I get to do this all again in June, when my birthday gift could be a layoff with three days warning, workers like me need a 90 day notice. It's not just Google, either. Vaco uses contractors. Every major tech company in the US uses contractors. This is reality now for me and the majority of tech's hidden workforce. These companies depend on rolling short term contracts and neglectful work environments to force many to leave before being bestowed any protections.

Companies like Google fissure our workforce protecting shareholders' bottom line, while we workers struggle to make ends meet in high cost of living areas after we're laid off. In a situation like mine, Google has all of the power and none of the responsibility. Workers like me need layoff protections. The Protect Laid Off Workers act will do exactly that. So I am asking that you stand with Californian workers by voting yes today.

Thank you.

Chair and Members. Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation. We are proud to stand with the Alphabet Workers and our coalition partners in co sponsoring this legislation. Over the last several decades, we have seen this trend across our economy. Employers don't want to be employers of their entire workforce anymore. They want to have a small group of direct employees and use a system of contractors to shield themselves from their responsibilities to their workforce.

And California has addressed this over and over and over, starting with farm labor contractors and garment contractors, warehouse operators that use contractors, all of these Low wage industries. What we see now is that even the biggest tech companies in the world are doing the same kinds of practices, and not only to janitors and food service workers, but to everyone who works for them.

One law that has not been updated to reflect this reality is the WARN Act that is intended to protect workers and their families and their communities in case of mass layoffs. There is no reason that these contract workers shouldn't get the same kind of notice workers doing the exact same job right next to them receive. In fact, because of their precarious status they probably need it even more.

In addition, as referenced, this bill extends the amount of time everyone has seen the studies showing how few families have enough money in case of an emergency. People have no savings. People are one paycheck away from homelessness given the high cost of living in this state. And so there's no reason that employers who know 90 days ahead of time that they're going to be doing mass layoffs shouldn't be letting workers know so they can start saving and preparing for that.

So the first thing this bill does is extend the protection to contract workers. The second is to give everyone more time. The third is that employers should not be able to make workers negotiate away or waive their other rights simply in complying with this law. So this law requires if you don't give the notice, you have to pay a severance you don't get to pin on additional waivers. As part of that, you've already waived the notice requirement. That's all it does.

Very important policy and we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of AB 1356?

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsor of this bill, strongly urge your support.

Thank you.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in strong support.

Thank you.

Mike West onn behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council, in strong support.

Thank you.

Megan Abel on behalf of Freelancers Union, Western Center on Law and Poverty, Indivisible State Strong Center for Responsible Lending, and California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, I'm sorry, I was asked to also meet you on behalf of SCIU and CFT.

Great, thank you.

Sorry. Also, Sam Gordon, Tech Equity Collaborative, proud co sponsor of this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else? Anyone here in opposition to AB 1356? We have your chairs ready for you again.

Last time today, we promise.

I hope so. I have a go up, so if that's the case, it's good.

Yeah, this week, not next week, but three quick points. One is a lot has been made in your committee analysis as well as the testimony about the tech industry. And I would just note for your consideration that this bill is not targeted any particular industry. It applies across the board. The second issue that we have is the amount of time.

Our belief is that from going from 60 to 90 days could potentially have an adverse consequence where an employer is going to be overly inclusive at 90 days. With a greater lack of certainty as that date moves further out from 60 to 90 days. That's a 50% increase. So it could include more people than potentially necessary. The other item is the definition of covered establishment as well as employer. In a they add covered establishment may be a single location or a group of locations.

So what you could have is an instance in which at one facility you have 100 or more layoffs and notices provided, and then at a second facility a single one. And that workforce could get worn notices as well. So have to be careful there. The second is the definition of employer we believe could apply to franchisees.

And of course, we have some 75,000 plus give or take franchisees in the State of California, and those folks are unaware and shouldn't have to be kept apprised of what is going on amongst other franchisees around the state. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we are in opposed, unless amended position and appreciate conversations we've had with the author staff. So related to expanding the requirement to contractors, we are understanding of the intent of the know. When you're talking about a worker who is working side by side doing the same job as an employee, we are understanding of wanting to bring them under the WARN act. Our concern is really, where do we draw the lines?

The definition of labor contractors used in the Bill has been interpreted quite broadly in the other statutes. And when you look at the timing requirement, it is also very broad. It just says that they must have performed work with the client employer for at least six months, for example. It does not specify. Does that means full time? Does that mean they came there maybe once a month, once in the six months? It's a little bit unclear.

And so it's important to kind of consider this in the context, really, of what the Warren act was supposed to be about when we enacted it. The purposes are twofold, to notify workers who may be at risk of losing their job, but also to notify local communities about large layoffs. The notices go to local city and county officials. So again, if a worker is sporadically performing work for a client, maybe it's one of five clients, is that really comparable to a full time worker?

Or if they could just quickly be reassigned elsewhere by the labor contractor of which they are an, you know, local communities, to Chris's example, could be getting notices that are not really aimed at what the WARN Act was supposed to do, which is to warn smaller communities about times when they could experience large financial devastation due to large amounts of layoff also doesn't really consider what if the contract already accounts for this situation between the client and the labor contractor, and now all of a sudden, if you fail to provide a notice, it could trigger a monetary requirement under the WARN act.

So again, appreciate the author's willingness to talk about this, and we'll continue to have those conversations. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, AB 1356.

Mr. Chairman, members, Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers. In opposition. Really concerned just about the definition of the covered establishment and the expansion there.

Thank you.

Hello, Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association. Aligner comments with the chamber opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Technet. Aligner comments with the chamber opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association, also in opposition.

Thank you. Any more opposition? Okay, we'll bring it back. Any questions, comments, motions? Move the bill. Second, any other questions or comments? I think this is a very important bill, and I appreciate, especially representing a community in Silicon Valley, the implications, particularly in terms of the tech sector. Although correctly stated, it's not just the tech sector. And the reality is that there are independent contractors used in many industries.

And I think all workers, whether independent or not, deserve the right to have some basic notice requirements that allow them to be able to worry about their rent, worry about them being able to take care of their families. And so I appreciate some of the concerns raised.

I know that the author will continue to work with opposition, but I think the fundamental purpose of this bill is just, and I think it's a bare minimum of what employers should be expected to do when they're really just completely uprooting a worker from what's otherwise something that they've been doing for at least six months and have some sense of stability. I would really appreciate being added on as a co author. And would you like to close, Mr. Haney?

Yes. Thank you, chair. And thank you, Yuri, for being here and all the workers who have contributed to this. Absolutely. We'll continue to work with the opposition, particularly around some of those questions around definitions. But at the end of the day, as you said, mass layoffs, we wish they did not happen. Sometimes they do. And when they do happen, they're incredibly disruptive and can be damaging for workers.

And all we want them to do is have that adequate amount of notice and time for the transition so that they can take care of themselves and their families in that process. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much, Madam Secretary. If you can take the role on the vote for AB 1356.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] That bill is out. All right.

That bill is out. All right.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Proud to present AB 636, which would require H-2A Visa employers to give all H-2A farm workers on their first day of work the written notice of basic employment rights with a separate section in Spanish or, if requested in English, describing an agriculture employee's additional rights under state law. Last year, more than 43,000 foreign farm workers were imported by roughly 100 California growers and farm labor contractors under the H-2A federal visa program.

This number has been increasing annually. H-2A farm workers in California are largely recruited in Mexico and are tied to a single California employer provides them with housing, meals and transportation to work sites. Many H-2A workers have never been to California before and neither speak nor read English. If they are fired for any reason, they are subject to immediate deportation, which is a powerful disincentive to report any abusive workplace conditions they are subjected to.

This bill gives Labor Commissioner significant discretion to develop the notice template containing the summary of additional rights and to post on their website for H-2A employers to use to comply with the notice requirement. I will note that in introducing AB 636, we incorporated feedback from the Administration on last year's H-2A worker protection bill, AB 857, and we look forward to continue to work with the Administration to see this one to the finish line.

AB 636 creates a safer, legally compliant workplace for H-2A farm workers. I therefore respectfully ask for your aye vote. Testifying in support of this bill is Mark Schacht, the Deputy Director for California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and Ana Vicente de Castro, Directing Attorney for the Agricultural Worker Program of California Rural Legal Assistance. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Mark Schacht with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. As the Assemblymember outlined, the bill contains probably two to three dozen significant California law or regulation information points for H-2A visa farm workers that are more protective than federal law. Many of us have heard the old saw a legal right without a remedy is no right at all. Well, for these workers. They have substantial legal rights.

They have substantial legal remedies, but they don't know anything about these legal rights because the contracts under which they're recruited either don't mention them, either falsely state California law or offer misleading statements about California law. Neither the Department of Labor or the Employment Development Department require employers to provide workers with an accurate summary of applicable state laws that benefit them. And we're coming to you not because we haven't gone to them, we have gone to them.

And their position, very simply is they don't have the expertise to develop 50 sets of notices for 50 states for all of the agricultural workers that go into different jurisdictions. So we're asking the Labor Commissioner to develop that notice. We're asking you to require the Labor Commissioner to post it and asking you to require employers to give it to their workers on their first day of work. I'll close with just make a comment on that last point.

It's critical that workers get it on their first day of work. They're recruited in Mexico or Central American companies by foreign labor recruiters that are beyond the reach of California law. That's why the existing notice that gives workers a notice at the time of hire doesn't work for these workers. They often don't arrive for several months after they've been recruited and hired.

So the critical point for this bill and this group of workers is to get that Spanish language notice on their first day of work from their employer. Happy to answer any questions and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Members. I'm Ana Vicente de Castro. I'm a Directing Attorney for the Agricultural Worker Program of California Rural Legal Assistance. We are a nonprofit that has represented and currently represents thousands of H-2A workers in California. H-2A workers are brought into this country by their employers, and they are under the control of their employers for most of their necessities, and they are unaware of their legal rights.

They are housed and fed by their employers, and they are told to work hard without complaining or risk being sent back to where they came from. Most H-2A workers that are coming to California, they're coming for the first time. They usually don't know anyone here. They don't have any access to resources as they are housed in isolated areas and where workers advocates have no access. These workers have no cars and they have no access to public transportation.

I have personally interviewed H-2A workers that didn't know they should have been paid for all the hours they worked, for all the time they spent working on the fields, for the time they're in transportation to the fields and between fields. I've spoken to H-2A workers that didn't know they should be reimbursed for the expenses they have to come here to work or to buy tools to work.

And I have interviewed H-2A workers that didn't know that they had the right to sick leave accrued and are told to go to Mexico to get medical care without pay, risking their job and their visa. And I have represented workers that didn't know they have housing rights. In my experience, most H-2A workers do not know they are protected in California law like their fellow domestic agricultural workers.

H-2A workers vulnerability impacts domestic agricultural workers and the whole agricultural workforce because employers have no incentive to hire domestic workers when they can hire H-2A workers that are more vulnerable and don't know their rights. The provision of this California legal rights disclosure to H-2A workers, we empower these workers with knowledge of their rights, reduce their vulnerability, and that will affect domestic workers as well and the whole workforce in California.

Thank you so much. Any more witnesses in support?

Mr. Chair. Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you very much.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Abigail Alvarez with the Pesticide Action Network and Californians for Pesticide Reform, in support.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, in strong support.

Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council, in strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 636? Mr. Haney? Seeing none, bring it back to the Committee. Any questions? All right, Mr. Chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for aye vote.

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

Motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call] That bill is out.

That bill's out. All right, that bill is out.

Thank you so much, Mr. Vice Chair, we're going to start. We have two bills that are on call, starting with item one, AB 1228, Holden. Madam Secretary, if you can call the roll for the absent members.

[Roll Call]

That bill is out. Item three is AB 594 Maienschein. Madam Secretary, if you call the roll for the absent members.

[Roll Call]

All right, that bill is out, so all bills are out. We'll go to add ons. Item two, AB 524, Wicks.

[Roll Call]

Item 4, AB 747, McCarty.

[Roll Call]

Item five, AB 1593, Garcia.

That's item five, AB 1593.

[Roll Call]

And the final item, Item six, AB 871, Haney

[Roll Call]

thank you so much. We are adjourned.