Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will come to order it. Yes, that was a long 60 seconds if you were listening in. We had to have a little conference up here. Good morning to everyone. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the teleconference service in these rooms for individuals wishing to provide public comment. Today's participant number is 877-226-8163 the access code is 161-8051 that should be on the screen if you're watching.

But again, it's 877-226-8163 and the code is 161-8051. Each side will be permitted an equal amount of time. Lead witnesses on these bills will have two minutes each, and there's no reserving time for other witnesses. All others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation, and position on the measures that would apply to the teleconference line as well. Testimony taken via the teleconference service will be limited to a grand total of 20 minutes.

We're holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building, and I want to ask any additional Members of the Committee who are available to be present to be here now so that we can establish our quorum and begin our hearing. We have nine bills on today's agenda. Is that still an accurate number?

That's accurate.

Okay. And for those following along, file item number three, AB 521 has been pulled from today's agenda. Before we hear presentations on the bills, let me ask if we have a quorum. We don't. So we will postpone the roll call, the attendance roll call, and come back to the assistant when we have the ability to establish a quorum. With that, we're going to pass on the consent calendar until we have enough folks here to vote.

And now we're going to hear from our first author, and I want to welcome Assembly Member Kalra. Please come forward. You may present AB 96 whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. I'll be accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. AB 96 would require public transit agencies to notify transit unions of their intention to procure or deploy autonomous transit vehicle technology at least 10 months prior.

Upon notification, the transit employer will be required to bargain with the union over the development and implementation of the new technology, as well as the creation of a transition or retraining plan for affected workers. To be clear, nothing in the Bill would prohibit the use of or prevent a transit agency from exploring autonomous technology. Instead, AB 96 rightfully recognizes these technologies often come with impacts on the existing workforce that should be reviewed.

While a transit agency may score a cost savings on labor, oftentimes those cost savings are short-lived and ultimately the state must be vigilant in ensuring public safety and maintaining an adequate, high-quality workforce. With me to provide supporting testimony is Louis Costa with SMART TD and Sarah Flox with the Labor Federation.

Welcome.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee Members. Louis Costa with SMART Transportation Division. SMART Transportation Division represents thousands of bus and transit operators and mechanics throughout the State of California.

Our Members are working in the Bay Area all the way down to Southern Cal and Santa Monica. AB 96 would restore and protect transit workers' voices in the implementation of new transit services and technologies, including automated vehicles. The Bill rightfully recognizes those technologies often come with impacts on existing workforce that should be reviewed. Some new technologies are enticing for transit agencies, as the Assembly Member mentioned, as it will allow them to save money on labor costs.

However, transit employees play a critical role in facilitating a safe and smooth passenger experience for customers and for commuters, and passengers across the state. Additionally, some autonomous technology companies attract transit agencies by offering their own staff to perform maintenance on these systems. This eliminates the need for transit agencies to keep staff in-house to work on systems and further disrupts the existing workforce.

The requirements of this Bill will put workers' and riders' safety at the forefront of transitions to the future of work with autonomous technology, and public transit workers deserve a seat at the table, and AB 96 ensures that their voices will be heard when the possible implementation of new technologies threaten their very livelihoods. We want to thank Assembly Member Kalra and his staff for their work on this Bill.

Thank you Mr. Chairman and your staff, and we appreciate the Committee's time and for these reasons stated, we respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next lead support witness, please.

Mr. Chair and Members Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. We're a proud co-sponsor of this Bill and we've seen in San Francisco, we now have fully autonomous robot taxis that are operating. We've all read about the development of artificial intelligence and all of the things that it can do to disrupt work, and we can see the benefits and the potential in technology and the introduction in the workforce. But it also has the potential to exacerbate all of the problems in the modern workplace.

It has the potential to eliminate jobs, to deskill workers, to have a real disruption in the lives of workers. And so we think this Bill is a very important first step to developing a framework for how we put workers and consumers and passengers at the center of the development and deployment of technology in the workplace. So we think this is a good Bill as is.

And also a good model for future bills of how this Committee and policymakers deal with technology being introduced in the workplace and mitigating and hopefully using it to improve jobs for workers. Thank you, and we urge your support.

All right. Thank you for being here. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? If so, you're welcome to come forward and provide your name, affiliation, and your support position.

Good morning. Scott Brent with the SMART Transportation Division, Local 1201 and we are in support. Thank you.

Good morning. James Michael Powell with ASME California, in support.

Good morning. Nevnit Purier, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Joshua Kernick, State Building Trades, in support.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. Tim Cremens, International Union of Operating Engineers, in full support.

All right. Seeing no other support witnesses in the room. We'll ask if there's a lead opposition witness on this Bill AB 96. Seeing no one come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position, name, affiliation, and opposition in the room? Seeing none, we'll go to the teleconference operator, moderator. We'd ask you to queue up any opposition or support witnesses at this time. They'll be allowed to state their name, affiliation, and what their position is.

Thank you. For your support or opposition of AB 96. You may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition of AB 96. We will go to line eight. Your line is open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters and the Amalgamated Transit Union. Both co-sponsors in full support. Thank you.

Thank you. And we have no further support or opposition. Thank You.

Thank You, moderator. We'll bring it back to the Committee. Any Committee comments or concerns that need to be expressed? Do we have a motion on the Bill? I'm sorry, we can't take a motion. As soon as the words came out of my mouth, I realized we're still.

We can take a quorum vote now, though, right?

You're welcome.

All right, we're going to pause, everyone.

I was here before any of you and then went back to Education. True?

True you're one Committee ahead of me. All right. Please call the roll assistant.

Senator Cortese. Here. Cortese. HERE. Senator Wilk. Present. Wilk. Present. Senator Durazo Derazzo. HERE. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We have a quorum.

All right. Thank you. Now we can close. Would you like to close?

We asked for an Aye vote.

All right. Thank you. I apologize. I didn't mean to gloss over that. And we did have a motion, I believe, by Senator Durazo on the Bill. All right. Okay, so we have a motion. We'll go to the assistant and ask for the roll call vote, please.

File item number one, AB 96. The motion is do pass as amended. [Roll Call]. This Bill is on call and currently has two Aye votes.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Do we have. Yes, we can. Good. Great idea, Vice Chair. Do we have a motion, then? Is that a motion on consent? A motion on consent by Vice Chair Wilk. Any comments or concern? We'll go ahead and call the roll call.

File items number two, eight, and nine, all on consent. [Roll Call]. These items are on call and currently have three Aye votes.

All right, the consent calendar is on call. Not seeing the next author in file order, which would be Assembly Member Rivas, here to present. There's no one here to present for him. I'm going to turn to Senator Durazo and allow her to present her Bill out of order. That would be file item 10 and is SJR 5. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you. Good morning, Members. SJR 5 urges the Federal Office of Management and Budget to lift the local higher prohibition on federally funded projects and explicitly allow states and localities to implement strong procurement standards that advance high-quality jobs and equitable hiring. California is in the midst of an industry-changing moment in infrastructure, manufacturing, and sustainability sectors. In the coming years, we, the state Legislature, will have the opportunity to determine how billions of federal dollars are spent in our state.

However, due to restrictive federal regulations known as the Uniform Guidance, state and city governments are hindered from using proven programs like local and targeted hire in federally funded projects for non-construction jobs. In my City of Los Angeles, we have seen huge successes from projects that require contractors to hire their workers from local communities and from targeted groups like those returning from incarceration, veterans, and other systems-impacted individuals. But many of these programs were only possible with local and federal pilot funding.

Unclear and prohibitive federal grant rules have hampered cities and states from leveraging the opportunity to use federal dollars to support workers in local communities. Now we have the opportunity to change these restrictive grant rules and bring proven, successful workforce programs to federally-funded projects. By acting now, we can not only bring needed infrastructure funding to our districts, but also make enormous inroads in amplifying financial security and equity in those communities.

We need to modernize the federal grant rules, and then we can create programs that create more good, middle-class jobs for Californians. Thank you. And I have two witnesses here and a third that would be here to help answer technical questions. So, first is Evan Coffin, and then Emily Garten.

Thank you for the opportunity to be here today. My name is Evan Coffin. I'm a California resident and a beneficiary of targeted hire programs. I had myself caught in a cycle of recidivism for a lot of years, and based on the decisions that I made, I take full responsibility for those. And then one day, I decided to make a decision for myself and ask for help. And the help that was provided for me was, I like what you said with the sustainability structure.

That's exactly what it is. Because I was thinking that I was going to gain an opportunity in just a job. But in all actuality, I gained an opportunity to grow within a character for myself, and that ultimately would keep me out of prison and where I had been pretty much my whole life. So I wasn't only offered an opportunity, I was offered guidelines in order to help myself build as a person and then opportunities to serve other people within that opportunity, which I still do today.

So in the opportunity that I got, I'm now part of a brotherhood within the Union Smart 105 down in Lancaster, California. I work for the bus company. I just passed my probationary period. I have a 401K, medical, dental, and I'm on my way to living in a lucrative career that will sustain me and keep me out of the old places that I used to be. And I also have opportunities to give back and speaking at graduations for the next cohorts that come behind me.

And I have seven of those guys working at my facility now. And it speaks of relational, the relational value of it, because I didn't only get this goal, I got the journey along the way. And that journey is ongoing as I continue to build with the students that came behind me, and I continue to build within myself on a daily basis. And it wouldn't have been possible unless I had these opportunities at hand.

So I'm very grateful for these opportunities, and I'm very grateful for being able to speak in front of you guys today. So thank you.

Thank you.

Evan, could you please just state your full name for the record?

My name is Evan Coffin.

Great. I didn't have you do that at the beginning. Thank you very much. All right. And this would be Emily, the next lead witness?

Yes. Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Emily Gartenberg, and I'm the Senior Policy Coordinator at Jobs Move America. I'm honored to be here with Evan to speak on support of SJR 5. In FY 23 alone, California is set to receive 117,000,000,000 in federal funds. These funds are essential for much-needed infrastructure improvements that will make our state stronger and more resilient.

However, a set of outdated federal rules called the Uniform Guidance, hinders cities and states from maximizing the benefits of these funds. This is a huge missed opportunity and one that's already held our state and communities back. But luckily, the California Legislature can take a stand and support these common-sense updates.

As Senator Durazo mentioned, many inclusive procurement strategies, such as local and targeted hire, have been used for years within local and state-funded projects to create high-quality jobs, build a middle-class tax base, and revitalize local economies. But the uniform guidance makes it difficult or impossible to execute these policies within federally funded projects. SJR 5 and the Local Opportunities Coalition seek to modernize these grant rules to empower local and state governments to use the policy tools that work for their communities.

For example, as one study already found, properly implemented local hire rules can create significant new job opportunities for low-income local residents. However, local hire programs are currently prohibited on most federally funded projects. Additionally, updating the uniform guidance to expressly authorize recipients of federal funding to adopt targeted hire policies can help to address historic inequities in our state by creating on-ramps to quality careers. And in Evan's case, targeted hire programs can have major positive impacts for community members, especially for those facing barriers to employment.

SJR 5 sends a clear message to the Biden Administration that the California Legislature is ready to implement equitable procurement policies that will uplift California's working people. On behalf of JMA and the Local Opportunities Coalition, I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? Please come forward.

Mr. Chairman, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Is there a lead opposition witness in the room wishing to come forward? If not, is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position in the room? Name, affiliation in opposition seeing no one? Moderator, please queue up any witnesses, either support or opposition on the teleconference line at this time.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of SJR 5. You may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero for support or opposition of SJR 5. And, Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

All right, thank you. We'll bring it back to the Committee. I will ask for comment. That would be me. I have no comment other than that I support the Bill. But we don't have anyone to make the motion because the Chair and the author are precluded from doing that. So we will come back and entertain a motion on the Bill Senator Durazo. But if you'd like to close, you may, and otherwise, in either case, consider it presented and ready for a motion.

Thank you very much. I do want to thank Mr. Coffin, Ms. Gartenberg and Ms. Prasad for coming all the way over here and for their work. It's what has led to this even being possible of urging and taking a position with the Federal Government. And if it wasn't for the kind of work that they do on the ground throughout all these communities, throughout the state, and even in other states, we wouldn't have the wherewithal to bring this to the attention of the Federal Government.

So I'm very hopeful we can get this rule change and allow us to create even more jobs for our local residents, our local communities, especially when they're needed the most. So with that, I urge, when you have the opportunity, to vote Aye. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Senator. All right. We're going to come back to file order at this time. And let me just say as just a point of order, if there's any newcomers who don't understand what's going on here with people coming and going. We have Senators on multiple committees right now, including myself, believe it or not, Education Committee, Budget Committee are two of the committees besides Labor Committee that are meeting this morning.

And we've had some instance of Senators on this Committee having to present bills over in the Capitol and Assembly Committee as well. So it isn't as if people don't consider your testimony important or the Bill is important or labor important. It's just that we have people doing double or triple duty this morning. So with that, I do not see the next author in file order, which should be Rivas. I do see that we have file item six. Assembly Member Weber here. You may present at this time, if you're ready.

Good morning, Chair.

I'm here to present AB 699, which would expand presumptive coverage for hernia, pneumonia, heart trouble, cancer, tuberculosis, blood-borne infectious disease, Methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus, skin infections, Meningitis-related illnesses, an illness or related to post traumatic stress disorder or exposure to biochemical substances to a full time San Diego lifeguard employed by the City of San Diego Fire Rescue Department and working in the Boat Safety Unit. San Diego lifeguards are highly trained in water rescue and are also marine firefighters that combat shipboard, vessel and marina fires.

This job exposes San Diego lifeguards to a considerable degree of hazardous risk through exposure to chemicals and materials that frequently ignite during firefighting. San Diego lifeguards also perform swift water and flood rescues, making them an indispensable asset to the city, county and state. The presumptions included in AB 699 are already included for the City of San Diego firefighters, firefighters that work on land.

This Bill is about equity and ensuring that individuals participating in the same firefighting activities have the same protections under Workers Compensation law in California. There are only 59 lifeguards employed by the City of San Diego, so we're talking about a small number of individuals. This Bill has support from the San Diego City Council Members Raul Campillo, Joe LaCava and Marni Von Wilpert. The Teamsters, the California Nurses Association and the Labor Federation. With me, to testify in place of Shane Gusman is Tiffany Ryan.

She will be reading his information and he is the Director of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Thank you. Please come forward. Tiffany.

Good morning. My name is Tiffany Ryan and I'm speaking on behalf of Teamsters today. The Teamsters are proud to sponsor SB 699 on behalf of our Members in the Boating Safety Unit at San Diego Fire and Rescue. Our Members in the Boating Safety Unit are basically firefighters on the water. They are the fire department's first responders for burning vessels and structures on Mission Bay, the harbors and adjacent areas. They also perform every other kind of rescue and paramedic response necessary.

They are exposed to the same hazards and traumas that their brother and sister firefighters are exposed to, yet they are treated differently in statutes. For example, when a firefighter is exposed to toxic chemicals and gets cancer, they get the benefit of a cancer worker's compensation presumption. However, a Fire Department employee in the boating Safety unit exposed to the very same toxic substances fighting marine fires gets no such benefit. This inequity is wrong and needs to be corrected.

Thankfully, this Bill will restore fairness and give our Members, who risk their lives every day to protect the public, the workers compensation benefits they need and deserve. On behalf of Teamsters, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 699. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you for that. And we understand there's no other lead support witness. Or is there? There is not. If you wish to express the support position, you may.

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

Anybody else wishing to come forward and express support in the room? In the Committee room? Seeing none, we'll ask if there is a lead opposition witness here present? Seeing none.

Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position on the Bill here in the Committee room? Seeing none. We'll go to the moderator. Moderator, would you please queue up either support or opposition witnesses who wish to testify at this time and express their affiliation, name and support or opposition.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 699, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is 1 and 0 if you're in support or opposition of AB 699. We will go to line eight. Your line is open.

Mr. Chair, Members, Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, just want to lend our support and thank Tiffany for reading my statement. Couldn't have done it better. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, we'll bring it back to the Committee, which is me. I'll be happy to support your Bill but I can't make a motion on it at this time as a chair. So we will keep the item open essentially so that we can entertain a motion as soon as we get somebody here who's willing to do that. Thank you. And you're more than welcome to close if you like.

I just want to reiterate that this Bill is about equity. I thank the Committee and the Committee staff and respectfully ask your aye vote when the time is ready.

Thank you, assembly member. All right. The file order would be item four again, if in order, but we do not have the author here, Mr. Rivas. We do not have Mr. Fong here either. So we will go to Grayson now. Assemblymember Grayson on AB 1020, which is file item seven. Welcome. Yeah, you may proceed when ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and busy members of the committee elsewhere. Good morning, and I am pleased to present AB 1020 which will bring uniformity and fix inconsistencies with disability retirement for public safety employees. Industrial disability retirement or as we know, IDR, is a type of retirement benefit available to employees who are unable to perform their usual job duties as a result of work-related injury or illness. Particularly, public safety employees such as firefighters who face retirement because of an IDR fall under two retirement systems, CalPERS or the County Employees Retirement Law, also known as CERL.

Public safety employees that fall under CalPERS use presumptions specified in the Labor Code, and those who fall under CERL use a different set of presumptions found in the Government Code. Presumptions listed in the Government Code fall short compared to the presumptive injuries that are listed in the Labor Code. Specifically, these missing presumptions are hernia, pneumonia, meningitis, and post-traumatic stress.

Due to the difference in the presumptions between the two retirement systems, public safety employees are faced with a different and burdensome process when simply seeking retirement benefits that they clearly deserve. So while CalPERS automatically approves disability retirement claims, public safety employees who are members of CERL can have their claims manually denied. This can result in employees having to relitigate their IDR process, creating an expensive and a very stressful situation.

AB 1020 expands the scope of disability retirement presumptions under CERL to align with presumptions listed for CalPERS workers. By establishing parity across retirement systems, AB 1020 will ensure that all public safety employees who have sustained career-ending injuries in the course of their work are able to retire with care and also with dignity. No public servant who has dedicated their livelihood to the protection of those that are in our state should be forced to repeatedly fight for the retirement that they have really dutifully earned. So with that, I do have witness Doug Subers, government advocate for California Professional Firefighters, through the Chair.

All right, thank you. Mr. Subers, you may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. We are pleased to sponsor AB 1020. I'd like to thank the author for bringing this important measure forward and thank the committee for their engagement on this measure. CPF represents more than 34,000 members, professional firefighters across the state. Many of those members work for agencies that have their retirement administered by a county retirement system. As the assembly members said, this measure is really about creating consistency for firefighters with regard to the determination process for industrial causation of work-related illnesses and injuries. As you just spoke about in the Labor Code, there are a number of presumptions under the workers' compensation system that adjust the burden of proof to determine that that injury was job cause unless otherwise rebutted by evidence from the employer.

Those are incredibly important protections for our members as firefighters and other safety employees. Those assumptions also extend beyond the workers' compensation system in the context of industrial disability retirement. As the author stated, under CalPERS, when there's a process to determine an industrial disability retirement, CalPERS administers that and applies the workers' compensation decision or determination to that industrial disability retirement. Under the 1937 act of the County Employee Retirement Law, the system makes a determination of service-connected disability retirement. The Board makes that determination.

And under the Government Code, it does not replicate all of the presumptions. As we discussed, it already has some of the presumptions like heart trouble, cancer, bloodborne pathogens, biochemical exposures, and COVID-19. So we think it is appropriate that this measure adds heart hernia, pneumonia, post-traumatic stress, injury, meningitis, and the other presumptions that are in the Labor Code to the Government Code to ensure consistency for a firefighter if they ultimately have to pursue an industrial disability retirement because they can no longer do their job, that determination is made under the same set of factors and process. So for those reasons, we'd respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. Others here who want to express the support position.

Mr. Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates representing the Peace Officers Research Association of California, in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you. Anyone else in support? I'm seeing no one come forward. We'll ask if there's a lead opposition witness in the room. Seeing no one come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position? Please come forward. Name, affiliation, and opposition.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean with California State Association of Counties, also on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California, in regrettable opposition to AB 1020.

Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to express an opposed position in the room? All right, having checked the room, we're going to check with the moderator and see if there's anyone who wishes to express support or opposition on the teleconference line. Moderator?

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 1020, you may press one and then zero. Again, that is one and then zero in support or opposition of AB 1020. And, Mr. Chair, there is no one in queue.

All right. Thank you again, Moderator. And bringing it back to the committee, just as with a couple of prior items, I'll just announce that there are no other members present other than the Chair. So we can't entertain a motion at this time. We'll leave the item open to entertain a motion before we adjourn today. Try to get some of our members back here as soon as possible. But Assemblymember Grayson, if you wish to close, you may.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

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

Great. Thank you. All right, we're going to go back to file item four. We see Assembly Member Rivas here. Welcome. You may proceed whenever ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And good morning, everybody, staff. And this legislation proposes to make a small but important clarification to state law regarding access to certified payroll records from public works projects.

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

Unfortunately, many labor compliance entities have reported that when they come across a suspected inaccuracy in the electronic record and request to review the physical record, that they are just provided the electronic copy once again. And this hinders their ability to protect workers on California's public works projects. And this legislation seeks to correct this problem by proposing that labor compliance entities are entitled to review the physical certified payroll record when necessary, and that a copy of the electronic certified payroll record alone is insufficient.

And so with me here to testify in support is Tim Cremins with the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you, lead support witness, please proceed.

Morning, Members and Chairman. Tim Cremins, International Union of Operating Engineers. I think Mr. Rivas was very succinct. The issue, again, is contractors are required to file two types of payroll. One is electronically with the labor Commissioner, but also maintain records on site.

And as a Committee consultant mentioned in her analysis, we quite often will go get electronic payroll. That's where we start on the natural. When we see inconsistencies, we want to see what she termed :the source material" for that electronic payroll. Quite often it's a simple thing as misentering data or misclassification. Unfortunately, when we go request that paper source data, there's a belief that giving us back the electronic payroll where we had the original problem satisfies that requirement. It does not. We have access to both, and this Bill would clarify the obligations to all parties.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. Is there another support lead support witness?

Well, I won't say much. Keith Dunn, District Council of Ironworkers, the State of California. Appreciate Assemblymember Rivas bringing this Bill forward. Support the comments that he made when I asked for your support as well. Thank you.

All right. Is there anyone else who wishes to express a simple support position? Name, affiliation and support?

Good morning. Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation in support.

Good morning. James Michael Paul with APSME California in support.

Good morning. Thank you, Chair. Joe Schykerynec, State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.

All right. Thank you. Is there a lead opposition witness in the room? Seeing no one come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition? Seeing no one come forward in the Committee room, we'll go to the Moderator. Moderator, I will ask you to please queue up any support or opposition witnesses on the teleconference line at this time.

Thank you for in support or opposition of AB 587, you may press one and then zero. Again. That is one and then zero. If you're in support or opposition of AB 587, we will go to line eight. Your line is open.

Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters in support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. We have no further support or opposition in queue.

All right, back to the Committee then. I am a Committee of one and chairing the Committee so we can entertain a motion. Assemblymember, if you'd like to close, you may. We'll keep the item open, of course, and entertain a motion as soon as possible.

I just appreciate the consideration and ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for being here. We will move to file item 5, AB 658, which is Assemblymember Fong. Good morning. Thank you for being here.

And you may proceed whenever you're ready.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Assembly Bill 658 is a district Bill. The City of San Gabriel is a beautiful city in my district that employs about 200 people. In 2021, the California State Auditor released a report expressing significant concerns around the city's financial situation and ranked the city as a high risk for financial instability.

As part of its long term recovery plan, the City negotiated memorandums of understanding with their four employee representative groups and one unrepresented employee group. Under this plan, the City will provide higher wages to employees in exchange for a reduced level of health benefits upon retirement. AB 658 authorizes the City of San Gabriel to implement this agreement, and this will only apply to employees, hired and elected officials taking office beginning January 1 of 2023.

Allowing the city to make these changes will help the city achieve its long term financial stability and to better serve its residents. Here to testify in support and answer any questions is San Gabriel City Manager Mark Lazzaretto.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate your time this morning. I'm Mark Lazzaretto. I'm the City Manager for the City of San Gabriel. I'd like to thank Assemblymember Fong for his help with this potential Bill.

Great. Thank you. You may proceed, Mr. Lazzaretto. Whenever you're ready.

And I think he summed it up better than I can. The only thing I would add is that this Bill will allow us to protect the wages and benefits of our current employees and to continue to provide the high level of services to our community that they have come to expect. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I urge your support for this Bill.

Thank you for being here.

Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? Seeing no one come forward. Is there a lead opposition witness in the room? Seeing no one step forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition in the Committee room this morning? Seeing none, we'll go to the moderator and ask the moderator to please queue up any support or opposition folks on the teleconference line at this time and they can identify themselves, their affiliation, and their support or opposition position.

Thank you. If you're in support or opposition of AB 658, you may press one and then zero again. That is one and then zero if you're in support or opposition of AB 658. Mr. Chair, we have no one in queue at this time.

All right, thank you, Moderator. We're going to pause for just a moment. I appreciate that, Moderator. We're going to bring it back to the Committee.

I'll move the bill. Yes, absolutely.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Probably the most important piece I'm going to vote on today.

All right, we have a motion, but if you wanted to close, you're welcome to do that.

Thank you so much. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Motion by Vice Chair Wilk. And will the assistant call the role at this time?

File item number five, AB 658. The motion is due pass, but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] This Bill is on call and currently has two aye votes.

All right, thank you. On call with two aye votes. And as soon as we get our Members back here, we'll lift the call. Thank you very much.

So why don't you ask for a motion to file item number four?

Do we have a motion on file item number four, AB 587?

Wilk moves file item four.

All right, motion by Vice-Chair Wilk. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item number four, AB 587. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with two aye votes.

All right. The bill is on call with two aye votes. Leave the roll open. We're going to move to file item six. At this time, we need to entertain a motion on file item six. Vice-Chair?

Motion for file item six by Wilk.

All right, motion on file item six, AB 699 by Vice-Chair Wilk. I'll ask the assistant to call the roll.

File item number six, AB 699. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with two aye votes.

All right. We'll move to the next file item needing a motion. And that is file item seven, which is AB 1020, Grayson. Do we have a motion?

Motion by Wilk.

There is a motion by Vice-Chair Wilk on file item seven. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item number seven, AB 1020. The motion is do pass. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk, aye. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call and currently has two aye votes.

Bill is on call and currently has two aye votes. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Does that conclude?

10, SJR five.

Right. I thought so. Okay. So the other measure we don't have a motion on is file item 10, SJR 5, which was Durazo.

Wilk moves file item 10.

Vice-Chair Wilk moves file item 10, SJR 5. Assistant, please call the roll.

File item number 10, SJR 5. The motion is be adopted. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. No. Wilk, no. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call and currently has one aye vote.

All right, file item number ten has one aye vote, one no vote. It will remain on call. And with that, we are going to recess. Probably need 10 minutes. We're going to have people coming from committees and people going to committees. So we'll allow about 10 minutes for pedestrian activities here and get back, hopefully, and resume this meeting. Thank you. We expected a slightly longer recess, hopefully that's coming to everyone's attention who's listening in that we are back in order at this time.

And I am going to turn the gavel over to Senator Durazo because the only thing remaining on today's agenda is essentially to lift the call on the open items. So I ask Senator Durazo to preside and then, of course, adjourn the meeting once the file order is complete. The assistant will.

Sit down next to me.

Right. The assistant will assist with that process. Thank you all. And since I am going to go vote in Education Committee, thank you very much to the committee and a public thank you to Vice-Chair Wilk earlier for assisting with several motions. Thank you. Turned, there we are.

Okay, we're going to lift the calls and go back to all of the bills. So we're starting with consent.

Then we'll go in file order.

And then we will go in file order.

Beginning with the consent items. File items two, 8 and 9, all on consent. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with four aye votes. Moving on to file item number one, AB 96. The motion is do pass as amended. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting no. Senator Laird, aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is still on call.

Moving on to file item number four, AB 587. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese is voting, the Chair is voting aye and the Vice-Chair is also voting aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is on call with four aye votes. Moving on to file item number five, AB 658. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with four aye votes.

Moving on to file item number six, AB 699. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye and the Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with four aye votes. Moving on to file item number seven, AB 1020. The motion is do pass. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with four aye votes. Moving on to file item number 10, SJR 5. The motion is be adopted. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting no. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This bill is on call with three aye votes.

Should we go on break? Okay. We will take a five minute recess and see if we can get Senator Smallwood-Cuevas to come down.

I'll go back.

Will be brought back to order and we will call on call. Okay. And the file order starting with a consent calendar.

File items number two, 8 and 9, all on consent, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. These items are out, five to zero. Moving on to file item number one, AB 96. The motion is do pass as amended. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting no. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a four to one vote. You do need to repeat that. I'm sorry. Say file item one out on a four to one vote.

File item one out on a four to one vote.

Moving on to file item number four, AB 587. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

Item five is out. I'm sorry. Item four is out on a five to zero vote.

You can just repeat the vote. You don't have to say the file item. Okay, moving on to file item number five, AB 658. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

Okay. AB 658 out on five to zero.

Moving on to file item number six, AB 699. The motion is do pass, but first, re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

Okay, this bill, AB 699 is out on five to zero.

Moving on to file item number seven, AB 1020. The motion is do pass. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

AB 1020 is out, five to zero.

Last up, we have file item number 10, SJR 5. The motion is be adopted. The Chair is voting aye. The Vice-Chair is voting no. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This item is out on a four to one vote.

SJR 5 is out, four to one. Thank you. Great. Thank you to all the individuals who participated in public testimony today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments or suggestions in writing to the Senate Labor Public Employment and Retirement Committee or visit our website. Your comments and suggestions are important to us, and we want to include your testimony in the official hearing records. Thank you, and we appreciate your participation. We've concluded the agenda. I want to thank all of our staff, everyone, for all of your great work. And we've concluded the agenda for the Committee on Labor Public Employment and Retirement Committee. Thank you.