Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly labor and Employment Committee hearing. As we're awaiting authors and more Members, I just want to start by saying that for today's hearing, the testimony will be in person, but we do accept written testimony through the position letter portal on the Committee's website. We also have an email address set up that you can use to email us your testimony. The email is ALBR.committee@assembly.CA.gov. I'd also like to state for the record that for today's hearing, Assemblymember Heath Flora will be replaced by Assemblymember Vince Fong. And that is just for today's hearing. So for now, we'll just take a moment and wait for authors to get here so we can proceed with the Bill presentations. Thank you. So at this time, Madam Secretary, if we can take role in order to establish quorum, please

Kalra, Chen, Vince Fong, Haney, Ortega, Reyes, Ward.

We have established a quorum, and we'll go back to waiting. Welcome, Senator Fong. Although you are officially replacing Vice Chair Flora, technically you are not the Vice Chair today. I guess we're operating without one, unless Mr. Chen wants to arm wrestle you for it. Senator Ward has a, yeah. All right, well, we have with us Senator Durazo, the file item two, SB 723. So, Senator, whenever you're ready, get situated and get your witnesses situated.

Thank you. Good timing. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, everyone. Hi. I'm here, and I'm proud to present SB 723, which will give laid off hospitality workers the right to return to their jobs when they are needed. And that's really important, when they are needed. At the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, Low income workers in the hospitality industry, primarily immigrants and women, were laid off, and they anxiously waited to see if they could get their jobs back. The vast majority of the job losses were amongst the hotel housekeepers, mostly women of color. Over the age of 50, these workers had no source of income or security, and after many years on the job, many older workers feared that employers would only rehire younger, newer workers at lower pay rates. This is why the Legislature passed SB 93 in 2021, which provided rehiring rights to employees working in the hospitality industry, hotels, event centers, airport service, and hospitality providers. If they were laid off due to a nondisciplinary reason related to COVID-19. SB 93 was clearly needed as the industry reopened for business. In fact, the Labor Commissioner cited a resort in Southern California, the Terranea resort, for violating the law and not offering 53 workers their jobs back when the resort reopened. The workers included housekeepers, banquet servers, bartenders, junior sous chefs, and massage therapists. The rehiring rights established under SB 93 provides the hospitality industry with a skilled and experienced workforce as the industry reopens. This successful law helped workers go back to work as businesses got better. However, these rehiring rights are set to end on December 31, 2024. SB 23 seeks to continue those rights by removing the sunset. By removing the sunset to the rehiring rights enacted for hospitality workers, this Bill will help them deal with economic crisis, layoffs and uncertainty, and it continues to support economic recovery in the industry. Employees in the industry will be allowed to return to their jobs after temporary layoffs through no fault of their own. Today, I have with me Aver De Leon Escamilla, a hotel worker, to speak in support of this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo and every witness today will have up to two minutes and each side has up to two witnesses. We will account for the time it takes for translation as well.

Buenas tardes, mi nobre es Aver DeLeon Escamillla, y trabajo como houseman en el Terranea Resort, Rancho Palos Verdes durante seis anos. *foreign language*

And then I'll translate for Aved. Good afternoon. My name is Eved De Leon Escamilla and I have worked as a houseman at the Terranea Resort in Rancho Palos Verdes for six years. SB 93 has been one of the most successful job protection laws ever passed in California and a model for national recovery efforts after the state Labor Commissioner cited Terranea Resort in Ranchovalos Vedas for failing to offer jobs to its former employees altogether or failing to do so in a timely manner as required by SB 93. The resort agreed to pay $1.5 million to workers whose rights were violated and to rehire those whom it had not recalled. Dozens of my coworkers and comrades benefited, housekeepers, banquet servers, sous chefs, massage therapists and bartenders who were laid off at the start of the pandemic. I was also personally able to return to my job after being initially laid off at the start of the pandemic. To me, being called back to work gave me so much joy. Coming back to work allowed me to be able to sustain my family. I am married and have three kids still in El Salvador and one here in the United States. I am responsible for sending remittances to my kids in El Salvador and providing for my family here. At 44, it would have been incredibly difficult to start a new job from the beginning. Additionally, I am a trained houseman, and when I was recalled, I was able to hit the ground running. SB 723 is necessary, and I respectfully request your aye. vote.

Mr. Chair and members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, a sponsor of the Bill. There's not much I can add to what the author and Mr. Escamilla said. The only thing I will add is that this is a proven law, both in SB 93, to protect workers, to help the economy spring back, and also to benefit employers who save on retention and, hiring and training costs. But also, this is very similar to a law that has been in place in Santa Monica since 2001. For 22 years, there's been a similar rehire law. They put it into place after 911 and the hit to the tourism industry, and it's functioned for 22 years, and so it's a good model for the State of California. Thank the author for Bringing it forward.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 723? Just state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill, please.

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

Thank you. Okay, anyone else in support?

Marco Lizarraga, Director of the Cooperative Campacina, in support. Thank you.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Wildcat Consulting representing Unite here, local 11 in support.

Thank you. Okay, so witnesses in opposition. There's a couple of seats up here. Yeah, I think we'll be okay. They can shed the microphone. Yeah. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully, in opposition as a job killer Bill. As you heard, in 2020, Governor Newsom vetoed a version of this Bill, AB 3216, that, similarly to this Bill, SB 723 was overly broad and burdensome to the hospitality industry. The Legislature and Governor came back in 2021 to pass SB 93 in the budget, which instituted a narrower version of a right to recall for this industry. The negotiations narrowed the law to be specifically tied to the COVID-19 pandemic and to sunset December 31, 2024. Now, even before that sunset date, SB 723 is undoing those negotiations by instituting a permanent right to recall. SB 723 would apply to all workers laid off for any economic nondisciplinary reason and would apply in perpetuity. It would also, similarly to the Bill that was vetoed, apply if there is a layoff as a result of a public health directive or government shutdown order, meaning it would create a confusing patchwork of requirements in different counties at different times. We believe this policy should sunset as intended by SB 93 and not continue an unnecessary, undue burden on the industry at a time when it is still fighting to return to where it was pre pandemic. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yeah. Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, obviously, with a couple of years of this law under our belt, we're coming to you with that experience. Again, regretfully opposed to the Bill, and we would prefer that at sunset as planned, based on our experience from an industry that was very hard hit by the COVID crisis. But today is a very different look for our economy. We have record high unemployment rates, and in the hotel industry, we have up to 20% vacancy rate in hotel positions. So if you want to get a job in a hotel today, you can get a job in a hotel today. So we just feel that the Bill today is unnecessary. It has not been so successful from an administrative standpoint. It is actually slowing down our hiring process. We desperately need people to come to work for us, and we do have to pause until we make it through the checklist of things that need to be done to contact former employees. Former employees, now, a couple of years later, the list is getting old and people are getting upset that we keep calling them. We have no ability to take them off the list, so we have to keep doing that. Numbers have changed. Contact has changed. So it is slowing down the process quite a bit. Also, for those who work in a hotel that want promotions, we need to go through that process of former employees that we assume already came back to work. The other thing it's doing was obviously addressed in the support testimony is it's actually increasing our liability if we're not quite getting the checks correct, the correct person at the right time, with the right email, in the right period of time, we're potentially in violation and susceptible to complaint and then a fine. The fine that you heard about from support testimony was primarily a paperwork violation that they got fined over $1.0 million for. So we think that it's slowing down the hiring process, increasing our liabilities, and we do believe that the crisis is over and this Bill needs to maintain its sunset. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 723?

Amelia Zamani for the California Travel Association and the California Attractions and Parks Association. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Katie Davy with the California Restaurant Association, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee for any questions. Assemplymember Ward.

Want to thank the author for bringing this forward. Certainly a lot of lessons learned for the time that we were in the response, emergency responses that we had employed to be able to make sure that we were helping those that were most affected by the initial and immediate impacts of the pandemic. We may not have had this conversation yet. I happened to author San Diego's recall and retention Ordinance in 2020, and the interesting thing there is that we did so under the condition that it would be temporary, assuming that 3216, what would have been signed into law. It wasn't. And so it actually ended up being put into place for a period of the State of emergency as long as it was in effect. And I guess I'm wondering, I've got questions for both sides here. Statewide, can you give some kind of a sense of scope how this has impacted, how many workers have been recalled? How well has this, why has this been good policy?

Well, I would say, first of all, there is not the burden that is alleged here. People are called as they're needed. They respond, they come into work. There's nothing complicated about it. In fact, if you take a unionized setting, this has been going on for decades and forever because it's provided for in collective bargaining agreements. So there's nothing that overburdensome on employers. They call when they're needed. We're talking about filling the position permanently. I don't have a breakdown as to specific.

Ask my question in the right way. I'm just wondering, in the last three years, how many jobs have we saved? How many people's lives have we been able to restore for the purpose of this?

I don't have a specific breakdown but unfortunately, the example that was given here was that there was one hotel where they did not follow what they should have been doing. That one hotel was 50 workers. I don't have a breakdown across the state.

Notwithstanding, every single worker's lives situation absolutely matters in the situation. And I recognize too, especially in our hotel and hospitality industry, workers especially, that have been there for 10-20 or more years form a community. And I think that's part of the success of that hotel's business, is making sure that everybody's operating well together, that they know their colleagues, that they're producing really good activity there. That translates into a really welcoming and wonderful environment for the visitors and guests that are using that facility. And I'm at the same time responsive and mindful that in that three years, Santa Monica, that is new information to me that's been around for 20 years. But we've all been living under this for the last three years. If there are implementation issues that maybe can be used during this moment in time to improve upon this process. Right. I'm sympathetic to the idea that we might need an opt out opportunity if somebody did in that period of time, facility shuts down, worker goes off, maybe gets a better job, a different job, does not want to be contacted. So they're being annoyed. The business that had to restart is now having to call them back. I know it's not an opportunity today to take a specific amendment, but I would just strongly hope that the author could think about maybe some of these implementation improvements that would make it fairer on both parties. Based on that experience that we've had over the last couple of years.

I'll be glad to look at it.

Love to feed that on to you and your office. And then as well, understanding it's a five day response time and that might slow down a hiring process. Take a look at that and see whether or not that's really been a good sweet spot time period to be able to be in compliance, I guess. But also on the businesses side perspective, whether or not that is unduly slowing them down from getting things up and running, if they're ready to go and they have all their ducks in a row and they want to open up a new wing or a new opportunity in the coming weekend, are we prohibiting them from doing that? And especially if we're. No, we're not. Sara's okay.

Just in response to that, because the Labor Federation was the sponsor of 30, 216. So we worked on this language with the opposition actually at that time, in 2020. The five day period is for the worker to respond, in speaking with the opposition at the time we put into the language, Mr. Calro, as the author put into the language, which I believe is replicated in this Bill, that they may make simultaneous conditional offers to multiple employees.

Okay.

And so the idea is that it's a conditional offer. You should say 100 workers on day one. We really need workers for a weekend banquet. And then if you had workers respond right away, but they might not be top of the list, you could give them a conditional offer of employment. And so that's the way we worked. And that was, I believe, an amendment, I'm going to look at the author, an amendment that was put in to deal somewhat with the issue of, hey, we might have to staff up hotels, and employers might have to staff up really fast because there was 98% unemployment in the hotel industry. And so that's a provision that is in the language.

And that's in the language that replicated in this one. Great. ThAt really gives me some comfort. And for our opposition, you had said kind of one of the issues here is that this would create a confusing patchwork of issues depending on different conditions. And I guess I wanted to tease into that a little bit and understand why that might be. If we're doing a, setting a threshold that there was a public health directive or some other emergency, it seems like the standard would be the same. Yes, different counties may or may not apply to that standard. But why do you feel this is going to be confusing? Either the standard applies to you in your location or it doesn't.

Mr. Chair, apologies. That was a direct issue that was brought up in the governor's veto statement when 30, 216 was vetoed. Given that there's businesses that may operate across jurisdictions, we're concerned that some businesses would be operating under different directives, depending on how those public health directives or government shutdown orders come down that are different per county and per area. So it's mainly for businesses, I think, that are operating potentially across jurisdictions. But that was directly from a concern that was brought up when the Governor vetoed the Bill.

For businesses that are operating across jurisdictions, what would be a real world example of that? Because if I'm a Marriott in Riverside, I have one location. What would be an example that is in different jurisdictions?

I would just assume then that it's the owner of a Marriott in Orange County and Riverside and Los Angeles County. Right. So you can have the same owner for three different properties.

Sure. But you're still responsive. I think the issue that might be very locally specific well, to that point and to the author reflecting on the governor's messages, we would want this if and as it moves forward to be successful, and if that is something that he's raised as a concern in a veto message before, maybe thinking through that, it makes sense to me. I think that the owner of the individual location could decide when this does or does not apply to them. But we don't want to get ourselves tripped up again, and we want this to be successful. So I'm happy to move the Bill, and I'd like to be able to see the implementation details really carefully thought through so it's fair and it's successful.

Thank you.

Motion and a second. Any other question or comment? I want to thank the author, as mentioned, as the author of the original AB 3216, and someone that took part in the hunger strike and the vigil and when the veto came down, I recall a lot of the work that went into the legislation to try to make it more feasible for industry. As Ms. Flocks indicated, one of the provisions that Assembly Ward asked about was a way of trying to recognize the nature of the industry, especially when it has to quickly staff up, as we hoped it would, because of the pandemic and the economy bouncing back. And there's still some ways to go in that regard. But ultimately, when you talk about whether a Bill is necessary or not, it's not necessary until it is, which means that until there is an urgent situation that puts workers at risk, and especially workers that have been working for so long for a particular hotel, to give them the opportunity to maintain their life and their ability to continue in the work they've been doing for so long. I think the public policy reason for that justifies the burdens that it might require in order to ensure compliance. And so with that, we have an aye recommendation motion on the table. And I would like to, if it's okay with the author, to be added as the principal co author.

Oh, thank you.

Thank you. Yes. So, Senator, shut to close.

Just ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Madam Secretary.

Motion is due, pass to appropriations. Kalra, Kalra aye. Chen, Chen no. Vince Fong, Vince Fong no. Haney, Haney aye. Ortega, Ortega aye. Reyes, Reyes aye. Ward, Ward aye.

That Bill is out. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Members.

We're going in file order. File item one is SB 534. Padilla.

Once we get through initial policy Committee, we're going to be a position to be able to work with the Workforce Development Board on that. As you well know, California is becoming a tale of two economies, that of the rural poor and that of wealthy coastal regions. Growing percentage of these historically disadvantaged communities across California find themselves economically stranded. Rural and inland communities tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower levels of education completed, and more families struggling to put food on the table.

According to the Little Hoover Commission, Inland and rural regions are the most impacted by climate change and environmental pollution and most vulnerable for potential job losses from measures designed to address climate change. Addressing the gap between the two California economies is reiterated by the state's Future of Work Commission and states that just five large California counties make up more than two thirds of California's economy in terms of economic output and employment. That means all of our jobs.

Economic growth is happening in five of the 59 counties across California. And put simply, this approach is not sustainable. Funding for workforce development programs remains inaccessible in rural, Low income and underserved communities. These are communities hit hardest by policies that we sometimes adopt with unintentional consequences. Here in the Legislature, their jobs disappear as industries change. We are left with entire sections of our state without the economic drivers present in other areas and present for former generations. This is why I introduced SB 534.

It would establish the equitable access to job opportunities pilot program and provide individuals from rural or Low income communities with financial aid and for workforce development, training and education. It would identify emerging industries and focused training programs around these sectors, creating a workforce specialized in modernizing the California economy. The pilot program is loosely inspired by the GI Bill, looking for service to the state in exchange for investment in skill and education. Our prosperity is something that everyone should benefit from.

With me today, I have Marco Cesar Lesaraga, Executive Director of La Cooperative Campesina, and I would respectfully ask that the chair recognize my witness. Absolutely. Thank you. Yes, sir.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair and honorable Members of the Committee. I'm the Executive Director of La Coprativa. Campesina and I am here to testify in support of SB 534, a Bill that will create a pilot program focused on providing access to workforce development and wraparound services, helping the state meet our ambitious goals in driving local economic development.

La Coprativa Campesina is in support of this Bill, SB 534, because of its focus on ensuring access to the green economy for all of California, including the rural communities, which is where I come from. In my home town Calexico of Imperial Valley, LaCobertiva Campacina has been serving farm workers for over 50 years, and our network of Member agencies are trusted throughout our communities in rural areas of the State of California.

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

Rural and inland communities tend to have higher unemployment rates, lower educational attainment, and more families struggle to put food on their table, while at the same time being strongly impacted by climate change. Rural communities face many challenges to access workforce development training, and many of the industries are dying or rapidly changing, and that includes the agricultural industry being transformed rapidly by robotics and artificial intelligence. That is why SB 534 is so important.

It will help identify critical industries related to the state ambitious goals while at the same time providing the training needed to gain a job in those industries. By emphasizing the creation of jobs and providing the training needed for those jobs in rural communities, SB 534 will help California meet our goals while focusing on communities that have long been forgotten. For these reasons and more, La Coperativa is in strong support of SD 534 and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, sir, for your work on behalf of farmworker families. Is anyone else here in support of SB 534?

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

Mr. Chair. And Members Taylor Jackson with California Health plus advocates representing California's almost 1300 FQHCs, rural health centers and clinics, in strong support.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support? Anyone here in opposition to SB 534? Seeing no one, we'll bring it back to the Committee. We do have a motion. Any further comments or questions? Well, thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

I would. Thank you and the Members and respectfully ask for your. I vote thank you, Madam Secretary. Take role on SB 534, please.

Motion is do passed to appropriations. Kalra, aye. Chen, Aye. Fong, not voting. Haney, qye. Ortega, aye. Reyes, aye. Ward, aye.

All right, that Bill is out. Thank you so much. And it's my understanding that Senator Ashby is kindly allowing Senator Rubio to go next. And Senator Rubio has two bills. File item 4 and 5, starting with SB 626. Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee Members, thank you for this opportunity to present SB 626, which will prohibit smoking tobacco products in all California hotel and motel rooms. California has led the nation when it adopted the initial statewide ban on smoking and indoor workplaces and public spaces. However, there's a loophole. It provides an exemption that today allows smoking in 20% of the hotel and motel rooms. This is unacceptable to our hospitality workers. They also need protections from harmful secondhand smoke.

SB 626 is a critical Bill that will protect California's hospitality employees ability to work in a healthy, smoke free environment. Study after study has shown that all designated smoking areas with air cleaning and filter practices and ventilation systems do not fully remove the risk of smoke exposure. Hotel housekeepers are the largest workforce in the hospitality industry. This is a job which is mostly held by women, in particular, women of color.

These women represent a large, low income workforce with the most risk from smoke exposure, and we need to do better to protect them. The only effective method of protecting these workers is to implement a comprehensive ban on all indoor smoking. Today we have with me Eván Alejand del León Escamilla representing UNITE HERE Local 11 as a witness. And if I may, can I turn it over to him?

Yes, absolutely. Welcome back, Mr. Escamilla. Motion the second.

Buenas tardes. Honorable miembro del comité UNITE HERE Local 11 se enorgullece de aproyar a la ley SB 626 de la Senadora Susan Rubio. UNITE HERE Local 11 actualmente representa a más de 32 trabajadores de tourismo en el Sur de California y Arizona. La ley SB 626 protejará a los huéspedes y empleados de los hoteles y moteles de los peligros de la exposición al humo de segunda mano al prohibir fumar productos de tabaco en todas las habitaciones de hoteles y moteles de California.

Un estudio reciente de la Universidad Estatal de San Diego encontró que los hoteles y moteles con habitaciones designadas para fumadores presenta un peligro de exposición al humo de tercera mano. Para las personas incluso. Para las personas incluso si se hospedán en las habitaciones para no fumadores. La ley SB 626 ampliará la protección contra fumadores de California al cerrar la brecha de las prohibiciones de fumar en interiores de California que todovía que las hotels y motels permiten fumar hasta el 20% de sus habitaciones.

Varios estados y ciento de gobiernos locales han promulgado con éxito leyes que prohiben en el 100% de hoteles y motels y varias marcas de hoteles han adoptado voluntariamente políticas libres de humo. La salud y el bienestar y los huéspedes y empleados del hotel exigen que todas las habitaciones de los hoteles y moteles de California estén libres de humo. Le pedimos respetuosamente su voto a favor. Gracias.

Good afternoon, honorable chair and members. UNITE HERE Local 11 is proud to support SB 626 by Senator Susan Rubio. UNITE HERE Local 11 represents over 32,000 hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona. SB 626 will protect guests and employees of hotels and motels from the dangers of secondhand smoke exposure by prohibiting the smoking of tobacco products within all hotel and motel rooms in California.

A recent study by San Diego State University found hotels and motels with designated smoking rooms posed thirdhand smoke exposure dangers to people even if they stayed in non-smoking rooms. SB 626 will expand California's smoking protections by closing the loophole in California's indoor smoking bans that still allows hotels and motels to permit smoking in up to 20% of their guest rooms. Several states and hundreds of local governments have successfully enacted laws prohibiting smoking in 100% of hotel and motel rooms.

And several hotel brands have voluntarily adopted smoke-free policies. The health and well-being of hotel guests and employees demands that all guest rooms at hotels and motels in California be smoke free. We respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 626?

Hi. Alexis Rodriguez with the California Medical Association in support.

Thank you.

Isabella Arquetta with the Health Officers Association of California in support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Autumn Ogden-Smith with the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network, also in support.

Thank you.

Lizzie Cootsona with Shaw Yoder Antwih Schmelzer Lange, on behalf of the American Heart Association, in support.

Thank you.

Tim Gibbs, the American Lung Association, in support.

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to SB 626? Seeing no one. We'll bring it back to committee. We do have a motion on the table. Any other comment or questions? Thank you, Senator, for bringing this important Bill forward. Would you like to close?

Just let's protect hospitality workers with that. I ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if you take role on SB 626, please.

Motion is due pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

The Bill is out. Thank you, Senator and on to SB 848.

Thank you for this opportunity to present SB 848. This Bill will bring comfort to so many families who have experienced the loss of reproductive loss. It does cause trauma. Every year in the United States, nearly a million families experience the heartbreak of losing a pregnancy because of miscarriage, stillbirth, and sometimes an agreement for adoption falls apart. And these families don't have the time to grieve and feel comforted. And so this Bill will help bring relief to some of those families that need that time to heal.

SB 848 will ensure that families experience reproductive loss have the time they need to process that grief by providing them up to five days of unpaid job protection leave after a loss. SB 848 takes a thoughtful, balanced approach to providing this leave. I have been speaking with Cal Chamber as I know that they have concerns, but this is the right thing to do. I will continue to have those discussions and hopefully we get to a good place.

But several other states have already done this and local governments have passed legislation to provide leave for reproductive laws. SB 848 is supported by a broad coalition and was supported in the Senate with bipartisan support, 35 to three today with me, I want to introduce Janelle Greenley from the Junior League of San Jose and Sarah Klein, as well from the Junior League as my supporters. If I may, I would like to turn it over to them. Thank you.

Yes, please. Two minutes each, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Kalra. and Members of the Committee, My name is Janelle Greenlee. Let me get the mic in place. Thank you. And I'm a delegate of one of the co sponsoring organizations, Junior League calsback. I'm here today to read testimony on behalf of an everyday Californian who could not be present for today's hearing. Aaron Bartolome, a behavioral services professional in Long Beach who writes, distinguished Chairman Calra and Members of the Committee, thank you for allowing me to voice my support of Senate Bill 848.

Over the course of several months in 2018, my partner and I experienced multiple unsuccessful attempts with fertility treatment. Our fertility treatment team was amazing. Our Doctor was ethical and fair. They did everything right. They walked us through the steps and what to expect. They required an initial assessments through a licensed therapist to ensure we were doing this for the right reasons and that we understood the percentages of success based on my own personal factors for these procedures.

He stated upfront that he would not recommend any more than four to five treatments before having to make a decision on more invasive and costly options or to decide that conception was not going to be in the cards for us. Even with that support, I was taken completely by surprise with how devastating each and every one of these attempts felt.

The aftereffects of one failed attempt bled into the next when rounds of hormone shots and follow up assessments happened in short succession to track progress and viability of the monthly IUI procedure, the stress and grief of loss was cumulative. With each failed attempt, it was surreal to feel like you are mourning something or someone who never was. It's even weirder when you work in an industry populated mostly by women and seeing friends and coworkers having their own fertility successes.

I struggled to not feel resentful of those around me. Once I decided to give up on my fertility journey, it took over two full years to feel like myself again. Had leave been available to me, perhaps the time spent healing from these reproductive losses would have been less. Only now, in hindsight, do I realize the time I needed to process and give each loss the respect it deserved. I ask that the Committee please consider passing SB 848 respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Chairman Culra and Members of the Committee. My name is Sarah Klein, and I'm a Member of the Junior League of Sacramento and copresident of Sharing Parents, a local organization supporting this Bill. I'm here to amplify the voice of an everyday Californian who was not able to attend today's hearing. I thank you for your time and earnest consideration of SB 848.

My name is Dr. Louise Laurent, and I'm the Vice Chair for Translational Research and the Director of Perinatal Research for the UC San Diego Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences. From my perspective as a maternal fetal medicine or high risk obstetrics Doctor, I can say that for many families, the loss of a baby in the prenatal period can be just as devastating as a loss of a child after birth.

Although in nearly all cases, these events are nobody's fault, families experience feelings of grief and guilt. They need the time to process not only of the event itself, but also come to grips with the fact that terrible things happen to wonderful people. Further, many families are making decisions about whether to have follow up testing, such as an autopsy or genetic testing, that may give them information about potential risks for future pregnancies.

And it takes time to understand the options, make decisions, and sort through the logistics of obtaining these tests. Overall, I think that five days of time to deal with such losses is, if anything, excessively short and hope that we can do at least this much for these families. Mr. Chairman, I sincerely appreciate your attentiveness today and kindly ask for your aye vote on this important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 848?

Mr. Chair and Members, Mariko Yoshihar, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Legal Aid at work support.

Good afternoon. John Chaban, California Nurses Association in support.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition?

Mr. Chairman, Members Courtney Jensen. On behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, we're in an opposed, unless amended, working with the Senator. Thank you to the Senator and her staff for really working with us on this Bill and taking amendments. We have just one little thing that we're continuing to discuss on the 20 days, but very much appreciate the Senator bringing up this really important issue, and thank you to the Committee.

Thank you. We'll bring it back to Committee. Any comment or questions from the Committee? We have a motion and a second. Appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. I would like to be added as a co author, if it's okay with you. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you. As you've heard today, more and more families are turning to alternative methods of becoming parents, and I think that they deserve the same consideration of those that have biological kids. And with that, I do want to say I'll continue to work at the chamber and see if we can get to a good spot. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Secretary, if we can take a roll on SB 848, please.

Motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. Kalra, aye. Chen, aye. Fong, aye. Haney, aye. Ortega, aye. Reyes, aye. Ward, aye.

That Bill is out. Thank you, Senator. And item three, SB 731. Senator Ashby, thank you for your patience.

No problem. Thank you for having us. First of all, happy to see all of you today. Thank you for being here and spending your time to work your way through these Senate bills. I'm here to present SB 731, which at its heart is a gender parity Bill. But it's about returning to work. As we know, many employers in California are now mandating that employees return to the workplace, in some instances, after more than two years of remote work during the pandemic.

We also all have read the studies about how that has impacted women, and particularly moms and parents. While remote work has provided flexibility for employees, it's also layered up a need to manage various parts of your life between your job and your family. And so we know that working moms, working parents, for instance, need adequate time to arrange childcare, restructure rides to school, and all of those things.

We know that parents with special needs kids or people who are dealing with their elderly parents or relatives need additional time to replace themselves in those environments where they're going back into a full time job in an office building. Employees who rely on public transportation or do not have reliable transportation need additional time to prepare. And most importantly, folks with disabilities need to explore the alternative of going back to work, whether it's feasible for them.

Many people we know in the disability community entered into the workforce because of the pandemic and the ability to work remotely. Some of them will not be able to return to work once that becomes part of the equation, so they need an opportunity to find other employment or alternative options. Returning to the workplace after an extended period of remote work can be full of significant changes for people.

So SB 731 aims to ensure that employees are given at least 30 days notice to make necessary arrangements to return to in person work. This Bill also requires employers to provide information to employees about their right to request disability accommodations, ensuring that employers are working collaboratively to address the challenges associated with returning to in person work.

This Bill is supported by the Disability Rights of California, California Employment Lawyers Association, Consumer Attorneys of California, the ARC, which is advocates for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, United Cerebral Palsy, California Collaboration, National Association for Social Workers, amongst others, and has no known opposition. Today, I brought with me a witness to testify, Bobby Dutra, who is get this title. This is so great.

He's the President of the Association of California State Employees with Disabilities and co chair of the Statewide Disability Advisory Council to the California Department of Human Services. I'm really proud to have him in the capitol with us today.

Thank you so much. Thank you Senator. Again, good afternoon. My name is Bobby Dutta and I'm the President, like the Senator said, of Association of California State Employees with Disabilities, or accsed. I also co chair statewide Disability Advisory Council, or ESTAT. I'm here today to express my strong support for the Senate Bill 731, which would require employees to provide 30 days notice before requiring employees with disabilities to return to work in person. As you know, COVID-19 pandemic has a significant impact on the way we work.

Many employees with disabilities have found working from home has allowed them to better manage their disabilities and be more productive. 731 will ensure that these employees can continue working from home if they so choose, or at very least get some minimal notice of change of their work environment should they come back to work. There are several reasons why 731 is important. First, working from home can improve the health well being of employees with disabilities.

For example, employees with mobility impediment can avoid the stress of fatigue of commuting. An employee with chronic health conditions can avoid exposure to germs and allergens. Second, working from home can improve the productivity of employees with disabilities. Studies have shown that employees with disabilities are most likely to be productive when they work from home, for example, the functions of my job. I can effectively function as a state employee working from home remotely. I have all my accommodation need right from home.

If I should that change and I have to go back to work and they give me a notice that show up work next day, I have to ask for sick leave or absence just so I can manage my disabilities and seek that reasonable accommodation. Allow my employer to manage the procurement process of providing me the accommodation that I need for.

Because of this reasons, and it's a big benefit to the women and people who have small children at home that they have to manage this abrupt change of environment. For these reasons alone, I fully support this Bill 731 and request that you provide an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Anyone else here in support of SB 731?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, want to thank the author for Working with us and other disability rights organizations and bringing the stakeholders together to come to language that we can all agree on. I'm so happy to support the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Scott Richmond, immediate past President and current Legislative Co chair, Association of California State Employees with Disabilities. We'd like to commend Senator Ashby for very thoughtful and well balanced Bill. We think it'll really work to the mutual benefit of both employees with disabilities and their employers. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Is there anyone here in opposition to SB 731? All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Assembly Member Ortega.

I wanted to thank the Senator and our witness today. I think we read the same article in the LA Times. I'm actually hosting a Subcommitee to talk about this very issue around workers with disability and the impact that COVID-19 gave them to be able to be not just skilled, but utilized. A lot of employees weren't utilizing our community Members with disabilities because they couldn't come into a, quote, regular workplace.

And so really highlighting this issue and moving forward to make sure that those workers are workers and making sure that accommodations like your Bill are just one step in the future of our workplaces, and we continue to highlight and be effective in terms of representing everyone, and that includes our disability community in the workplace. I look forward to working with you. Would love to be added as a co author and invite you all to my hearing in the fall.

I'd love to participate. I think we all learned during the pandemic to balance things. For me, it was two kids at home, a dog, a cat, not a rare appearance to see my golden Retriever like steal the Ipad and run away, and I'm chasing it. But some people found an opportunity to actually participate meaningfully in the workforce because they were able to build their environment at home that was conducive to a way that has never been achieved before. And that is the article that you're talking about.

That was the impetus of the beginning point for this Bill. I do believe that this Bill could be a stepping stone to another conversation about how we include more people with disabilities in our workforce, especially since we have a workforce shortage. So I appreciate your thoughtful analysis and we'll proudly add you to the Bill.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes.

Just a point of clarification, does this apply to all employees or only employees who have disabilities?

No, this applies to everyone. We started off as a disability Bill, focused a little bit more on where Assembly Member Ortega was and broadened the know. I need to thank the chamber and the disability rights folks because they've walked a long road with us to get to this point on this Bill, to find a balanced approach where we could help as many people as possible.

This Bill will greatly benefit people who are working from home with a disability, but it would also help me. It would have helped me. It would help moms. It will help people who are taking care of their parents, people who are responsible for a neighbor, people who their responsibilities increased when they had to go home and figure out how to do both things at the same time. The Bill serves to help more than just the disabled community.

But the reason my witnesses are very focused on the disability community is because they are a particular beneficiary of this Bill.

So if I may, Mr. Chair, if an employee asked for accommodations that would be provided other than that, then they return to work in 30 days?

That is correct. If they were eligible under current law. This doesn't change any of the laws for request for disability accommodations, but if they were eligible under the current laws for a disability accommodation, their employer would need to provide them that information according to this Bill, but doesn't change any of those regulations. If they weren't eligible for any accommodation and were therefore given the direction that they have to return to full time, in person work, this would necessitate that they get 30 days for that transition. Very good.

I don't know if the Bill has been moved. I would move the Bill. Thank you.

Any other question and comment? I agree with comments from somebody. Ortega is an excellent Bill. Love to be added on as a co author as well.

All right.

Would you like to close?

It's a Bill that gives people a chance to succeed. I urge an I vote. Thank you so much for your time and your great input.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, if we can call the roll on SB 731, please.

Motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. Kalra.

Aye.

Kalra aye. Chen.

Aye.

Chen aye. Vince Fong.

Aye.

Vince Fong aye. Haney.

Aye.

Haney aye. Ortega.

Aye.

Ortega aye. Reyes.

Aye.

Reyes aye. Ward.

Aye.

Ward aye.

Thank you so much. Thank you to my staff and to all the Members. We don't have any add ons because we were all here to vote on everything. Great job, everybody. We're adjourned.