Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning again. The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will come to order. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person, and it's good to see folks in the hearing room this morning, but also through the teleconference Service and for individuals wishing to provide public comment today through the teleconference service. The participant number is 877-226-8163 I'll repeat that, 877-226-8163 the access code is 18187-318-1873 each side will be permitted in an equal amount of time. Lead witnesses will have two minutes each.

There is no reserving time for other witnesses. All others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measures. 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, sometimes known as the Swing Space. I ask all Members of the Committee to now be present in room 2200.

I do see Members coming in as we speak so we can establish a quorum, which we'd like to do soon, and begin our hearing. We do have 14 bills on today's agenda, and before we hear a presentation on the bills, we would normally establish a quorum. We don't have that opportunity yet, so we'll come back to the assistant and do that as soon as we can. Do we have an author present? All right, well, we will pause, not recess.

We'll just pause until we get an author coming in. Hopefully Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan or somebody else on the agenda today. We are not officially in recess, but we understand Assembly Members are now coming across the street from the Capitol, headed this way, including a couple of our authors. So we'll expect an author here. Any momentum? Assembly Member Arambula, you're welcome to present on our file item four, AB 775, if you're ready.

We have called the meeting to order and we have not yet established a quorum, but we should be able to do that shortly, hopefully before conclusion of your hearing. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. At California State hospitals, about 90% of patients are forensic psychiatric patients who were involved in the criminal justice system. Many of these patients can be very challenging to work with because of their severe mental illness. Currently, much of the workforce at Patton State Hospital is outsourced, which results in worse outcomes for patients, lower wages for medical professionals, and poor working conditions.

AB 775 establishes a three year physician registry pilot program at Patton State Hospital, modeled after the successful program at the La County Department of Health Services. By minimizing the use of outside physician contractors, LA County was able to improve health outcomes for patients, to secure employment protections and better wages for medical professionals at that facility, and to save the county $10 million over 10 years.

Strengthening medical workforce protections by not outsourcing clinical services will aid patients to meet their medical needs, to improve trust between patients and their physicians, and to prioritize their care among patients. Testifying in support of AB 775 is George Osborne, a contract advocate with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, and Dr. Navreet Mann with the bargaining unit 16 Estate psychiatrist.

All right, just a pause for a moment so that I can call upon the assistant to establish a quorum that'll help us going forward. Thank you.

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

All right. Thank you all for being here. We do have a quorum and we'll go ahead and allow the lead witness to identify himself and proceed. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. George Osborne, for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, sponsors of AB 775. Thank you to Assemblymember Dr. Arambula for carrying this legislation. As Dr. Arambula said, the California Department of State Hospitals has been handicapped by an increasing shortage of civil service psychiatrists. The current shortage is about 40%. This shortage has caused mental health care to five state hospitals, which house thousands of severely mentally ill and forensic patients, to be inadequate.

The federal Coleman court recognized this 30 years ago, but the state has not effectively recruited and retained a psychiatrist corps. Instead, they have resorted to expensive outsourcing. Private contractor psychiatrists provide temporary care and do not promote trust or build the strong Doctor patient relationships that continuity of care requires. AB 775 will help to increase recruitment and retention of DSH psychiatrists for providing additional compensation for extra work at Patton State Hospital.

Keeping this care in house is good for patients because of better continuity of care, better for our UAPD doctors because of the opportunity to earn compensation closer to market rates and better for California's taxpayers. This incentive program will be monitored by a collaborative semiannual survey. If the initial salary increase is not attractive enough for our Members, it may be adjusted upwards at the pleasure of DSH.

This registry, as Dr. Arambula said, is modeled after our successful LA County Registry, which has virtually eliminated the need for any contracted out employees. We appreciate again, Dr. Arambula, carrying the Bill and requestfully respect your aye vote. Dr. Mann.

Thank you. Next lead witness. Support witness.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Navreet Mann. I'm a board certified psychiatrist. I work for CDCR. I'm also an Executive board member of the Union of Physicians and Dentists. In that role, I represent both CDCR and DSH psychiatrists, as well as other physicians and dentists and podiatrists.

We are supporting AB 775 because, as George just had mentioned. It. Will be, in the long run, very good for this state. AB 775 requires DSH to establish a three year pilot program that would implement a physician registry at Patton State Hospital by January 1, 2025 to provide compensation for overtime hours to physicians for their participation in the registry. Currently, the state depends on contractors to fill in the gaps in staffing, paying them at some places up to 300% of what civil servants are making at this time. This is not just a bad financial decision.

It also leads to patchy and inconsistent workforce. Usually, contract providers will move to places that will offer more money, and money sort of goes to places where the staffing is Shorter than other places. Our proof of concept for this Bill is the registry in LA, with proven savings of over a million per year, and it has been around for over 10 years. LA County now has practically no need for expensive private contractors.

Continuity of patient care increased by use of civil service psychiatrists versus expensive temporary private contractors. And the patients are receiving proper care and they're receiving care from a consistent physician workforce. Instead of having contractors move from place to place. We're hoping that patent pilot will demonstrate that the state can benefit from such registries on a much larger scale, impacting the entire bargaining unit 16. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position on AP 775? Seeing none. Is there an oppositional witness support? Come on up, please. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. D'Artania Bird, on behalf of AFSCME California in co sponsorship. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll just ask again. Anyone else here in support of AB 775? Okay, again, seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Is there a lead opposition witness seeing none. Is there anyone here who wishes to express an opposition position? Name, affiliation and opposition seeing none, we'll go to the teleconference line and ask the moderator at this time to queue up, please, any support or opposition witnesses wishing to take a position at this time.

There is no one else.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this legislation, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, there is no one who's--pardon me. We do have one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please. Thank you. We're now going to go to line 19. Your line is now open.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators, this is Coby Pizzotti from the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We are in strong support of this measure. We already have a thank you registry program for psychiatric technicians, and it has been successful.

Thank you, Coby. Anyone else, Moderator?

We'll bring it back to the Committee again. This is Arambula, AB 775. Any comment, concerns? If not, we can entertain a motion. I'll move the Bill. All right. There is a motion on the floor. I'll give you an opportunity to close.

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

Thank you. We'll go to a roll call vote at this time.

File item number four. AB 775. The motion is do pass, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? No. Wilk, no. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This Bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right, three eye votes. The Bill is on call. Thank you very much. Keep the roll open and we will go to the next present author, which I think in file order, is Assembly Member Holden. Please come on up if you're ready. Welcome. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Chair and committee. I'm here to present AB 647, the Grocery Worker Protection Act. Would like to state that I accept the committee's revised amendments revising the definition of separated employee. Despite their essential service, grocery store workers have become collateral damage in the wake of recent mega grocery store chain mergers. AB 647 seeks to prevent this by strengthening and expanding statewide grocery worker retention and hiring laws. As amended, this bill will expand grocery worker retention laws to include warehouse employees.

Remove the incentive to prolong a grocery store from reopening to avoid postmerger retention procedures by expanding the window from six months to 18 months or more. Provide enforcement provisions that allow for the labor commissioner to enforce and grant a private right of action for aggrieved employees. I've heard the concerns raised by the opposition and would like to take a moment to address them.

Let me begin by saying that several amendments were taken at the opposition's request as the bill came out of the Appropriations Committee in the Assembly and as an effort to address their concerns in good faith. These amendments include a 300-employee minimum threshold, clarification of the definition of front and back pay, and removal of the joint and several liability section as it relates to a controlling private fund. In addition, we reverted to existing law with regard to the 90-day retention period.

Members, as you know, I'm always willing to work with those who have a different point of view on legislation I may be carrying, and this is no different. I maintain that my office is prepared to continue negotiations with the opposition in said good faith. With that said, with me to testify in support of AB 647 is representative from UFCW. In closing, AB 647 will protect workers by preventing mass layoffs and ensuring a consistency in food safety and pharmaceutical knowledge within our communities. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, Assemblymember. And let me just for the purposes of full disclosure to our committee members, the amendments that Assemblymember Holden said he's accepting would be, number one, the definition of separated employee, which he mentioned, meaning that employment that was terminated or suspended by the employer. So the amendment clarifies that the bill's provisions do not apply to individuals who separate from employment by choice. And again, thank you for getting that on the record. And Jassy Grewal is the lead witness. Thank you.

Thanks. Good morning, Chair and committee members. My name is Jassy Grewal, legislative director with the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, and I'm here to testify in strong support of AB 647, the Protect Grocery Workers Job Act, and thank Assemblymember Holden for authoring this important bill. All of California feels the effects of mergers and acquisitions in the grocery industry. From the hardworking people at your local grocery stores to the strawberry farmers in Central California.

There have been two major mergers in the grocery industry that have had ripple effects in California's economy for decades. Albertsons purchased Lucky's in 2006, selling off neighborhood grocery stores and the good jobs therein to nonunion companies like Trader Joe's and Grocery Outlet. Then again in 2015, Albertsons bought Safeway and had to sell over 100 stores in California to a Washington state operator called Haggen. These mergers were disasters in the grocery industry.

Good jobs were lost, communities suffered, and customers felt the effects in their checkbooks as prices were raised. But now we are facing one of the biggest proposed mergers in the grocery industry. In October of 2022, Kroger and Albertsons announced pursuing a $24.6 billion mega-merger, joining together the first and second largest grocery chains in the country. California has more of these two grocery chains than any other state in the nation, so our state will undoubtedly feel the effects of the potential merger the most.

The merger threatens to substantially reduce the workforce of the two grocery chains through employee layoffs due to the elimination of competition. The companies have said they may have to divest up to 650 stores nationwide to secure antitrust approval from the Federal Trade Commission. In Long Beach and Anaheim, there are 54 of 61 Kroger stores within two and a half miles of at least one Albertson store. That is 88% of the total stores in this area that are at risk for divestiture or closure.

In Los Angeles, 110 of 138 Kroger stores are within two and a half miles of at least one Albertson store, or 80% of total stores in the area that are at risk for divestiture or closure. In these two counties alone, it is estimated that a potential of 5750 workers might lose their jobs. Knowledge about the stores, customers, and communities will also be lost with this turnover. Our communities depend on these companies. When good jobs are lost, the standard of living goes down for everyone, not just those who lost their jobs. From previous mergers, we know higher skilled workers may have a harder time transferring to another store with the same job classification.

Jassy, you'll have to wrap up. Two minutes.

Those workers have often to take demotions which they've worked for years or over a decade to achieve pay cuts, loss and seniority, and reduction in benefits. It is for these reasons UFCW strongly urges your aye vote on AB 647.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express a support position on the bill? If so, please come up now.

Mr. Chair, members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Hi. Samantha Gordon with TechEquity Collaborative, in support. Thank you.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network, in support. Thank you.

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

Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Thank you. We'll now turn to opposition. Is there an opposition witness that will be speaking? Hi, please come forward and identify yourself.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Members, Carlos Gutierrez on behalf of the California Grocers Association, who happened to post position on the bill. AB 647 is in response to a national merger between two grocery stores, which currently is sitting with FTC. Although we appreciate Mr. Holden's concerns, if the bill passed, it would have no significance on whether that merger happens or not. But it will impact every single grocery store here in California. The bill has been presented as a measure to protect grocery workers from unwarranted layoffs and terminations.

But these protections already exist. The Legislature already passed AB 359, which already created specific protections for grocery employees, including a requirement that a successor grocery employer, upon consolidation, purchase, merger, or reorganization, must retain eligible employees for 90 days during a store transitionary period. The WARN Act, in place, both at the state and federal level, also requires that employees have a 60-day notice employees before a store closure or mass layoff.

There's current data shown by the EDD that notes that since the passage of 359 grocery closure represented only 15 of the 10,136 WARN Act notices. That's 0.1%. So again, we don't believe 647 provides any additional value for employees that are not already protected by these measures. Rather, AB 647 would make store transactions for small and independent groceries so onerous that it would actually disincentivize any transaction and create gaps that could perpetuate food access issues or food deserts that already exist in California. So for those reasons, we ask for a no vote.

Thanks for your testimony. We appreciate it. Another opposition witness. You'll have two minutes. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Courtney Jensen, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. AB 647 creates a private right of action by granting employees, collective bargaining representatives, and nonprofit corporations the right to bring action for violations of an employee's right. The bill has a substantial list of remedies, including hiring and reinstatement rights, front or back pay for each date during which the violation occurs, the value of the benefits the employee would have received under any benefit plans, and attorneys, fees, and costs to any employee or employee representative. We have also historically had concerns regarding the newly defined separated employee. We understand that there's amendments being taken on that, and we appreciate and look forward to reviewing that language when available. For these reasons and those outlined by my colleague, we remain opposed. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. We'll now ask if there's anyone else in the room who wishes to express an opposition position. If so, please come forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailer's Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else in opposition? With that, we'll move to the teleconference line and ask the moderator to please queue up any opposition or support on the teleconference line at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We're going to first go to line 16. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, in support.

Line 22.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty, in strong support.

Line 24.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division, in support.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

Thank you, Moderator. Appreciate it. We'll come back to the committee. Concerns, questions, or comments by committee members? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I just want to thank the author for bringing this bill and making sure that California workers are protected. Just the thought of 5000, almost 6000 workers potentially losing their jobs, many of them in my district, and knowing that this comes after a long line of layoffs that we see happening in our economy today, we absolutely have to take every step to protect workers to make sure that they can stay housed, pay their mortgages, pay their rent, keep their cars operating, keep their families sustained. That's what this is about. This is about safety net. And I'm happy to move this motion when the time is right. And thank you again for your work and the work of the sponsors of this bill to protect our communities.

Senator Durazo.

Thank you. I also want to thank the author and organizations that support this bill. We see this happening. Sometimes the opposition comes back and says, well, we already have it. But what they've found is a loophole. They found a way to get around it. Or are they using different business models which again come back to impact the workers?

I know in the hospitality industry the hotels that had closed and were slow are staying closed or remaining not to deciding not to return workers in order to get around and skirt the law. So we have to be truthful to what the original bill was to what the problems are that are taking place in our community and support those men and women. So thank you.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. Seeing no other request to be recognized. I just want to thank the author again for working with the committee staff on amendments and also hearing the opposition. I know that you reassured all of us that you'll continue to work with them. But some of the items that we've seen and heard are less philosophical if you will, and sometimes pragmatic issues that I think merit continue to work. Whether or not the opposition removes opposition, they may have very good points in terms of implementation and the practicality of certain things. So I personally appreciate you putting those reassurances out that you'll continue to work with them. I know our committee staff is always available if need be on particular issues. That said, we have a motion in waiting from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas but I'll give you an opportunity to close at this time.

Well, first of all, I want to thank the chair and the committee. I've yet to find a perfect bill, but I think that over time, we also see that there are elements of what we thought were good bills and sturdy and durable bills that had areas that could be exploited. There were warehouse workers that were left unprotected. And so now, under this bill, they would be protected.

And I think, as was pointed out, I continue to make myself available to the opposition to meaningfully address concerns to the best of my ability without undermining what we're really trying to accomplish here. And I think we've seen patterns that have been significant. You don't need a lot of mergers to create major disruption in people's lives and loss of jobs. And also the small businesses that are impacted as well.

Sometimes the small businesses and the small business owners are the ones that get lost in these conversations, and they're the ones that get hit really hard where they can't compete. And so this is an effort to try to appreciate. And there's a lot of work that has to be done on the federal level, to be sure, antitrust laws and how these mergers are formed and take place. But what we can do here in California is to pay attention to the workers who will find themselves potentially in harm's way. And this bill, we believe, goes a long way to protect them when and if we see mergers that can be catastrophic to a community and to lifestyles and people's lives. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you again. And with a motion by Smallwood-Cuevas, we'll ask the assistant to call the roll at this time.

File item number two, AB 647. The motion is do pass, but first, amend and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. No. Wilk, no. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is on call and currently has three aye votes.

All right, three aye votes. You have enough to get out, but we'll keep it on call for the absent Member. And thank you again for being here. We're going to move back to the top of the file order, and I will make every attempt to stay with file order once the Committee gets going, as it is now. And with that, I would call up Assembly about our Cahan file number one, AB 521.

And while she's making her way up, can I ask the assistant to take up the consent calendar at this time? Need a motion on that. We'll give Senator Wilk the motion on it just because I was looking that way. And please go ahead with the roll call.

File items number 3, 5, 9, and 13. They're all on consent. Senator Cortese.

Aye.

Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk. Aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird, Senator Smallwood Quavas. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. These items are on call and currently have 4 aye votes.

All right, consent calendars on call with four aye votes. We'll move back to the author of AB 521. You may proceed if you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. And I want to start by thanking both Committee staff and the chair for their partnership and hard work on this. I'm accepting Committee amendments, and I know that the chair is an incredible partner in gender equity, so I appreciate his time on this Bill as well. So I'm proud to present AB 521 a Bill to ensure equal protection through restroom access on job sites. Many people ask where this Bill came from, and the answer is actually simple.

I sat down with a local leader in our building trades in my community who's a woman leader in the fall, and as we were having a conversation about what we could do as the Legislature to really provide access to more women, to these good jobs that provide pensions and health care, and the important things that each of us needs to get by during the course of the conversation, she said, some days it's just as simple as a Porta potty. And I said, what?

And we dove down that, and I really started to learn from her what it meant to be a woman on these job sites. And we went to gender neutral bathrooms. It was an important thing for non binary and individuals in California, but in the course, we removed women's restrooms from work sites, and it really changed their experience in ways that made it both unsafe and unsanitary. And so this Bill is very simple.

It retains access for nonbinary, for Trans individuals, for gender expansive individuals, but also ensures that women have access to their own restroom on job sites. And with me today to speak in support of that Bill is Alicia Blakeman, an apprentice with Local 302, IBW, and Beverly U. From the California Building trades.

All right, please proceed. You'll have a couple of minutes. Thank you.

Good afternoon, TR, Cortesi and Committee Members. My name is Alicia Blakeman, and I am a proud fifth year apprentice with IBW Local 302. I am here today to express my profound support for AB 521 and to request that you join me in advocating for its approval.

To help you understand the important impact that this Bill would have, I would like to share with you some of my experiences as a woman in the trades As a first year apprentice, I worked on a job site that provided coed restrooms. One afternoon, I walked into the restroom to find that someone on the job site had written, bang the Electrician, bitch, yes or no on the bathroom wall.

Other males on the job site would then put a tally mark whether or not they would want to bang me. Having a separate restroom wouldn't have prevented these tasteless and hurtful words from being written. It would, however, have protected me from the embarrassment of knowing that it existed and the fear for my safety that followed. In my third year of the apprenticeship, I worked on a job site while seven and a half months pregnant, which, along with menstruation, is an experience faced uniquely by women.

Given my physical state, the only work appropriate attire I could wear at the time were coveralls, so I had to completely disrogue in order to use the restroom, which I was doing it every hour at that point. In my experience, men on construction sites are not concerned with the cleanliness of the restrooms. In fact, they are absolutely disgusting. And without access to a separate restroom on that job site, I would not have been able to do my job.

Situations like these are ones that women in my industry face on a daily basis, and we should not have to choose between the career that we love and our health, sanitation, and safety. I would like to thank Assemblywoman Bauercan for bringing AB 521 and respectfully encourage you to support it. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next witness, please.

Mr. Chair and Members Beverly Yu. On behalf of State Building Construction Trades Council of California, we are a proud sponsor of AB Five to one. We would like to thank the author for hard work on this Bill to break down barriers for women in the construction industry.

Great testimony right before me would just like to add that 90% of women in California's construction industry graduated from our state Approved Apprenticeship program, and there's more work to be done for equal representation in this industry, as women in apprenticeship programs reflect a little over 3% of our construction apprentices in the state. The construction industry has one of the smallest pay gaps between women and men, and the industry is projected to grow at a rate of 4.5% over the next several years.

A daily challenge for women, the building traits, as you've heard, is restroom access. When women first entered into this profession, restrooms were oftentimes used to exclude and bully the women on site. Now, though not as frequently used as a tool of intimidation, restrooms are still a barrier for women who may face serious sanitary and personal care needs. When using facilities, separate bathrooms can contribute to the safety and security of individuals.

Women and nonbinary individuals can feel more secure and protected in a space designated for them for use, reducing the risk of harassment, assault or inappropriate behavior. AB 521 is a very simple and straightforward measure that creates a secure and comfortable workplace for everyone by paying attention to women, the traits we urge an aye vote. Thank you very much.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express a support position? Please come forward.

If so, good morning, chair and Committee. My name is Rachel Schumake. I'm an assistant business manager with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Union 302. I represent over 1300 electrical workers in Contra Costa County. Very grateful for this Bill to be heard.

Thank you so much and very much support. Thank you. Mr. Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you. Mariko Yoshihara, expressing support on behalf of equal rights advocates. Thank you, chair and Members Matt Cremens, here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. Proud to be here in support. Thank you. Morning, Mr.

Chair Members. Sarah Nocito, on behalf of the Sacramento Regional Builders Exchange and the California Builders alliance, in support. Good morning. Thank you, chairs. My name is Selena Darrell. And on behalf of Tradeswomen, Inc the Building and Construction Trades Councils and the boilermakers, we are in support of this Bill. AB five, two, one. I have also shared the similar experiences. Thank you.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 25. Your line is now open and.

Thank you. Seeing no one else come forward on the support side, we'll move to the opposition side. Is there an oppositional witness here? If so, please come forward. Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to express opposition in the hearing room? Seeing none. Moderator, please queue up any support or opposition testimony at this time. Thank you. Thank.

Line 25, your line is opening. You may begin. Good morning. My name is David Cruz. I'm with local 393. I would be here this morning in support. I strongly support the Bill. Line 16, your line is now open. Shane Gusman. We'll take that as a support. I'll take it. Line 21. Hi, this is Eric with UA Local 393. I am in support of the Bill. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else. All right, thanks again. Moderator we'll bring it back to the Committee for comments, questions, concerns, or emotion.

I just want to thank the author for this Bill. Having worked for many years with underrepresented populations in the construction sector, so important to lift and center women in that sector. I've had the unfortunate experience of being in some of those Porta potties, and it's a shame that we still have some work sites that are the last frontier of the kind of equity that we want to see.

And I think this is an important Bill, and let's make sure we get more women on these jobs, too, so we can really fill those restrooms and keep them busy. But thank you so much for carrying this and for the women who shared their stories and experiences. Thank you. Very powerful.

Yes. Senator Durazo, I'm sorry.

That's okay. Thank you. We come a long way, baby, but we've got so much more to do. And I'm glad that you picked something that appears to be very simple, very tangible, but very powerful, and obviously very important to all the women in the industry, and it should be important to everyone in the industry, which is why I also appreciate hearing from the leadership of the various construction unions. So thank you very much.

And as my colleagues say, thank you to everyone who testified today, it's very important for us to hear your voices alongside the Assembly Member.

Thank you, Senator Wilk. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Based upon the testimony, it seems to me that bathrooms could actually be an impediment to somebody wanting to participate in the trades. So I think this is a great Bill. I do have to correct one thing that your first person who testified said. I think all men's bathrooms are disgusting, not just on the construction site. With that. Happy to support the Bill today.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. We'll come back to the author in a moment. I'm just going to segue off of that because it was on my mind. I had the unfortunate experience of being on an American leadership forum team that had to take down both gender temporary facilities a few years back. And I would say that the disgusting adjective applies to both genders, at least from what I saw in that case. But I won't talk more about that under the doctrine of too much information.

That said, all joking aside, the testimony was very compelling. Having had the opportunity to work with the author through the Committee and Committee staff here, the Bill was very compelling. And thank you for taking up something like this, as Senator Durazo said, which appears to be very simple, but obviously has very profound implications. So thank you for that. We'll give you an opportunity to close, and then we'll come back to the motion.

Thank you. And I want to thank all of you for your comments, but I especially want to thank who you know, the bravery and strength that she has shown through this process of telling her story is really critical, as you've all mentioned. And I think it highlights the importance of what looks like a very simple measure. And when I met with Ms. Schumacher and got this idea, I said to her, we can do this. We can make this change.

And so I really appreciate all of you being in partnership with me on that. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And we did have a motion offered. Senator Smallwood-cuevas does put a motion on the floor. Now we'll turn to the assistant for the roll call vote.

File item number one, AB 521. The motion is do pass. But first, amend and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Aye. Wilk. Aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. This Bill is on call and currently has 4 aye votes.

All right, 4 aye votes, obviously enough to get out.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you very much. I think in file order, we are moving right along to file item six. At this point. Assembly Member Haney, I saw him in the room. AB 1356, welcome. And whenever you're ready, we'll hear your presentation.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1356 is the Protect Laid Off Workers Act. It will expand critical protections for workers who are impacted by mass layoff events. These are workers who've done nothing wrong. They're not being fired for cause. They've been impacted, unfortunately, by events outside of their control. And they deserve adequate time to transition and to have that notice and pay to be able to do so to a new job. This is a law that has been in effect for 35 years, since 1988.

It was originally a federal law that will be expanding. That was passed with bipartisan support. It's well established across the country and in our state, that when workers are laid off due to factors outside of their control, that they deserve adequate time and notice to be able to transition. Unfortunately, over the last few months and years, we've seen huge layoffs in California, not only in the tech sector, but in other sectors as well, agriculture, hospitals.

And unfortunately, these layoffs have helped to reveal some unfortunate shortcomings and loopholes in our current Warren act, which protects laid off workers. There are three things that this Bill will do to ensure that workers are protected in the case of mass layoff events. The first is that this Bill will expand those layoff protections to workers who are working as contract workers.

You have folks who are going in, we're cleaning bathrooms, who are cafeteria workers or who are engineers, who are doing the exact same job as other directly hired workers, and they do not currently have the protections of the Warrant Act. There's no good reason for that.

And some folks were even told at the beginning of the holidays last year that they had to be gone immediately at the end of the week because they lacked those protections that their colleagues had that were doing the exact same work. The other thing is that this Bill will expand the notice requirement from 60 days to 90 days. We found that 60 days is just frankly, not long enough for many of our workers.

We want our workers to be able to transition, to stay in jobs in California, and to be able to support their families when they do that. One of the things that happened is that many workers were here on immigration visas, and 60 days notice was not enough time for them to be able to find a new job, support their families, and stay here and continue to contribute to our economy in California.

And lastly, there were some situations where employees were required to sign away their rights as a requirement to receive severance pay that should absolutely not be allowed. And we want to make it explicit that the rights that you have under the Warren act, that workers cannot be compelled to waive those rights just to receive that notice and pay that's established under the WArM Act. This is timely legislation.

Unfortunately, we are seeing more mass layoff events, and this will protect our workforce and make sure that our workers continue to stay in California and can support their families during that transition. Here with me to testify in support of the Bill is David Jones Krause, a former contract worker at Google, and Caitlin Vega from the California Labor Federation.

Thank you, and I'd like to thank the Committee for your Time. My name is David Jones Krauss, and I'm a Member of Alphabet Workers Union, CWA, Alphabet calls their indirect employees, TVCs, which stands for temp vendor contractor. In 4 years at Google, I've been ATAV and A-C-I along with the vast majority of content manager TVCs, was laid off in November without any form of sufferance.

I'm still unemployed today, and every time I speak out against the inequities TVCs face, I worry that I prolong my unemployment, my financial uncertainty, but I have the privilege of no debt and a spouse with a stable job. Those blessings would be squandered if I didn't speak out on behalf of those for whom the risks of being outspoken are too great to come here today. Right now, it's cheaper, faster, and less newsworthy to get rid of TBCs who make up the majority of Alphabet's workforce.

Legislation like AB 1356 is a substantive step towards alleviating the worst outcomes of this exploitative system for workers like myself, who have virtually no protections during layoffs in late August, I noticed that increased vendor delegation was among the stated goals for Q Four. As a temp worker, I feared that meant my job would be passed off to a larger vendor management firm in mid November. Exactly that occurred. We were laid off en masse, often with as little as two weeks notice.

If Google knew this was the plan in August, why wait until November to tell us? Many of my coworkers are parents, suddenly unsure of how to provide for their children. They're H one B visa holders up against the clock to find new sponsorship to preserve their status. Statistically, TVCs are more likely to belong to already marginalized communities.

With AB 1356, you, our elected representatives, can serve the most vulnerable Members of your constituencies with impactful protections for the inevitable layoffs in our future, layoffs that will invariably impact them first, and most significantly, as long as employers lack a legal mandate to provide contract workers with advanced notice of their termination, they'll do so on a timeline that serves their bottom line and their shareholders, no matter the often catastrophic impact on those of us they're letting go. Articles call us the shadow workforce.

Legislation like AB 1356 that acknowledges our worthiness of the same protections afforded to directly hired employees is vital if we're ever going to make it into the light. Thank you for your attention.

Thank you, Ms. Vega,

Mr. Chair and Members, Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation. We are proud to co sponsor this Bill because it addresses a trend that we have seen accelerate over the past two decades, and that is corporations moving from a direct hire model to a reliance on outside contractors. That's been done, in many cases, to cut costs to sever employer liability to their workforce, and often to prevent workers from unionizing and organizing to improve their wages and working conditions.

So we think it's very important that laws reflect this growing reality that this is how many of our biggest corporations operate with the use of contract workers. This Bill involves a very minor and minimal protection notice of layoff. There is no reason any worker should be excluded from that. I believe yesterday or the day before, UCSF put out a study about homelessness in California.

One of their findings is that one in five of the homeless people that they interviewed said that the triggering event was the loss of a job. So when people say to us, why 60 days to 90 days? Because we are literally talking about how to try to help people hold their lives together in the face of the loss of a job, potentially impacting their ability to keep a roof over their family's head, we think that's a pretty small thing to ask.

That all workers get a little additional notice in the hopes that they can find some level of stability and not be completely uprooted, and that we treat all the workers, whether they're janitors, whether they're Google's contract workforce, we give all workers that small piece of dignity of knowing ahead of time when their job is going to be eliminated. So we're pleased to co sponsor and we ask you to vote Aye.

Thank you. Others in the Committee room who wish to express a support position please come forward.

Mr. Chairman is Mariko Yoshihar, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsor as well as equal rights advocates and UFCW Western States Council, in support. Mr. Chairman and Members, Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity Collaborative, proud co sponsor of this legislation, in support. Thank you. Sandra Barrero. On behalf of SCIU California, in support. Navneet Purrier. On behalf of CSEA, in support.

Joe Shakaranik. On behalf of the State Building Trades, in support. Izzy Swindler. On behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

All right, the last call for support. We'll move to opposition. Those wishing to. Are you the lead witness? In opposition?

We have two.

Two. All right, please proceed. You'll have a couple of minutes. Thank you. Thanks.

Mr. Chairman, Chris McKayley here, on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, first, want to acknowledge as your Committee analysis notes, in the middle of page four, we are in discussions with Assemblymember Haney and the sponsors of the Bill and have been for a number of weeks now. Hopefully we'll be able to come to resolution. So we are opposed unless amended. I wanted to raise two items with the Committee. Ms. Jensen will raise some other concerns that the business community has.

The first is the 50% increase in the number of days notice from 60 to 90 days. That's in sections 2 and 3 of the Bill. We believe that that might have the opposite effect on employees in this regard. Because of the substantial legal liability and financial liability for employers, they're likely going to be over inclusive in those notices. So we think that more people, perhaps than necessary, will get these notices which could cause concern in the workforce itself and amongst employees.

We think rather than a 50% increase, perhaps something of a lesser amount would be more appropriate. The second item I wanted to raise is in section one of the Bill, which is the definition of covered establishment today. The mass layoff, I. E. Triggering the warrant notice itself, is for a single facility, either it's closure or a mass layoff occurring.

This would expand it to facilities throughout the State of California, which we think will create some anomalies, such as if you have a triggering event at one facility in City A and then maybe just a handful of layoffs in City B, that those folks would also, and those local jurisdictions, EdD, et cetera, would all get those types of notices under the Warren act, which we don't think is appropriate. The other issue concerns the franchisees in this state.

We have more than 76,000 franchisees and do they have to know what other businesses are doing that are under that same national model, for example, that is also raised by expanding it to all facilities in the State of California? For those reasons, Mr. Chair and Members, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed unless amended as stated. I want to thank the author, his staff, and the sponsors for having conversations with us about this Bill related to expanding the Warren act to contractors. We are understanding of some of the examples provided.

If a contractor is working a substantial amount of time side by side with an employee doing the exact same work every day as stated by the author, it is understandable that the Warrant act should apply to them. Our concern is regarding where do we draw the line? And it is important to remember that while the examples and discussions about this Bill have been about tech, the Warren act applies to all businesses currently under the Bill.

If a contractor has performed any amount of work with a client employer for at least 6 months of the 12 months proceeding, they would be covered under the Warren Act. It is important to consider whether that is appropriate in the context of the Warren act the purpose of the act is to notify workers and notify the local community about large layoffs that could impact the community. If a worker sporadically performs limited hours of work for a client, is that really comparable to employee?

What if they could quickly be reassigned elsewhere by the labor contractor? That's not really a concern of the community. In the same way as the closure of a facility where the employees are losing their full time jobs. What if the contract already accounts for this? And now that providing notice could trigger a monetary requirement under the Warren Act. We again have provided amendments to the author and sponsors regarding our concerns. And we appreciate the author's willingness to continue talking about this. And thank you.

Okay, thank you. Others who wish to express opposition in the hearing room, if you're here, please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Members. Bryan Lane of the California Retailers Association, opposition. Thank you. Thank you. Hi. Leticia Garcia with the California Groceries Association. Also in opposition. Faith Borges, on behalf of the Family Business Association of. California. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association in opposition. Thank you. At seeing no other witnesses in the hearing room stepping forward. We'll go to the moderator and ask the moderator to please queue up opposition and support witnesses on AB 1356 at this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support and opposition of this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press 1 and 0 only one time as pressing one, then zero. A second time will remove you from the comments queue. We'll now go to line 17. Your line is now open.

Drop ship debate on behalf of communication workers of America, District Nine in support. Line 28, your line is now open. And ebbing on behalf of the California. League of Food Producers in opposition. Thank you. Line 27, your line is now open. Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart with the California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Moderator. We'll come back to the Committee for questions, Comments and concerns. Senator Durazo, just move the Bill. All right. Senator Durazo is putting a motion to approve on the table. I am going to actually ask a question of Mr. Mckay if he was willing to come forward, and this is a very sincere question, so please don't take it antagonistically at all.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else.

But on your first point, with regard to what I would call the tipping point between 60 days and some lengthier number in terms of notice, at least that's what I thought I heard you saying. That might actually accelerate layoffs because of concern.

Maybe over inclusive rather than accelerate.

Okay. Yeah. Again, this isn't intended to be antagonistic at all, but in all the years I dealt with warrant notices, including local government, I never knew 60 to be some magic number that was somehow calculated to be exactly right. We did a lot of work on this, but I don't know that 90 is a magic wand number either. Do you have a number that's either, or is it just the status quo of 60 days, in your opinion, is great.

Well, obviously, Mr. Chairman, if I may. The 60 days, obviously, patterns after the federal law. I can't speak on behalf of the broader coalition. Of course, Mr. Haney and his sponsors know we have suggested half that figure as a possible landing space. Neither the sponsors nor author have indicated something different then, but that's what we threw out as a possibility.

All right, fair enough. Okay, thank you.

Sure.

Thank you. And then to the author, I certainly support the Bill, and everybody up here knows that, I think, and I'll be casting an eye vote. Therefore, again, I said this on an earlier Bill. I think some of the practical or pragmatic issues sometimes on some of these bills with regard to how they are operative with the business community are worth continuing to discuss in terms of use Mr. McKayley's term, a landing spot.

I don't know that really has anything to do, in my mind, with 60 versus 90, as if there's a day in between. That's day number 72 or something, where all of a sudden you hit utopia in terms of notices. This is just trying to deal with mitigating a bad situation. And I know that's the intent of the Bill, is to create a better landing spot for the workers themselves with the 90 day number.

So again, I'm in full support, but obviously encourage you to keep working with them to try to get things as close as possible to perfect, which we all know never happens. Thank you.

I do want to appreciate the opposition, and we are definitely in conversation about all of those issues, including the hour requirement and some of the covered establishment. So we'll continue the conversation on all of those things and try to land in the best place. I will say that on the 60 versus the 90 day, New York, New Jersey, and Maine have all moved to 90 days.

And these are all sort of more high cost states, similar to California, where if you only have 60 days, it may be hard to pay your rent, it may be hard to do a lot of things that are just generally harder to afford in California, similar to New York. So there's nothing magic about 60 or 90, but it seemed to be a fair movement and reflects what's happening across the country in similar high cost states.

All right. And anything else you want to add in terms of a close? We do have a motion.

No, I appreciate the Committee and the staff. And again, we'll continue the conversations on a number of these issues. We are serious about trying to work these things out. This is an important protection, especially right now, for workers who are experiencing these mass layoffs and will be a really critical expansion of the Warren act that I think is overdue and reflects the current way that folks are working now. And respectfully ask for your. aye vote.

All right. Thank you. Thank you for bringing the Bill forward. And Senator Durazo has moved the Bill. We'll ask the assistant to conduct the roll call vote at this time.

File item number six, AB 1356. The motion is do passed, but first we refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This Bill is on call and currently has 2 aye votes.

All right, two aye votes. Obviously, we'll keep it on call for the absent Members. And thank you again. Item number seven. Assembly Member Addis, this is AB 1123. Please come on forward and welcome to what we call the Labor Committee.

Thank you so much. Really appreciate your time, Members and staff. And today I'm here to ask for your. I vote on AB 1123. That would require the CSU to grant employees a leave of absence with pay for one semester of an academic year following the birth of a child. The adoption or foster care of a child by the employee, as we all know it, takes the human body 40 weeks to birth a full term baby.

And research shows that paid parental leave policies significantly improve maternal, physical and mental health by allowing parents time to recover from childbirth and to adjust to new caregiving responsibilities. About half of Childbearing parents report experiencing pain within the first two months of childbirth, and many have more serious, potentially life threatening postpartum complications. So paid parental leave enables workers to take time away to recover from childbirth, to care for a new baby.

And it's associated with decreased low birth weight, so increased birth weight, as well as lower infant mortality and improved maternal mental health. According to the National Partnership for Women and Families, providing 12 weeks of paid parental leave on a national scale would result in 600 fewer infant deaths per year. And paid parental leave benefits employers by improving retention, productivity, and labor force participation. So trying to find the right moment to start a family is unnecessary, but very common here in California.

It's especially challenging for faculty and staff at our institutions of higher education. The CSU's parental leave policy of 30 working days really, truly needs to be updated to reflect today's realities facing the system's 29,000 coaches, counselors, librarians and instructional faculty. We know that typically these issues are addressed via the collective bargaining system as stipulated by California's Higher Education Employee Employer Relations Act.

But there's been many years of negotiations without change, and during this time, it's potential parents and potential newborns that are bearing the brunt of not having the change that we need. So this policy, the current policy, is inadequate, inequitable and uncompetitive for today's workplace. So 1123 would create more fair working conditions for employees who are parents rather than penalizing them for their decision to start a family.

Specifically, this Bill would grant a leave of absence with pay for one semester of an academic year, or the equivalent duration in a one year period following the birth of a child of the employee, or the placement of a child with an employee in connection to adoption or foster care of the child. And this would clarify that if provisions conflict with provisions of an MOU, that the MOU shall be the controlling factor without further legislative action.

So if this gets resolved without legislative action, then so be it, and we can move ahead. We do have two witnesses here to testify and support Ron Rapp of CFA and Dr. Margarita Berta Avila, Professor of education at Sacramento State.

Thank you.

Morning. Good morning. Chair Cortez and Committee Members. I'm a Professor at Sacramento State and serve as Vice President of the California Faculty Association as Mr. Ron Rapp will share after me the experiences with the CSU with respect to obtaining parental leave for our faculty and staff has been quite frustrating and insulting, especially to our faculty, that this has a direct impact on today. I would like to share their narratives as to why on their behalf.

I am speaking today in support of AB 1123 from a faculty Member at Sacramento State. From their own words when I decided to have my baby, I had been stressing about it since I had found out about our leave policy. I was basically trying to time my delivery to maximize my time off to spend with my baby. I had undergone acupuncture fertility treatment for half a year when I experienced miscarriage in the middle of the semester. I didn't take any time off afterward.

At that point, my Doctor suggested I might need to take medical leave or even look for a new job if I wanted to have a baby. I continued with the treatments and five months later, after the COVID lockdown, I was able to sustain a pregnancy. I'm sure this was partially because I didn't have to deal with a long commute anymore. I was still very stressed because there was no way I could take the semester off without going without pay.

From a colleague at Cal Poly Pomona, I committed to our students and this mission. However, I'm in my late 30 s and want children and I've learned in the past few years about how inadequate CSU's parental leave policy is, particularly for women. At my age, 30 days is simply not enough to recover from delivery or alternatively, not enough to establish attachment parenting with an adopted child. To take longer leave, our current policy requires to be unpaid.

I'm at a loss for how to plan my family while staying competitive in my career and affording the outrageous mortgage payment that my partner and I pay on the small house we just bought in California from colleague at Cal State's Thanoslas, who also could not afford to take parental leave. So a couple days after a difficult childbirth, went back to teaching, all while trying to heal her body and take care of her new baby.

And from a colleague at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, who was recommended by the human resource Department at her University to consider a caesarean to gate eight weeks instead of six weeks parental leave. As if our bodies can just undergo major surgery on a whim. These are but a few examples when there are countless more.

What is even more heartbreaking is that these narratives are examples of an institution willing to forsake the health and livelihood of its employees to keep the machine running, no matter the cost. And as my previous colleague shared from Sacramento State, these are her words. Providing for adequate paid parental leave with AB 1123 will create greater equity for female bodied faculty. This is a social justice issue which affects female bodied faculty and particularly Members of Black, Indigenous and communities of color.

In most cases, it is female body employees who take parental leave. So in that context, I respectfully request your aye vote on this important legislation. Thank you.

Thank you. Next support witness, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chair Members. Ron Rapp, speaking on behalf of the California Faculty Association, we are proud sponsors of AB 1123, want to thank the author for her leadership on this important issue. I'd like to deliver a message from CFA's bargaining chair, who was unable to make it today due to a family emergency. His name is Dr. Kevin Warey. He's a Professor of sociology at CSU Sacramento. As I said, Chair of the Bargaining. Chair of Bargaining for CFA.

Currently, faculty in the CSU system can be granted 30 days of paid leave to welcome a new child into their home based on widespread demands from faculty. During the last round of contract negotiations in 2021 2022, CFA proposed a full semester of paid leave for new parents. This is beneficial for the faculty Member and their new child.

It would provide for an uninterrupted teaching schedule for students, and managers would not have to seek out the hiring of substitutes mid semester in negotiations every CFA proposal on this issue was met with a firm and categorical rejection from management. To close out negotiations, CFA proposed a working group on the topic of parental support to provide a nonbinding set of recommendations to the Chancellor. That working group met from June 2022 through May 2023 for a total of 23 hours of negotiations.

CFA again proposed a full semester of leave, which was again rejected. CSU managers could not offer a rationale for this rejection and indeed, could not even provide a full accounting of how, when, and which faculty take parental leave. After the final meeting on February 9 of 23, the parties exchanged emails regarding edits to the draft recommendation document. Through this process, CSU management was unwilling to agree to any recommendations other than websites should be updated and better pathways to information flows should be explored.

When faced with a back and forth editing process that excluded nearly all of CFA's main recommendations, arguments, and analysis, CFA Members finally gave up hope on a consensus document. The need for this legislation is clear. It is a benefit to faculty, to students, and to managers, and yet CSU negotiators are unwilling to bargain in good faith. We respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Others in the room who wish to speak in support on this Bill AB 1123, please come forward.

Sandra Burrell, on behalf of SCIU California in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members. Alyssa Yam, on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in strong support. Thank you. Tiffany Mock, on behalf of CFT in support, Mr. Chair Member Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you. All right, seeing no others come forward in support, we'll move to opposition. Is there an elite opposition witness? Please come forward. Identify yourself. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Eric Pocket with the California State University Chancellor's Office. Appreciate the opportunity to speak here and testify. Unfortunately, we're respectfully in opposition and had the pleasure of talking with the author about that. While we agree with the author's goal of providing parental leave, we must respectfully oppose. The CSU currently provides parental leave for our employees up to six weeks. As noted earlier, unlike many agencies and institutions, employees are eligible for this full paid benefit on the first day of employment.

Most comparative institutions we have looked at require their employees to either have worked a minimum of 1250 hours before being eligible or the employee would have to contribute to disability Insurance program like SDI. Again, the CSU employees receive this benefit on day one and at no cost to themselves. We believe the CSU provides a very competitive benefit package to our employees, including recognizing need and value of the parental leave.

As the Bill is currently proposed, it would require the CSU to provide up to one semester or effectively 16 weeks of paid leave, thus increasing the CSU benefit by an additional 10 weeks without any corresponding resources to pay for this benefit. The increase would have a significant fiscal effect and would cost the CSU approximately $21 million.

Based on the number of employees who historically have benefited from our existing paid parental leave, the fiscal effect this would have on the CSU should be negotiated through the collective bargaining process as discussed. It's for this reason the CSU is opposed. The collective bargaining process allows the CSU and our labor representatives to negotiate changes to existing benefit leaves and identify ways to pay for these changes.

As noted from the previous speakers, an MOU was agreed upon that would establish a parental leave support working group to study the issue and provide recommendations to the academic Senate, the Board of Trustees, and the Chancellor. The goal was to present the report by the end of December of last year, 2022, and the work group reviewed 12 different higher education institutions throughout the West Coast. The initial draft of the joint report was submitted to CFA in November of 2022.

Since this time, we've had negotiations over several provisions of the report. Ultimately, CFA notified the CSU in May that they would no longer want to partake in these meetings, nor did they want to move forward with the report. So the report at this point is not published. It's important to note that while we didn't agree on every point, there were many issues where we did find agreement. Discussion points included paid parental leave, lactation rooms, childcare support, communications, baby diaper changing rooms, to just name a few.

The draft report provided joint recommendations where we had consensus and separate recommendations where the parties differed, including paid parental leave. Moving forward, we would hope to continue these discussions through the collective bargaining process that have already begun. It's our preference that the system be allowed to complete the work that we've already initiated with CFA and allow CSU and the employee groups to use collective bargaining to identify the resources necessary to pay for the increased cost impact. For these reasons, the CSU must respectfully oppose AB 1123.

Thank you. Okay, thank you. Are there any other opposition witnesses, folks wanting to express opposition in this hearing room? This is again on AB 1123. Seeing no one else come forward, we're going to go to the moderator and ask the moderator to check to see if there are opposition or support witnesses on AB 1123 on the teleconference line. Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time.

Mr. Chair, there is no one. All right, thank you. We're going to come back to the Committee, which would be two of us at the moment not seeing Senator Wilk wanting to be recognized. Let me just ask the author in terms of the opposition suggestion. I know there were many comments there, but that collective bargaining is the place to get this kind of work done. We often see in this Committee a similar argument coming forward, often by opposition. The history of collective bargaining on this issue.

From your perspective, we sometimes get bills here that are an attempt to solve inertia at the bargaining table, if you will, and I'm wondering what your perspective is on that.

Well, thank you for the question. I think it's a very important one. Senator, in this specific situation, we've seen the collective bargaining process break down. However, we do have a provision in the Bill that if an MOU is decided upon, that that would supersede. We wouldn't really need legislative action in the process of this breakdown. Time is passing. We're hearing from employees. I know there's a belief, what I think I heard from the opposition, there's a belief that this is a fair system.

But what we're hearing directly from employees, particularly ones that can bear children, is that they feel that these working conditions are not enabling them to have families in a way that would be healthy and would be affirming for becoming parents within this system. And so it's very concerning that time is lapsing and, in effect, punishing these potential families, punishing these potential newborns, while this process has been drawn out for such a long time.

But I will just reiterate that if an MOU, if we get to that MOU, then this legislation really wouldn't be needed. Right. That would supersede.

Yeah. Thank you for clearing that up. And I don't mean it as an admonition at all, but certainly not aimed toward you. You're the author of the Bill.

But we've had, at least in the prior session, similar circumstances and comments come up in testimony, And I think the Committee's consensus, I can't speak for those who are not present here today, but is that, look, if you really believe there's a fair solution at the bargaining table, then go do it, meet and confer and come up with the solution. I don't think anybody would argue that if it's done in that way, at least not on this Committee.

So thank you for answering the question and giving us a little bit of background, again, on your perspective as to how that's been going with that I'll move the Bill. Thank you for that courtesy. Senator Wilk, we have a motion, and you're welcome to close.

Well, I appreciate your time and attention to this matter. Small but mighty Committee today. And I respectfully ask for your. Aye vote.

Thank you, Assistant. We'll do the roll call now.

File item number seven, AB 1123. The motion is due. Passed. But first, we referred to the Committee on Education. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. No. Wilk. No. Senator Durazo. Durazo. Aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This Bill is on call and currently has 2 aye votes.

All right, two aye votes. We'll keep it on call for the opposite. Members, and thank you again. We are going to call on Assemblymember Ortega, AB 1213 at this time, and you can present whenever you're ready. Welcome to our Committee.

Thank you. Chair and Members, I am here to introduce AB 1213, which is a narrowly tailored Bill that closes a problematic gap in temporary disability coverage for an injured worker who experiences delays in treatment through no fault of their own. This Bill would require that when an injured worker's utilization review denial is overturned, the temporary disability payments be extended beyond the 104 week limit by the same amount of time that denial delayed the workers treatment.

When I first introduced AB 1213, the opponents claimed that this Bill was unnecessary and that the problem lies with attorneys and doctors who continue to needlessly challenge utilization review decisions at an obscene volumes. This argument ignores the fact that appealing treatment denials to independent medical review is an injured worker's only recourse if their recommended treatment is denied. The opposition also claimed that extending the 104 week limit to temporary disability for delayed medical claims that were later upheld would make thousands of claims much more expensive.

I pushed back with my own accurate numbers that showed only hundreds of claims would be impacted by AB 1213. 1.7% would be impacted each year. The Assembly Insurance Committee, the Assembly Appropriations Committee, and this Committee's analysis concur with my numbers. Now the opposition has changed their tune.

Their own California Workers Compensation Institute report now acknowledges that only 537 claims would be impacted annually, but assert that since that number of people who get cheated by the system is so small that it's not worth the cost of this Bill, it's not worth identifying who they are, and it's not worth them getting the benefits that they are owed, they're saying it's okay for 537 workers to just slip through the cracks. I disagree. Those are 537 Californians who deserve to not just slip through the cracks.

Who deserve to get what they are owed. Those are 537 Californians that if we do nothing for, will struggle with paying their House payments, will struggle with putting food on the table for their children, and will struggle with paying their utility bills. And while the opponent's other argument is that AB 1213 will increase the cost of claim adjustments process and incentivize applicant attorneys to bring more cases, I would ask them, how much will this Bill increase this administrative cost? Insurers don't have to do anything extra.

Independent Medical review examines the cases are overturned, unjust denials. Additionally, this is what claims departments are set up to do. This Bill would just require them to make sure that temporary disability is paid correctly on 537 claims. In addition, applicant attorneys get the medical treatment delivered to the injured worker without any additional legal fee. But most importantly, California workers who are injured on the job through no faults of their own will get the support they need to heal and get back to work.

Those 537 workers who experience unfair delays in medical treatment and temporary disability payments matter to me, and they should matter to all of us. Thank you. And testifying with me today is former Assembly Member Alberto Torico, who is representing the California Applicants Attorney Association.

Thank you and welcome.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, Alberto Torrico, on behalf of the California Applicant Attorney Association, just want to make a couple of points. Thank you to the author of the Bill and for your presentation. Two things I want to say, first is that the Bill attempts to address a gap in benefits. The only two kinds of benefits you get in workers comp are temporary disability and permanent disability. As indicated by Senator Ortega. Your temporary disability benefits run out.

You are not eligible for permanent disability until your case, in essence, closes. So this Bill tries to bridge that gap. That's the first thing. The second thing I would say in terms of costs, what we think will happen under this Bill is that UMRI, all of the systems in place, the insurance carriers employers, will be incentivized to provide the treatment faster and to get the workers the medical treatment and all the rehabilitation services that they need to get back to work.

All of those services should happen before the 104 weeks are run out and therefore the cost will be reduced. With that, we respectfully ask for another vote.

All right, thank you. Mr. Tarrico. Another lead witness? No, just me too. Please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Megan suburbs, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support. Thank you. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you. Terry Mchale with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing Porak, California Highway Patrol and CAL FIRE in support. Thank you. D'Artagnan Bird Ask me California in support.

All right, and I'll just announce officially this is the opportunity for anyone wishing to express support in the Committee room. We just heard some. If there's anyone else, come forward. Seeing none, we'll move to opposition at this time. Is there a primary opposition witness?

Please come forward, Mr. Chaired Members Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities here today in respectful opposition of AB 1213 in compliance with California Labor Code, all employers and Claims administrators are required to have a utilization review program. UR takes place in a tightly regulated environment, and every claims administrator and UR provider is audited frequently to review their performance. Audit scores are public and compliance errors are met with steep financial penalties.

An injured worker, their physician or their attorney could trigger independent medical review to appeal UR decisions In 2019, the California Workers Compensation Institute published a report using the top law firms identified in UR data, which showed that some attorneys submitted nearly all of their clients treatment denials or modifications to IMR. Our concern with this Bill is the incentive it creates to send all UR denials to IMR in the very slim chance that injured workers are awarded additional TD.

This extends the claims resolution process by weeks, a shared point of frustration for employers and injured workers. According to the recent CWCI analysis of this Bill, which examined 3 years of claims data, less than 1% of claims will be eligible to receive the TD increase proposed by the Bill. Yet all claims administrators would incur significant costs to develop and maintain automation and programming systems, as well as funding manual Administration to track UR denial, IMR determinations and subsequent treatment authorization to calculate the additional TD.

There is a decade of data demonstrating a very small number of physicians that continue to prescribe treatment that's outside of established medical guidelines that drives disputed treatment. 89 doctors account for 40% of disputed treatment. This Bill reinforces those models used by a small number of physicians and attorneys to cause the overuse of IMR and dispute Ur, despite ur being upheld over 90% of the time, which needlessly delays claims resolution for all injured workers.

Handling from a claims handling perspective, this Bill creates one more loose thread that makes the claims process more complicated, lengthy and fodder for litigation. This proposal should be reviewed as an overhaul to the system, not by piecemeal or disjointed micro changes. So at this time, we're opposed to AB 1213.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Jason Schmeltzer here today on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation Prison, Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, and also the California Chamber of Commerce. I just want to clarify for the Committee, the same letter that was submitted in the first House Policy Committee was submitted to this Committee. Our position, in fact, has not changed. My testimony will largely mirror what I said in the first House policy Committee. So just a quick point of clarification.

I think the author and the sponsors have identified a problem in the system. They exist. I think the question for the Committee, if you're looking at the workers'compensation system from a systems perspective, is whether or not this is the appropriate solution for that. And so I've got some comments on that. The data suggests, as the author pointed out, that this is a very small problem, specifically, 0.3% of all workers compensation claims.

Both are approaching the 104 weeks of temporary disability and have a UR decision that's been overturned by IMR. So that is a very small problem, which I think, I would agree with you that that would then applying a solution would be a low cost. I think that's all fair. But that's not the problem with the Bill. The problem with the Bill is that if you look at workers compensation from a systems perspective and you ask what are the incentives that you're creating?

We're concerned that this Bill will create more delay for more injured workers. So allow me to walk you through that. If we're only fixing a problem for 0.3% of injured workers, but we're changing the system for everybody, you've got to ask what's going to happen. The Member indicated that IMR is the only recourse, and we agree with that, for pursuing a change in the medical decision on your ur. But now it's going to be the only recourse for pursuing additional temporary disability benefits.

We think based on the applicant attorney's prior comments about why they pursue IMR as a requirement to avoid malpractice and other things to appropriately represent their clients, that they will then pursue more IMR. IMR is an extremely lengthy process which employers win at a 90 plus percent rate. So our concern is that you're going to solve a problem for 0.3% of injured workers, but what you're going to end up doing is creating more IMR, driving more IMR, that more than 0.3% of injured workers will lose.

Those injured workers will have substantially more delay than the delay that you're resolving. That is our concern with this. But I do appreciate the problem as identified by the author. But you've got to remember in workers compensation, this is a system. And when you pull on one area and push on another, there are consequences. So we're just asking this Committee to be cautious about the consequences of this particular solution. And with that, we just respectfully submit our opposition. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. That concludes primary opposition witnesses. Others that want to express opposition can come forward at this time.

Mr. Chair Members Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Association of Claims Professionals, in respectful opposition.

For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. We're going to first go to line 17.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition in the Committee room, this is AB 1213. Seeing none. Moderator on AB 1213, Please queue up any support and opposition witnesses on the teleconference line at this time. Thank you.

Joshua. Today on behalf of the California Workers Justice alliance, in support. Line 30. Then having come behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition. Thank you. Line 31. Your line is now open. Morning. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Line 32. Sabrina Demeanor Lockhart. On behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak. Thank you. We're going to bring the discussion back to the Committee at this time. Any questions, comments, or concerns from Members of the Committee? Senator Durazo

Just a comment to the author. I really appreciate the way you describe the impact not only of the current system, but of your Bill. I think too often we get caught up so much in the weeds of it that we don't take a step back and really understand what the impact is on every individual and how they are hurt, literally and figuratively hurt by the process. So thank you.

Thank you to the author. I would just say, having worked in this workers comp space a little bit over my two and a half years here, I commend you for waiting into this. One thing in particular I would agree with the opposition is that these end up being relatively technical and complex issues, especially when it comes to opposition and opposition arguments. So, of course, we always encourage continuing to try to work with them.

But I think I've been disappointed myself in some of the legislation I've run with what seems like, at times a lack of empathy for, really the core of what we're trying to get to, which is making sure that people that are disabled, that have been struggling from severe conditions, physical and sometimes mental, just talking about the real breadth of what goes on in workers comp are sometimes put through an extraordinary burden while they're in that condition of justifying their own remedies and the remedies of the system itself.

And I approach that from not just a worker standpoint, but from a humanitarian standpoint. That's not to say that the opposition is callous to that or anything like that, but it sure would be great to see a little more empathy in these discussions to the fact that these are human beings that have, in some cases, really, and sometimes literally been driven into the ground before they get into the condition where they have to make a claim like this in the first place.

So with that, I'll be supporting the Bill. And we want to give you an opportunity to close at this time.

Thank you for those comments. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Do we have a motion on this Bill?

So moved.

Moved by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. We'll ask the assistant. Could all the roll at this time.

File item number 8, AB 1213. The motion is do pass, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This Bill is on call and currently has 3 aye votes.

All right. You have enough votes to get out, of course, but we'll leave it open for the absent Member. I am going to make an announcement right now that's probably going to disappoint Mr. Flora and Ms. Bonta, but it's probably going to make Mr. Umberg happy. Senator Umberg. Senator Umberg, I know there's some logistical issues that we can solve by having you go forward at this time. And I'm going to go ahead and call you to testify if you're ready.

And we will go right back to file order and stick with file order after that. So we're taking file item 14, but then we're going to go back to 10. Flora 11, Bonta 12, Skiabo. Again, I apologize for any inconvenience, but obviously all these bills are important. We want to give you an opportunity to present now.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you to your staff, in particular, Glenn Miles, for assisting us with this very important measure. And thank you to Members of the Assembly. Assembly Member Bonta and Flora, thank you for your accommodation. I appreciate that. I'm here to present SCA Seven, the right to organize and negotiate. State constitutional amendment is appropriate as a statement of our values that certain items be incorporated in the Constitution.

We've recently done that with reproductive rights and what this does is this incorporates in our Constitution, assuming that the voters of the State of California believe, as I do, that the right to organize and negotiate is and should be a constitutional right. California has a long history of upholding and protecting workers'rights, to organize, negotiate, improve wages, working conditions, and the quality of life. Unions help improve the conditions of the working people of California. They help to reduce income inequality. They provide for safer workplaces.

And this is now an issue of nationwide import. Sadly, there are states that basically are antagonistic to workers rights. There have been quite a number of them. In fact, Tennessee recently became the 10th state to incorporate into its constitutional, into its Constitution anti worker provisions. Five states have gone the other way, and California should be among those who protect as a constitutional amendment the right of workers to organize and to collectively bargain.

We have taken some amendments to resolve some of the issues that have been raised in terms of ambiguities, it's important to note that, and I'll read it verbatim, so that there is no ambiguity that, as to Section 1.5 B, all Californians shall have the right to join a union and to negotiate with their employers through their legally chosen representative.

We have struck or stricken the language and the right, so it now reads, through their legally chosen representative, to protect their economic well being and safety at work. We've also added the phrase, the Legislature shall provide for the enforcement of these rights, so that to the extent that folks are concerned about, for example, prisoners organizing, that the Legislature can circumscribe those rights so that if we should so choose to limit a prisoner's right to organize, we can do so.

I'm pleased to have President of the California State Building and Construction trades here with us. Mr. Andrew Meredith. And for technical questions, Scott Cronland, an attorney with the State Building trades. So with that, if I could turn it over to Mr. Meredith.

Mr. Meredith, over here. Would you prefer to sit down or use the podium?

Sure.

Thank you. Start.

Civil disobedience added to your Senator Cortese record. I'm not going to acknowledge whether or not that already exists on my record, but I want to, first of all.

Thank that so you're okay.

I appreciate that. I want to first start by thanking Senator Cortese and the Members of this Committee for hearing this issue today. I also want to thank our author, Senator Umberg, for his tireless work on behalf of this constitutional amendment and the vast array of supporters that we've already aligned on behalf of this righteous cause in the State of California.

So I want to talk briefly about why, as an organization of building trades Members, we believe that this is an important issue for the State of California to take up. And I want to divert quickly to a little bit about my personal background. I grew up, as some of you on the Committee know, in a relatively poor environment. There were times during my childhood where Christmases were small, where work opportunities for my mother, who was single.

At times during my childhood, work opportunities were low, and we struggled as a family. What provided us an opportunity to lift ourselves out of that situation when my mother was a single mom was an opportunity to work as a union teamster at a pharmaceutical distribution center right here in the City of Sacramento called McKesson Pharmaceuticals.

That job completely transformed the trajectory of my household as a teenager, elevated my mother to a homeowner, provided opportunities for us to do things as a family that we were not doing prior to that. As a former apprentice electrician, I can tell you getting into the IBEW also had a transformative effect on my trajectory.

As a young working person, my wife and I were able to buy our first home and have economic security because of my opportunity to join a union as the head of the state building trades. I want that opportunity for every worker in the State of California, not just in the construction trades, but in every single workplace in the State of California, from farm workers to teachers to warehouse workers.

We want that opportunity for all Californians to have the right to join a union, to have the right to collectively bargain with their employer. Sadly, this constitutional amendment is not the first in the United States of America. There are other states that have beaten California through the process of codifying these rights in the Constitution. The State of Hawaii, the State of New York, the State of Illinois. Recently, even the right to work State of Missouri has some rights codified in their own constitution.

What we're asking this Committee to do is to prioritize the rights of Californians and enshrine those in the Constitution so that there shall be no action taken through legislative process that does not involve the voters of California to strip those rights away from workers. Thank you. Thank you. Second witness, please.

Mr. Kronlen is here for technical questions.

Got it. Okay. Anyone else in the room who wishes to express support on the Bill thought there might be. Welcome.

Mr. Chair and Members Shibangi Damocos with the California Labor Federation. We're proud to sponsor this measure and strongly urge your aye vote. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU, California, in support. Navneet prayer, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Matt Kremens, on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Doug Subarz, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Good afternoon. Taylor Thompson. On behalf of Lieutenant Governor Elaine Kunalakis, in support. Thank you. Tiffany Monk. On behalf of CFT, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? All right, we'll move to opposition at this time. Welcome. You'll have a couple of minutes.

Of course, Mr. Chairman. Members Courtney Jensen, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition to this measure. We have the utmost respect for the author and appreciate the conversations we have had with him on this measure. Our goal continues to be understanding the unintended consequences of this Bill, particularly regarding extending unionization rights to positions currently excluded under the NLRA, including supervisors and managers, and with the language in Subdivision C of the Bill.

C restricts any law that could, quote, interfere with, negate or diminish the rights of employees. We are concerned that could have unintended consequences for a number of statutes, and because of the retroactive nature of the measure, it may possibly nullify bills, budget decisions, and ballot initiatives adopted this year and next. Just one example. We are concerned this language will prohibit necessary state and local budget actions that reduce public employment, such as current budget proposals to close several state prisons and facilities within prisons.

Elimination of employment positions obviously eliminates the ability of those workers to organize and bargain collectively. There are further potential impacts outlined in our letter. Respectfully, we continue to oppose this measure, and as the Bill moves forward, we look forward to further conversations with the author and sponsors. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of Anthony Thomas, California Building Industry Association, CBIA. First, I want to thank the author, as recently as last night, willing to entertain us and meet with us. Our concerns are similar to the chambers, but due to the language thinking that it prohibits anything that would diminish, again diminish the right to organize or collectively bargain could be interpreted to require that housing projects cannot be approved unless they are built with union labor.

The approval of housing projects involves a very, very complicated process, adoption of local ordinances such as the zoning Ordinance and building codes, which are adopted again locally by ordinance. Such a requirement would be actually an actual housing killer. And for the most part, Mr. Chair Members, that's the basis of our issues with the Bill, and we're looking for that point to be clarified and respectfully submit our opposition to there.

All right. Thank you for being here today. Are there others in the Committee room who wish to express opposition you can come forward with named affiliation?

Yeah. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association, and we're also opposed.

Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Leticia Garcia with the California Grocers Association, also opposed. Thank you. Morning, Mr. Chair. Carlos Gutierrez on behalf of the California Cotton Generators and Growers Association, Western ACt Process Association, and the American Council of Engineering Companies, California in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good morning. Victoria Rodriguez for Nielsen Marksmer on behalf of the Associated Builders and contractors to California and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Matt Sutton with the Restaurant Association in opposition as part of the coalition and looking for clarity. Thank you.

Thank you. I'd seen no other opposition testimony in the Committee room. We're going to go to the teleconference operator and ask the operator to bring up SCA 7. Any opposition in support on the teleconference line at this time?

Thank you. Anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 33. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Committee Members Louis Costa with the Sheet Metal, air, Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division, Smart PD in support. Now go to line 37. Pardon me just a moment. Line 37, your line is now open then. I've been. On behalf of the California League of Food Producers and opposition. Thank you. Line 35, Ryan Elaine, on behalf of the Killers Association and opposition, thank you. Line 31. Good afternoon. Johnny Piny with the League of California Cities with a concerns position. Looking forward to reviewing those amendments.

Thank you very much. Line 34. Michelle Warshaw on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurman, proud co sponsor in support. Line 18. Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, respectfully opposed. Line 38, Natalie Bost with the California. Business Roundtable, respectfully opposed. There is no one else.

All right. Thank you. Moderator we're going to come back to the Committee at this time and look for any comments, questions or concerns I see Senator Durazo wishing to be recognized.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you to the author. I think this is an idea that never even occurred to me. I've lived my entire life as an organizer in the workplace, whether regardless of the kinds of workers. But I don't think anybody really understands unless you've been in those kinds of situations.

I've gone through hundreds and hundreds of organizing campaigns where a basic, fundamental freedom is not respected, and that leads to people not being able to get the basics that they need for their families and for men and women to be denied such a basic freedom in the workplace. To say I want to collectively negotiate over this working condition is pretty shocking in a country as great as the United States. It always hit me, like, how could we have this incredible nation of freedoms?

But yet in the workplace, men and women are scared to death. Scared to death to stand up for basic things like health care or a better wage or just health and safety issues. So I really greatly appreciate you doing this, and I greatly appreciate the building trades for standing up on this issue, because it shows that our nation cannot be great, cannot be truly free, if in the workplace there is such high levels and prevalent levels of intimidation amongst people. So thank you.

Senator. I just want to also echo my colleagues sentiments and to thank the author for bringing this in. All of the coalition, the building trades, but also all of the coalitions that stand in support of this. And as you were speaking, I thought about my time on an organizing, large scale organizing campaign. And this worker, Anika, and I went to visit her, and she was washing her syringes out in her sink. She was diabetic, and she was organizing.

And we were on our way to a rally, and I was, what are you doing? She said, well, I can't afford to buy the syringes. I don't have health care. This is before all of the work around Obamacare. And it was such a matter of fact thing for her.

But it just struck me how much courage and that she had to go out there to fight, to say that she deserved to have a fair contract, to be able to have some control over her wages and working conditions and as a diabetic, to have an opportunity to have health care when she was working. And at the time, she was having to work a lot of shifts in this very bad job. So this Bill is really for Anika and for so many workers like her.

It's also a shame that we have just unions in this room, because when workers do well, our communities do well, we buy more homes. We are able to purchase more goods. We're able to invest in our children's education. We don't have homeless. There was a study that showed that unionized workers provide one of the strongest defenses against displacement and homelessness in LA County because they can afford to pay for their housing.

So this very important Bill is essential to not just the workers who want to unionize, but to our whole society, to our whole state, to turn our economy right side up so that the most vulnerable workers have an opportunity. So I'm so happy that you're bringing this, and I look forward to supporting this Bill and moving the motion when the time is right.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I'm going to make a quick comment, but I have a question going back to something the opposition brought up. First of all, I'm a co author, a proud co author of SCA Seven. The reason for that is, part of it is my own lived experience as a union friendly business person, a union friendly builder at 1.0 in my prior career. A union Member at 1.0 in my prior career career.

But those are all things that I think we all bring with us in terms of informing how we go sometimes on these kinds of issues. For me, it's actually hard to believe in some sense, and maybe that's just because I have a few miles on my odometer. Going back to my first union job at 17 years old, it's hard to believe that still, in California, the right to organize isn't enshrined.

That doesn't mean a mandate to be unionized or as far as I know, any other mandate on an employer other than to do. And I don't want to take liberties with, with Bill, the, the Bill with this whole issue. But the idea that what should be enshrined is labor peace, the right for people to peacefully organize.

In the State of California, I think we've all over the years done so many incremental things to try to create that, whether it be card check or other kinds of issues, that try to make it as friendly a process, as Democratic a process as we possibly can. Here we are in 2023 having a debate as to whether that just a fundamental right to get together and make a decision, do we want a union or not? Is still on the table. I don't think it should be.

I think it should just be, frankly, a minimum threshold. And I do think in terms of opposition, I respect the position that the opposition is in and people trying to protect business models that in some case have lower wages than what we see in a unionized environment. But I don't think it's a good argument to say, let's block the right to organize in order to protect our low wage structure.

I think the place to try to strike a deal on wages is at the bargaining table, but that requires the right to organize in the first place, and whatever happens, happens. So that's my two cent on that. But one concern I do have, and I know you share this, Senator Amber, you and I worked on some legislation early in this session. Very cooperatively. The two committees had to come to some consensus. And what we heard today was, and that Bill had an urgency clause.

And the Bill got to the governor's desk. It signed into law. It bridged a divide between management and labor. Management and labor came forward and said, good job, Matt, a boy. I don't think anybody wants to see something like that, including you and I, unwound by a constitutional amendment. Can you speak to that? Because I think there's probably a genuine concern there. We've heard from people this isn't going to hurt what happened three months ago or four months ago or last session.

Can you speak to that, please?

To the extent that we're going to allow the voters of the State of California to vote on this constitutional amendment, it embodies in the Constitution what is, for the most part, existing law in California. So to the extent there's an existing law that may unwind something that's already existent, my expectation is that's already been tested somewhere in the court. But it is clearly not our intent to unwind something that's already happened. This is prospective, so I would expect that we'll continue to have a conversation.

I realize that the folks who are concerned and legitimately concerned haven't had a chance to look at the amendments. The amendments are fresh off the press. But we did take heed of the fact that by including a right, for example, not just to organize, not just to collectively bargain, but also what some might have construed as a right to somehow protect their economic interests may be a bit confusing. So we've struck that, and this is a journey.

We've got a way to go before we even let the voters vote upon it. So we'll continue to have conversations.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your work and knowing your work and knowing what a sticker you are in many ways, for making sure that legislation today does not retroactively impact people who relied on the previous framework that we were operating in. I know that about you. I know you'll keep working on that issue to whatever extent is Necessary. So I am fully supportive, as I said. And if we have a motion, we can move forward with the item.

It's a move by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, and we'll ask the assistant take the role.

Please file item number 14, SCA 7. The motion is be adopted as amended to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. No. Wilk, no. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood Quevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This Bill is on Call and has three aye votes.

All right, has enough votes.

Thank you for your leadership on this issue.

We appreciate all the staff work on this particular measure as well. So thank you. We're going to come back to file order and get Assembly Member Flora up here. Again, I apologize for the inconvenience, but also thank you for your patience. This is Item 10 on our agenda, AB 1254. Thank you.

Thank you.

No problem at all. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 1254. In an effort to pay California firefighters or CAL FIRE firefighters a more reasonable and competitive wage, this bill seeks to bring parity and an appropriate compensation for state firefighters.

AB 1254 will provide some wage parity that aims to achieve the goals articulated in the legislative findings and declarations regarding recruitment and assist CAL FIRE in meeting the needs of the state during what is consistently and increasingly becoming an annual statewide fire season. With me to testify in support is Terry McHale with Aaron Read & Associates.

Please come up, Mr. McHale. Welcome.

Thank you. First of all, I want to thank Assembly Member Flora who runs this bill with a real affection for firefighters. He is himself a former CAL FIRE firefighter, and they're very proud to claim him as one of their own. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, you know the situation. We've had five years of catastrophic fires. CAL FIRE has the most diverse mission. They work the longest hours and they get among the least pay.

You can be a CAL FIRE captain, step off of an engine, and work in one of the major cities as a beginning firefighter and make the same amount of money. We have huge problems with retention, we have huge problems with recruitment, and clearly there's a problem with fairness. What this bill does is we've worked with HR. We took 20 fire departments with 75 members or more.

We will do the audit of what they make, and the decision is that they will make within 15 percent of the average. So we didn't try jamming anyone. We didn't say Top Five. We didn't say Top Ten. We said 15 percent of the average, which is a great place to begin the bargaining and a great place to move this forward to make sure that our firefighters are paid fairly and that we can retain these firefighters during these historic times. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your patience, and I ask for an aye vote.

All right, thanks for your testimony. Any other support witnesses, please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. I'd like to just thank the author for bringing this measure forward and echo the comments of the author and Mr. McHale. CPF represents more than 34,000 professional firefighters, including the CAL FIRE firefighters that are a member of Local 2881, so we are proud to be here in support today and would encourage your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for your testimony. Anyone else in the Committee room wishing to express support on AB 1254? Seeing none, is there an opposition witness? If so, please come forward at this time. Anyone? Is there anyone in the room who wishes to speak in opposition to AB 1254? Seeing no one come forward, Moderator, is there anyone on the teleconference line that wishes to speak in support or opposition to this item?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition, please press one then zero. There is no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you, Moderator. Appreciate your efficiency today. We are going to come back to the Committee. Any comments? Seeing none, we can entertain a motion. And Wilk moves the item. And Assembly Member, if you'd like to close?

I just respectfully ask for an aye vote, and this is something that's near and dear to my heart, and for the years that I spent at CAL FIRE to get them, quite frankly, the rates that they deserve is super important. I'm happy to be in a position to move this bill forward. So thank you so much for your time.

All right. Thank you for your work. We'll go ahead and--we have a motion by Senator Wilk. We'll go ahead and ask for the roll call vote now.

File Item Number Ten: AB 1254. 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? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is on call and currently has four aye votes.

All right. Four aye votes; enough to get out, and we'll leave it open. Thank you. And Assembly Member Bonta, thank you as well for your patience. I don't normally jump around so much on the file order, but thank you for being here. Yes, you may proceed whenever ready. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. In California, classified school employees perform many jobs that keep our schools clean, safe, and operative. Research indicates that a lower student to staff ratio in educational settings contributes to better outcomes for students' education and well-being. However, state law currently does not provide guidance on optimal ratios for classified staff and local education agencies. A student school day begins with the first school bus ride in the morning and ends when the custodian turns off the lights at night.

And in fact, we know that when our classified staff are running in full operation, they allow us to have children receive the food that they need, an opportunity to be on the buses that run on time, and the ability to make sure that they are taken care of in our administrative offices and in classrooms with paraprofessionals.

While the inadequate staffing and lack of best practices predates the COVID-19 Pandemic, the dangerous outcome is that students won't receive the necessary support that helps build a safe learning environment. To address this issue, AB 1273 convenes a work group establishing guidance for districts to hire the optimal ratio of classified staff and ensures a safe working and learning environment for all. With me today to testify on this bill is Tiffany Mok, a legislative representative for the California Federation of Teachers.

Hi. Please proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Members. The reason for this bill is simple. We currently know that school campuses have vacancies for classified positions, but we don't know what that truly means, and by that, we don't know the impact on the students. We only hear about how we need staff when there's a problem. We know that we need more food service workers when the last person in line gets--the student gets the lunch when the bell rings.

We know that we need more workers for drivers when we have to reduce the number of bus routes by a third in one district from 130 to 100. We know that we need more workers for financial aid when the students get the information assistance only after key deadlines, but as a state, we really can do better.

With basic guidelines, schools can use this to develop a baseline to understand how to staff properly so that we can implement programs that you support and pass and also continue the best services for all our students. So thank you to the author for this wonderful bill, and we're proud to sponsor this and urge your support.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else here to speak in support?

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Shaban, California Nurses Association, proud to support.

Thank you.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you.

Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you.

D'Artagnan Byrd on behalf of AFSCME California in support.

All right. Seeing no others coming forward in support, we'll ask if there's anyone here to speak in opposition to AB 1273. Here, meaning in the Committee room. Seeing no one come forward, we'll go to the Moderator. Moderator, please check to see if there's anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition on the teleconference line. This would be AB 1273. Thank you.

For anyone wishing to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one then zero. Press one then zero. We're going to go to line 29. Your line is now open.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Seth Bramble calling on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are in support.

And Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

Thank you. Thank you, Moderator. I should correct my last statement on the prior bill and say you're always efficient, not just today. So thank you very much. All right.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Got to watch my exact wording here and see a consistent Committee. That said, we'll bring it back to the Committee for conversation at this time.

I just want to thank the author for this bill and certainly, it doesn't go far enough on the ratios. We've got a very long way to go, but this is a very first step, particularly in our schools that are operating in low wage working communities. How do we ensure that we have equitable, educational access for them, and this is a big part of it, so I just want to say thank you for this and happy to support the bill when time is right.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak to it? We welcome Senator Laird. We will make sure he doesn't have anything to say on this bill. Good. A thumbs up is great communication and we will ask the author to close at this point and we'll call the roll call vote.

Thank you, Chair. To adequately support our students, we know that we need to make sure that we have the kinds of ratios that we need to and nothing more important than starting with the people who are most impacted to help establish that. With that, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. And I will take your support comment, Senator...

As a motion.

As a motion. Thank you very much. Motion by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, and now to the assistant for the roll call.

File Item Number 11: AB 1273. The motion is 'do pass but first we re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a four to zero vote.

Bill is out on four to zero. Just for the record, Senator Wilk isn't coming back and we will be operating with a maximum of four votes here the rest of the way which is one more bill, correct? And that is Item 12: AB 1359, and is the author here? Assembly Member Shiavo. Shiavo. Cortese.

Exactly. With the hands like this. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and Members. Very happy to be here today and grateful for the opportunity to present on AB 1359. I appreciate the work of the Committee staff and I'm happy to accept the amendments. AB 1359 would provide health care workers with seven paid sick leave days per year and the ability to defend themselves with civil action lawsuits. This will give health care workers the appropriate amount of time to recuperate when ill.

As a nurse advocate who worked with California Nurses Association for 13 years, I heard many, many stories where workers, especially since the Pandemic, have been pushed to come back to work too early. Working sick, putting patients' health at risk. We have a nurse here who's going to testify today, but from another RN, I heard a story of them working in a labor and delivery unit where they were pushed to come back while they were still recovering from COVID, putting moms and babies at risk.

And so we want to make sure that nurses and health care workers have the time that they need to be able to recuperate from being sick, making sure that they're not bringing illness into hospital settings or health care settings where people have compromised immune systems and could be putting them at risk. Even though COVID is not the crisis that it was before, it's still here, and we know that people are facing this in the hospitals and still need time to recover.

AB 1359 would supply them with the day's rest that they deserve, the opportunity to defend their right to use it, and with me today, I have the SEIU State Council, Matt Lege, and also the registered nurse from SEIU, One to One RN Member Anjelica Jackson to speak.

All right, please come on up. Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you so much for having me here today. My name is Anjelica Jackson. I'm an emergency department nurse at Providence St. Joseph Medical Center in Burbank, where I have worked for seven years. I want to thank the Committee for hearing us today. The bill we're here to discuss is AB 1359 is extremely important for health care workers like me.

This bill might only be about protecting a few additional days of sick leave, but that will mean a world of difference to those of us who have had that needed time off denied. This is not a theoretical, it is something that is happening in our hospitals. Health care workers I've spoken to have faced retaliation for taking the sick days they need to heal from illness and/or recovery from other trauma.

As a single mother who is a primary caregiver to my son, there are many times where he will get sick unexpectedly. This is why additional protected time is so important. I was left to choose between going to work to pay the bills or being there at my son's side while he was in the hospital. It may sound unbelievable if you haven't experienced it directly, but some employers actually have policies that discipline and sometimes even terminate health care workers for taking their accrued sick leave.

These policies are the same ones being used at Amazon and Walmart. As you know, we are facing a crisis in health care. Nurses are leaving the profession in droves, including my hospital. This is not just because of the pressures created by the Pandemic. It is not simply what we commonly call 'burnout.' Nurses are leaving because they feel that they do not have the support of their hospitals.

During the Pandemic, many health care workers were asked to come in and work while they were sick, putting their patients at risk. That should not have been the case then, and it certainly should not be the case now. Even though the Pandemic is over, other pressures remain. Workplace violence directed at health care workers is a constant threat. Unsafe staffing is still a problem at many hospitals throughout our state. Many of us do not have enough staff to care for our patients, and that creates immense pressure.

It is not uncommon for nurses to go 12-hour shifts without a break to use the bathroom or eat a meal. These are workplace hazards, and they result in physical injuries and mental and emotional distress. If health care workers have to do work while recovering from these maladies, they cannot perform at their best, which means that the people they care for are less safe.

Giving health care workers time to recover without fearing retaliation or shame for taking that time isn't just for health care workers, it is for our patients too, and though it won't solve the turnover crisis alone, it is one of the easiest legislative tools we can create to help stem the tide of turnover. On behalf of all of us who truly care about our patients and our coworkers, I'm asking for your support for AB 1359 today. I thank you again for your time.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California, proud sponsor of this bill. Do want to thank the Committee staff and the author for carrying this bill and Committee staff for working on it with us. Really appreciate their technical assistance. This bill is really important because we want to make sure that health care workers are at their peak and prime to be able to deliver the care necessary for their patients if they're falling asleep at the wheel.

We worry that how are you putting the needle into the person's arm, for example? And so we think this bill is critically important for that. Health care workers are majority women, 72 percent women, 68 percent people of color, and 66 are the primary breadwinner in their family, so their ability to take time off without fear of termination or discipline is critical so that they can take care of their family and then take care of us as well.

However, some health care employers have created policies, in terms of their attendance policies, that have created a situation where their workers are getting disciplined for taking that necessary time off, and we want to ensure that this bill will help allow health care workers to take that time necessary so they can recover. As mentioned, health care workers are burned out, they're tired, and expanding sick leave has shown to lower psychological stress, occupational injuries, and reduce turnover which is something that is critical for us to do.

This bill will also strengthen the workers' ability to defend their right to take that time off by allowing them to care, to take action against their employers for denying them the right to take sick leave. We believe--we've had productive conversations with the opposition and look forward to continuing those conversations and hopefully come to a compromise. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on the bill.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else in the hearing room who wishes to testify in support?

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

Thank you. Next.

Good afternoon. D'Artagnan Byrd, AFSCME California, in support.

Thank you. I see no one else come forward in support; we'll move to opposition. Is there a primary opposition witness? Welcome.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. Rony Berdugo here on behalf of the California Hospital Association. As described in our letter, we remain respectfully opposed unless amended to the bill, and while we are opposed, I do want to say that we have been in close communication with the author and the sponsors in trying to find a common ground on this proposal.

I do have to admit, however, that it's been challenging and part of the reason why it's been challenging is because we're trying to understand what's going to happen with the other sick leave bill, SB 616, which is now in the Assembly, and how that bill will be reconciled with the sick leave proposal in this bill.

However, I will say we are still fully committed to finding a path forward with the author and the sponsor that hopefully works for all parties and that doesn't create confusing or duplicative leave policies should the bill move out of Committee today. So, happy to take any questions if there are any. Without that, thank you.

Well, thank you. We'll let you know when we come back to Committee later. Anyone else here in the room who wishes to speak in opposition? I'm seeing none, Moderator, please check to see if there's anyone who wishes to express opposition or support on the teleconference line. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, there is no one.

Thank you. I feel like saying thank you twice, but we'll just leave it at that. We do welcome public comment, but we're at the end of our Committee hearing today, and I'll turn to Committee Members now to see if there's any comments or concerns. The bill has a motion by Senator Durazo and Assembly Member, you can close, and maybe you can correct me on the pronunciation of your name as well so I get it right next time.

You are absolutely saying it correctly. There are some in my family who say it that way. There's Shivo, Shiavo and Skiavo. I accept all of them.

Wonderful. I have a very similar experience.

Yes, I'm sure you know. You know how that goes.

All right, thank you. Please proceed to close if you wish.

Oh, yeah. Thank you so much. We absolutely are still having open conversations with opposition. Think that we can come to a resolution and we're all smart people. We have super smart staff too, and we can figure out how these bills work together and complement each other. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, and we do have a motion by Senator Durazo, and with that, we'll call the roll.

File Item Number 12: AB 1359. The motion is 'do pass but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.' Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a four to zero vote.

Congratulations. The bill is out four to zero. Thank you, and we will now lift the call. Do we want to call the consent item first?

Okay. Everyone ready?

Yes, I think so. Does she--

Senator Durazo's all good.

All right, good. Go fix our budget now.

All right. Moving on to the call items. We'll start with the items on consent. They are Number Three, Five, Nine, and Thirteen. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. These items are out on a five to zero vote.

All right, consent is out on a five to zero vote.

We'll go in file order now. File Item Number One: AB 521. The motion is 'do pass but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' The Chair is voting aye. The Vice Chair is voting aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

Bill is out on a five to zero vote.

File Item Number Two: AB 647. The motion is 'do pass but first amend and re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.' The Chair is voting aye. The Vice Chair is voting no. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is out on a four to one vote.

AB 647 is out on a four to one vote.

File Item Number Four: AB 775. The motion is 'do pass but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' The Chair is voting aye. The Vice Chair is voting no. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is out on a four to one vote.

AB 775 is out on a four to one vote.

File Item Number Six: AB 1356. The motion is 'do pass but first re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary.' The Chair is voting aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a four to zero vote.

All right. The bill's out on a four to zero vote.

Is everything okay?

Okay. File Item Number Seven: AB 1123. The motion is 'do pass but first re-refer to the Committee on Education.' The Chair is voting aye. The Vice Chair is voting no. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is out on a four to one vote.

Yes.

All right. AB 1123 is out on a four to one vote.

File Item Number Eight: AB 1213. The motion is 'do pass but first re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations.' The Chair is voting aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is out on a four to zero vote.

All right. AB 1213 is out on a four to zero vote.

File Item Number 10: AB 1254. 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 Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This bill is out on a five to zero vote.

All right. AB 1254 is out unanimously.

Last, File Item Number 14: SCA 7. The motion is 'be adopted as amended to the Committee on Elections and Constitutional Amendments.' The Chair is voting aye. The Vice Chair is voting no. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. This item is out on a four to one vote.

SCA 7 is out on a four to one vote. All right. Thank you. Yes. Thank you all. Even though the Committee room is now empty, let me just say on the record, thank you to everyone who testified today. Tried to thank people along the way. I thought all the testimony was on point today, and that's always helpful. It helps us move along the agenda today and actually have a pretty efficient Committee meeting today.

Also, thank you very much to the Committee Members and thank you to the Committee staff for all the excellent preparation. There were a number of bills today that were amended one way or the other, and we know that requires extra work by the Committee staff. So again, thank you all, and with that, we will adjourn today's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee meeting, and we'll see you next time.