Assembly Standing Committee on Communications and Conveyance

Today's agenda has two items, and there are no items on the proposed consent calendar. Before we begin our Bill presentations, I'd like to take care of some logistical housekeeping. If any Member of the public in the room would like to testify on a Bill during the public comment period, I'll invite you to approach the microphone at the appropriate time.

I'd like to ask that the public not touch the microphone if you can exit the hearing room, or you're welcome to exit the hearing room once you're done testifying, or you can return to your seat. Now, let's cover the ground rules for appropriate conduct. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to the Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited.

Such conduct may include talking or making loud noises from the audience, uttering loud, threatening, or abusive language, speaking longer than the time allotted, extended discussions of matters not related to the subject of the hearing or the Bill, and any other disruptive acts. To address any disruptive conduct, I will take the following steps if an individual disrupts our hearing process, I'll direct them to stop and warn them that continued disruptions may result in removal from the Capitol Building.

I'll also document on the record the individual involved and the nature of the disruptive conduct. I may temporarily recess the hearing. If the conduct does not stop, I will request the assistance of the Sergeants in escorting the individual from the Capitol Building. So, we're going to start today as a Subcommitee, and once we do have enough Members for quorum, then we'll probably interrupt any of your presentations so that we can establish a quorum. This morning we have four items no, two items.

Two items to be heard in Committee, and we'll operate as a subscommittee, and we'll proceed to item one. So, we have today we're hearing SB 429 by Senator Bradford relating to transportation network companies. Senator Bradford, if you and your witnesses would like to come forward.

Move the Bill. Thank you, Madam Chair. First, let me start out by stating we'll take the Committee's proposed amendment and appreciate the chair and the Committee's work in getting us this far. Thousands of Californians choose to earn money as a driver for transportation network companies, better known as TNCs, such as Uber and Lyft. Some work on a regular basis, and many work intermittent or part time a lot. Appreciate the flexible work hours.

Regardless of the frequency of their work, all are required to receive a vehicle inspection from the Bureau of Automotive Repair Certified facility annually. However, locating a station or scheduling the vehicle inspections are often met with long wait times. Due to limited number of these facilities and inspection shops throughout the district throughout California, most drivers have to do a lot of travel just to reach some of these facilities. Like other professional services, the vehicle inspection industry has adopted virtual options.

Today, even California State agencies, including Caltrans, are utilizing virtual vehicle inspections. This Bill will modernize the vehicle inspection requirements for TNC drivers by authorizing them to use a remote or virtual inspection, making work opportunities more accessible for drivers, while ensuring that the drivers are compensated for the time it takes to complete inspection. Testifying with me today is Lydia Olsen, a ride share driver, and Lia Nitake. Help me out. That Nitake. I should have known that. I just had to look at it. Deputy Executive Director of Technac. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for aye vote. I'm sorry.

Thank you. Before you begin, if it's okay with your witnesses so we can establish a Quorum Committee secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With that, we have established quorum. You may proceed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Chair Berner and Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Lydia Olson. I have been a rideshare driver for coming up on six years now. I also admin one of the largest driver Facebook groups in the Bay Area, so I'm pretty confident about what drivers need and want, and I'm engaged in a lot of the other Facebook driver groups as well. I'm here today to express my support for SB 429 and to thank Senator Bradford.

I know can you hear me better? See looking out for us again. Thank you very much. So we want to thank you for addressing this minor but important issue that's increasingly becoming a barrier to work for the hundreds of thousands of Californians that choose to make money through rideshare. We appreciate you looking out for us, and you also win the award for the best looking outfit today.

Patterson might have something to say about that.

Patterson looks good too.

Right answer.

The Bill itself is very simple. It allows the CPUC's required annual vehicle inspection to be completed virtually or remotely. It requires the same level of safety standards by the same certified professionals that has existed for more than a decade. Many of the rideshare hubs that provide these inspections have closed down since the pandemic, so access has become a real issue. I see Facebook posts of drivers all the time looking for options about where to get their vehicles inspected.

Plus, under the Bill, we'd be compensated for our time, which is a nice new incentive. You all probably know people who use rideshare services, or maybe you use us or yourself. So anything we can do to help keep or get drivers on the road benefits all of us. Inspections should not be a deterrent to being able to work. I've also learned, as Senator Bradford was saying, that our California government, state agencies are utilizing a virtual process for vehicle inspections as well.

So giving us a virtual option will make this process more accessible, more affordable, and is better for all parties involved. So hopefully it should be a no brainer, because this seems so straightforward. I struggle to understand how there's opposition to something that so clearly benefits drivers. And honestly, I take a bit of offense to the repeated assertions by those who would be opposed to this that I'm being victimized or exploited as being an independent contractor, rideshare driver.

It basically implies that I'm not competent to make my own decisions. And if I wanted to be an employee, I would choose that. I've been an employee before, and now I choose to be independent. So I have very specific and personal reasons why I'm choosing to do this, and it should be just that, my choice. Unfortunately, if you read the opposition's arguments, they don't have anything to do with this Bill. The opposition is still focused on an ongoing effort to take away this type of work.

So I also want to point out that those who may be the most visible on a topic or the loudest don't necessarily represent all of the drivers or the points that we're trying to make. Working independently has been critical for me personally. My husband was diagnosed with MS just over 10 years ago, right after we got married.

And so the flexibility of this work allows me to provide the critical support that he needs, both in home care appointments and even if we end up in the hospital for a week, which when I say we, is my time close?

Okay. Sorry.

Yes.

We have four minutes for each side, and you're at three minutes and 45 seconds.

I will finish quickly. Thank you so much. I saw you hovering over the button there. So a traditional job would not allow me the flexibility that I need to care for my husband. And honestly, I really like this type of work. In five and a half years, I've probably met 20,000 people, and I've had some amazing experiences. I mean, I picked up rideshare out of an unexpected financial need five and a half years ago, and now I get to be here talking to you.

And I would just want to implore you to continue to focus on what the drivers really want, and that's going to include making it easy for us to have these inspections done. So I encourage you.

Thank you.

Pass this Bill thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, Lia Nitake with TechNet. And we're proud to support SB 429. This Bill would modernize an existing regulation that's placed on TNC drivers. Under CPUC regulations, drivers must complete regular vehicle inspections for basic safety features. These include things like seatbelts, windshield wipers, and turn signals. Right now, TNC drivers must go to a physical location to have these inspections completed. Over half of drivers need to travel over 35 total miles to have this kind of inspection done.

But in the decades since the CPUC regulations were established, technology has come a long way. It's now possible for the same licensed mechanics to perform this kind of inspection remotely, over video. This Bill would simply enable drivers to have these inspections performed remotely if they choose. We thank the author for bringing this Bill forward to help more workers benefit from the cost and time savings of this kind of innovative new technology. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on SB 429.

And if I may, Cal Chamber had to step out, but they'd also like to register their support for the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, we'll move to additional witnesses in support. You may approach the microphone with your name, affiliation, and position only, please. No other witnesses in support. Seeing that moving on, are there any witnesses in opposition in the hearing room? Come on forward. And you'll have four minutes and 45 seconds. Thank you.

Madam Chair Member. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. And we have an opposed unless amended position. And we very much appreciate the author coming forward to codify something that will make it easier for drivers having the virtual inspections. But since this is codifying a regulation, putting it into law, we do feel that there needs to be amendments to make sure that drivers are compensated for the time that they're going to be getting these inspections and compensated under the Labor Code.

So it's not where it currently is under Prop 22, where drivers could be compensated in non monetary compensation. It could be an Uber water bottle. It doesn't have to be actual wages. We are requesting an amendment that they be compensated currently under the Labor Code or the wage orders, which is simply minimum wage for their time. We also are asking that drivers be reimbursed for the cost of these inspections. This is not just a one time thing. It is ongoing.

Under the Labor Code, private sector drivers would be reimbursed for all of the expenses gas, maintenance, repairs, inspections. We are simply asking in this Bill, because it is codifying the requirement that they have these inspections, that drivers be reimbursed for the cost, which could be $40 multiple times a year. We are not asking this Committee to adjudicate the existing legal, ongoing legal battle over Prop 22.

We are simply saying that when you codify these requirements, that there should be protections for workers to make sure that they do not have additional expenses put on them through statute. And so for those reasons, we are opposed unless amended. And in our letter, we outline the specific amendments that we are asking for simply for compensation and reimbursement. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition? You may approach the mic in the hearing room. Name, affiliation and position only, please.

Madam Chair Member Shane Gusman on behalf of the teamsters in opposition, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

So we have a motion by Patterson, a second by Davies. Any questions from Members of the Committee? Sorry, Mia. Sorry. Assembly Member Bonta.

Thank you. I know that there was a similar Bill last year that came before this Committee and then also to the floor AB 2716. And I understand that with Prop 22, voters did decide the status of drivers as independent contractors. However, I certainly agree with many of the points raised by the opposition regarding fair compensation to drivers for inspections.

So to the author, do you see a pathway to a middle ground that recognizes their current independent contractor status but also ensures that these drivers are fairly compensated for their time as well as the cost of inspection?

That's a reasonable expectation, and I mean, I think it's a fair request and something that will be considered moving forward for sure.

So given the fact that we're kind of at the same place with this Bill, I think I will certainly trust the author to continue to take these opportunities to ensure fair compensation for drivers into consideration. And I will be voting for this Bill right now, but certainly Reserve the right to vote no on the floor if those amendments aren't included.

Thank you. Assembly Member anybody else want to speak discussions? Yes, Dr. Weber.

Thank you, Senator. And maybe this is more a question for the opposition. When you refer to compensation, like full compensation for all of the inspections that they would have, considering the fact that there's a range in price, were you thinking that compensation up to a certain amount or just wherever the individual chooses to go? So a company could pay the $40 or they could be required to pay the $400 depending on where that particular individual chose to go.

Through the chair. So the way that it works in the labor code, it's reimbursement for expenses that are required by the employer, so it would be where the driver chose to go. I assume that because there's a contractual relationship between the TNC and the driver, there could be a requirement by the TNC that they say where the driver should have the vehicle inspection done. But once the driver had that inspection done, then the reimbursement they would need to reimburse for that cost.

Okay, so the TNC could determine where and if that particular driver chose to go somewhere else, then it would be on then that driver would pay the cost of that inspection.

I assume under their contractual agreement with the TNCs, they could put that requirement in.

Any other questions from the Committee Members comments? Assembly Member Holden.

More of a comment. Does this go to Appropriations? After this Committee, I'm going to give a courtesy vote. I appreciate, and I trust the author at his word that he's going to continue to have conversations and will reserve additional rights to review the Bill at that stage. But I'm prepared to support it moving forward today.

Thank you. Okay, with that, I have to change out the glasses. I obviously need biofocals now. We have a motion by Patterson, second by Davies. Senator Bradford, would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair, Members, and I understand the concerns that have been stated, but this is a straightforward measure. The state, as stated, is already using these virtual inspections and this makes it easier for folks to continue working and earning income that we're all concerned about and just makes the process a whole lot simpler. And this is where we are with technology and everything like that. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

And thank you, Senator Bradford, for your presentation and thank you for working with us on the amendments. I also want to thank the Members for the discussion. Virtual inspections for TNC drivers are a common sense measure, and that is the primary focus of this Bill. The PUC has an existing regulatory requirement for years, which this Bill isn't seeking to change. Nonetheless, the elephant in the room when it comes to TNCs and their drivers continues to be Prop 22 and the independent contractor status of the drivers.

I wanted to take a moment to address that in particular, because for me, this was kind of the crux of what amendments was I going to require in this Committee? And first, the voters have decided the independent contractor status of the TNC drivers. We all certainly have our opinions on the policy and we all chose to exercise our votes in line with our values on that initiative, but we should respect the results to the extent as it is the law of the land. Right now.

In fact, TNC drivers are currently considered independent contractors and as such, not entitled to the same pay or benefits as employees. I believe the analysis does a thorough job of explaining how Prop 22 impacts compensation in relation to this Bill. As it stands, the California Supreme Court will be reviewing the constitutionality of that initiative, and if it's ultimately overturned, then the compensation drivers are owed in terms of wages and benefits will certainly change along with it.

Nonetheless, as it stands, TNC drivers are not employees, and I do not believe it is warranted in this Bill, which is the focus is to authorize virtual inspections to litigate the effects of Prop 22 or driver pay and benefits. In fact, I had to take a rideshare service back from the airport on Monday when I landed in San Diego and I asked my driver about the vehicle inspections. And one, I think there's a lot more work we could do on this.

The inspections for one rideshare service and another rideshare service are identical, but they have to pay twice for that same thing. And that's something one can consider in the future to streamline that. They don't have to pay twice because it's the same inspection for the same vehicle. So that's something that could be fixed, but it's not in the scope of this Bill.

And two, he was describing to me what other costs are associated with being a rideshare driver and with being a driver that are not even included in this, where vehicle inspections, the time taken for that, the cost of that, the vehicle registrations, a number of things fall into this category of are you an independent contractor? And therefore, for example, the vehicle inspections, my driver is like, yeah, I put that as part of my expenses when I write it off on my taxes. Right.

So that's how it's currently done for independent contractors. Now, if they were employees, that's a very different situation. Right. If an employee mandates a certain type of requirement, the opposition is right. As an employee, they would be entitled to all of that to be compensated. So this is really the crux of the matter. And that's why I think we have the recommendation to pass SB 429 by Senator Bradford as due pass as amended and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. We have a motion in a second, and will the Secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

SB 429 has passed and we'll leave the roll open so that Members can add their votes.

Thank you, ma'am. Chair Members.

Let's open it up so Assembly Member Hoover can add on.

Bradford for SB 429. Hoover aye. Hoover? Aye.

So our next Bill on the agenda, please approach we're hearing is SB 757 by Senator Archuleta related to railroads, contract crew transportation vehicles. Senator Archuleta, you may open, and I think you have two primary witnesses and you will have two minutes each when the time is appropriate. Thank you. We have a motion and a second.

Okay. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Assembly Members. Committee Members, thank you for today allowing me to present Senate Bill 757 to ensure that all rail workers who are transported between work sites are transported with proper permitting and insurance. This Bill will help workers safe and ensure the California's vital rail workers be taken care of in case of transportation accident.

Specifically, this Bill would define the term contract crew, transportation, vehicle as a motor vehicle primarily used by third parties under contract with the railroad corporation and to transport railroad crews. The Bill would prohibit the operation of contract crew transportation vehicles without a Z permit and prohibit a Z permit holder from subcontracting to someone that does not operate with a Z permit. For reference, the Z permit holders are specialized carriers who do not serve the General public.

They provide service under contract with industrial and business firms, governmental agencies and private schools as a transport workers. Ensuring that these companies all operate under Z permit will allow for uniform permitting and licensing to end the practice of rail workers being transported under the regulated vehicles. Just as important, Senate Bill 757 would simplify minimum insurance standards for operating a contract true transportation vehicle.

The insurance requirements under this Bill would be 5 million in combination with single limit coverage for bodily injury and property damage liability coverage, as well as 1 million for uninsured and underinsured motorist vehicles. Rail workers are the backbone of our economy. They run and work hard. They work long hours to ensure our stores, our shelves, our goods are moved and transported to feed the General public and our nation.

It is not a surprise to anyone, not a surprise to anyone, that rail workers and rail working is a dangerous job. However, the General public does not know and realize that transporting and transportation and vans between work sites is actually one of the most dangerous parts of the job.

It is extremely important for California to adopt standards to ensure that the transportation of workers is done in a safe manner and there is an adequate insurance in the case of the accident or in case of an accident.

So with me today to testify to answer any technical questions are Louis Costa, Director of the California State Legislative Board of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division, as well as Ryan Snow, the Chairman of the California State Legislative Board on the Brotherhood of Locomotive, Engineers and Trainmen.

Thank you.

With this, I respectfully ask for your vote.

Thank you. You each have two minutes, but you do have a motion and a second.

I had many, many events over the weekend, yelling and screaming and saying hello, as all of you, I'm sure did. And I think I left my voice at one of the fireworks stands. Thank you Madam Chair.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, thank you for your time today. My name is Ryan Snow. I'm the Chairman for the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers and Trainmen. California State Legislative Board. SB 757 is a beginning step of ensuring safe, regulated transportation for a specialized group of employees. These employees are locomotive engineers and conductors. They were too vital to the nation's economy to be allowed to conduct a legal strike after bargaining rounds failed.

Unlike other industries, these vital railroad employees, when injured, are not covered by workers compensation. They are forced through a gauntlet of filing a lawsuit under the Federal Employers Liability Act to cover some of the damages caused when injured on the job. These expenses include medical bills, lost wages and legal fees. However, it is a fault based system and negligence must be proven to recover any damages.

Placing a crew Member in a vehicle is not by itself negligence, and as fila is fault based, this is not a viable protection. Railroading has always been a dangerous job. During a normal day of transporting thousands of tons of freight and hundreds of passengers efficiently attempting to comply with a plethora of regulations, requirements, rules, detector issues and other failures while operating trains, locomotive engineers and conductors rely on each other heavily to ensure all Members of the crew and public go home safely.

One aspect that is completely out of hands as skilled professionals is performed while being transported in contract vehicles. SB 757 has nothing to do with collective bargaining, is about safety and minimal insurance protection. SB 757 is a vital step in preventing tragedies like the one that occurred to brother Alexander Sassman, who was killed in an on duty motor vehicle accident while riding in a taxi near Fairfield in May 16, 2015. He was one of two railroad employees that were in a taxicab when the driver fell asleep and unfortunately rolled the vehicle.

Thank you, your two minutes are over.

You could close.

Okay.

Okay. Again, this Bill is an urgent step in the right direction to protect highly skilled and vital rail employees and improve protections that should have been provided long ago. I thank you for your time and urge for an aye vote.

Mr. Snow.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division. I'm going to follow the Chair's lead and just simply say that most railroaders fear driving in a vehicle more than working around the equipment specifically because they are not in control and they're on the streets. I want to thank Senator Archuletta and his staff. I want to thank Madam Chair and the Committee for the Time respectfully ask for your vote.

So if you have a position in support of opposed, please come up to the mic name, affiliation and position only.

Good afternoon. Smart Transportation Division, local 121, Stockton, California in support. Legislative representative, Division 839 in support. Jerry PDA, Brotherhood of Local Motor Engineers and Chairman 660 Los Angeles, in support.

Thank you.

Jamie Pocket, local Chairman, Smart Transportation Division 1241 in support. Thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, in support. Trevor haddocks smart TD. Transportation Division 492 Roseville Sacramento in support. Thank you.

Thank you. And do we have any opposition in the room? No primary witnesses are registered. If you're in the Member of the public and want to pose the Bill, you can come up to the Mic. Name, affiliation, position only. Seeing none, there's no opposition. Okay, good. Seeing none, I'll return to the Committee Members. Any questions from the Committee Members? Seeing none, I have a motion by Pappin and a second. Was it by Rodriguez? Second by Rodriguez. Senator, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for it, or I thought I'll run out of the voice. So thank you so very much, all of you. Thank you. And thank you for your vote.

Thank you. Senator Archuleta, I appreciate your engagement on this Bill. And thank you also to the supporters of this Bill for helping to bring this Bill to the State Legislature. Railroad workers are a part of the backbone of this country and they deserve a safe workplace with adequate work site protections. I have been Frank with the sponsors that I question whether or not this Bill will be a comprehensive solution to the issue, but nonetheless, it's a step in the right direction. I'm happy to support this Bill. Today, we have a motion and a second. And the motion is SB seven. 57 by Senator Archuleta is due pass and rerefer to the Committee on Appropriations. Will the secretary please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. We're leaving it open for others to add on. Thank you very much for your time and have a wonderful day.

Thank you. Madam Chair.

We're going to go ahead and add on to SB 429 by Senator Bradford. Secretary would please call the roll?

This is for SB 429. Luz Rivas. Luz Rivas. Aye.

So we're waiting on Assemblymember Maienschein. Maienschein to Communication and Conveyance hearing. Okay, final votes on SB 429. Ayes 12, no zero. That Bill is out. And SB 757, ayes nine, noes two. That bills out. Thank you. And with that, the Communication and Conveyance hearing is now adjourned.