Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Welcome everyone to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. For this hearing, testimony is in person, but we do accept written testimony through the Position Letter Portal on the Committee's website. We also have an email address set up that you can use to email us your testimony. The email is ALBR dot Committee at Assembly dot CA g o v. ALBR dot Committee at Assembly dot CA dot gov. And whether you do it through the portal or through email, that all becomes part of the record.

We need one more Member to establish quorum, so we'll take role as soon as we get another Member. So we will proceed as a Subcommitee at this time since we do have an author here. And so we have for file item two, SB 553. Senator Cortese, whenever you're ready, feel free to get settled and begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm pleased to present SB 553, a workforce safety bill sponsored by the United Food and Commercial Workers, co-sponsored by AFSCME, AFLCIO, of course. SB 553 will strengthen existing laws related to workplace violence by expanding the ability of employers to protect their workers workplace safety and by creating additional enforceable protections for employees.

OSHA has identified workplace violence as the second leading cause of fatal occupational injury at the workplace, and estimates that nearly 2 million workers are affected by workplace violence each year. As you may recall, and I know you recall, Mr. Chair, because you were right there with me. On May 26 of 2021, a VTA employee entered the Guadalupe Yard of the Valley Transportation Authority in our respective districts and killed nine of his coworkers at the facility before taking his own life.

In response to that tragedy, we were able to get SB 1294 signed into law. The bill promoted employee wellness and safety in high stress industries by creating a path to expanded worker wellness centers. That was a good first step, but our work is not complete. Unfortunately, workplace shootings are becoming more and more common. In June of 2022, a Safeway employee in my district in San Jose, Manuel Huizar Cornejo, was shot and killed during a robbery inside the store.

The Legislature has made some impressive strides on reducing workplace violence. In 2017, after the passage of SB 1299 by then California's State Senator Alex Padilla, Cal OSHA officially adopted pivotal healthcare workplace violence prevention standards. Yet these standards only increase protections for healthcare workers, excluding most of California's workforce. That said, six years ago, Cal OSHA circulated a General Industry Workplace Violence Discussion Draft outlining workplace violence prevention standards for non-healthcare workers.

However, that draft is significantly weaker protections for all workers than the healthcare workplace violence standard, similar as they may be. I acknowledge that the six years of planning is not due to inaction. Fine tuning other policies and the reality of the COVID-19 impacted the draft timeline, of course. Nevertheless, we need to accelerate a standard with robust protections. I feel we can't stand by while incidents of workplace violence continue to rise. And I know many of you feel the same way as well.

SB 553 will expedite workplace violence prevention standards for non-healthcare workers, workers, and offer all workers, in other words, industry wide, the same quality of protections that healthcare workers enjoy through articulated workplace violence prevention plans. And that's what this bill calls for, plans, data collection on workplace violence incidents, effective training, and expanding employee protections, 553 will help ensure accountability. It's been unfortunate to see the degree of disinformation that's circulated regarding the bill. Some going as far as to say the bill is legislating shoplifting or legalizing it somehow.

Just the opposite. SB 553 clearly states the need for shoplifter training, acknowledging that in certain environments, like retail, the plan may require, the employer may want to require security personnel be present. The company has the discretion to decide, but if they decide so, it should be included in the plan. That's what we're trying to say here. Furthermore, non-security personnel should never be put in confrontational situations. We've made a clear distinction in the bill between security and non-security roles.

We've adopted amendments to further clarify definitions listed in the bill to further discourage misinformation, and this demonstrates our commitment to continual dialogue on the bill. We acknowledge that SB 553 won't eliminate workplace violence. However, it will better equip and prepare workers on how to respond when workplace violence situations arise. We do have with us today Jassy Grewal of UFCW and Janice O'Malley of AFSCME. I would thank you and at the appropriate time, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. And as is the case for all the bills today, as is the case in every one of our Committee hearings, each side can have up to two witnesses, and each witness can speak for up to two minutes. Jassy...

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Jassy Grewal with the United Food and Commercial Workers Western States Council, proud to support SB 553. California workers should not have to wake up each morning afraid that they will be assaulted or killed while at work. Unfortunately, we've seen the opposite is true. For far too many Californians, the stress of simply earning a living and providing for a family is inhumanely, compounded by a daily terror of being violently attacked while at work.

Both data and experience show their fear is warranted. Over the last several years, reports of workplace violence from our members have skyrocketed. It is now sadly true that most of our members have been a victim of at least one incident of threatened or actual violence, and many, intolerably, experience workplace violence on a regular basis. Our members have been robbed at gunpoint. They've been attacked physically, some to the point of needing to be hospitalized.

They've been spat upon by people infected with COVID-19, they've been routinely threatened with violence, and a few members have even been murdered while performing their jobs. The following real world experiences of our members illustrate the human cost of such violence, and I want to share two examples related to shoplifting. In San Jose, a Safeway employee was shot and killed during a robbery inside the store.

There was an altercation between the Safeway employee and the assailant, who was in the alcohol section stealing liquor, which, per company policy, requires the untrained worker to approach the assailant. In another incident, two men came into the Rite Aid store in Eagle Rock to steal beer. As they were leaving the store with several cases of beer, the cashier approached them, per company policy. One of the men pulled out a gun and shot the cashier in the chest.

The cashier died in the arms of his coworker while they waited for an ambulance to arrive. All of these examples underscore the need for basic workplace violence prevention protections that are exception free and easily enforceable across all work sites in California. It even further underscores why companies should not maintain policies that require untrained workers to approach suspected shoplifters as the only deterrence policy. There are safer ways to encourage deterrence, but workers should not be collateral damage to keep products safe in their store. It is for these reasons and more, we strongly urge your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. Just want to thank the author for his work on this bill, but also both to the author and for the Chair for just being great advocates for for workers who've been victims of violence in the workplace. This bill is really important to our members, especially this year. We had members who came to us from a variety of sectors that we didn't anticipate experienced the increased levels of violence.

Our librarians from the City of LA and also East Bay Parks and Rec, those folks reached out to us about concerns for increased violence from the public. We have to do something. We don't want this to get to the level of the tragic experience that folks from Santa Clara VTA had. In fact, one of those individuals who was tragically murdered was a member of ours. This is an important first step.

We can lead the nation in coming up with a plan, working with our employers, working with employees to find a middle ground to ensure that workers feel safe at work. They shouldn't have to receive a horrific phone call about a mass shooting in their workplace by their family members. This is a first step, again, to ensuring that there's safety in the workplace, and we believe that for these reasons. Again, you've heard it from Jassy, who had wonderful comments, but we just really appreciate the time and urge your support.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of SB 553? Name, affiliation, and your position on the bill, please?

Mr. Chair, Committee Members. Louie Costa the state Legislative Board of Smart Transportation Division, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, strong support.

Thank you.

James Michael Agpalo AFSCME California, proud co-sponsor, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Melissa Sagun on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network and California Food and Farming Network in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists, Unite Here, and the Utility Workers Union of America in support.

Thank you. Alright, now, witnesses in opposition, feel free to a couple chairs up here. And again up to two minutes each. So feel free to...

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to SB 553. And I have with me, as our second witness, a longtime Cal OSHA focused attorney, Karen Tynan, will speak to her personal experience professionally around this standard. Before I get to substance, I want to be clear about what we are not opposed to on the business side. We are not certainly here in defense of workplace violence.

We actually have actively worked with Cal OSHA on this front and have been engaged with the author throughout the year to work on it. Obviously, the shootings and the gun issues in California I won't speak to my personal thoughts on guns, but are certainly tragic. And I but I would say are something that this bill will not, as the author acknowledged, necessarily prevent. But I want to focus on the text of the bill.

The background the author summarized, I think is accurate, but there's an additional point that needs to be made. There was a hospital workplace violence standard passed in 2019 by Cal OSHA. That standard was passed because hospitals were viewed as a unique setting where people have family members who are hurt, there's drug issues, there's psych wards, unique issues there. And then Cal OSHA did move to work on a general industry standard, as noted.

Our significant problem with this bill is that when CalOSHA looked at the hospital standard, their experts noted this is not something that makes sense across all industries and is feasible for all employers. Simply put, a hospital is not the same as a food truck or a summer camp or a construction site. And therefore they started writing a version that was meant to make sense across all industries.

Our issue with this bill, and we have shared with the author and spoke, is that this bill does not follow Cal OSHA's years of work on that improved version. This bill goes back and copies the hospital version. And to the author's point, the hospital version does have more, is longer, and has different phrasing.

And I would say the reason is Cal OSHA acknowledged most employers are not hospitals and cannot do those things. I think the last piece I want to flag is that I've spoken to Cal OSHA staff repeatedly on this, and they are actively working on the general industry standard. And the only comment they had to me was, if they're going to rush a version of this, I wish they would rush ours. Thank you. I'll pass to my colleague, Karen Tynan.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair and Members. My name is Karen Tynan. I am a shareholder at Ogletree Deakins in the Sacramento office, and also Chair of our West Coast OSHA practice. I've spent the last 18 years representing and advising broad categories of California employers on Cal OSHA compliance and working opposite, actually, Cal OSHA inspectors, as well as participating in that rule-making process that Rob has described for you.

I've specifically advised and defended hospitals related to compliance of that Cal OSHA workplace violence standard, that healthcare standard, and that's the standard that Rob explained is copied in SB 553. So I'm very familiar with how these requirements roll out in employers. And so, first, the hospital standard was never intended for all industries. And I wanted to testify today and give some concrete examples of why even very successful, large, and well respected hospitals struggle and have barriers in complying with the hospital or healthcare standard.

So, as Mr. Moutrie mentioned, every employer in the state will need to do annual assessments, training, and we estimate those costs to be in the tens of thousands per year. And then there are actual changes to the workplace, and for example, hiring additional staff, hiring additional security guards, panic buttons, those, installing badge and swipe systems. Also, incredibly large resources and requirements for California employers fiscally to make. In short, we're talking about considerable actions even for well organized and funded entities like hospitals that I've worked with.

It is going to be incredibly difficult, and I cannot imagine small and mid sized employers successfully complying with the requirements. And I do want to point out the cost of compliance is significant, and any violations related to the requirements will likely be in the range of $18,000 per violation. I'm glad to answer any further compliance questions that the Members may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 553? Name, affiliation, and your position on the bill, please?

Brian Sapp on behalf of the California Beekeepers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Bret Gladfelty with Apex Group on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and of San Diego in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, major Chair and Members. Carlos Gutierrez, on behalf of the California Grocery Association, California Fresh Food Association, California Cotton Generators and Growers Association, and the American Council of Engineering Companies in opposition.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey, with the California Restaurant Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturing Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association and also on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, opposed.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Chris Walker on behalf of the California Association of Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors in opposition.

Thank you.

Ben Ebbink. Come after the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Robert Rodriguez, Workplace Safety Attorney with Ogletree Deakins in opposition.

Thank you. So as we bring it back to Committee, I'm going to ask if our Secretary can take the roll so we can establish Quorum, please.

Kalra? Here. Flora? Chen? Haney? Ortega? Reyes? Ward?

Quorum is established. Any questions, comments, motions from Committee Members? We have a motion on the floor. Assembly Member Ward?

Thank you. A couple of questions. I'm wondering, I know this is here with us because Cal OSHA has taken far too long, and we're not sure when they will get to be able to update some of their standards as well. I'm just wondering, have you talked with them about that timing and whether or not all the work that they're putting into it guiding the kinds of decisions about these requirements, if that's not the better way that we should have been going all along rather than imposing this.

Yes, we've had excellent, informative and productive conversations with OSHA all the way along. No resistance to this whatsoever. I think they know what their timing is. They know what the situation is out in the world. And I think they recognize that the Legislature will do what it can with what it has right now, and yhat's what we're up to.

Wouldn't this, though, when they do finalize some of that work, wouldn't this sort of preempt or it potentially supersedes?

There's nothing in the bill that preempts ocean from doing rule-making in this space. I mean, this bill calls for a plan to be embedded in the Injury Prevention Plan, the IPP, which every one of these employers has to have anyway already, with seven very basic principles that they need to address in that plan. And I'll be happy to go over them with or the Committee, if anyone's interested. They're basically things that you'll find in most middle schools and high schools now in terms of site safety.

Got it. Something I'll be watching for as this moves forward. And what does concern me probably the most about is the imposition on some of the smaller public agencies, their inability to have cost recovery, unlike others that can find, although it's an imposition on them too. They have mechanisms to find resources to be able to comply with some additional standards. What's your sort of response to that.

It's an important issue. And I committed to my colleagues on the Senate Floor that we will be amending the bill with language that puts limitations, if you will, on the size of the employer. And my staff has been working, going back and forth with Ledge Council to craft that in a way that should produce an RN anytime now, and that'll be forthcoming. And the intention is to cross that language in the next Committee.

Wonderful. Okay. I'll look forward to that as well. Thank you. Happy support today.

Thank you. Assembly Member Reyes?

I just want to confirm this is for a prevention plan.

That's right.

To put something together and write, to actually say, this is what our plan is. And you have a list of things that need to be included?

Yes.

Okay. And I have a question for the opposition. I know you've talked a lot about this Cal OSHA, the guidelines. If this bill included all of that language, then you would remove your opposition?

Yeah. So to clarify the guidelines, as you spoke of, Assembly Member. On Cal OSHA's ongoing process, we've been upfront, I think, with the author, sponsor, and offices that if this bill were to match the draft that Cal OSHA has been working on, we would go neutral. Short Cal OSHA is about to release another one they've been working on. They told me a month ago they're about to release what they think is a better version than what they released last year. And we've said we would match those short of some absurd change, like everyone will hire 10 security guards.

Right. Obviously that's not feasible for every employer in the state. But broadly speaking, yes, we have made that commitment and we stand by it.

Alright. You would go neutral as opposed to...

Yes, we would go neutral. I can speak for that.

As opposed to favoring it.

Yes. I've heard a joke said sometimes that sometimes the Chamber's version of support is neutral.

Right. It's a joke.

But for what it is, that's what we can do.

Alright, thank you. Thank you both.

Any other comments or questions? Senator, thank you for your, over the many years I've known you, longstanding support for workers and worker safety, but especially your elevated leadership since the tragedy at VTA. And so I appreciate you for bringing this forward. I would love to be added as a principal co-author, if that's OK with you. Do you have any closing comments?

Yeah. Thank you very much. And thank you to your excellent Committee staff, which we've had the opportunity to work with on a number of issues over time in a very productive manner. I want to make it clear that you can scan this language up and down, forward and backward in the bill. It doesn't require panic buttons, it doesn't require anything in terms of hardware. It simply says if you're going to use those things, you ought to write them down in your plan.

And make sure your employees know about them. The seven, actually eight, simple things. I'll do it quickly, Mr. Chair. I know you have a long agenda, but I'll be quick. These are one sentence each. Requiring all non-healthcare, because they're already covered, employers to maintain a violent incident log of all violent incidents against employees and post-incident investigations. Not complicated. Requiring all such employers to provide active shooter training. We don't specify what that looks like, that it's a code red drill or anything else.

Put in your plan some kind of a plan for what happens, just like you would for a fire drill. Obviously could be more lethal. Require retail employers to provide shoplifter training. Again, do it the way you like, but make sure you put something in your plan to address it. Requires employers to maintain policies that solely utilize trained, dedicated security personnel and loss prevention officers to confront suspected active shoplifters. Again, have a policy.

Have a policy that addresses which or whom are your dedicated security personnel, who are your loss prevention people, if you have them. They're not required. And who's not, because we don't want those folks in harm's way. I honestly think that if you think a grocery checker or a bagger or a journeyman grocery clerk like I used to be ought to be confronting a violent intruder in a grocery store, you're testifying in the wrong state because I don't think we stand for those values in this state.

Including as part of the existing IIPP, an assessment of staffing levels as a cause for workplace violence incidents, an assessment part of an existing IIPP, and allow an employee representative to be a petitioner for a workplace violence restraining order. Even in that case, we took amendments, and we've enjoyed working on the amendments that we have taken with the opposition to essentially delay implementation on that and to make sure the language allows people to get up to speed.

Most recently, we have dealt with amendments that would provide anonymity and an opt in, opt out so the employer cannot force somebody or an employer representative to seek a restraining order. And lastly, require employers to refer workers to wellness centers. We've heard in the opposition we're all now going to have to build wellness centers or create them or install them.

We're just simply saying in your plan, indicate when somebody is having the kind of health issues, particularly mental health issues that manifest themselves, that you ought to have a way in your plan to refer them somewhere to get some help. Again, we have maybe some very advanced middle schools in Silicon Valley, but I've enjoyed touring them and seeing these exact same provisions there. I'm sorry to go on, but we did want to take an opportunity to rebut some of what we heard, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote, and I appreciate again the Committee's support.

Thank you so much, Senator. The recommendation is do pass Judiciary. We have a motion on the table. Madam Secretary, to take roll on the vote for SB 553.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Flora? No. Flora, no. Chen? Haney? Haney, aye. Ortega? Ortega, aye. Reyes? Reyes, aye. Ward. Ward, aye.

I that bill is out, and we'll allow add ons for that. And then we'll go on to item number one, SB 399. Senator Wahab.

All right, let's see here.

Senator, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair and Members. I would like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. SB 399 clarifies that workers have the freedom to decline mandatory meetings or communications where their employer expresses personal views on religious or political matters, including political party or union support or opposition. These meetings are often referred to as captive audience meetings because, although not job related, workers are not permitted to leave nor attend without facing discipline or other adverse actions.

In many workplaces, employees are at will and can be fired at any time for almost any reason. It gives employers tremendous power to pressure workers to do as they say. Imagine that you're at work and your boss calls you into a mandatory all staff meeting, but more specifically, imagine that you are from an immigrant background or need the job to be able to survive, or working two jobs, and you try to leave, but are told you will be written up and possibly fired if you leave.

This is what workers face every day. There is an imbalance of power. And although we respect our employers for creating jobs and making sure that people are paid at the same time, there is no place for religious or political discussion in a workplace. California has long prided itself as a sanctuary for workers. Regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or political leaning.

It is important that workers are free to go to work without feeling coerced into listening to the political or religious views of their employer against their will. This Bill provides exemptions so employers can communicate legally required information essential for workers to fulfill their job duties. Likewise, nothing in SB 399 prevents employers from communicating their personal, political, or religious beliefs to their workers. It simply clarifies they cannot require workers to attend meetings to discuss religious or political matters that are not germane to the work they do.

With me in person to testify is Hannah Smith, a former REI employee, and Sarah Flocks from the California Labor Federation.

Thank you so much, Senator. Up to two minutes, please.

Hi, my name is Hannah Smith, and I worked at REI as a retail sales specialist for a year and a half. Until a couple of months ago, I worked at the REI store in Berkeley, which was the second REI store to unionize. We won recognition of our union in August of 2022.

As soon as management found out that we were organizing in the REI in Berkeley, they started holding captive audience meetings two to three times a day to try to intimidate us and convince us not to organize a union. They would use different methods from these meetings. Some would be group meetings in the morning or at the end of the day with whoever was scheduled that day.

Some would be one on ones with management spending over an hour walking around the store with us to talk about their opinions on unions. They also used a strategy of bringing in visiting managers to the store. Before we started organizing, we would have four managers at our location per day. After they learned that we were trying to unionize, we began to have nine to 10 managers in the store a day flown around from around the country.

These floating managers would hold captive audience meetings while they were at our store and while we were working. One visiting manager took me on a walk around the store during a captive one on one and told me that his parents had been coal miners and that because of the union, he was able to go to college and that unions were good, but that they weren't right for REI.

He asked me about the specifics of the UFCW Five pension plan and asked if I was aware that I could potentially lose my coworkers their health insurance, if we were to unionize. He asked me how I felt about the fact that I would be responsible for folks not having health care in our store, potentially. They used scare tactics and tried to spread misinformation during these meetings.

They told sales associates to ask their coworkers who wanted a union to explain exactly what the union pension plan would be. They said things that were entirely false, that the union would need to approve any vacation request that any workers wanted to use, or their sick days. And the misinformation campaign started to work. There were 120 coworkers of mine at the Berkeley store.

Once the captive audience meetings began, I got texts each day from three to four people with different lies that managers had told them that I needed to clarify.

You can finish up your last thought.

Thanks. I'll just summarize to say that it is a horrible feeling to be in a captive audience meeting, both a one on one and a group meeting. And it was something that other workers should not have to go through. We won our union election, but I'm asking you for support in urging the Legislature to pass Senate Bill 399 to prohibit employers from requiring workers like myself to attend these coercive captive audience meetings. Thank you.

Thank you. And I just got to say, it's kind of ironic that REI cooperative fought has fought so aggressively against collective action. Anyway, That's a side thought. Ms. Flocks.

Mr. Chair Member. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. We're a proud cosponsor of the Bill. I just want to start by saying the Business Industry PAC is a national organization that is offering to train employers on how, to, quote, transform your employees into an army of pro business voters. In 2020, Uber had a campaign to get their drivers to vote yes on Prop 22.

They required drivers to watch a video yes on 22 and other messages before they could log in to start their shift to drive to earn a living. This is just a few examples of the ways that employers can use captive audience meetings to have workers listen to their political views and their religious views. SB 399 is a very simple Bill. It basically says that employers can say what they want at the workplace.

They have freedom of speech, but they cannot coerce, intimidate, or bully workers into listening to their political or religious speech. It does not regulate speech. It is about when speech turns into coercive action and there is retaliation or discipline against workers if they decline to listen to this speech. The opposition is going to come up here and say that this is a violation of the First Amendment. But the Supreme Court the US. Supreme Court has been clear.

They have said no one has a right to press even good ideas on an unwilling recipient or an audience incapable of declining to receive that. They have also said that the First Amendment allows for the protection of the unwilling listener. And they have said that states can legislate in this area. That is what SB 399 is doing. It's saying that even though employers can say whatever they want in the workplace, they cannot pressure workers into listening to it. That's all this Bill does.

And we urge your aye vote thank you.

Anyone else in support of SB 399, line up by the microphone. Name affiliation?

James Michael Paulo with AFSCME California. Strong support of the Bill. Thanks.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, Unite Here, the machinists, the amalgamated transit union, in support. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair Members. Meagan Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Thank you.

Jassy Grewal, USCW Western States Council, in support.

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and the California Coalition for Worker Power. In support.

Thank you.

Joe Schykerynec, State Building Trades in support. Thank you.

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

Thank you.

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in support.

Thank you.

Louie Costa, Smart Transportation Division. State legislative board in support.

Thank you. All right, witnesses in opposition to SB 399. Up to two minutes each. Whenever you're ready.

Is the battery still working in there?

I won't mute you quite yet.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce.

As we've discussed previously, in regards to SB 399, we do think that the Bill will have a functional chilling of employer speech. The concern is the definition of political matters. I could almost bifurcate for you in Subdivision B3 of the Bill, and that is because the proponents, for example, say that without this, employers will coerce, intimidate, and bully. In Labor Code sections 111 and 112, it prohibits employers from coercing or attempting to coerce or influence an employee's political activities.

And part of the definition in B3 includes elections for political office and decisions to join or support a political party, which I don't find objectionable. But it also includes two words "legislation" and "regulation," neither of which are defined. So that would preclude an employer from discussing pending legislation, for example, or regulation. We know of members who invite regulatory agencies into their places of employment to explain things to employees on how to comply, et cetera.

Now, I know it was cited and I'm going to pull it up. In F1 that employ, the statement was made that employers can inform employees. However, listen to the language of F1. "It doesn't prohibit an employer from communicating to its employees any information that the employer is required by law to communicate." I view that language as very limiting because, for example, we have certain things that we have to inform employees of. You often see them in, say, a common area or perhaps a kitchen.

I'll wrap up, Mr. Chair. Those are the things that you have to apprise your employee of. So this language is very limiting. And so for those reasons and the creation of an addition to the Labor Code being subject to enforcement by PAGA, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, in addition to the concerns raised by Mr. Micheli, I wanted to raise some legal concerns. Most respectfully, we disagree and believe that SB 399 does violate the First Amendment and is a content based restriction on speech. In order to do a content based restriction and have it not be unconstitutional, the government must show a compelling interest and that the proposal is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that interest.

This is a very difficult test to meet and we do not believe SB 399 meets those qualifications. An employer could require a meeting on the Sacramento Kings, the weather, knitting, but not regarding political matters, which may be very relevant to the workplace. Employers have a right to communicate with employees and companies support for or opposition to legislation, regulations, ballot measures and more. And this makes sense if a pending Bill could potentially shut down their company or drastically affect jobs.

And that is something employees would want to know. The bill's provisions are content based, which is presumptively unconstitutional. We also believe it runs into issues with existing federal law. If a supervisor is talking to subordinates about a political matter that is arguably protected by Section 7 of the NLRA, it could be seen as forcing subordinates to listen to an employer's position.

If, for example, a supervisor is having a hallway conversation about their opinion on a political matter because that is a supervisor and they could be seen as forcing that subordinate to listen in that situation. Finally, on unionization, we believe this section of the Bill is clearly preempted by Section 8 of the NLRA, which gives employers the right to express their views and opinions regarding labor organizations, as long as it is not coercive.

Other states that have moved forward or attempted to move forward this policy, those policies in other states, those laws in other states have been struck down, repealed, or are currently being challenged. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 399. Name and affiliation and position?

Yeah. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee Matthew Allen with Western Growers were also opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bret Gladfelty with the Apex Group on behalf of the Associated General Contractors, California and San Diego in opposition. I'd like to echo the comments made by Mr. Micheli. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Chiappe, on behalf of the California Trucking Association in a respectful opposition. Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members. Chris Walker on behalf of the California Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors in opposition. Thank you.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California and the California State Association of Counties all in respectful opposition.

Hello, Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association in opposition.

Good afternoon. Annalee Akin, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers also in opposition.

Thank you. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Ward.

Great. I want to thank you, Senator, for bringing this forward. And I wanted to kind of just tease out exactly and very clearly what the Bill does and does not do, because I do hear kind of conflicting examples in the information that's been coming at me. So all this Bill does is to prohibit an employer from taking an adverse action against somebody who claims that they did not want to be subjected to a conversation. It's a simpler way to say that?

To some degree, yes. The goal is to not have the mandatory requirement of those meetings. So they can speak about what they want to speak about. They can speak about politics, they can speak about religion, they can speak about all of this. But it allows for the individual employee to be able to walk away without repercussions.

Right, exactly. Because there could be some times when to the conversation earlier about regulatory conversations, say there's a new regulation that comes out and we all want to know, this is important feedback loop. What's going on, how this affects my company. And you want to be able to try to just have a conversation and get information about that. Somebody...

It's not inappropriate to have that meeting and to have that conversation per se, but it would be inappropriate to say, I don't want to be a part of this governmental conversation, I'm out of the room and no adverse action should take place. That's what we're talking about here.

Potentially, but if there is an announcement of a legislation going into place, let's say January of 2024, that is law, that is also something that is needed for the employee to understand of how maybe there's a process change. So that is allowed.

That is allowed. That's clearly an exemption here. And we were, in talking with some in opposition, I was remembering an example where I had just in my district had a tour of a facility. It's a small manufacturing facility, only about 12 employees. And while I was there, they were like, hey everybody, come into the break room and meet your state representative. And everybody felt maybe, I think they're all curious.

I don't want to say everybody was feeling compelled kind of sort of was suggested everybody should come into the break room and that should be fine, right? But if somebody did not want to do that or come...

They have free will and they can leave.

Exactly. And I'm kind of curious. The woman from REI, the first testimony here, and she's feel free to come up and speak for herself as well. In the case where we're talking about the right to unionize, as she was going through and coming into the office and having to listen to all this, she should, under the current law, under NLRB regulations, have had the right to just say I don't want to participate and get up and walk out. Correct?

What this does is, because we're avoiding NLRB preemption, is this is setting a minimum standard, which is totally within the rights of the state to legislate in this area. And so it's just like how there are, in California, we clearly have stronger laws than at the federal level. They have, they have a minimum wage. It is lower than what the state minimum wage has.

And so we are setting a higher standard in terms of the ability for workers to affirmatively decline to be in those meetings because that is an amendment that we took in Senate Judiciary that goes to the one-on-ones that are not large meetings where the worker will have to affirmatively decline to participate in that meeting and will have the ability to walk away.

Fundamentally for me, it's just about the right of somebody to be able to say no and if that's what we're talking about here and that their job would not be at risk or there'd be no adverse action, it seems generally fair. If there's technical improvements that make this a little bit clear so that there's no misunderstandings or the perspective of employers can be met as well too. I hope that those conversations continue, but happy to support the Bill as is today.

Thank you.

Vice Chair. You sure? Any other questions? Assemblymember Reyes?

I think that I was a workers comp attorney in my prior life and hearing about captive audience meetings, that's something that we heard so much about. And I always felt they were so unfair in the way they were done. But I will tell you that the one word that and you happened to mention it too, was legislation. And I thought, why is legislation and regulation, why are those two included?

Well, specifically when some of the commentary that we've heard from opposition is the fact that, oh, if legislation goes into place, right? And that's assuming that it is, that's already kind of poisoning the well of people's thoughts, making sure that, oh, this is wrong, this is influencing in so many different ways.

Whereas if it's regulation, let's say it's now law and we are moving forward, as I said, next year, January 2024, there is something in place, that employer is allowed to speak about it saying, look, we have different standards of safety. This new legislation went in, it's in place, it's so forth. So there is clarity there. And I'm happy to allow Sara to speak a little bit more in depth if you have any other follow up.

So the idea of legislation and regulation is the idea that just with the no on or the yes on Prop. 22 example, that employers may decide some employers scoff law employers, may decide to intimidate workers, bully them, coerce them in taking positions on legislation that's against their interest. I've seen this in labor committees. I've seen buses of workers paid for by employers come up to the Capitol for workers to speak against a Bill that would clearly benefit them.

And that's not something that we want workers to be in that position where if they don't get on that bus, they're going to be fired or loose hours or be retaliated against. And so given that legislation is very political, that what goes through this Committee impacts workers on a daily basis. All of you carry these bills. And so we just want to protect workers from being coerced in taking positions that they may not want to on legislation, regulation. And these things are very impactful.

Simply to balance power, right.

Because it is unequal power, without a doubt. Now, does this regulate after hours, early, before work?

No.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to say a couple things, and I think everybody on this Committee, nobody deserves to be harassed at work for any reason, right? I think that's something we can all absolutely agree on. But I do find it just a little bit, maybe hypocritical. We talk about bussing people up to Sacramento to push a particular agenda. I mean, labor is very very good at doing this, of organizing. It's what you do. Right?

And so I think there's a very very fine line here where of giving people the right to make their own decisions and not be in meetings that they don't want to be in. But I think, I personally experienced being very intimidated going into a place of business that labor was protesting, but I had to go into that building and walking through people that I quite frankly wasn't comfortable walking through. But I had to. Right. So I think we need to be honest about that.

I completely support the intent of the Bill of, like, if you don't want to step through religious or political conversation, that should be your right, for sure. But let's be somewhat honest about the shoe does fit on both feet, right? I mean, I think labor plays this game as well and to a very, very degree of success. So I mean, kudos. But I think it's not mutually exclusive from one to the other.

I appreciate that comment and completely understand how you would see that. However, I also want to say that labor and those that participate in what you kind of reference as I'm assuming a strike of some sort or a protest, it's completely voluntary, 100% voluntary. They do not need to attend. They could stay home. They can go to the office. It's completely their choice. And again, it's the free will and what we're focused on here.

Right. But I would agree with that. And I also think coming from a family background of business, we don't make, nothing's mandatory, I think the idea that the majority of business owners in the State of California mandate these things is also false. We have company wide meetings. We usually host a lunch while we have these meetings, whether it's over health insurance or we do it as one big company wide thing and they don't have to be there.

So I don't think painting in a broad stroke that all businesses mandate this stuff is proper. If REI did something stupid, that's crazy, right? And sorry about that, but I don't like the broad brush approach. But I totally appreciate what you're trying to do here.

Thank you. And I appreciate the comments.

Thank you for the conversation. And I think that the Senator appropriately has spoken to the aspect of it being coercive and also the balance of power which a number of you have raised. Management, your employer versus a worker, there's that inherent imbalance of power. And unions are incredibly democratic. And so when they make those decisions to strike or take actions, I think it's a little bit different than when an employer coerces conversation. And I would agree.

I think smaller businesses, medium sized businesses probably don't engage in this. I think it's more corporate. The larger businesses that have that can bring in those professionals to union bus and to do these trainings are more likely to be the culprit and I think be the target of this kind of legislation to prevent that from happening. If I go to a work site, I think the workers want to see me. But you never know. Maybe they don't, and they don't have to.

But that being said, to Assemblymember Ward's point and the Senator in that dialogue, I think we know, when we talk about what's required by law and the regulations, we know what the Senator and sponsors are getting at. It may take a little bit wordsmithing to kind of get that more detailed to make it clear that, yes, you should be able to talk about regulations and things that may be coming down that have to do with the work environment and responsibilities of the employer and employees.

That is clearly not the intention here. So if there's suggestions on wordsmithing that I know, the author, I'm sure, will continue to work with opposition on that and with the sponsors. So with that, would you like to close, Senator?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Is there a motion on this? I think we had one, right? Yeah, motion. Is there a second and a second? So we have a motion and a second. Do pass to Judiciary. Madam Secretary could take a roll call vote on SB 399, please.

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

Thank you, Senator Gonzalez. SB 616. And as the Senator makes her way up, just for the record, want to note that we'll be taking one item out of order. That's item nine, SB 686. And after that, go back in order according to which authors are present. So SB 616 right now. Gonzalez, you may present.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here today to present SB 616 which will increase paid sick leave and expand the current safety net for all workers. In 2014, as we know, California led the nation in establishing the Healthy Workplaces, Healthy Families Act, which requires employers to provide three paid sick days to all employees to care for themselves, for others, or even being a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking. However, the COVID-19 pandemic and other widespread outbreaks, like that of RSV have illustrated that just three paid sick days, as we know, is not enough for most people to recover from illness. Research has found that through the pandemic, the emergency paid leave, which provided 10 days, prevented the spread of approximately 400 new COVID cases.

SB 616 will address this problem by increasing the amount of paid sick leave that employers are required to provide to employees from three days to seven days, while also providing rail workers with seven unpaid sick days. SB 616 will grant working families across the state, in my opinion, increased security to take care of themselves and their loved ones as they should. Testifying in support today I have Mitch Steiger from the California Labor Federation, as well as Ingrid Vilorio, a Jack in the Box worker. I thank you and I respectfully ask for an aye vote on SB 616, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. And each witness has up to two minutes. If there is any interpretation required, we'll take that into account with the translation.

Thank you. [foreign language]

Good afternoon, dear California legislators. My name is Ingrid Vilorio. I am a cook at Jack in the Box and a leader with 5415 and a union. During the pandemic, management required us to be screened for COVID symptoms such as fevers before each shift. This was all just for show because even if we exhibited some symptoms, we were pressured and expected to remain at work. Inevitable, I ended up exposed to the virus and tested positive for COVID-19.

Not only was I forced to work sick, I was fastly told I had no paid sick time. And when my son contracted the virus from me, I only had three paid sick days to count on to recover myself and take care of him. In one of the most progressive and economically strong estates in the country, this is unacceptable. We should all have access to adequate paid sick time and the current minimum of three days is not enough.

When workers across industries have to choose between working while sick or being fired, everyone loses. This isn't just my experience. This is a serious issue that workers across the economy face from low wages, hourly workers like me to people in more stable salary positions. We never know what can come up in our lives. A sick child, emergency surgery, serious illness.

In unexpected emergencies, workers shouldn't have to worry about how to make the month's rent or how to keep food on the table while recovering from illness or caring for a loved one. SB 616 increases the number of paid sick days for Californians from three days to seven. This is a very important lifeline for working families across the state. We urge you to support SB 616.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with California Labor Federation, proud to co-sponsor this bill, along with a long list of other co-sponsors and supporters, both in and out of labor, who've all united around the idea that three days is just not enough. It's not even close to enough. It's not enough for one COVID infection or one bout with the flu or any of the other illnesses out there that we face every day, to say nothing of the need for that time to care for your family and your loved ones. And frankly, even seven days isn't enough. But we think it's a sensible compromise between where we are now, what a lot of local jurisdictions around California have done in going far beyond seven days, and what workers actually need and deserve to recover from whatever it is that they're afflicted with.

And that need to recover is a point that we think really needs greater focus, that there's a lot of compelling evidence out there, that that is why we have so many workers who've been disabled by long COVID. Because there is a lot of evidence that shows when you don't have that time to recover and you have to work through it, the condition gets worse and the outcomes can be lasting, if not permanent, and they may never go away. And also, speaking of the compelling evidence that's out there, we think there is some really strong evidence that it's not all just about workers, that this policy actually does save employers money. There was a metaanalysis done of 43 studies by a business school that found positive business outcomes far more likely than the negative business outcomes that I'm sure we're about to hear about, that things like higher profit, reduced likelihood of occupational injury, improved morale, improved retention, reduced presenteeism, all of these things that every business wants are more likely when they offer sick days than when they don't.

But even if there is, say, a given employer in a given situation for whom this policy may not save money, it's worth it because workers are worth it, because workers have earned it. Because we've been through a lot over the last few years, we've learned a lot of lessons that need to be applied through this policy. The public expects it. The public expects that the workers they're dealing with are not sick. And the workers without sick leave simply suffer too greatly for the current system to continue. We urge your support.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of SB 6116, please approach the microphone. Name, affiliation, and position.

Good afternoon. James Michael Agpalo with AFSCME California, strong support of this bill. Thank you.

Melissa on behalf of the Pesticide Action Network, Californians for Pesticide Reform, and the California Food and Farming Network, in support. Thank you.

Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Division, Local 1201, Stockton, California, in support.

Thank you.

Nicole Wordelman on behalf of the Children's Partnership, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists, Unite Here, and the Utility Workers Union of America, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. Thank you, Senator Gonzalez, for bringing the bill forward.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and the California Coalition for Worker Power, in support.

Thank you.

Hey, Jenya Cassidy, California Work and Family Coalition. We're a proud co-sponsor, and I'm also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support. California Coalition on Family Caregiving, California Women Lawyers, Caring Across Generations, Equal Rights Advocates, Family Caregiver Alliance, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Health Officers Association of California, National Association of Social Workers California Chapter, Orange County Equality Coalition, Public Counsel, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, Working Partnerships USA, Worksafe, and Small Business Majority.

Thank you.

Jaskiran Grewal, UFCW Western States Council, proud co-sponsor and support the bill.

Thank you.

Jaelson Dantas on behalf of UDW AFSCME Local 3930, in strong support.

Thank you.

Katie Wutchiett for Legal Aid at Work, in strong support.

Thank you.

Desiree Cruz on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, in support.

Thank you.

Nina Weiler-Harwell, with AARP California, in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division State Legislative Board, proud co-sponsor, in support.

Thank you.

Meagan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District Nine, in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Trevor Haddix, Smart Transportation Division, Local 492 Sacramento Roseville, in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matt Lege, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Thank you.

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

[foreign language]

[foreign language]

[foreign language]

[foreign language]

[foreign language]

Thank you.

Rita Medina with Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights CHIRLA, in strong support.

Thank you.

Andrea Amavisca on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center, in support.

Thank you. We have anybody here in opposition to SB 616? Senator Gonzalez, if you could have the witnesses. I think there's a couple more chairs here. I think it has moved down one seat. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, please.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition to SB 616. We are opposed because SB 616 seeks to more than double the present state mandate. While many employers do offer more than three days, not all businesses can afford to do so, or where they do, they cannot put certain parameters on it, such as requiring documentation.

We have a lot of problems with workers currently banking sick leave and using it all at the same time, especially with seasonal workers or workers using sick leave when they are not sick, but then coming to work sick because they've used their sick leave for non sick leave related purposes. Cal Chamber and many business groups this year worked with Senator Alvarado-Gil on her SB 881, which shows that we are willing to come to the table and have this discussion.

That Bill raised sick leave from three days to five days, as well as addressed some critical issues that Cal Chamber Members and businesses have faced over the last eight years with the current Sick Leave Act. If we are going to increase sick leave, we should ensure that this is being used when workers are sick. Two issues that I want to bring up today, in particular, that our Members have faced over the last eight years, the first being documentation.

As I mentioned, under the current act, employers cannot ask an employee for documentation. There is instances where employers have discovered that employees are using paid sick leave for a non-statutory reason, but cannot do anything about that because they would face an alleged violation. There is precedent for employers asking for documentation. There are ordinances, like in Los Angeles or in the COVID paid sick leave where there was an allowance for employers to offer or to ask for documentation in certain circumstances.

We believe, if an increase is to move forward, that employers should be able to request documentation if an employee is using over three days of paid sick leave. And then I'll wrap up, Mr. Chair, just really quickly. The one other piece is the PAGA clarification. It was always believed that paid sick leave would not have PAGA penalties associated with it. A California Court of Appeals upended that interpretation, and we would ask for clarification in order to not open up businesses to additional threats of litigation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. I am Peggy Ygbuhay. I'm the Senior Director of Public Affairs for Union Pacific Railroad. Respectfully, I'm testifying in opposition of SB 616. The Bill would require railroads to provide seven days of unpaid leave to their employees. The Bill would also excuse these absences from discipline. SB 616 is unnecessary legislation which will insert inefficiency into our operations.

First, the contention that employees, the rail employees, are unable to miss work when sick or are retaliated against for calling in sick is inaccurate. Under our current attendance policies, employees can take anywhere from three to nine days off every 90 days without triggering an attendance review. That is more time off than the Bill provides. Also, federal law already protects railroad employees against retaliation for taking sick leave.

Second, access to time off, which is the real issue for railroad employees, is subject to bargaining under the Railway Labor Act, which is exactly what we've been doing. In fact, we've entered into paid sick leave agreements with 12 of our 13 unions, covering more than two thirds of our craft professionals. The new agreements provide railroad employees access to seven days of paid sick leave. We are meeting with the remaining Craft Smart TD next week to discuss paid sick leave.

Employees using paid sick leave as intended, will not be subject to discipline, including the accrual of attendance points. In May this year, we recently reached an agreement with a brotherhood of locomotive engineers and trainmen, representing nearly 5600 railroad employees for Union Pacific that will provide scheduled off days to employees who have traditionally been on call 24 hours, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This union has called this agreement life altering.

Maintaining a safe workplace includes supporting the health, safety, and well-being of our railroad employees and is critical to providing service to our customers. SB 616 does not solve the problem it is trying to solve. For these reasons, we oppose. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 616? Name, affiliation, and your position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. Don Maddy, on behalf of BNSF Railway also in opposition. Just to section four of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mike Robson here on behalf of the American Staffing Association, the California Staffing Professionals, and we'd align our comments with the Chamber of Commerce. Thanks.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the LA Area Chamber of Commerce and CalSHRM, opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ryan Allain with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Annalee Akin, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Ben Abby on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Apologies for being out of order. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we are in support.

Thank you. That would have been interesting. All right, let's bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Ward.

A couple of questions. So for the railroad perspective, you said you're already working on almost everybody through collective bargaining agreements to achieve seven sick days, is that correct?

That's correct.

So how would this Bill then be any more burdensome?

It inserts the inability for us to implement our attendance policies.

Right, so back on that point, with the documentation questions right. Your attendance policies. Sorry, can you elaborate?

Right, so the Bill seeks to basically not allow us to assert our attendance policies with our employees when they call off mark off when they're scheduled to come to work.

Well, how is that being worked ou through your collective bargaining agreement? If somebody's sick, they're sick, they need to be able to come out.

So we are providing and we already have agreements with 12 of our 13 unions, and we are giving seven paid sick days under the current CBAs, and we're in negotiation with the last union. So I maybe don't understand your question.

I'm happy to follow up with you maybe a little bit more because I'm not understanding what your attendance policy is that would preclude their opportunity to take a sick day when they get sick.

Yeah. So they can take their paid sick days. Right. It's when they call in outside of that, or they're marked off and they're trying to call in sick when they have already maybe taken all their paid sick days, for example.

So it forbids you from having further attendance policies beyond those seven days. That's what you're worried about?

Well, I guess it's kind of hard to explain, but say, for example, the employee has already taken, say, seven paid sick days and then they call in sick while they're scheduled to come to work, then they would get assessed points under the attendance policy. So the Bill would not allow us to manage our employees attendance as it's written.

I don't read it that way. I'm happy to let the author maybe respond to that another time. I wanted to also kind of ask, though, about Ms. Jensen's point about documentation, because in San Diego we have five sick days. And I've also heard this in the business community, too, right. As we're doing this city by city, oh there's this patchwork. So, it'd be nice to get to maybe a common threshold.

And I think after we've lived for nearly a decade with three sick days, exploring a little bit of a higher threshold is a great thing. And talking about seven, I mean, our employees get 12, right? Like one day a month. And so That's a pretty generous standard in this sector. But to Ms. Jensen's point, what would your response be around the opportunity to have some documentation so there's not abuse beyond maybe that first three day window.

Well, thank you for the question. I think the documentation piece, of course, is worrisome because it assumes that folks actually have a doctor to get a doctor's note from. I know that if you're in rural California, we've had unfortunate a hospital closure. Like, how do you get a doctor's note from a doctor you don't have?

What defines documentation though? Does it have to be a doctor's note or is there any other?

We have been very open to what documentation would look like. We've also talked about the situation where they are not getting a doctor's note on day four. Right. It could be after the fact or something like that. I think there's many ways that we could craft this.

Here's a picture of my thermometer. It is 100 degrees.

There's usage of telehealth. There's many different ways that there could be some type of proof documentation provided to employees.

If we went down the documentation road, though, I'd like it to be as flexible as possible.

And we don't have an issue with that. And there are, as I mentioned, you know, Los Angeles local ordinance has a documentation allowance for employers. So I think there are use cases that we can talk about if there's an openness to have a conversation about documentation.

I feel like this is a fair safeguard just to be able to explore maybe perfecting this a little bit. And then my other question was, would this also still allow use of a sick day for taking care of a sick child?

Yes, absolutely. It's yourself, sick child also, I might add, domestic violence. So how do you get a doctor's note for somebody who's a victim of domestic violence?

I think we should be very allowing. Right. So if that's something that can be explored, hopefully something can be a very liberal standard on what qualifies this documentation. But I'm happy to support the Bill going forward today and seeing how these ongoing conversations mature. Thank you.

Thank you. Assemblymember Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I appreciate the indulgence, and I really appreciate the Senator's intent on this Bill. I do have some questions for my own edification. My understanding, the research that we've done is I understand that these employees are not required to work on their sick days.

And I haven't seen evidence to say that there's written retaliation in the event that they take the sick days off. I've also been told that the employees are able to take unpaid days off. So in terms of the railroad provisions in this Bill, what is the intent and purpose that you're trying to resolve that you see?

Yeah. Thank you again for the question. And I just want to be clear, this doesn't preclude them from implementing their attendance policy. They have a very complex point system that I've been learning as we go here. This doesn't preclude them from implementing that. It just says you should provide seven unpaid sick days because prior to these agreements that I think they're making progress on, which is fantastic, 12 out of the 13, I've heard. 10 out of 12. Who knows where they're at?

But it seems like good progress. We also want to ensure that the retaliation piece, even if you have a collective bargaining agreement that you don't get into this place where the retaliation might occur. We're not saying that it always does, but it could, depending on their attendance policies, depending on the situation, for asking for a doctor's note. I mean, we want to remove those barriers for employers or for employees and employers, quite honestly, overall.

Thank you, Senator, for that response. And I'm a big opponent against retaliation, against for health reasons, for taking time off of work. I haven't seen the evidence to that case. I also had a question for Union Pacific Railroad, as I understand it, that you have been doing some good faith negotiations and discussions over with their collective bargaining unit.

And I applaud that, and I encourage that. You can also, if you could, educate me in terms of understanding if there's, like, a 90 day policy in terms of the point system. Once those 90 days are up, it goes, as I understand, and I'm going to butcher this, go back to zero in terms of how many times they can take off. So if you could have run through that process for me in terms of how they take time off and it goes back to zero, and they can take more time off after a certain period of time. Thank you.

Yeah, thank you for the question. Our attendance policies, and it really kind of speaks to how we've been negotiating with our unions and listening to their needs and what they trying to get used to the new workforce that we have in society. Our workforce is evolving, and so are we. So we've made a lot of changes in the past few years to address that, and that includes implementing the attendance policy and providing a transparent way to track the time that you take off.

So that's what the points are about. Every 90 days, that's correct. It starts to clock back again. In addition to that, there are points that you can gain if you stay marked up without calling in or marking off, you can gain points. So you can kind of start banking some time off and take it. And like I said earlier in my testimony, basically every 90 days, you can have three to nine days off. That does add up. And those are the unpaid time off.

Thank you. Senator Haney.

Thank you, Senator. And just want to appreciate you for your leadership. I was proud to be a co author of this. It's pretty shocking when you look at across the country that California is falling behind on this, and it is really important that we update our laws. I know that San Francisco, and I was part of that when I was in Board of Supervisors, has gone a bit further. And so I do think this is something that we have to do on a statewide basis.

I know that we all really were much more aware of this during the pandemic when we saw that there were people who clearly needed to stay home or weren't feeling well, who weren't able to do that. And that was putting everybody else at risk because of that and putting themselves at risk. That's, of course, something that happens every day when people don't have access to sick days or they're afraid to take days that they may have access to or otherwise.

And this is underscored in the analysis and some of the arguments. This is also really important for children. There are kids who are not able to stay home, are not able to take care of themselves because their parent can't stay home with them. That's just a devastating impact and I saw that a lot also as a school board member.

So appreciate you working on this issue of documentation and maybe LA has a best practice there or such, but I just want to appreciate how important this is and how impactful this will be for so many people and for the well being and health of our communities overall.

Thank you.

Thank you. Senator Reyes.

I also want to thank the Senator. I think it's so important to do what we can. When our workers tell us that they're not getting the time off, that they're not being treated properly, then we need to be able to step up and provide the legislation that's needed to protect them. I know that we have smart workers here and I appreciate the negotiations they have with the railroad and the railroads work with our workers.

That goes a long way because if we take care of business, then we don't need to be involved. There is the piece of the retaliation. And I appreciate that very much because, as we've heard from the other bills that have been presented today, that is an important piece that we do protect, that the workers are always feeling protected. But I also wanted to note, and I know my colleague has talked about San Francisco. Oakland, San Francisco, Berkeley and Santa Monica. I don't see my city here.

So I'll have some homework to do to go talk to my city about the time off that we're giving to our employees. But I sincerely appreciate that and I appreciate the work that is done by so many to make sure that we are protecting our workers. And I think when we have those honest conversations, honest negotiations, I think it goes a long way. So thank you. Thank you.

Thank you. And I would just want to echo some of the words of caution on documentation. I think, especially as some of our colleagues have mentioned coming out of this pandemic. Look if someone has a really bad cold or the flu, they're not necessarily going to go to the doctor. We don't want them to come to work. We don't want them to be at school.

And so I think we're playing catch up, not just with the rest of the country, in some cases, certainly with most of the world when it comes to sick days. And so I think there's an incredibly important Bill. I'd really appreciate being added as a co author. And would you like to close?

Yeah. I want to say thank you to everybody for their kind comments. First want to thank the workforce because they have been carrying us through especially this pandemic. They are essential workers. Three days, we know, is not enough. Seven days is adequate. And we know that this will protect our most vulnerable Californians. On the rail work piece, I will say we added this because we knew at the national level, this was a priority. I know our rail workforce, as well as our railroads are working together.

I continue to urge them for more progress, to get to 13 out of 13 agreements. So we actually have a federal policy for rail workers at this time. Their tentative agreements have more paid sick days now than the state of California. So we need to do more. And I really respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if we can take the roll. Oh yeah, we need a motion, actually.

Thank you.

A motion from Assemblymember Reyes, seconded by Assemblymember Haney. Madam Secretary, if we take a roll call on the vote for SB 616.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Flora. Flora, no. Chen. Chen, not voting. Haney. Haney, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Ward. Ward, aye. That Bill is out.

Thank you so much, Senator. That Bill is out. We're going to take one item out of order, which is item file number 9, SB 686, Senator Durazo. And as she makes her way up, actually, I'm going to ask if our secretary could see if Mr. Chen wants to add on for item 1 and 2. So, SB 399.

Chen not voting. Ortega. Ortega, aye.

And then item two.

Chen. Chen, no.

Okay, we're caught up there. Thank you so much, Senator Durazo. Whenever you're ready, you may begin.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Here I'm here to present item well, I don't know item number. SB 686. So for too long, the workers that we entrust to care for our loved ones and our homes have been marginalized and dehumanized by an intentional exclusion from workplace health and safety laws. Yet these workers are regularly exposed to health and safety threats like toxic cleaning products, extreme heat, wildfire smoke, and lifting injuries in the home workplace.

In 2021, the Governor signed my Bill, SB 321, which created an Advisory Committee. And it was composed of domestic workers, domestic employers, and occupational health and safety experts so that we could develop voluntary, industry specific health and safety guidelines and then make recommendations to the Legislature on how to strengthen the health and safety of household domestic service employees. The Advisory Committee met throughout 2022, and just this earlier this year, they released their report.

And it was for voluntary guidance for both the employers, the employees, and policy recommendations. The Advisory Committee's top recommendation was to remove the household domestic services exclusion from Cal-OSHA. SB 686 does just that. It follows the recommendation of this Advisory Committee. The Bill establishes a financial assistance program to help low income employers make their homes safer workplaces, and it expands the outreach and education program to cover workplace safety issues.

Employers, domestic employers played a critical role in developing the Advisory Committee recommendations, and SB 686 takes the next step to provide resources and tools to support them as employers in ensuring health and safety protections for the men and women that they hire. So with me here today to testify in support of 686 are Nancy Zuniga, Director of Workers Health and Safety at the Institute for Popular Education of Southern California and Anna Pisareo. Pisarello. Sorry, Member of the Hand in Hand Domestic Employers Network.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee Members. My name is Nancy Zuniga. I am Director of the Workers Health and Safety at the Institute of Popular Education of Southern California. IDEPSCA, a Member of the Domestic Workers coalition. I was appointed to the SB 321 Advisory Committee. Domestic work is a physically and emotionally demanding job. I'm a public health expert. That is my background. And I have been educating domestic workers and day laborers for over 12 years.

And I know that someone's job shouldn't be at the expense of their health or well being. But that is exactly what is happening in the domestic work industry. A recent study from the UCLA Labor and Occupational Safety and Health Program, LOSH found that 85% of domestic workers surveyed had experienced musculoskeletal injuries. 55% of workers continued to work out of financial necessity or fear of job loss. 51% of respondents reported being pressured by an employer to work in hazardous conditions.

In 2021, Governor Newsom signed SB 321, creating an Advisory Committee composed of domestic workers, employers, and health and safety experts like myself. We convened for a year to develop guidelines of how injuries can be prevented and how health and safety protections could be implemented in the home workplace.

Additionally, the Advisory Committee published policy recommendations concluding that there is a fundamental need for employers to have legal responsibility for the working conditions of domestic workers and that the legislators should remove the household domestic services exclusion from Cal-OSHA. We have a unique opportunity in California to finally undo the harm to a predominantly immigrant women of color workforce. SB 686 will provide the protections and resources to ensure health and safety in the home workplace. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Up to two minutes.

Good afternoon to the Chair and to the Committee Members. My name is Anna Pisarello and I'm here as part of Hand in hand, the domestic employers network. And I also served on the SB 321 Advisory Committee for Cal-OSHA as an employer representative. So I'm a working mom, I am an educator, and my professional work is simply not possible without the important work of domestic workers.

In my home, we employ an amazing nanny, Olga, and she cares for our two small children, which enables my husband to leave home for work and for me to teach full time and in turn, to support my students. So we know from our experience in the pandemic that the livelihoods and health of both domestic worker and employer are interconnected and reliant on each other. Injury and illness prevention will protect our workers, but also limits disruptions to our lives as employers.

Dignity and safety for domestic workers means dignity and safety for me and my family. The reality is that as an employer, I'm already liable if August gets sick or injured while working in my home. On the Advisory Committee, we discuss both the barriers and the solutions to ensure occupational safety and health at the home workplace. So, just for as an example, Cal-OSHA's existing processes of consultation and mediation.

So SB 686 advances these solutions by giving employers clear direction for how to keep our employees safe, while giving workers the protection they need to advocate for their own health and safety. So this Bill creates structures necessary to ensure preventative and proactive measures to keep workers safe by focusing on outreach and education, financial and technical assistance for employers, and also ample time for Cal-OSHA to develop its policy and procedures for the industry.

So it's long past time for California to lead the way and provide dignity and safety to all workers. Everybody deserves a safe workplace. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of SB 686, name and affiliation and your position on the Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members, Tiffany Whiten with SEIU California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates and the California Coalition for Worker Power in support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support of SB 686.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with the California Labor Federation also in support.

Thank you.

Buenos tardes, Mi nombre es Evelyn Alfaro. Soy organizador de mujeres activas y trabajadoras del hogar, orgullosamente y apoyo a la SB 686. Gracias.

Gracias.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Alma Elias y yo vengo de San Francisco y vengo a apoyar la SB 686.

Thank you.

I'm Margo Schulter and I am a domestic employer. I live in Sacramento County and I know that my caregivers make possible my Independence, dignity and safety, and I wish no less for them. That is why I support SB 686.

Thank you.

Mi nombre es Mirna Arana. Yo vengo de Oakland soy tradajadora de limpieza de casas y soy de mujeres unidas y activas y yo apoyo la SB 686.

Mi nombre es Aaron. Vengo de Oakland. Yo apoyo 686.

Jenya Cassidy, California Work and Family Coalition in strong support.

Thank you.

Katie Wutchiett from Legal Aid at Work in support.

I'm Tom Manley from Oakland. I'm a domestic employer and I support SB 686.

Thank you.

Romeo Hebron, with the Filipino Migrant Center in Long Beach in support.

Thank you.

Buenas, mi nombre es Fiorella. Vivo en San Francisco y tambien apoyo al SB 686. Gracias.

Gracias.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Martha Herrera soy miembro de mujeres unidas y activas. Soy trabajadora del hogar y yo estoy aqui vengo desde Oakland California y yo estoy apoyando a la SB 686.

Good afternoon. My name is Cynthia Padilla. I'm from San Francisco. I'm a Member of Mujeres Unidas y Activas and I am a domestic worker and I support SB 686. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is [inaudible] from the San Francisco. I'm from La Colectiva Mujeres. Estoy apoyando SB 686.

Gracias.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Ana Manzanares de San Francisco de la Colectiva de Mujeres. Estoy apoyando la SB 686.

Gracias.

Good afternoon, my name is Myelle, from the San Francisco Women's Collective. I support SB 686.

Hola, buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Adriana Sanchez. Vengo de San Francisco pertenezco a la colectiva de mujeres y vengo apoyando la SB 686, gracias.

Hola mi nombre es Hortensia Banda. Soy San Francisco vengo apoyando a la colectiva de mujeres y a la 686. Gracias.

Hola, mi nombre es Sandra Jimenez. Vengo de San Francisco soy trabajadora del hogar y vengo a apoyar la SB 686.

Buenos tardes. Mi nombre es Maria Montano. Pertenezco a la colectiva de mujeres y estoy apoyando a la SB 686.

My name is Guillermina Castellanos. I come from the Domestic Worker Coalition in the Colectiva De Mojeres in San Francisco and I support the 686.

Thank you.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Norma Miranda. Soy una trabajadora del hogar, soy de CHIRLA. Vengo de Los Angeles y yo soporto el apoyo para la SB 686. Gracias.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Beatriz Hernandez. Vengo de San Francisco soy parte de la colectiva de mujeres y yo vengo apoyando a la SB 686.

Hola, buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Elivara. Vendo de San Francisco parte de la colectiva de mujeres y apoyo SB 686.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Jenny Avila. Soy de la colectiva de mujeres de San Francisco y soy trabajadora del hogar, yo apoyo a las 686. Gracias.

Mi nombre es Marcel Escamilla. Vengo de San Francisco California y soy de la colectiva. Apoyamos SB 686.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es [inaudible]. Vivo en San Francisco [inaudible] y vengo con la colectiva de mujeres y estoy apoyando la SB 686. Gracias.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Carmen Flores. Vengo de San Francisco de la colectiva apoyo tambien a SB 686 y soy trabajadora de limpieza. Gracias.

Good afternoon. My name is Maru Galvan. I'm CHIRLA organizer in Los Angeles and I support SB 686.

Thank you.

I'm Veronica Arroyo. I'm here from Georgia and I'm in support of SB 686.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, everyone. I am Aria Resinto from Filipino Workers Center of Los Angeles. I am also a home care worker to our beloved elderly. I strongly support SB 686.

Thank you.

Muy buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Iris Zuniga vengo horas county con la organizacion nuestras manos trabajo por 22 anos como [inaudible] y apoyo la SB 686. Gracias.

Good afternoon and thank you for your work. My name is [inaudible] and I live and work in San Francisco. And I'm here in support of SB 686. As a dad to a child that has a physical disability that require and will require care work throughout his life, as a registered voter and as a taxpayer. Thank you.

Thank you.

Maria Torres De Laguna Hills... Soy trabajadora del hogar y apoyo a la SB 686. Gracias.

Hi. My name is Kayla Shore. I'm a domestic employer and part of Hand in Hand, the Domestic Employers Network from Los Angeles here in support of SB 686.

Gracias.

Hi. My name is [inaudible] Embries. I'm part of Mujeres Unidas y Activas. I came from San Francisco and support SB 686.

Gracias.

Hola buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Eli Gonzalez. Soy miembra de mujeres activas y unidas soy de San Francisco y vengo a apoyar a la SB 686.

Gracious.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Ana Giron. Vengo de San Francisco soy miembre de mujeres unidas y activas soy trabajadora del hogar y vengo a apoyar a SB 686. Gracias.

Gracias.

Muy buenas tardes, mi nombre es Emma Delgado organizadora de derechos del inmigrante con muheres unidas y activas y estoy super orgullosa de ser trabajadora del hogar desde que tendo 12 anos y apoyo la SB 868. Gracias.

Gracias.

Muy buena tarde mi nombre Maria Huerta este vivo en Hayward. Soy organizadora nacional con la alianza Nacional Trabajadores del hogar y nosotros apoyamos SB 686.

Gracias.

Hola buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Damaris Estrada soy trabajadora del hogar y tambien soy organizadora en mujeres unidas y activas. Tengo de Hayward y orgullosamente apoyo la SB 686.

Hi, my name is Maria Josevastias. I am the English teacher at Mujeres Unidas y Activas y apoyo a la SB 686 asi como la educacion multilingue para trabajar durante el hogar.

Hello. My name is Lorena. I live in Haywire. I am Member of Mujeres Unidas y Activas and I am here to support SB 686. Thank you.

Thank you.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Juana Flores. Soy de mujeres unidas y activas fui trabajadora del hogar por muchos anos y vivo en Richmond California y estoy aqui para apoyar SB 686.

Gracias.

Hello. My name is Vanessa. I'm with the California Domestic Workers Coalition. I'm from Los Angeles, and we ask that you support SB 686.

Thank you.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Judit Talavera. Vengo de la colectiva. Soy cuidadora de ninos y de limpieza, gracias.

Gracias.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Mayrol Uribe. Vengo de la colectiva de mujeres San Francisco apoyando a la SB 686.

Gracias.

buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Margarita. Vivo en San Francisco soy de la colectiva de mujeres trabajo limpiando casas y estoy apoyando la SB 686.

Gracias.

Andrea Amavisca on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center in strong support.

Thank you.

Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty and strong support.

Thank you.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here. On behalf of All Home in support.

Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Silvia Lopez. Soy miembro de mujeres unidas y activas en Oakland California. Fui trabajadora del hogar por 20 anos y ahora soy organizadora de trabajadoras del hogar. Gracias y apoyo la SB 686. Si se puede.

Gracias.

Hi, my name is Bree from the California Domestic Workers Coalition. I'm from Long Beach and in strong support of SB 686.

Gracias.

Hola, muy buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Aminta Morales. Soy trabajadora del hogar a mucho orguillo soy una lider y organizadora de alcance en la colectiva de mujeres y estoy aqui pidiendo su apoyo a la SB 686. Gracias.

Gracias.

My name is Judy Jackson from Trespinos, California in San Benito County, and I support this Bill as a recipient of a caregiver.

Thank you.

I'm Joyce Esther. I belong to Filipino Advocate for Justice and I strongly support SB 686.

Gracious. Thank you.

My name is Kat Bailey. I'm a recent UC Davis graduate student and a former caregiver from Georgia. I support this Bill.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone here in opposition to SB 686? All right, well, we'll bring it back to the Committee. We need a motion. With a motion and a second. Assembly Member Ortega.

Quería darle las gracias a todas las mujeres que vinieron y hombres, pero mujeres que vinieron hoy a dar su voz a mi mamá también fue trabajadora de hogar en casa por muchos años y me da mucho gusto que con las SB 686 y la senadora que Durazo van a tener, no solamente una voz, pero la vamos a poner ver porque muchas veces ustedes son las que hacen lo que necesitamos hacer nosotros para poder trabajar y ustedes no les vemos esto no solamente las vamos a ver, pero las vamos a oír. Muchas gracias.

Any other questions? Please? Yeah, please do.

I just wanted to acknowledge the women and men who are here today for speaking up and appreciate Senator Durazo for introducing SB 686. My mother was also a domestic worker for many years, and this Bill will not only give her a face, because a lot of these workers are often faceless when the rest of us are able to go to work and do what we need to do. It also gives them a voice, and I appreciate that and we'll be supporting today.

Thank you, Senator Haney.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And thank you, Senator Durazo, for your leadership both on moving forward the Advisory Committee and getting us to this point of what I think is a very reasonable and necessary next step. Muchas gracias to all of the domestic workers who are here.

I know there are many who are here from San Francisco who I've had the opportunity to get to know very well and very much appreciate all of your work and your advocacy and your tireless work on behalf of yourselves and also the many, many domestic workers who you represent in being here. The fact that we still have household domestic service exempted entirely from these kinds of protections is just entirely unacceptable.

And the fact that this Bill would finally change what is I believe to be a discriminatory relic, excluding workers who are overwhelmingly women or overwhelmingly people of color from protections that every worker should have. And actually domestic workers need as much, if not more than many other workers because of the dangers and the challenges that can be experienced.

And what this Bill does is really just ensures that Cal-OSHA takes that next step of forming those regulations that are appropriate for this industry and for these workers and removes this exemption, which I think is overdue in being removed. So I'm very proud to be also a co author of this Bill and thankful for the broad coalition and especially all of the domestic workers who are here. Muchas gracias.

It means so much to see you all reach this point and let's move it forward and get it signed by the Governor.

Thank you, Committee Members. I want to thank the Senator and his other, oh, Senator Reyes, I thought you went like that, so I thought, oh, no, never. I would never do that.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Yo tambien les quiero agradecer todos a ustedes que estan aqui especialmente Juana Flores que subio y sonrio desde el principio hasta el final.

I also want to say thank you to Judy Jackson. I think it's so important to have not only the workers here, but the employers who recognize how important the work is of the domestic workers. I think this is another example, and I wish I could have bills where there would be zero opposition.

But the Senator is presenting a Bill that is so important, and as my colleague has said, we need to remove these exemptions that do not provide the protection that everybody in California deserves. So I am very proud to support this and I thank you for bringing this.

Thank you. And I want to thank the Senator and as others have indicated, really thank the workers as well as some of the employers that are here in recognition of how hard domestic workers work for them and work for so many of our loved ones, oftentimes in isolation, as Ortega indicated. Oftentimes a voiceless part of the workforce that deserves a voice.

So I'm so happy that so many of you took the time to come here from all over the state to make sure your voice is heard. And I don't think you can choose a better person to amplify your voice than Senator Durazo. And so I'm very grateful for her work on this and on behalf of workers through so many years. And I would be honored to be added as a co author as well. And would you like to close, Senator Durazo?

Well, thank you, everyone, for your comments. Gracias a todos por haber venido viajado de todas partes de California. This is a women's caucus priority. So it's very important to all of us that in this care economy, that we are treating the women, primarily all who work in the care economy, with the dignity that they deserve. So thank you to the employers, to the workers, and to you, as Members of this Committee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you so much. Madam Secretary, if you can take a roll call, vote on SB 686.

Motion is do passed to Appropriations Committee. [Roll call vote]

And That's unanimously passed out. Thank you so much. And we'll return later on to Senator Durazo's other bills. Thank you, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, for allowing that particular Bill to go forward. We have quite a few people here that have to, I think, make their way home. There are buses to be boarded, my understanding. So, Senator, we have SB 627 by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Whenever you're ready, Senator.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And thank you so much, Assembly Members, for hearing this important Bill. I'm pleased to present SB 627, the Displaced Worker Transfer Rights Act, which would require large chain employers with 100 stores or more to give 60 days advance notice to workers that the store is closing. It would additionally grant workers displaced by these closures a right to transfer to an available chain store within 25 miles of the closed location.

Store closures can have a devastating effect on workers financial security, destabilizing, and affect so many of our communities that they call home. These store closures occur disproportionately in low-income communities, communities of color affecting largely women workforces, compounding the economic and social challenges that residents already face.

Furthermore, for the workers who are faced with job loss and the need to collect unemployment or utilize other services to help with financial insecurities, the costs of these closures are way too high and effectively often get passed on to the California taxpayers. SB 627 will help ensure workers' lives aren't completely upended when they lose their job due to store closures because they will have a safety net that will afford them an opportunity to continue working and providing for themselves and their communities.

With me, today to testify is Darryl Pierce, a former Starbucks employee, and Sara Flocks with the California Labor Federation, who will be here to answer any technical questions you might have.

Thank you so much. Up to two minutes each. Please begin.

Hi, my name is Darryl Pierce, and I worked at Starbucks for over two years, most recently at the 19th and J location here in Sacramento. My coworkers and I started organizing to form a union to improve the most basic working conditions in our store, motivated by our often dangerous work environment. We had numerous safety and hygiene issues at our store.

People would use drugs in the public bathroom, throw hot coffee and heavy mugs at us, pick their skin off in our lobby, and shatter our store windows with crowbars. When Starbucks closed 16 stores nationally, including six in California, they told us it was due to safety concerns. But many other stores, like mine, had the same safety issues as the closed stores and yet remained open.

These store closures were timed to send a message to organizing Starbucks workers that the company is willing to go to extremes to prevent us from exercising our rights. I'm here today to speak in favor of Senate Bill 627, which would require chain employers like Starbucks to give workers at the closing stores the opportunity to work at nearby locations.

One of our fears as Baristas was that in too many places, Starbucks has closed unionizing stores in retaliation for organizing, and then made sure that pro union baristas wouldn't be able to find work at surrounding stores. Starbucks has spent millions on their anti union campaign and has shown they believe themselves to be above labor law with their actions. In many instances, employees aren't able to find positions close enough to their homes and are forced to quit. Without this law, people lose their jobs.

Even when stores close for a day, you can see the customer volume at surrounding locations. Shoot up stores simply aren't staffed or stocked for that unexpected volume. SB 627 would address this labor shortage by ensuring that workers who are in danger of losing their jobs can transfer to stores within 25 miles of a closed location. Companies like Starbucks should want to retain experienced staff instead of forcing them into joblessness because they're too afraid of workers exercising their right to unionize.

SB 627 will help those in our communities retain employment. Chain employees like myself often choose to work in locations based on their proximity to our homes. Many don't have cars, so losing our jobs to store closures is hugely impactful on our ability to find work when the next nearest location is inaccessible. Please join me in supporting important legislation that would help protect chain employees who are organizing for safer stores and better conditions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair Member Sara Flock of California Labor Federation, a sponsor of the Bill. We were here a couple weeks ago as a co-sponsor of another Bill, SB 723, and it was about rehire rights, making permanent rehire rights for hospitality workers.

This Bill is largely modeled on that because it's a successful model to keep workers connected to their jobs, prevent long term unemployment, and make sure that especially older workers, workers who may have been activists on the job, women, low-income workers have job security when there are layoffs that are no fault of their own.

Economists actually recommend this as a way to keep our economy running when we hit recessions or rough times, or when we hit an area when retail stores, large chains like is happening nationally are starting to reformat. When they're closing some stores because they're going online, closing some stores in neighborhoods because they want to move into wealthier neighborhoods where they make more money. That's not the worker's fault.

And in fact, that neighborhood and those workers have a double burden because they lose a business that provides often things like prescription drugs and groceries, and they lose their jobs. So this Bill simply says, when a position opens up, let workers you've already hired and trained transfer. So we urge your support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 627?

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, strong support.

Thank you.

James Michael Paula with Ask Me California in support.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with the SEIU in support.

Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and the California Coalition for Worker Power in support.

Thank you. So anyone here in opposition, SB 627?

It's the last time you have to see me today. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition as a job killer Bill. As with SB 723, which was recently heard in this Committee, we believe this policy, which started as a COVID policy, micromanages the rehire process for affected businesses and creates a problematic permanent statutory scheme that eliminates at will employment and mandates hiring based on seniority alone. This Bill broadly impacts chains which could include a multitude of businesses and industries, including retail, restaurants, grocery stores, hotels, hospitals, healthcare facilities, movie theaters, and more. The broad nature of this Bill contains the issues that in 2020 caused Governor Newsom to veto AB 3216. After the veto, the Right to Recall policy was passed in 2021 to Institute a narrow law specifically for hospitality workers, which had a sunset and was specifically tied to the COVID-19 pandemic. Since the passage of the policy in 2021, the requirements have slowed down the hiring process significantly in the hospitality industry, and we believe it will do so in the industries impacted by this Bill also. I would also note the penalties for employers who inadvertently run afoul of this compliance heavy law are very high. With all the issues with the implementation of this policy in the hospitality industry, we believe this policy should stay as a pandemic based policy and not expand into new industries. Thank you.

Thank you for reminding me of the Governor of each of my Bill. Please.

History.

Good afternoon, I'm Katie Davey. I'm with the California Restaurant Association. We are in respectful opposition to SB 627. SB 627 requires certain restaurant employers to give specific notice to employees 60 days prior to closing a location. While this may sound simple, and it's certainly something our members can strive for, the logistical implementation of that 60 day notice requirement is very complex. There are numerous factors that go into the equation when a business is determining if and when it may make sense to close a given location. Given those complexities and variables, a rigid 60 day notice will likely lead us to over notice employees and will likely result in noticing employees about the potential of a store closure when in some cases, a store may not actually close at all. Additionally, the Bill requires employers to offer jobs to employees from closed stores at other stores within 25 miles of that closed location and to continue to prioritize that employee for up to one year. These same employees also have five days to accept or decline that offer. While these are great goals to strive for and our members try to do just that, the operational disruption to restaurants that are forced to wait five days for a potential employee to respond to a job offer is just not workable for us. Prior experience with this kind of prescriptive rehire requirement in the hospitality industry gives us great concern over the restrictive nature of this proposal. Additionally, the Bill does not provide covered employees with an avenue to remove themselves from the rehire list. A restaurant employer would still be required to contact covered employees on the list and offer them a job when it comes available, even though the covered employee may have indicated that they've taken another opportunity and do not want to be contacted anymore. We believe that the restrictive hiring mandates contained in SB 627 will have the unintended consequences of actually slowing down our hiring process, as it is certainly possible for one employee to take the full five days to respond to the job offer and then decline the job. Do I need to wrap up? Thank you. We're also concerned that these requirements will impact promotional opportunities for existing employees. For these and other logistical reasons, we are opposed to SB 627.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 627? Name, affiliation, your position on the Bill?

Julee Malinowski-Ball. Respectfully in opposition on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Annalie Aiken, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden with the California Manufacturers Technology Association. Respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair. Chris Mckayley on behalf of the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce. Also in respectful opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, we'll bring it back to Committee. Is there a motion? We have a motion and a second. Any other comment or question? Okay. I really see this much more as a job saver than a job killer, quite literally. And I think with chain stores, they typically, I imagine, take months, if not years, in making decisions on closures. I think giving 60 days to workers before their life is potentially uprooted is not just common decency, it's good public policy. And so That's why I am already a co author on this one and grateful to the author for bringing this forward. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair, for those comments. This is a job protector, not a job killer Bill. The idea is, when workers lose their jobs, our communities lose resources, our community lose consumers, our families lose breadwinners. And this is about making sure that companies do right by workers and make sure that they keep working and able to work in a way that sustains our community nearby, where their original place of employment was located. We believe that this Bill is essential. I have worked with workers when a Walmart closed on Crenshaw Boulevard. It took us five years to find employment, particularly for those black and English language learners who were working in that store to find suitable work for them. So this Bill ensures that our folks have a place to go and that they continue to work. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary. On SB 627. If we can have a roll call. Vote please.

Motion is due, passed to Judiciary Committee. Kalra, Kalra aye. Flora, Flora no. Chen, Chen not voting. Haney. Ortega, Ortega, aye. Reyes, Reyes aye. Ward.

Okay, that Bill will go on call. And we have one more from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas SB 830.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Assembly Members. I'm pleased to present SB 830, which would extend prevailing wage on public works projects to offsite sheet metal fabricators performing work for those projects. Traditionally, fabrication of custom sheet metal ducts for heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems took place at a job site. Advances in fabrication tools and practices now allow for fabrication of custom sheet metal ducts, either on-site or offsite.

Off-site fabrication increases safety, productivity, and efficiency by using permanently installed computer-guided plasma cutters and by allowing project planners to schedule the needed fabrication at each stage of construction. Unfortunately, off-site custom fabrication has also been used to increase developer and contractor profits by evading prevailing wage requirements. A 2014 appellate court decision upheld the determination that off-site custom fabrication of metal is not subject to prevailing wage, even though the same work would be if it were performed at a job site.

This creates an incentive for contractors to evade prevailing wage by constructing significant portions of their projects outside of the local area using low-paid workers that don't have the same protections. Allowing this to continue undermines state prevailing wage policy and denies workers their rightful wages and robs our community of those wages. SB 830 would follow the lead of other states that have specified off-site custom fabrication of sheet metal for HVAC Systems is itself a public work.

This will ensure offsite fabrication is used to benefit the efficiency and safety of public projects and not to dodge California's prevailing wage. I have with me today from the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, Scott Wedge to testify in support and Rob Stoker to answer any technical questions you might have.

Thank you. Up to two minutes each, please.

Mr. Chairman Member, Scott Wedge. On behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, I think the Senator did a more than eloquent job of explaining what this Bill does. I'd just like to emphasize a few points. We're focused solely on sheet metal ductwork that is made to specifications for a project, not off-the-shelf types of equipment that you might just go buy at a wholesaler or Home Depot.

While I have great respect for my friends in the opposition, I'd like to address a couple, I think, fallacious arguments that they've made about this Bill. And one of them is that folks working in a fab shop might be working 1 hour or 2 hours on a prevailing wage job if this Bill were to pass. And then shift and do a few hours on private work and then may come back and do prevailing wage work again and that makes it impossible to appropriately apply prevailing wage.

And That's not a new circumstance in public works projects. Trade unionists, trade workers, union, nonunion might go into a project at a school for 2 hours, be pulled by the contractor and sent over to building a Safeway, which is not a public works job, and then come back in the afternoon or the next day. The process of maintaining certified payrolls accommodates for that. So that's nothing new. The second example they'll use is, well what do we do if we have something being prefabricated overseas? And my response is don't. And so for that, we just ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

I think I would just like to add that technology really is changing the way that this work is done and I have a unique perspective because I came up as a sheet metal worker through the apprenticeship, got into supervisory positions all the way up and then moved over into some management positions where I was estimating and project managing.

And before I came over here and have the honor of representing sheet metal workers in this state, I was actually the division sheet metal manager for one of the largest mechanical contractors in the East Bay Area. So I understand the burdens that come along with keeping businesses open and everything that they have to do. But Mr. Wetch put it well, these are things that are already done. Every project that is bid every minute of that project is accounted for.

So regardless of how many projects are flowing, that is all tracked. So much of the work that we were doing on-site as short as five years ago is now done off-site. That's the reality. And there's no big win for unionized sheet metal workers because we're making these wages. Who this is protecting is those that are unorganized and it's leveling the playing field and closing that loop so that when you bid a public workshop and the fabrication is included and it's apples for apples.

So this really is reaching out and supporting those that aren't unionized. And I think I would last like to close with it's a bad thing to shrink these hours down on site, I will say that. But I also say that we're embracing these technologies because it's safer for the workforce, right? We're in a controlled environment in a shop where we can do these things. The corridors of a building that's going up are less congested, makes it safer, makes it a more efficient job.

The reality is though, if we allow technology to keep depleting some of the hours that are on-site, then the real losers are those men and women that are going to want to get into an apprenticeship program, right? Because that's the requirement there and there's so many, whether it's veterans or people that have been impacted by the justice system that are waiting for these hours. So we would respectfully ask for an aye.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 830?

Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. In support.

Thank you. Opposition? SB 830. The motion in a second.

Mr. Chair Members, Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, our members are large union signatory building contractors, so we are not anti-union. The problem with this Bill and what's been said over the past few weeks about the infrastructure package and the need to bring in more minority contractors is by adopting this policy, this isn't about uplifting workers, this is about competition. This is about limiting the ability of small and emerging contractors to enter the market.

Because doing this type of certified payroll on top of regular payroll is challenging. So I get it, you want to keep competition out, that's fine. But don't hold us liable, right? If you want to pay workers $107 an hour, whatever the rate is, then eliminate joint and several liability for the prime contractor. Because Mr. Wetch is right. It is done today where workers go from one site to another, and at each site, they clock in. We know where they are, here, they're in a shop.

As a general contractor, we have no way of verifying what that worker is doing at any given moment and since we're ultimately on the hook, all we're saying is mitigate that liability. Then you have some practical implementation issues, this Bill applies to existing contracts and existing projects. How does that work? We've already agreed to those terms.

So come January 1st, a fab shop that has never done certified payroll is suddenly going to have to do certified payroll or they'll be liable for $200 per worker per day. That fab shop also won't be registered with DIR to perform on public works. They can't do that work at all. There's no delayed implementation in this Bill, so we don't understand how that process will work. We'll have to substitute those fab shops under this Bill because they're not registered. Who pays for that?

Who pays for the increased wages that would be due on January 1st if someone bid a job at $30 an hour, and now that rate is $100 an hour? As the general contractor, do I pay it? How does that work? I mean, these are some pretty clear items on the most basic implementation level that haven't been addressed. This isn't just giving someone an extra $5 an hour. There are processes involved. None of these have been addressed. So for this reason, we do oppose the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in opposition to SB 830?

Mr. Chair Members, Chris Walker on behalf of the California sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. We're not in opposition, nor are we in support. What we would like to note is that we are working collaboratively with the sponsor of the author's office on some of these implementation issues. Some of these dates are important. For example, a lot of our fabrication shops are not contractors licensed with the Contractors Licensing board because they are not needed to, and they're also not public works contractors.

So they would be in violation the minute that this Bill became law January 1. I know that the sponsor has agreed to address those issues. We wanted to note those. And we also think it would be a good idea that in the bid documents for public works jobs that this notation be included, that duct work is subject to prevailing wage, whether it's off-site or on-site. We think that's important as a union contractor, we want our nonunion competitors to know that and have that upfront. So thank you.

Thank you. We'll bring it back. Anyone else in opposition? Bring it back to Committee Vice Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Govenar, you raised a couple of interesting points. I was just curious if the opposition wanted to address that because I do think that there is some valid concerns there, for sure.

I was just chatting with the Senator and with Mr. Govenar and on the delayed implementation, where there's existing contracts out there, I think that we can easily find an accommodation for that. That's a legitimate issue, and we'll definitely work through that.

Thank you. Member Reyes.

This is the way we're supposed to do things. We find what the issue is and we take care of it. The other had to do with the certified payroll and making sure that someone who wasn't accustomed to certified payroll, how do they transition to that?

Well, for the most part, even the Fab shops today that are not paying prevailing wage, they're doing public works. They're still taking that fabricated material and at some point going on-site to install it. So they're not unfamiliar with the certified payroll process to begin with. But let's say that some contractor just moved to California and got a contractor's license here and is not familiar with our laws.

The section in the labor code that outlines what you need to do on a public works project are pretty clear. But remember, these are subcontractors. Subcontractors, then, are actually being contracted to by the general contractor, as Mr. Governor pointed out, and the general contractor and the project owner, they meet at the beginning of a project. They have pre-project meetings, and they go over the process by which certified payrolls will be filed. It really isn't rocket science, and so it's pretty easy to comply, in my opinion.

I appreciate the fact that I think there were valid points that were brought up, as my colleague has indicated, but I sincerely appreciate that these are issues that you all are thinking of now and trying to find the very solutions for them. Even by hearing the opposition, it sounds as though everybody's in agreement. This is a union job that's being done. Union wages should be paid, figure out the way--the logistics of it. So I appreciate all of that. Thank you.

Senator Chen.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think this is a really good Bill. I also have some concerns that the opposition does have and I'm really satisfied and really happy to know that you guys are working together. I do have some questions on this Mr. Govenar that hopefully you can help answer. So when it goes to a subcontractor, how is it monitored that subcontractor will continue to pay prevailing wage? And the other question is, I've heard that there's going to be some issues in terms of payroll.

How are we going to make sure that payroll is being calculated, it is being audited to make sure that it is all up and up and that it falls prevailing wage?

Certainly. So subcontractors are obligated to provide certified payroll to general contractors. Now there are some fab shops that are not contractors. They are strictly fab shops, so they aren't used to certified payroll. So our obligation is then to review that payroll and match it up against time cards to determine if it's accurate. Now, again, for work that is done off-site in a factory setting, that is more challenging because we don't have access.

Those workers could be doing any number of things in a location which we're not a party to, so that is a problem. Of course, Mr. Wetch said don't buy something from out of state or country, but California has no reach into those places. So we're someone to do that, and I assure you there will be a market there. There's nothing we can do,

and if you want to hold the general contractor liable under that scenario, I suspect there'll be a dormant commerce clause action because we'd be preventing those products from coming into the state. Now ultimately that will be decided in court, but again, we can't make them do certified payroll in other states.

Mr. Wedge

Sure. I think it's important for the Members to note that nobody forces a General A or B contractor to decide to subcontract. That's their decision as a business. That's why they have joint and liability, is because if they select, if they decide to subcontract our work and they hire that subcontractor and that subcontractor

does wage theft or absconds and doesn't pay their workers or has violations, that comes back to the general contractor because they are the ones that hire the subcontractor.

Good. And so any other questions or comments? I would just say, first of all, thank you to both parties for the willingness and the author of the willingness to deal with some of those issues regarding timeline and that can add some complexity there. So I think that there seems to be some general meeting of the minds that needs to be worked out. And so I appreciate that from all sides. I also would say that look, these are public works projects.

I get that it adds a level of complexity in terms of payroll, but this is not a novel issue. There are plenty of contractors, plenty of subcontractors that are very accustomed to having workers go on multiple job sites during the course of the week. And that's something that some of the fabricators now have to get up to speed on and get accustomed to and there's a thousand software programs out there that help with HR and payroll to allow for that.