Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will come to order. Good morning. We're not in church, people. Good morning. Much better. Thank you. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person and via the Teleconference Service. For individuals wishing to provide the comments, today's participant number is 877-226-8163. I'll give that to you one more time. 877-226-8163. And the access code is 753-2581. Under the rules of the Committee, each side will be permitted an equal amount of time.

Lead witnesses will have two minutes each and there is no reserving time for other witnesses. All others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measures. Testimony via the Teleconferencing Service will be limited to a total of 20 minutes. We are holding our Committee hearings here in the O Street building. I ask all Members of the Committee to be present. Room 2200. We're doing a pretty good job, though. We can't establish a quorum.

And actually, we do have a quorum. We have 14 bills on today's agenda. Before we hear the presentation of the bills, let's establish a quorum. Emma, if you could call the role.

Senator Cortese? Senator Wilk?

Present.

Wilk present. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird?

Here.

Laird here. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Here.

Smallwood-Cuevas here. We have a quorum.

Thank you. I would take a motion to the consent calendar which is AB 380. AB 383, and AB 621. We have a motion from Senator Laird with that. If you could call the roll file.

Items number four, 5 and 11 all on consent. Senator Cortese. Senator Wilk.

Aye.

Wilk aye. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas aye. These items are on call and have three aye votes.

Thank you very much. We're going to move to our first item today, which is item number one. AB 1228 by Assemblyman Holden who I would like the record to note was here early. So I want to apologize to you. Typically, we start on time on this Committee. It's just a freak thing. So I apologize, and whenever you're ready, you may proceed.

Well, thank you. It's no problem. First of all, I'd like to thank the chair and the Committee Members for allowing me to present AB 1228 a Bill that would require that a fast food restaurant franchiseor share with its fast food restaurant franchisee all civil legal responsibility and civil liability for the franchisee's labor violations. As many of you know, California's fast food industry employs over 556,000 Californians, the highest number of any state in the country. Of those fast food workers, nearly 70% are people of color.

We have heard fast food workers experiences of wage theft, violence at work, sexual harassment and assault, denial of earned sick days, intense heat, poor workplace safety practices, and retaliation for speaking out. While this does not imply that all fast food franchisees mistreat their workers, it is clear that we must ensure that our fast food workers are able to thrive in their workplace and in their communities.

Last year, I had the opportunity to listen to fast food workers, franchisees and franchiseors, and even Members of the Legislature regarding joint liability. During our discussions, there was a common theme that was voiced there needs to be an opportunity for franchiseors to address their labor violations before there's joint liability. And That's what this Bill does. AB 1228 states that no civil action shall commence against a fast food franchiseor prior to 30 days after receiving a written notice of the alleged violation.

The time period is extended to 60 days. If a franchiseor makes a written request to the noticing person for additional time to complete the investigation. The Bill further states that the franchiseor would not be liable in a civil action if the franchiseor cures the alleged violation within the applicable time period. Finally, the Bill would provide that a waiver of this bill's provision or any agreement by the franchisee to indemnify its franchiseor for liability is contrary to public policy and is void and unenforceable.

With me to testify is a fast food worker, Johmara Romero. She is a child labor whistleblower of Popeyes expert and Tia Kuntz, legal and Policy Research Manager at UCLA Labor Center. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Hello, everyone. My name is Johmara Romero, and I am 17 years old. I have worked at Popeyes for almost four months. In May, I went on a strike for the very first time to sound the alarm on how the company has been exploiting minors at the store, including a 13 year old worker. During my time at Popeyes, management never asked me for a work permit.

I was expected to work late until 10 or 11:00 p.m.. There were times I missed my morning classes because I was tired after a late shift. I never said anything to management because I was afraid they'd cut all my hours. And I need this job to help my family with bills from time to time. Popeyes didn't take action until hearing from a Washington Post reporter that had reached Popeyes'corporate office for comments about the child labor violations we exposed.

They told her they had immediately shut down the store, even though it's a franchise store. If Popeyes has the power to close a franchise store when their reputation is on the line, they have the power to step in the many other times our safety and health is at risk. The same goes for any other fast food corporation like McDonald's, who is also facing serious child labor violations. What they're doing isn't right.

And they aren't the only company making false promises to teens like me saying that this is the best first job, when so far my experience at this job has been the complete opposite. If these companies aren't going to follow the rules, it's time that legislators like you step in and make sure they are. It's time they take responsibility for us workers and stop putting the blame on the franchise owners who oftentimes don't have much of a say in the first place.

Fast food jobs should be good jobs for young workers like me and the many older workers who also depend on these jobs to feed their families. We ask that you support the half a million fast food workers around California by supporting AB 1228. Let's work together in making fast food job safe for everyone. Thank you.

Thank you.

17, Ladies and gentlemen, she has a bright future ahead of her. Good morning, Senators. My name is Tia Koonse. I'm here with the UCLA Labor Center. I might not even take two minutes. I'm here to tell you what anyone who studies fast food will tell you, which is that this joint liability is necessary to close the gap in liability that exists in this and so many other Fisherd industries.

We've seen this kind of end run around labor standards, in temp work, in independent contracting, in the rise of gig work. And we also see it right now in this franchising issue that we experienced since the 1970s. So the Assembly Members already told you that we employ 550,000 fast food workers in the state. 80%, in fact, are workers of color. And the majority are women. So we are talking about women of color. Seven in 10 fast food workers are women.

You've heard the statistics regarding wage theft. It's really astonishing how many workers experience not just wage theft, but also sexual harassment, assault, violence, workplace safety issues in the workplace. My office most recently conducted a study during the height of the pandemic that found that most fast food workers contracted COVID, but less than half received any of their paid sick leave.

And I am here to tell you that just as this legislative body has taken action to close those liability loopholes by going up the chain in the garment industry to close those liability loopholes by creating joint liability for temp work That's necessary here because the reason working conditions are so terrible in fast food is a result of the Franchising model.

One study of the top 20 fast food companies in the country found that those companies that were franchiseor owned but franchisee operated almost all experienced violations of overtime and minimum wage. You simply cannot, as a franchisee, afford to meet all the state labor standards required of you. With all of the prices, suppliers, vendors and protocols set by the franchiseor, it's really time for the franchisor to be liable for wage an hour and health and safety violations. Go for the big pockets, not the small pockets. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, at this point, we will take me too testimony. So if anybody wants to be in support of the Bill, just come up, share your name, affiliation, if any, and your position on the Bill. I'm assuming you're all going to come out and yeah. Okay, good. Go ahead, sir.

Okay, hi, my name is Miguel. I'm here from Kraft Jr. I'm from Modesto. I'm supporting the AB 1228.

Thank you, sir.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Alia Garcia. I work for Domino's pizza in San Jose. Please vote yes for AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ilia Gustanasa. (Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Good morning. Chair and Members, D'Artagnan Byrne on behalf of Aspe, California, in support of AB 1228.

Thank you, sir.

My name is Uriel. I work at Jack in The Box in Sacramento, California, and I'm here to ask for support in AB 1228.

Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. I work in the Jack in the Box. I live in Sacramento and please support AB 1228, please.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sandra Howery. I warrant Jack in the box. I live in Sacramento. I want your support for the AB 1228, please. Thank you.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

My name is Maria Hernandez. I work at Jack in the Box and I support AB 1228.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sebastian Merrick. I come from Los Angeles, California. I'm an employee at Mcdonald's and I support AB 1228.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Johmara Romero and I'm here hoping that you guys will support the AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Maria Donado, and I hear in support of AB 1228.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Anna Rivera. Please support AB 1228.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Percy Parker. I work at Jamba Juice and I ask that you please support AB 1228.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

(Spanish)

Hello. My name is Ernesto. I work in Carl's Jr. in Sacramento and I'm here to ask for your support on AB 1228.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Hi, good morning. My name is Elizabeth Reyes and I'm here to support AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Good morning, everyone. Thank you for your time today. I'm here asking for your support for AB 1228. I'm a Carl's Jr. Worker. I've worked for five years and I would just really appreciate your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Anisha Williams. I'm a Jack in a box worker in Los Angeles, California. And I'll just ask if you could please support AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sherry Wallace, and I'm from Los Angeles, California, asking for your support for AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

And Peggy Bernardi. I'm with California Indivisible, a coalition of over 80 indivisible grassroots groups throughout California in support of AB 1228. Thank you.

Hi, I'm Erin Fitzgerald from Davis, California. And I'm in support of AB 1228.

(Spanish)

Hi. My name is Miriam Betanco. I'm here for support AP 1228. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Brandon Dawkins. I'm with SEIU Local 1021 out of San Francisco, California, and I'm here to ask you all to support AB 1228. Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Hi. (Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

(Spanish)

Thank you.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Good morning, y'all. My name is Mariah Foster. I'm local from here in Sacramento, and I'm here asking your guys's support on the legislation AB 1228.

Thank you.

My name is Hugo Archibeck. I work at Carl's, Jr. And I'm here asking for your support on 1228.

Thank you.

My name is Marina Ayuraga. I work at Carl's, Jr. And I'm here in support of AB 1228. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Carla Banma. I work at Popeyes, and I'm here to support 1228.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ricardo, and I work at Taco Bell over in Alameda, and I'm here to ask for your guys's support for the AB 1228.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Keoni, and I work at Carl's Jr. Over here in North Highlands, and I'm here to support the fight for 15 dollars with the AB 1228.

Thank you.

My name is Marcus Perez. I work at Carl's Jr. Here in North Highlands, and I'm asking you support for the fight for $15 wage.

(Spanish)

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. Sydney, any more? That's it. Okay, good. All right. At this time, we'll go to any witnesses in opposition? Do we have any primary witnesses?

Any opposition? Any opposition?

Good morning, chair, Cortese, and Members of the Committee. My name is Edwin Trung, and I live in the Chairman's district. I don't have a franchise restaurant up and running yet, but my brother, mother and I are working to open a Teriyaki Madness by the end of the year in San Jose. If passed, AP 1228 would bring this dream and opportunity to an abrupt stop. My parents immigrated from Vietnam and have worked hard as small business owners to give me and my brother a good life.

Since the closing of our family business in 2010, opening a franchise has been a long term term goal to build generational wealth for my family. Franchising offers a unique opportunity for entrepreneurs like us. That's why so many franchisees are people of color, women, veterans and immigrants. And in my case, children of immigrants. But AB 1228 would destroy this opportunity for us and countless others by stripping local restaurant owners of their independence as small business owners.

If fast food corporations are held liable for decisions made at local restaurants, they will have no choice but to micromanage our day to day operations and businesses as we prepare to open our Teriyaki Madness. We're excited to be a place where our employees feel like they want to come to work, where they can give back to their local communities, where they'll see their friends, interact with customers and feel at home. But if AB 1228 passes, we may not get to open our restaurant.

I'm worried our corporate partner will take away my Independence and turn me into a middle manager instead of a small business owner. That's if they expand further in California at all. And that would be the end of our dreams. Please vote no on AP 1228.

Thank you, sir.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Javier Gomez and I'm a proud local restaurant owner in Senator Laird's district. I strongly oppose to AB 1228. I immigrated from Mexico when I was four years old. As one of eight kids, I worked in fast food restaurant in high school. To help support my family and to save money for college, I worked my way up and after finishing college, I became a district manager for Rallies.

In 2012, I had finally saved enough money to buy my own local restaurant. A dream come true. Since then, my family business has grown to provide generation opportunity for my three kids and 300 crew members. That's why AB 1228 is so devastating. AB 1228 would eliminate my independent as a small business owner and effectively demote me to a middle management. That's not what I signed up for. If AB 2028 had been affected, I had never started my own franchise business.

Now I worry about the future of our business for my kids. A recent Offer Economic Poll founded that 92% of franchise restaurant owners in California oppose AB 1228. That's because it destroys what we built. Supporters of AB 1228 falsely claim that labor violations are more common in fast food restaurant. That's not true. The stateowned data shows that franchise quick service restaurants represent less than 1% of all wage files statewide. Despite representing 1.7 of the workforce. AB 1228 is not fair. It's not right. Please vote no on AB 1228.

Thank you, sir. At this point, we will take me to testimony. So, name, affiliation, position on the Bill. Ms. Jensen.

Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce and Civil Justice Association of California in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Taneicia Herring on behalf of the California Hawaii NAACP in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, Members, Paul Gladfelty, on behalf of more than 110 Mcdonald's franchise owner operators in California, we strongly oppose.

Thank you, sir.

Jack Yanos on behalf of California Fuels and Convenience Alliance in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eddie Truong, co founder of the Silicon Valley Restaurant Association and a franchisee in San Jose, is strong opposition to AB 1228.

Thank you.

Randy Pollack, on behalf of the International Franchise Association. That's 12,000 franchisees in opposition.

Thank you, John Moffatt, on behalf of Arby's, Baskin Robbins, Buffalo Wild Wings, Dunkin, Jimmy John's and Sonic in opposition.

Thank you.

Jose Padilla from Fresno, California, in opposition.

Thank you, sir.

Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association in strong opposition.

Thank you.

Joe Devine with Platinum Advisors on behalf of the Diversified Restaurant Group in opposition.

Thank you. All right, and that's it. So at this point, we're going to go to the phones. So for those listening, again, it's simply me too testimony. So your name, any affiliation you may have, and your position on the Bill, we will take both pro and con concurrently. So with that, moderator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you would like to provide testimony on AB 1228 in support or opposition, please press 10 at this time. And first we will hear from line 23.

Good morning, chair and Members, Jassy Grewal. With UFCW in strong support. Thanks.

Thank you.

Line is 35.

Yeah. My name is Brian Cook. I'm representing Guy Management Services and I'm. opposing to AB 1228 on behalf of Taco Bell, Burger King and Popeyes.

Thank you.

Line 20.

Hi. My name is Anne Hillborn. I'm not affiliated with the restaurant industry, but I'm a proud union Member and I support my fellow workers there today in support of AB 1228.

Thank you.

Line 26. Good morning, chair and Committee Members. My name is Tyler Gerlach. On behalf of the California Asian Pacific Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition thank you.

Thank you.

Line 33.

My name is Alan Longcam. I'm a small business owner and franchisee operator, and I strongly oppose AB 1228. I'm also here on behalf of the Southern California KFC Franchisee Association, representing over 30 across all of Southern California, and we as one, voice our strong opposition to AB 1228.

Thank you, sir.

Line 32.

Hello, my name is Austin Chopra, small business owner and franchisee of Burger King from Bakersfield, California, and I strongly oppose AB 1228.

Thank you.

Line 28.

Yes, this is Shirley Humerian. I'm the Southern California President of Franchisee Association for Burger King, and I'm also a franchisee, and we all oppose AB 1228.

Thank you.

Line 30.

This is Mike Chohal, business owner and Franchisee from Dublin, California. I strongly oppose AB 1228.

Thank you.

And line 31.

Mandy Bundle from Sacramento, franchise owner, strongly opposed.

Thank you.

And, Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. At this point, we'll pull it back to the Committee for any questions, comments, concerns. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

I want to just say thank you to the author for raising this issue and shining light on it and to all the workers who shared their testimony in support of this. A something is breaking through, has to break through in the State of California to make sure that our economy gets turned right side up. This was a job, I had a fast food job, where you could come in and work a few hours and gain your work experience.

But increasingly these jobs are actually held by folks that have families, folks who need to pay rent, folks who have to pay light bills, put gas, car notes, insurance. That's the State of our economy. And we know this because in California we are holding what we think is the 30% share of homelessness of the country's homelessness in this state. I project it's a lot more. We're not always able to count who's on the couches.

We need every job to have dignity and respect on it and we need every job to make sure that workers rights are protected. I have had the unfortunate opportunity personally to go visit a fast food restaurant when we were trying to work to raise the wage, which we have done and continue to see a thriving industry. But I had a chance to go visit one of these restaurants and the franchisee's model and practice was to only hire workers who had green cards.

And it was an occupational segregation that really exposed to me the links between the exploitation and the exclusion. And this franchising model reinforces that where some workers are locked into really dangerous bad jobs and then other workers are just excluded and locked out of it. It's a model that we have to modernize for the 21st century economy that we have. And yes, this is a very difficult Bill, but we've got to break through the lock that poverty has on this state.

And I believe that this is a part of it. And I want to say the only way that we can reduce these kinds of frequent violations is to continue to push and to have these conversations and to frankly say we cannot have business models that are built on the backs of workers being exploited. If That's our margin, we've got a problem. And we see it every day in the way that we have to deal with homelessness, food subsidies, health care subsidies in our budget process.

We can't move forward because so many folks are falling off of the cliff and we've got to provide the safety net. So I want to say that where there is such control over the business model, we've got to figure out how we stop the cutting of corners that is done on the backs of workers and continue to work on this. When we have strong workers, when workers do well, our communities do well. And when our communities do well, our businesses do well. So this is a process by which we're trying to get all stakeholders uplifted and well. And so with that, I'm happy to move this motion when the time is right.

Thank you, Senator. For those that shared and have had a negative experience with their job, I'm sorry for that. I too started my employment career in fast food. This is how old I am. It was called Der Wiener Schnitzel then, not Wiener Schnitzel, Der Wiener Schnitzel, and I believe it was a dollar 65 an hour. And then Popeyes rival KFC, which I think is way better than Popeyes, but That's just my own personal opinion. Having said that, I learned a lot of skills there, moved up.

I've met a lot of people that started there, became franchisees. I have a friend, Hispanic gentleman, originally from Mexico. Him and his family now own 32 McDonald's. So I think whether you're a priest, a politician, or a policeman, there's always going to be bad actors, unfortunately. And I hate to see us punish the 90% that are good actors to just go after the three. And I'm not saying it's three, I really don't know what it is. And there are remedies for that.

My question in General is I thought we had come to an agreement on this last year, and now you're already back again. I was just wondering why. Because for me it's like we come to deals and then the deals always seem like it changes. And I've been here 11 years now because you and I came in the same class and I get frustrated with this. So I'm just curious your thoughts behind that.

I'm frustrated with it as well. I can tell you that there was no deal. There was an attempt to try to bring consensus around the Bill. Two, five, seven. Last year there was an attempt to take amendments to the Bill to address the concerns of the opposition. I could have just said, no, I'm not taking any amendments. I took amendments to remove subpoena power. I took amendments to remove joint liability.

I took amendments to change the composition of the Committee or the Council where there would be parity with business interests as well as worker interests. I took amendments to address the issue that the Legislature would have a final say. These are issues that came up during the process. And as these processes work, you take amendments or you don't.

In this particular instance, we took a series, a number of amendments, and this is just part of what we were able to integrate into the Bill or take out of the Bill. So when it made it through the process and was signed into law, there was no deal. There was still opposition, and clearly opposition to the level of willing to spend tens of millions of dollars to put a referendum out on the last Bill, which is the process.

Right.

Where we are now, though, is the workers who are still exposed who are still in. The reason for the Bill was to design to protect the workers in workplaces. And I agree with you, the vast majority of franchisees are really good. I patron them very often. I used to own a franchise. You as well?

No, you had two, right? I thought you had two locations.

Just one. It's a tough business, I understand and appreciate that. One was it? But in that process, I treated my workers right.

Right.

So I never had a concern that this Bill was in place. I would never have a concern that my workers are going to file a workplace complaint because I'm putting them in harm's way, that there's harassment, there's retaliation, there's wage theft. No, that was not the case. So whether you're an existing franchisee or soon to be franchisee, that if you're operating your business correctly, you should not have a concern with this Bill.

And so what we're trying to say is that we'll go beyond just saying that there's strict liability. We'll put in an opportunity to cure whatever the complaint or whatever the workplace concern happens to be. So this Bill, unlike a lot of joint liability bills or any other joint liability bills and statute, has a provision to cure. So if there happens to be a workplace complaint, the franchisee has an opportunity to cure within 30 days.

If they need more time, they can ask for additional 30 days to have up to 60 days. I'm certainly happy to continue to talk about what that looks like. I'm even open to continuing to have conversations on how to continue to look at ways to protect the franchisee. And as the Bill moves forward, we'll continue to have those kind of conversations. But if there was some kind of a deal, it's certainly news to me.

Okay, you and I have done a couple of franchise bills earlier in our career which were kind of groundbreaking and.

Protecting the franchisee from the franchise.

Exactly. And so I'm curious about you commenting on a couple of the arguments that were made by a franchisee and a wannabe franchisee about they're afraid that the corporate is now going to be even more involved in their business, potentially because of this. Particularly when you look at 711 owners, they are truly, even though they invest their own money, they're truly, because of that model, they're really just middle managers. These people want to be entrepreneurs. And of course you've done it before.

So just curious, do you have potential fears that that could happen to them, that they're now just basically middle managers instead of really being entrepreneurs? And is there a way to address that?

Yeah, no. First of all, as I said, we continue to look at ways to create equity in terms of what potential impact there could be on a franchisee. But I think that to the extent that these are opportunities, as for me, was an opportunity to own a franchise. Or have a sense of independence. But at the same time, the franchiseor, even still under these models, has a considerable control over the franchisee and the operation of the franchise.

Case in point, the need to have to write legislation to create protections from the franchisee, from the franchisor. Right, so now we're dealing with legislation that has to protect the worker who is a part of that equation. No worker, no business. And if you put workers in an uncomfortable and unsafe environments, whether it's wage theft or you create an unsafe environment for them to work in, that has to be addressed.

And I have stipulated, have, and will continue that franchisees, or that this Bill recognizes that there are good franchisees just like in any subject. We've dealt with other sectors of the economy and dealing with marketplaces where few bad apples are kind of creating a bad situation for others. But you still have to address those issues. And I'd like to, if I could, have my sure, of course. Give additional comments to the issue of the franchise or taking away the opportunity for the small business owner.

So, I mean, I think there's a couple of ways to go at it. One is already, as you know, franchiseors exercise so much control over the way in which a franchisee has to operate, and yet, as the law stands now, they incur zero liability. So so many immigrant entrepreneurs go into franchising. Right? It's absolutely true.

And we see at the end of the day, no one goes into it thinking, AHA, I am the monopoly man with a monocle and I am going to make all of my money on the backs of my workers.

You go into it thinking you're going to make a good, honest living, but if the franchisor has that much control over your suppliers, over your pricing, over your menu, over your cleaning protocols, at the end of the day, if you can't make payroll, what are you going to do? So to the comment about being middle management, my concern is less about feeling like you're middle management and more concerned about making sure that those 550,000 workers have safe and dignified workplaces.

And secondarily, I think honestly, there's enough profit at the top. We're talking about companies, especially the top 10 fast food companies, who've experienced record profits in the last four years, in particular since the beginning of the pandemic, because those are restaurants that had drive through windows. They didn't shut down. Right, and they didn't shut down because their workers kept going to work.

No, their workers kept going to work despite the Pandemic, despite not being given appropriate PPE, not being given their COVID sick leave, and half actually contracting COVID. We are talking about the exact population of folks who disproportionately die from COVID-19. So I think that when it comes to the issue of entrepreneurship versus middle management, it's kind of a red herring.

All right, very good, Mr. Pollock, you moved out of a seat. Did you wanted to respond to something since.

Thank you.

Is that COVID hair? Because I don't recall your hair being that long.

Yes, it is. It's so COVID hair. Correct.

Sorry.

So, Randy Pollock, on behalf of the international franchise Association, and we believe there is really true concern about what happens to the franchise model here. The Supreme Court has indicated that by having complete control over cases like this, it would turn the franchise model on its head. And when you look at a franchisee, they are responsible for the hiring, the scheduling, the benefits. This is their own independent business.

And what this Bill will do is like what some women Holden says, look, there are a lot of good franchisees out there and we're only going after a very small part, but you're taking a whole hammer against an ant here. And where our concern is, what the corporate franchisors are going to have to do is they're going to have to Institute certain protocols over all of their franchisees.

So they are going to include all the ones that you think are doing really good jobs, and they're going to have to adhere to that. And in that case, they are going to become middle managers. It's not a red herring issue. The last thing I will say is we hear about these violations, we are all for enforcement, labor enforcement.

If we really want to address this issue, let's get the Department of labor on the case with their enforcement to make sure they move quickly through the process. And the last thing I will say is that when we talk about a cure, there isn't really any cure here because you have 30 days to cure it. How about if you dispute that cure? So it's almost like a forced settlement. And so what we see is you're going to have more litigation that comes out of all this. Thank you.

I appreciate that. Mr. Chair, you want the gavel back? Do you want me to finish this up? You probably have comments too. It's an important Bill here. Pass that down. And we do when the time is appropriate. We have a motion from Senator smallwood Cuevos.

Before we go back to Committee into a motion or to recognize the motion. It's my understanding that there's been an expressed concern that the Committee staff has received and the Committee room has received, that there was some additional public comment that didn't have access or so the assertion is. So I'm not in a position to verify what happened or not, but we had, as I understand it, about five minutes of public comment. We cap public comment in terms of metoos at 20 minutes total.

I want to reiterate that. So technically there's about 15 minutes left available maximum, and then we would cut it off and hopefully the moderator is hearing what I'm saying in terms of the time limitations. So, moderator, in the interest of public comment and an opportunity to be heard, as well as abundant caution on my part.

We're going to go back and open up the teleconference line to anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition the Bill, so long as it's only name, affiliation and your position, support or opposition. Moderator can we open up the lines?

Yes, we can do that, Mr. Chair.

Once again, if you would like to provide testimony on AB 1228, you may do so by pressing 10 at this time. That command again one, then zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have a public comment from line 46. Please go ahead.

My name is Denise Lee, a small business owner and franchisee Rancho Cucamonga, and I strongly oppose AB 1228.

And once again, to provide public comments, press one, then zero.

Mr. Chair, there are no further comments.

All right. Thank you, Moderator. I think we've created every opportunity, and we thank you for your help with that. We will bring it back to the Committee at this time. And let me first ask others on the Committee if there are comments or concerns they wish to express. I am just going to complete presiding and sharing here and defer any comments at this time. So we'll go to the motion, which, as I understand it is from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

We will ask the assistant to call the roll call as soon as I give the author an opportunity to close. Please do.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think I've said it all. I would say that it was our intention to put in this bill an opportunity to cure. That seems to be just being pushed aside like it means nothing, when it means a lot. This is not saying that we go directly to strict liability. So it's like the argument is like it's strict liability. Yes, if you don't cure whatever the workplace complaint is, but if you cure it, then there's no strict liability.

So I'm always having a hard time wrapping my head around that. I could see if we didn't have that provision in there. But even with that, we'll continue to seek out the opposition's concerns about what they think this bill could reflect in it to put some additional protections in for franchisee and franchisor. So I'm not saying I'm through talking now unless they are. I'm not. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you again with the motion by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. So I'll ask the Assistant to call the roll at this time. Thank you.

File item number one, AB 1228. The motion is do pass. But first re-refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call vote] This Bill is on call and currently has two aye votes.

All right. The Bill has two aye votes and is on call at this time. Thank you very much. We are going to allow the room to clear out here. Sergeants would like us to cooperate with that. So please quietly create space by leaving the room. If your work is complete here, you're certainly welcome to stick around if you're interested in observing the proceedings or participating in any other bills.

But if you were here simply for this one, this proceeding is done until we get absent Members here and we'll complete the vote later on. Thank you. We're just going to take a brief, informal recess at this time. It should be less than five minutes. Thank you.

If you can bang the gavel, we'll turn the cameras off.

We're going to actually pause the video at this time.

Officially, from a very brief recess. And we are now going to call the next bill. File item six, AB 504, Reyes. I see the author here. Please step up the podium and proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Getting everything back going again here, Assembly Member.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, I present AB 504, which will protect a public employee's right to honor a picket line when a public employer is engaged in a primary labor dispute. Last year, the University of California engaged in a labor dispute with graduate workers, postdoctoral scholars and academic researchers represented by the United Auto Workers. The dispute focused primarily on low wages and unfair labor practices conducted by the UC. The dispute culminated in the largest higher education strike in the nation's history, which lasted six weeks.

During the strike, UC workers represented by unions such as Teamsters and UC-AFT were unable to support their colleagues due to clauses in their collective bargaining agreements preventing sympathy strikes. Non-UAW represented workers were forced to enter hostile work environments and withhold support for their colleagues who are fighting for fair wages and job security. Issues that inherently affect every worker having the right to stand in solidarity with colleagues engaged in a strike should be protected.

Our workers should not have to fear losing their job because they honor a picket line. They often have to concede these types of protections in order to ensure they receive adequate wages and childcare subsidies. In California, workers should not have to give up their rights in order to live sustainable lives and support others fighting for the same goal. AB 504 will ensure workers have their rights protected while they continue fighting for equity. AB 504 will allow all public employees to sympathy strike.

However, firefighters are exempted from the bill due to our conversations early on with the California Professional Firefighters regarding other essential workers. We are continuing to work with stakeholders and with the Labor Workforce Development Agency to develop language to ensure the bill is implemented in an effective manner. As noted, this bill is double referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and we will continue to work on addressing the concerns outlined in the analysis regarding current MOUs.

Here to testify in support of the bill is Nick Cruz from the California Labor Federation.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Committee. My name is Nick Cruz and I'm here on behalf of the California Labor Federation to testify in support of AB 504. Some public employers, such as the University of California, push no sympathy strikes clauses in contracts.

These clauses, which prevent workers from respecting other workers picket lines, force workers to cross the picket lines of their striking coworkers, effectively coercing them into taking their boss's side in a labor dispute with people they often work with side by side in the same workplaces. This not only restricts workers free speech rights, but also creates a hostile work environment. These no sympathy strike clauses can also severely damage unions abilities to negotiate fair working conditions.

By providing employers with the ability to compel workers to perform the struck labor of their co workers. For example, when academic workers represented by United Auto Workers went on strike at the University of California, lecturers represented by AFT were expected to perform much of the labor that their striking teaching assistants normally would have done. In short, these AFT lecturers were forced to perform extra unpaid labor. In doing so, they were forced to tangibly undermine the collectively bargaining efforts of their coworkers.

In these cases, striking workers or these workers were coworkers to effectively become strike breakers against their coworkers. Employers use these clauses to pit workers against one another, leading to worse outcomes for all workers. These no sympathy strikes clauses hinder workers'ability to bring their employers to the bargaining table and can lead to prolonged and protracted labor disputes. I've seen firsthand the damage that no sympathy strikes clauses can cause.

Before I joined the California Labor Federation, I was an elected leader at the United Auto Workers, representing the striking workers during this strike. I once spoke to a worker who, due to this clause being present in his contract, had no choice but to cross the picket line. He felt genuine fear and anxiety about being perceived as insulting or hostile to his co workers, many of whom he considers his friends and colleagues.

He brought with him a very small food item which I was told it was a donation for penance, an apology for being forced across the picket line and actively harm his friends and colleagues. Just fight for fair working conditions. AB 504, which the California Labor Federation is proud to sponsor, is a necessary corrective that will allow public sector workers to exercise their free speech rights and support their striking coworkers rather than be forced to undermine them and contribute to worse working conditions for all.

With that, I respectfully urge your aye vote on AB 504 and I thank you for your time. And of course, lastly, I will be the only person to testify as our representative from the Teamsters wasn't able to make it today, but thank you.

Good morning. Appreciate the heads up. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express the support position? Please come forward.

Mr. Chairman, Members Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. Also in support. Thank you.

Morning Mr. Chair and Members. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. Proud to support.

Tiffany Mok, representing CFT. We're proud to represent the educators and classified professionals, including UC-AFT lecturers who you just heard were part of the historic strike. We urge your support as a proud co-sponsor.

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

Tova Valentine here for UAW 2865. In support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Louie Costa with the State Legislative Board of Smart Transportation Division in support.

Mr. Chair and Members. D'Artagnan Byrd with AFSCME California in support.

Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Daniel Schoorl, on behalf of SEIU Local 1000 and myself, a former UC-AFT member in strong support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members Coby Pizzotti with California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in support.

All right, thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll go to opposition. Is there an opposition witness? Primary opposition witness. Please come forward. Identify yourself.

Good morning, chair and Members. Johnny Peña with the League of California Cities here to stay in respectful opposition of AB 504. State law governing collective bargaining are in place to ensure fair processes for both unions and public entities. AB 504, unfortunately upends the current bargaining process which allows striking only in specified limited circumstances, potentially making future negotiations more difficult. This poses a serious problem for public agencies that provide public services on a limited budget.

Allowing for any public employee with limited exemptions to join a striking bargaining unit in which that employee is not a Member could lead to a severe workforce stoppage and severely impact the essential services that cities provide. The bill would remove an agency's ability to plan and provide services to the community in the event any bargaining unit decides to strike. A local agency cannot make a contingency plan for an unknown number of public employees that have decided to join a strike.

We're not disputing the right of an employee organization to engage in the protected activities of striking. However, AB 504 would void locally bargained Memorandums of Understanding regardless of what they say about an employee's ability to sympathy strike. It inserts the ability for any public employee to engage in sympathy striking with, again, a limited exception. No strike provisions and local contracts have been agreed to by both parties in good faith, often due to the critical nature of the employee's job.

As local agencies, we have the statutory responsibility to provide services to our communities throughout the state. This jeopardizes the delivery of those services and undermines the collective bargaining process. For those reasons, we were respectfully opposed and do look forward to working on amendments and discuss what in the analysis. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Appreciate your testimony. We will now ask if there's anyone else in the room who wishes to testify in opposition. If so, please come forward. State your name, affiliation and opposition. Seeing no one, we'll go to the moderator. Yes, please come forward.

Good morning. Karen Lang on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors in opposition this morning. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for being here.

Good morning. Kayln Dean, California State Association of Counties. In opposition. Also in opposition, California Special Districts Association, California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the Urban Counties of California.

Priscilla Quiroz, here on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? We'll go to the teleconference line and ask the moderator to please queue up any opposition or support on the teleconference line. Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair, if you would like to provide testimony on AB 504 in support or opposition, please press 10 at this time. And first we'll hear from line 14. Please go ahead.

Hi, Mary ... on behalf of San Bernardino County in opposition.

Line 58.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. and Members. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters, the cosponsor of the bill. We strongly support the bill and apologize I couldn't be there in person.

Line 44. Line 44, your mic is open. Please go ahead.

Hi. My name is Raquel with the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter and we support this Bill.

Line 20.

Hi. My name is Anne Hilborn. I was a postdoc at UC Riverside for three years and a member of UAW 5810, and I support this Bill.

Line 62.

Hi, Marissa Wu with UAW local 2865, proud sponsor of this Bill and in support.

Line six or line 68.

Mr. Chair and Members, Tom Hintze on behalf of UAW Region Six, representing 100,000 active and retired UAW members, proud to co-sponsor and support this Bill.

Line 67.

Michael Bedard on behalf of the University of California in opposition.

Line 75.

Hi. My name is Stephan Sanders. State scientist, member of Bargaining Unit 10. I support AB 504. Thank you.

Line 77.

My name is Anthony Stoner. I'm from UC Riverside from UAW 2865 and I support AB 504.

Line 74.

Hi, my name is Connor Jackson. I'm from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a member of UAW Local 2865 supporting AB 504.

Line 65.

My name is Khalid Mahmood. I'm UAW Local 2865, UC Berkeley, and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 66

Hi, this is Aidan Kelly from UAW 2865 and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 81

Hi, my name is Brigid Boll. I am a member of UAW local 2865 and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 73.

Hi, my name is Anjali McNeil. I'm a Member of UAW local 2865 and I strongly support this bill.

Line 70.

Hi, my name is Diane Arnos. I'm a Member of UAW Local 2865 at UC Berkeley and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 79

Hi, my name is Armine-Klein. I'm a Member of UAW local 2865 in Santa Barbara and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 78

Hi, my name is Grant Goldman. I'm a Member of UAW local 2865 at UCSF and I support AB 504.

Line 71

Hi, my name is Leo Hammerlink. I am a graduate student researcher at UC Berkeley with UAW 2865 and I strongly support AB 504.

Line 72.

Hi. My name is Layne Jackson Hubbard. I'm a proud Member of UAW 5810. We're co sponsors of the Bill and I support AB 504. Thank you.

Line 84.

Hi, I'm Udayan Tandon from UAW Local 2865 in San Diego. We're proud co sponsors of the Bill, and I strongly support this Bill.

Line 92.

Hey, this is Gwenevere Frank. I'm a researcher at UC San Diego and a proud Member of UAW 2865. And I strongly support AB 504.

Line 43. Line 43, your mic is open. Please go ahead. Line 94.

Hi, my name is Anny Viloria Winnett. I am a graduate student at UCLA, a proud Member of UAW 2865, and I'm calling in support of AB 504.

And line 98.

Hi, I'm Melissa Marquette. I'm a student researcher at UC Berkeley and a member of UAW 2865. And I am strongly in support of AB 504. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, there are no further comments in queue.

All right, thank you. It appears we may have an additional witness in the room that wishes to speak.

Sorry for the delay. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you. Thank you for being here. We will come back to the Committee now for comments or concerns. Questions for the author?

I appreciate the author bringing this Bill that strengthens the rights of workers to have some say so and control over their wages and working conditions. And I move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. And anything else? Seeing no one else present to speak, let me just clarify before your close, Assembly Member, I know that you said during your presentation during your opening that you'll continue to work on the issues identified in the analysis that were matters of concern.

I know that we have conversed about those, and you've given me your representation that you will, given that the Bill is double referred, that you'll work on those issues to come up with final language to deal with them between now and Judiciary. And I just want to make sure I'm stating that correctly.

That is correct, Mr. Chair, and we will be working with your Committee as well to bring them whatever updates we have after the continued conversation between ourselves, the stakeholders, and the Public Works Committee.

Yeah, thank you. Of course, always when we think we have something right, some pride of authorship in what we're recommending or what we would do to try to clear up concerns, especially technical concerns. We also note that, especially when double referred to another Committee, that oftentimes they have equal expertise to deal with issues, especially when there's legal import to them.

And I think that's the case here, that the issues are as much legal issues as labor issues to make sure that the Bill or an enacted law is survivable going forward. So I can't emphasize enough continuing to deal with those, but I'll close my order book because you've said a couple of times that you're going to do that. And I do appreciate you acknowledging that on the record. With that, you have an opportunity to close and we'll get to a vote.

Well, thank you. I do appreciate that opportunity. I appreciate the comments from those in favor and those opposed and those who are opposed, they are part of our discussions as we come up with a language that I think would be acceptable to both this Committee and Judiciary and will withstand any legal challenge. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you. And we'll ask the Assistant take the roll call vote. The motion was made by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

File item number six, AB 504. The motion is do passed. But first, we refer to the Committee on Judiciary. [Roll call vote] This Bill is on call and currently has two aye votes.

All right, bill's on call. But it does have two aye votes. And again, thank you for being here today and bringing the Bill forward. We appreciate the Bill. Next in file order. Okay. We're trying to stay with file order today, and that would put us back to file item number two, AB 1. Mckinnor. You're welcome to come up and begin your presentation when ready. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I want to thank you for considering this Bill. And I want to especially thank the Chair for taking time with me to discuss some important constitutional items. I'm committed to continuing to work with the Chair to address those items and to ensure that the Legislature is able to perform and meet its legal duties under the bill. AB 1 will give non-supervisorial legislative staff the choice to join a union and to collectively bargain for wages, benefits, and workplace conditions.

Members, our staff aren't looking for special treatment. They're looking for the same dignity and respect afforded to all represented workers, period. To the staff in our district offices and Capitol staff that honorably serve the people of the State of California every day, know this, we see you and we respect you.

And with AB 1, we are taking action to make sure that the current and future legislative staff, regardless of their members political affiliation, are afforded a safe, equitable, and fair opportunity to build a noble career in public service. It is hypocritical as legislators, that we ask our employees to staff committees and write legislation that often expands collective bargaining rights for other workers in California. But we intentionally prohibit our own workers from that same right.

The Legislature has failed to show the political will to respect its staff for long enough. Today is an opportunity for legislators to stand up for their own workers. And I am proud to stand here today with a bipartisan coalition of 43 coauthors from the Assembly and the Senate supporting AB 1. As a former legislative staffer myself and an original signer of the We Said Enough letter that sparked the Me Too movement, I know just how challenging a place like the Legislature can be to work.

If we are truly committed to recruiting and retaining the best staff possible and if we're truly committed to creating a safe and inclusive workplace, and if we're going to show our staff that we see them and respect their contribution to California's democracy, I respectfully request that you support AB 1 today. Thank you.

Thank you. And before we go to witnesses, I did want to clarify, and you mentioned our own conversations, that you are willing to take two amendments in Judiciary, and I understand those to be moving the operative date to July 1, 2026. And we discussed also exclusion of matters from the scope of representation on those employees who, as you called out in your presentation, are not included in the bill in the first place. Is that accurate?

That is accurate.

All right. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry. The witness I have here today are two former staffers, Alan Moore and Sandra Nakagawa I hope I said it correctly and a technical witness, Shubhangi Domokos from the California Labor Federation.

All right, thank you. Will the witnesses please come forward and you can proceed in whichever order you want. A couple of minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Alan Moore, and I previously served as a Senate staffer for five years from 2017 to 2022. During my tenure here in the building, I had a great experience working for three amazing members, including the chair of this very Committee. And yet, even with these good experiences, I could have benefited from the protections that come with collective bargaining.

In fact, many of my own grievances have not been with bad members, but instead with the institution itself and a distinct lack of uniform standards and protections. Too many staffers lack clarity around their job description, having had to do the work of managerial positions or personal assistance without ever receiving suitable compensation or having a legitimate way to address these grievances.

Too many staffers have felt a strongly implied obligation to use their own vacation time to go out and campaign for various members in hopes that they remain in good standing with the institution. And too many staffers have suffered from misclassification due to the Senate's antiquated slot system that has hobbled their salary permanently and ultimately pushed staff out of the institution and instead working in the Third House.

Indeed, for the last few years, former Senate fellows, including myself, have been told that our fellowship year will not count for experience during salary or promotion negotiations. There are countless stories of staffers picking up after their members' dogs, assembling Ikea furniture and enduring hostile working conditions and harassment. Yes, this is a failing of those individual members, but a greater failing of the institution.

Staffers' workplace conditions should not vary so dramatically from office to office, and we should not be at the sole whim of each Legislator or supervisor. The structures, rules and procedures put in place to try and solve many of the grievances staff have elevated were done so without any staff input in solutions and are all in service of protecting the institution, not the employees.

Allowing legislative staff the ability to collectively bargain finally puts a process in place to give staff a real voice in their workplace without fear of retaliation. Last year, when Assembly Member Mark Stone fought tooth and nail to get this bill heard in his own Committee, a bill that my dear friend Elchin and Shubhangi here poured their souls into, one of the members said in opposition, "There is no body like this. This Legislature is not like all others."

And I agree the California Legislature is unique, but it's not that unique. This body has heard that argument before from other industries and has consistently rejected it in favor of increased worker protections. I ask that you do the same for those folks who help you legislate to the fullest of your ability. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Chair and members, my name is Sandra Nakagawa, and I'm speaking today in my personal capacity. I worked in the Legislature between 2017 and 2022 as a Science Fellow, as a Legislative aid, and as a Committee Consultant. Committee staff play an important role in the policymaking process as issue area experts, sources of institutional knowledge, and they also staff bills, craft the budget, negotiate amendments, and make Committee hearings like this one possible.

The job is a demanding one, with late nights, weekends spent writing analyses, and the added stress of knowing that your chair could be replaced at any time. I became a Committee consultant after completing a PhD in sociology and applying to the Science Fellows program. I wrote in my application about how excited I was to work in the Legislature because of the state's leadership in advancing equity and justice by passing laws like the California Fair Pay Act that provided equal pay for equal work.

I later learned that while in the Legislature, they talked the talk on equal pay. It didn't always walk the walk when it came to its own staff. In my case, I was paid less than other Assembly Committee staff who had less experience in a lighter bill load. When I realized I wasn't being paid fairly more than a year into my job working on housing policy and eviction protections during the pandemic, I asked for my compensation to be increased.

It took five long months for that equity increase to be approved, and I never received back pay for the 18 months when I was paid about $20,000 a year less than the white men in similar roles. Yet I know I was lucky. I had a manager and a chair who advocated for me to be paid fairly, and the institution eventually responded. Far too often, that doesn't happen, and that's why I urge you to support AB 1 today.

If this institution wants to recruit and retain talented, hardworking individuals, its workers need to have a voice. Pay equity shouldn't only be accessible to those who are lucky enough to have a member that's willing to go to bat for them. All workers deserve a union, and it's time for the Legislature to walk the walk when it comes to how it treats staff. I urge you to support AB 1 today.

All right, thank you for being here. Anyone else who wishes to express the support position at this time, please come forward.

Mr. Chair and Member, Shubhangi Domokos with the California Labor Federation. We're proud to be sponsors of the fifth iteration of this bill. Grateful to the author for pushing this forward and respectfully urge your aye vote.

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

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU, in strong support.

John Shaban with the California Nurses Association. Strong support. Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, Members. Louis Costa with SMART Transportation Division, State Legislative Board. In support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Ron Rapp on Behalf Of The California Faculty Association. In support.

Good morning. Anna Matthews. On behalf of the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Greg Hardeman with the International Union of Elevator Constructors. And we're in strong support. And we'd be happy to represent them and deal with the swing space elevators. Thank you.

Good morning, chair and Members. Eduardo Lopez, Policy Fellow with the Western Center On Law & Poverty, here in support.

Hi. Aubrey Rodríguez, I use He/They pronouns. Current Legislative Director. I deserve a voice in my workplace. Strong support.

Alicia Benavidez Lewis in strong support. On behalf of having been a former Chief of Staff and as the cofounder of We Said Enough.

Mr. Chair and Members Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists. In support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members, ... former Senate staff of three and a half years. In strong support.

Mr. Chair and Senators Coby Pizzotti with California Association of Psychiatric Technicians and a former staffer from 1996 to 2006. Support.

Seth Bramble, speaking today on behalf of the California Teachers Association. In strong support.

Tiffany Mok, representing CFT. In strong support. Also, speaking on my personal behalf as a former Senate and Assembly staffer. In support.

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

Morning, Chair and Members. Daniel Sherrell, on behalf of SEIU Local 1000. In support.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Gregory Kramer, former legislative staffer in the Senate and Assembly for about a decade. In support.

Mr. Chair and members Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades. In support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members. D'Artagnan Byrd on behalf of AFSCME, California, in support.

All right, seeing no one else come forward on support, is there an opposition witness or anyone in opposition who wishes to come forward? Seeing none, we'll go to the teleconference operator. Moderator, would you please call any support or opposition witnesses at this time who have called in?

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition to AB 1, please press 1, 0 at this time. First we will hear from line 76. Please go ahead.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members Malik Bynum with UDW AFSCME Local 3930 in strong support. Thank you.

Line 55.

Chair and members, Catalina Sanchez, a former college staffer and a current Council Member for the City of Gridley in strong support of worker unionization in our Legislature. Thank you.

Line 45.

Good morning, members, Jacque Robinson-Baisley, former Vice Mayor and Council Member in the City of Pasadena, as well as staff to former staff of SEIU SOULA and CTA. Strong support.

Line 53.

Hi. This is Ulisses Arzola current Senate staffer. In support.

Line 21.

Good morning. My name is Ernesto Castillo, former Ledge staffer and current Inglewood school board member, calling in support of AB 1. Thank you.

Line 44.

Good morning. My name is Raquel Ibarra. I'm a resident of District 61 and calling on behalf of the National Association of Social Workers California Chapter in support of this bill.

Line 43. Line 43. Your mic is open. Please go ahead. And line 48.

Greetings, Members. Carolyn Fowler ... Member of IAM Local 1932 and resident of AD 61, in very strong support. Thank you.

And line six.

Line six, your mic is open. Please go ahead. Line 106.

Christopher Sanchez, former ledge staffer in strong support.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further comments at this time.

Moderator just want to make sure that we don't have people who inadvertently got on the listening only line rather than the testimony line, because we do show that that's possible based on what we can see from here. Could you make an announcement clarifying that if anyone's on the listening line, what they would need to do to transfer over and get in the proper queue, and then we'll just call for witnesses one more time. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I was just informed that we have made that announcement on the listen only line more than once, it looks like. Would you still like me to reprompt at this time?

At this time, yeah. In the time I've been here, we haven't made the announcement, so maybe it's time to do it again. Thank you.

Sure. If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition for AB 1, please press 10 at this time. And we do have a couple more people queuing up. First we'll hear from line six. Line six, please go ahead. Line 43.

Hello?

Yes, you can proceed. We can hear you.

Oh, hi. I haven't been given a number, and I was passed over the last time around with the other bill. My name is Ahmanise Sanati. I'm calling on behalf of Westchester-Playa Democratic Club, also a CADEM E-Board member from AD 61, and we are in strong support. Also a former AFSCME board member, so representing lots of people. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Glad it worked out.

Line 108.

Hi. Thank you, Chair and members of the Committee. My name is John Carlo Barrios, former Assembly staffer, and I'm here today speaking in my own capacity, but also for other staffers who might fear retaliation for supporting the right to collectively bargain in the California Legislature. Exactly one year ago today, I was...

You can only, excuse me. We only allow name, affiliation, and position. It sounds like you're a support on this bill, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Thank you. I'm sorry to cut you off, but that's the rule on this part of the meeting. Thank you. Thank you, thank you. Go ahead.

Line 109. Please go ahead.

Dana Alpert, legislative staffer in strong support of AB One.

And we do have one more line queuing up. It'll just be one moment, please, while we provide them with their line number. Line 112, please, go ahead.

Garrett Layton. Strong support. Thank you.

And Mr. Chair, we have no further comments at this time.

Thank you. Moderator we will come back to the Committee now for comments and concerns. Senator?

I just want to say how much I am proud to be a co author with our great Assembly Member, Tina McKinnor, on this bill. Coming to the Legislature here for six months, it was really tough for me to see some of my staff, who I knew were just shining bright stars be offered wages that really put us in violation of some of the wage laws in my county, because the salary scales that we have at the state level need to be improved and need to be raised..

And I think this gives the workers who are most impacted, the opportunity to have some say so over their wages and working conditions and allows us to retain what are the best and brightest minds I think our state has to offer. So many incredibly talented folks in this building and they come and go because between the private sector and even other municipalities, they earn more than what we are able to provide.

So I want to ensure that all workers, and particularly folks who are working here in the Capitol every day to make our democracy thrive, have the opportunity to have a seat at the table when it comes to their own working conditions. And I believe this policy is long overdue and I'm so happy to support it and happy to move the motion when the time is right. Mr. Chair.

Thank you Senator. Senator Laird, welcome. And wanted to indicate we're on AB 1. All witness testimony is completed at this time. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, as you know, has just spoken. Wanted to give you an opportunity if there's anything you wanted to add before we get to the author's. Close. Thank you.

I'm sorry I missed all the testimony. I was bogged down presenting two bills at the Assembly. And I think just in the interest of brevity, I'm going to say, I'm a co author and that is my statement and I look forward to voting for it.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Laird. And of course, I think, as the public and the author knows, I'm also a proud co author of the bill.

I've had the opportunity to speak to the author directly about Committee concerns that have been outlined, most of which, again, are really to ensure the legal, not only survivability, but just the legal appropriateness of every detail in the bill so that we don't get into a situation where after all this work, there's some sort of the kind of a challenge or a glitch that bars or at least delays implementation somehow. Some of those concerns you've already acknowledged in terms of what you'll be taking.

We've provided language on two amendments. We talked about the excluded employees, but That's going forward to judiciary and this Committee will forward that which we've agreed to. Those other things that are out there just concerns about PERB's role and how the interplay will work going forward relative to non legislative related employers. And obviously the Legislature's core function is protected by the Constitution. I appreciate it very much in your opening, your indication that you're very focused on navigating those issues going forward.

I'm quite sure you'll have more opportunity in the next Committee. Given my experience with that Committee and their great chair, who's brilliant on most of these issues. The issues of strikes or labor strikes, should it happen, should impasse happen, what happens next, I think, is just one of those issues that's particularly important to get exactly right before the effective date or the operational date of the bill. I don't think I need to say anything more on that. I think just the issues that come up.

Many of us have been involved with local government, including members of this Committee, and know there's issues around who, when, how, and some of that. And a lot of practice there which wouldn't necessarily apply to the state, but that revolves around the issues of who are essential employees and who the courts might declare actually has those rights, regardless of what we might say in the legislation. So these are all important things to clear up, among others.

But I know that you've worked diligently, we've talked about that. You've done a terrific job getting this bill to where it is with more momentum than I've seen in the past. We don't want to do anything to trip up your momentum, but to encourage by way of our continued help here from the Committee staff in terms of navigating some of these final issues, we're happy to help and stay on top of those issues and work with Judiciary Committee. The world is the stage.

Here, they're quite aware of what we've done in terms of our analysis here and what we're saying here today on the record. So clearly they'll pick up on that and we'll pass the baton to them on these remaining issues. Our only objective here in terms of anything we recommend, that's not currently in print, is to strengthen the bill because we think it's important, critical to get collective bargaining rights for our employees.

And I want to emphasize that I am not only a co author but an ally on the concerns that you set forth going forward. My own experience, without getting into specific details or saying something that may indirectly allow my words to be traced back to a particular employee, I don't want to do that.

We are all stuck in that world between maintaining the privacy and the confidentiality of our personnel and the deep frustration especially from someone who represents a place like Silicon Valley which has the highest cost of living in the world, trying to justify the package of wages and benefits and so forth that we're limited to in terms of trying to create not only a living wage, but a world for employees to live in that attracts the best and the brightest.

That would mean that people stay here, they're retained because they want to be here and we're not losing them every 18 months because they have no choice but to make sure that they're earning a living. So I know that that's what you're trying to do. I want you to know that I'm for that. I think with the majority of the Committee, you will see that the Committee is for that.

I'll give you an opportunity to close and then we'll get the motion formally on the floor and get to a roll call vote.

Thank you. Chair, we have two more witnesses. May I take a point of privilege?

These two are these primary witnesses?

Well, they just want to meet two witnesses.

Yes, please come forward. I'm sorry.

Yeah, no worries. Hi, everyone. [Inaudible] current legislative staff and in strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Candice Riley, current legislative staffer in strong support.

Thank you for being here. We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Now we'll come back to your question.

Thank you. Thank you guys so much today for hearing this bill. And thank you for the comments. I too was a previous staffer both in the district and in the Capitol. And so this bill means a lot to me. It means a lot to me personally. We know that our district staff, I know we don't get to talk about them as much. We don't get to see them as much. But they also work seven days a week. They work on holidays, as you know.

Sometimes on Christmas, New Year's Eve, 4th of July. They're doing parades. They work a lot. And so this bill will also help them a lot. So I respectfully request your aye vote thank you.

All right, thank you. And the motion is by Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. So we will go to the assistant for the roll call vote now, please. Thank you.

File item number two, AB 1. The motion is due passed, but first, re refer to the Committee on Judiciary. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Gerazzo. Senator Laird?

Aye.

Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right. Three aye votes. You have enough to get out of Committee today, but we'll leave it on call for the absent members. And again, thank you for stepping into this and bringing the bill forward.

Thank you.

You do? All right, you may proceed with your next bill. And that is let me state what it is for the record by file number. We are file number three next. AB 1677.

Thank you, Chair. I'm happy to present AB 1677 this morning, a Bill sponsored by the California Association of Professional Scientists, or Caps. Caps is a collective bargaining unit for the more than 4000 specially trained, highly educated state scientists who work throughout state government. AB 1677 is the first step to ensure that these workers are receiving a competitive wage.

AB 1677 would require the University of Berkeley Labor Center to evaluate the existing state scientist salary structure and provide recommendations, if appropriate, for alternative salary models for rank-and-file California State scientists currently covered by a collective bargaining agreement. The UC Berkeley Labor Center will provide the report to the Director of Finance, the Chairperson of the Joint Legislative Budget Committee, and the Chairperson of the Appropriate Legislative, Policy and Budget Committees. CAPS and CalHR will both be consulted in identifying the study's perimeters and objectives.

This will allow CAPS and the state to enter into contract negotiation with a more informed understanding of what it is an appropriate starting point for employees' salaries. I am joined today by Pat Moran, who represents the California Association of Professional Scientists, and Justin Garcia from the CAPS Board member.

All right, please come forward. Welcome.

Mr. Chair, Members. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists. First, we'd like to thank Assembly Member Mckinnor for authoring the Bill and the thoughtful analysis by your staff. With me today is Justin Garcia. He's a state scientist and a CAPS Board ember to offer testimony as to the need for the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Justin Garcia. I'm a senior environmental scientist at the Department of Fish and Wildlife, where I serve as the endangered wildlife research permit coordinator. And here today as the CAPS secretary. First, I'd like to thank Assemblymember McKinnor for authoring this Bill and shepherding it through the process to this Committee hearing. As mentioned by Assemblymember McKinnor, AB 1677 would be a first step to ensure that state scientists are valued equitably to their peers within and outside of state civil service.

State scientists like myself do not immediately come to mind when people think of their daily life here in California. But we should. We have state scientists who work diligently across the state to protect California's public health, food supply, and agriculture, wildlife and environment in more than 40 different state agencies.

California State scientists are critical to addressing and preventing urgent challenges that threaten our state, our nation, and our world, including climate change, wildfires, drought, exposure to toxic chemicals, loss of biodiversity, invasive species, ecosystem destruction, housing shortages, diseases, threats to our food and water supply, and much more. A few examples include our environmental scientists and archaeologists who work at CAL FIRE, on the fire lines and in the base camps, tracking hotspots and progression of fires that have ravaged California.

While scientists at the Department of Toxic Substances Control and Cal recycle ensure that he public is safe from any toxic chemicals burned in the area. We have veterinarians and other scientists at the Department of Food and Agriculture who ensure that California can continue to be the United States top-ranked agricultural state by monitoring and certifying the meat, poultry, and eggs so that they're safe to consume and they deal with emerging diseases like avian influenza.

There are state scientists who work in my department to conserve species that are threatened and endangered with extinction, such as California condor, Chinook salmon, and southern sea otter. These examples don't begin to scratch the surface in the ways that state scientists provide for California. That is why AB 1677 is so important. State scientists are highly educated, specialized experts who do the work behind the scenes to ensure that your daily life goes uninterrupted.

We need recognition for our important work, and this Bill will help identify the right direction to counteract an impending loss of scientific knowledge and state service with impartial data. I'm here today to express my colleague's ardent support for this Bill. AB 1677 will allow both CAPS and the state to enter negotiations with a more informed understanding of appropriate salary comparisons, which will lead to finding concrete solutions to our long-standing salary issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the room that wishes to express the support position? Please come forward.

Kobe Presario with California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, also in support.

Thank you again.

Caitlin Vega for the California Labor Federation, also here in support.

All right, thank you. I've seen no one else come forward. Is there an opposition witness in the room? If so, you may come forward at this time. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition to this Bill at this time? This is AB 1677. Seeing no one come forward. Moderator, could you please queue up any support or opposition testimony on AB 1677 at this time? Thank you.

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition to AB 1677, please press 10 at this time. And first we will hear from line six. Please go ahead, line six. Your mic is open.

So we're unable to hear you.

Line 75. Hi, my name is David Sanders, state scientist at Cal Recycle and a CAPS local representative. I am in complete support of recruiting and retaining the scientist California needs. Thank you. Line 117.

Good morning. This is Jesse Fiero. I am a scientist at the Department of Toxic Substances Control. I completely support this Bill to help recruit and retain talented scientists, which is critical to the state's missions. Please vote yes on this bill.

Hi. My name is Myra Molina. I'm a state scientist with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I am support of this Bill. AB 1677.

Line 19.

Hi, my name is Carolyn Bush, and I'm an environmental scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, and I support HD 1677. Thank you.

Line 13.

Hi. My name is Andrea Bortine. I am an environmental scientist at the California Department of Fish and Wildlife, in complete support. AB 1677. Thank you.

Line 118.

Hi. My name is Carolyn Zambrano. I'm a state scientist at the Department of Healthcare Services and I'm in complete support of recruiting and retaining the scientists that California need. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. We have no further comments at this time.

All right, thank you so much. We'll come back to the Committee and Senator Laird. Thank you very much. And and let me thank the author for bringing this Bill forward. I noticed that close, if not a majority, of the witnesses were from the Department of Fish and Wildlife and in the Department of Fish and Wildlife. Now, there are more scientists than there are wildlife officers formerly known as game wardens.

And if we're really going to invest in the belief that we have to move more things to science, we have to be able to recruit and pay the scientists. And in my eight years as Resources Secretary, it was painful. We walked in the door with a $26 billion deficit. And I remember bringing this issue of equity and there are different pieces to it because some of the people that are supervisors in one union and the rank and file are in another union.

And there were times when different ones of them out of whack were making more than the other and people sitting next to each other were out of whack. And I recall a meeting where I so got the attention of the state personnel Director that he had other cabinet secretaries and he went around the room and say, when we're out of the deficit, will you commit to work on this? Will you commit to work on this?

He had everybody say yes, and then he quit his job two weeks later and it was exasperating. This just kept coming back and it kept coming around. And the offers from the state were minuscule compared to the salary studies and how it was out of whack. And so it's my hope because I can't believe this issue is still going on. It is my hope that if a study is done, it focuses on what the need is.

It's not an outright legislation of the salaries, which would probably be vetoed by the Administration, but it's a way to tee up the discussion with facts. So I think this is a great effort. I thank you for bringing it forward. I appreciate all the testimony the appropriate time. I'll be happy to move the Bill. All right. I appreciate your comments very much. Just giving my more limited background in the subject matter. And we'll come back to you for a motion in a moment. We'll give the author an opportunity to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right. Senator Laird moves the Bill. We'll ask the assistant to call the roll.

Please file item number three AB 1677. The motion is do passed. But first, re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese? Aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird. Aye. Laird? Aye. Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas. This Bill is on call and currently has two aye votes. Thank you.

The Bill is on call with two aye votes, and we will now move in file order to the next author present. Thank you for your patience, Mr. Maienschein, but the next file order author is assuming Member Papan. I'm going to ask Senator Laird to preside if he can. I'm assuming you have enough time to be here. He approves. I am going to run off the Ed Committee for a little while and come right back. I just ask that you come back at some point.

We'll do.

Thank you.

You're going to miss the best part of your day, but That's all right.

Yeah. This is how I ended up chairing the Cast Nondiscrimination Bill for two and a half hours when I was just minding my own business and was a rank and file Member. So Assemblymember Papan, item number eight, welcome to the Committee.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Good to be with you. Assembly Bill 575 simply removes unnecessary barriers for individuals seeking to access paid family leave. I'd like to start by saying we'll accept the Committee amendments which cross reference the Paid Family Leave Code of Regulations for the definition of in loco parentis. Over 20 years ago, California became the first state in the nation to enact Paid Family Leave program.

PFL, Paid Family Leave provides workers with partial wage replacement when they take leave from work to provide care for a family Member in specific circumstances. While California has led the nation and is taking meaningful steps to make the program more equitable, workers still face some barriers to get paid Family leave benefits. And AB 575 seeks to remove some of those barriers in three ways. Number one, you can have more than one family Member care for a sick family Member in the same household.

Number two, Paid Family Leave will allow somebody who is not a formal guardian to take family leave to bond with that child. I-E-A grandparent who takes in a grandchild but is not a foster parent, bona fide or an adopted parent or anything along those lines. And finally, AB 575 removes the provision that says that would allow employers to force an employee to take two weeks of paid vacation before they can start their paid family leave. That's it. It's just three steps to it.

And with me today, I have Katie Wutchiett on behalf of Legal Aid at Work to testify in support of the Bill.

Thank you. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Good afternoon. As she said, I'm Katie Witchett and I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work, a nonprofit organization That's dedicated to empowering families to be able to take care of their loved ones without having to sacrifice their jobs or their income to do that. As a part of our work, we have a work and family Helpline, where every year we hear from over 1000 families who are reaching out often because they need to take time off to care for their family.

But they're having problems accessing paid family leave. They reach out and they're concerned because they know that they need to take time off because their family needs them. But if they do that, they'll lose out on their income and that will cause difficulty for them. They'll risk debt, homelessness and hunger. The Paid family Leave Program is a program That's administered by the Employment Development Department and it provides partial wage replacement.

When people cannot work because of either they need to bond with a new child, they're taking care of a sick family member or because of certain military exigencies. And importantly, it's something that workers pay for. It's 100% paid for out of workers wages. It's not something that employers contribute into. But some workers right now aren't able to access the program in the way that they should be.

So first of all, AB 575 would make it possible for more than one family Member to take paid family leave at a time when an older parent is dying or a child is getting chemotherapy. It might be necessary to have multiple family caregivers be there. And one of them shouldn't have to make that sacrifice of losing out on their income while they're providing that care.

Secondly, it'll allow loving adults who step into the role to care for a child in a time of distress to access paid family leave for bonding. Right now, PFL does recognize the role of in loco parentis. So parents who are in loco parentis can take time to bond, but only within a year after they formally foster or adopt a child. But oftentimes in a time of distress, an emergency event, that formal process isn't there.

So the family member who takes them in isn't able to get paid family leave income. So even in the last few months on our helpline, we've heard from a grandmother whose daughter was in a serious car accident and she wanted to take in her eight-year-old grandson who lived across the country. So he was moving across the country to stay with her, a new home, a new adult. But she wasn't able to get paid family leave income to provide him with support.

Or we heard from an aunt whose sister was dealing with substance abuse and she wanted to take care of her young niece, but she wasn't able to get paid family leave income to support them during that time. And then finally, it would allow workers to access paid family leave when they want to. As we talked about, it's paid for completely out of workers wages. But currently an employer can require someone to use two weeks of vacation first.

So this would simply say workers pay for paid family leave. They can use it when they want to. AB 575 makes modest changes to paid family leave. But they're the kind of changes that for those families that they impact, they'll have a real make a difference in their lives. So for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. With that as the primary witness, is there anybody in the room that wishes to do a Me too in support on this Bill? Me too is just name, organization and position.

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

Thank you.

Hi. Karen Stout. On behalf of Neighborhood Pro Choice California as well as the California Nurse Midwives Association in strong support.

Thank you.

Jenny A. Cassidy, California Work and Family Coalition, in strong support. Also testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support Caring Across Generations, Equal Rights Advocates, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Public Council, and WorkSafe.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you.

Nina Weiler Harwell with AARP California, in support.

Mr. Chairman, Senators. Kobe Posada with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, also in support.

Thank you very much. Then in the room, is there anybody that wishes to testify in opposition? Seeing no one, then we'll go to the moderator and moderator. This would be the opportunity for anyone to testify for or against this Bill as a Me too, just name, organization and position.

If you would like to provide testimony in support or opposition, please press one, then zero at this time. First we'll go to Line 14. Please go ahead.

Hi, excuse me. Hi, Mary Gracie. On behalf of the Children's Partnership in Support thank you.

Line 126.

Hi, good morning. Jenna Shankman on behalf of Family Caregiver Alliance and the California Coalition on Family Caregiving, in support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Line 125.

Hi. Felicity Figueroa, representing the Orange County Equality Coalition in strong support.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are no further comments in queue at this time.

I appreciate that. And we're in one of those awkward Senate moments where if there's one person in their chairing, they're not allowed to make a motion. So let me ask you if you would like to close.

I would. Thank you so much. Senator Laird, I appreciate your attendance today. The beauty of this Bill is that it does not cost California employers anymore because employees play into it and respectfully ask for an aye vote for this sort of cleanup of paid family leave. Thank you.

I appreciate it. And when we get back to having Members, we will vote on your Bill. So thank you very much. And next, we will move to the ever-patient Assemblymember Maienschein, who has two bills, and the first one is Assembly Bill 594. Welcome to the Committee. The floor is yours.

Thank you very much Senator Laird. As Chair of the Judiciary Committee, I also will have to hear that CASP Bill. So I was wondering if you could kind of come over and serve as like honorary Vice Chair for the day in case I need to step out for about 6 hours.

I expect to have a dental appointment whenever that is.

All right, well, I tried, sir. Would you like me to start with AB 594?

Yes, please. Okay.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members. AB 594 will expand and strengthen the tools available to public enforcement agencies to protect workers from labor law violations and protect responsible employers from unfair competition. Despite the best efforts of the Labor Commissioner and local agencies, enforcement of labor law violations is inadequate to meet the needs of California's immense workforce. Wage theft is widespread in California and is particularly egregious in Low wage industries. In 2021, almost 19,000 workers filed claims with the Labor Commissioner, adding up to more than 338,000,000 in lost wages.

Companies continue to develop more sophisticated ways to evade accountability for labor law violations. These techniques make the already backlogged wage claim process even more complicated and time intensive. It is essential we maximize the tools available to public enforcement agencies to give workers access to justice and hold companies that break the law accountable.

AB 594 expands public enforcement in the following ways it broadens the authority of district and city attorneys to enforce labor laws and seek objective relief to stop violations clarifies that public enforcement agencies are not bound by arbitration agreements signed by individual workers and authorizes the labor Commissioner to issue penalties for willful misclassification in the wage claim process. I appreciate the conversations with the opposition. We are still in the process of reviewing their suggestions. I look forward to continued discussions.

This really is an important measure to protect workers, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me to testify is Caitlin Vega with the California Labor Federation.

Thank you.

Welcome to the Committee. Just for the record, we normally have four minutes for each side and primary witnesses, but when there's one, you could go up to four minutes.

Thank you.

I would urge you to be.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I will try not to thank you for the opportunity to present on this Bill. Many of us, I think perhaps you, Mr. Chair, and me, have both been doing this work for several decades, thinking about what kinds of legal protections we can enact to better protect workers, especially low-wage workers, especially workers in industries with high rates of labor law violations. After a certain point, you start to question, how are these laws working? Are they effective as we intended?

What are we doing? How are all of these laws to address wage theft and misclassification and all of these other labor law violations being implemented to actually make a difference in the lives of workers? And what we have seen is that we truly face an enforcement crisis. We have one state agency that is underfunded, that has really high rates of vacancies and with all of their best efforts. It takes years for workers to be able to move through that process and to get justice.

Not only is that unfair to workers, That's unfair to all the employers, all the responsible companies that are doing the right thing that are providing workers comp in a safe workplace and paying people properly. It's also unfair to the state because the state loses out on unpaid taxes. And so we really tried to think seriously this year about ways we can strengthen enforcement.

This Bill looked at the already existing authority of local city attorneys and district attorneys, several of whom have already started to develop workers rights enforcement units. And we said, how can we broaden and streamline that authority so that workers are not entirely dependent on a state agency but can also seek assistance at the local level where sometimes these city attorneys and district attorneys, because they're at the local level, are able to uncover or discover kinds of labor law violations that might be missed otherwise?

And we want to make sure that they have clear authority to hold violators accountable. So That's the purpose of this Bill. Workers desperately need these laws to be enforced and enforced adequately and timely. And That's the point of the legislation. So we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anyone to do a 'me too' in support in the room.

Mr. Chair, Member, Scott Wetch on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California Coalition of Utility Employees. In support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We haven't gotten close, but we'll limit to two minutes the list of any organizations that somebody is testifying on behalf of.

Navneet Perry on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Thank you. Just one, Mr. Chair. Louis Costa for the Smart Transportation Division. California State Legislative Board in support. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, Members, Kobe Pissati representing the American Association of Psychiatric Technicians, which is local and private sector psyche.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Members D'Artagnan Byrd on behalf of ask me California in support.

Appreciate it. Are you hovering for the next category? Are you here to - oh, here's a light breaking. Me too, I think.

Sorry, Mr. Chair. Pat Moran with Aaron Reed Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association. In support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we're going to move to opposition witnesses that are in the room. So welcome.

Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully in opposition. We appreciate our continued conversations with the author and the author's office and have provided amendments reflecting our concerns. AB 594 provides a broad new authority for public prosecutors to enforce new provisions of the labor code. It is true that local public prosecutors can prosecute claims regarding payment of wages. However, these claims are often cut and dry and leave little open to interpretation.

Our concern with this expansion is that we are now giving local prosecutors the ability to enforce laws that are open to much more interpretation, which will lead to inconsistent enforcement throughout the state. This is particularly burdensome for businesses that work across jurisdictions. As noted in the analysis, and as requested in our amendments, we believe requiring the DIR to issue regulations, providing guidance to public prosecutors to aid in uniformity and enforcement across the state would be immensely helpful. We hope to continue to work with the author on this issue. And thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Chris McKaley on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. As the author noted, we've had extensive conversations with his staff about potential amendments. As Ms. Jensen outlined, I wanted to first note that wage theft does in fact, continue to be a significant problem in California.

I know that the employer community over the past decade has worked with both legislators and our friends at the Labor Federation, among others, to combat wage theft, increase resources for the Labor Commissioner's office, and give them enhanced legal authority to combat this issue. Two additional concerns, in addition to those raised by Ms. Jensen. The first is in Section 181A It says that the public prosecutor can work, quote, without specific direction of the DLSE.

Now, I can appreciate how certainly the 58 elected Das and a number of elected city attorneys don't want to be at the direction of the DLSE. But as the referenced amendments from the employer community indicate, we would like collaboration at the very least in that regard, perhaps not working out the direction of, but certainly not isolated from to help give direction. And there are a number of issues.

While perhaps wage theft is a little bit more cut and dry in a legal analysis, there are a number of issues exempt versus nonexempt, classification of independent, contractor versus worker, et cetera, employee excuse me that do have discretionary standards. And so we'd like to see consistency statewide.

The second and final point is a significant concern in the employer community regarding the potential for any contracted attorneys to do this work on behalf of the local jurisdiction, perhaps in some very significant instances, very limited ones, that might be appropriate, particularly potential conflicts of interest. But we would hate to see any sort of bounty hunter litigation as a result of this legislation. For those reasons, we respectfully request your no vote.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Now we will move in the room to any opposition that is a me too. Name, organization, and position.

Good morning. Priscilla Quiroz here on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, known as Prism and Respectful Opposition.

Thank you very much.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association. We're respectfully opposed.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else in the room. Moderator we will move to the phones. And this is on Assembly Bill 594 work to the 'me too' phase, which is just name, organization, and position. It can be support or oppose. Moderator over to you.

If you would like to provide testimony for AB 594 in support or opposition, please press 10 at this time. And line 131, please go ahead.

Ben Ebbing on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition for the reasons stated.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And line 130, Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. There are no further comments in queue.

Thank you moderator. We'll bring it back to the Member. And let me ask one question, and that is there had been in discussions that there have been lots of meetings, and are you still working on this and are you still attempting to address some of these issues?

Yeah, we have a very good relationship with the opposition, and we'll continue to work with them on this Bill. One of the things to address specifically one of the points Mr. McKaley raised about sort of at the direction the language in there about at the direction of the Labor Commission, I think really, as a practical matter, there's two issues there that I hopefully will give some reassurance to the opposition. One is we already have some discretion that goes to district attorneys and to city attorneys.

That happens just inherent in our court system. But secondly, in a really a time of limited resources, I don't really believe that there's going to be a whole lot of district attorneys and city attorneys that will want to do Duplicative work if the Labor Commission is already taking it on. And in fact, the whole reason for this Bill is that the Labor Commission is already overworked.

So to think that with this much wage theft That's going on out there, that everybody's sort of going to pile on to one individual group or trade or something, I think is very unlikely. I think with these limited resources, it will be spread out. Having said that, we'll continue to work with them and try to find areas where we can shape up some of the language.

Okay, I appreciate that. And I'm going to give you the opportunity to close. And was that basically your yeah, that was my close.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Appreciate it, and would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. And when we can get there, we will have a motion and a vote. So thank you.

Thank you.

And then we'll move on to Assembly Bill 1145.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 1145 would establish a rebuttable presumption that PTSD suffered by nursing staff who provide direct care to prison inmates and state hospital patients is a workplace injury. These state nurses, psychiatric technicians, social service specialists, and various medical specialists provide direct care to inmate and patient populations that have committed serious and violent felonies or have severe mental illnesses that make them a danger to themselves or others. This nursing staff is most often the direct recipient of assaultive behavior.

Each day likely involves repetitive verbal and emotional abuse, physical threats, and witnessing or even being the target of horrific violent assaults. The toll on their psychological and physical health from these traumatic experiences can undoubtedly produce psychological injury, including PTSD. Unfortunately, the burden falls upon the nurse to prove their psychological injury resulted from a workplace injury. These nurses deserve to receive the benefits of workers comp without undue burden so they can heal from psychological trauma they may endure during their job.

This Bill has received no no votes along the way. And here to testify in support of AB 1145 is Kobe Pissati with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you. And just before you testify, let me just indicate we have three more authors. They're not in the room right now. So, Assemblymembers Wicks, Haney, and Ortega, if you are within earshot or your staff member is in earshot when this Bill is done, we would be ready to take up whoever's next in the room. Having said that, Mr. Pissati, welcome to the Committee.

The time, Mr. Chair Members. I'm Kobe Pissati with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We represent approximately 6000 psychiatric technicians in the state that work for prisons, mental hospitals and developmental centers. We're the largest direct level of care providers in all the state hospital systems. We have approximately 3600 Members working Atascadero. Coalinga Napa, Patton, Metropolitan State Hospitals. Just to kind of put into context what we face, there's 3600 of us. There was 2700 assaults on staff last year alone.

That's not to mention the 3500 patient-on-patient assaults that we have to break up because we do not have hospital police officers on our units who, by the way, have this presumption. So we are the ones that are actually doing the work of subduing and taking down a patient assault. This is something that I think is more of a parody issue, and I want to kind of outline it with this one circumstance that happened in prison.

And in March 9, in 2019, inmate Jamie Osuna committed a very heinous crime. And it was our psychiatric technician that who was doing her rounds, discovered that Mr. Osuna had decapitated, dissected, and then adorned himself and his cellmates innards. My psych tech that had to call a correctional officer for help took 18 months to receive her worker's compensation approval, while the correctional officer who had this presumption automatically received it. I just kind of wanted to put everything in perspective. I hate it to be that graphic, but it does kind of magnify the issue. And with that, Senator, I respectfully ask your support.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. This would be the opportunity for anybody in the room to do a me-too support for this Bill.

John Chavan, California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Danny Cheryl. On behalf of SEIU Local 1000, which includes Bargaining Unit 17, registered nurses, and Bargaining Unit 20, medical and social service specialists in strong support.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, D'Artagnan Byrd on behalf of AFSCME California, whose support for the Bill is contingent upon amendments. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Mr. Chair. Member Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no other witnesses in support in the room, this would be the opportunity for anybody that wishes to speak in opposition to the Bill in the room. Is there anybody that wishes to speak in opposition? Seeing no one, then moderator we will go to you. This is Senate Bill I mean, Assembly Bill 1145. And if it turns out there's one person that had intended to speak for a little bit in opposition, we would take it longer than the me too. But other than that, this is Me Too testimony. Name, organization, and position. Moderator over to you.

If you would like to provide Me too testimony in support or opposition to AB 1145, please press 1-0 at this time. And Mr. Chair, we have no comment.

Thank you very much. We appreciate it. Welcome back to the Committee. And interestingly, I just presented a Bill on this subject to renew the rebuttable presumption for public safety workers this morning and Committee.

And one of the issues that has been raised and in that case, the extension of the sunset was vetoed last year by the Governor because of documentation or information and that is being assembled. And I have taken from the Committee the suggestion that we will ask for a specific study in addition to that information. If the Bill is enacted. Is the information That's mentioned in the analysis and was mentioned by the witness what you really have to sort of demonstrate the need for this? Mr. Pissati?

Yeah. Thank. Have there's not a ton of people that get denied if it's on assaults. If one of our nurses gets assaulted, the claim is generally approved. It's the claims that are more visual than anything else, where over time, they see this assault of behavior or they're constantly threatened. So we have statistics over the last five years.

Last year we had 42 this is just for psych checks because I couldn't ask for other bargaining unit information, but last year we had 42 psychiatric technicians file claims for comp that are non-COVID related and non-assault related. Only 26 of them were approved. And That's at the Department of State hospitals. Prior years, it was 41 and 1246. And I trust that you have the.

Information and just make sure that you provide that documentation to the Committee.

Absolutely.

Thank you for. Your answer. Seeing that the one Committee Member has no other questions, would you like to close?

I would. I'd reiterate two points that Mr. Pissati raised. I think in my close. One is, as he listed the number of assaults and actions, it's getting dangerously close to one-to-one. Just doing the math there. And That's troubling.

And then secondly, in terms of a parity issue, witnessing the same incident, being a participant in the same interest incident with the same population, people should be treated equally as opposed to based on some classification that has no distinction in terms of how the incident actually occurred. So with that, I'd respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And since we are without more than one Member, we will take action on this when the Members return to the Committee. Thank you very much. Yes, I know. This is what makes me crazy about file order because Assemblymember Ortega heard my plaintiff plea and then Assemblymember Haney walked in right before we could get to her. So I know That's how I lose stomach lining. So assuming it's okay with you two, we will move to Assembly Member. Pardon? Okay.

We'll move to Assemblymember Haney who has two items. And even though he said he'd be quick, I know the subjects of these bills. Here we go. So we'll take up first Assembly Bill 871. Welcome to the Committee. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm here to present AB 871, the residential elevator safety Bill. We'll be accepting the Committee amendments today and thank you to the staff for working with us on the Bill. AB 871 will ensure that standards and safety measures required for commercial elevators are also in place for private residential elevators inside the home. Private residential elevators are becoming increasingly popular among homeowners who install them out of necessity or convenience.

However, without proper regulation and safety standards in place, these elevators can pose serious risks to riders. In order to ensure the safety of homeowners, their families, and their guests, it is crucial that private residential elevators are subject to regulation oversight. Similar to commercial elevators currently in California, only commercial elevators are subject to post-installation safety inspections. Additionally, these elevators are subject to annual inspections by a Cal/OSHA elevator unit inspector.

Private residence elevators are not subject to the same safety standards and codes and they're not regularly inspected and are more subject to crucial safety system errors. This Bill will ensure that private residence elevators meet the same rigorous safety standards and inspections, help disenfranchise communities with safer access to in-home transportation, and encourage more apprentices while providing a skilled and trained workforce for one of the most dangerous occupations in regards to on the job fatalities.

AB 871 is sponsored by the International Union of Elevator Constructors and today, Greg Hardeman from Local Eight, and Scott Wetch, who represents the sponsors, are here today in support of this Bill and to answer any questions.

First, Scott, welcome to the Committee.

Chairman Members, Scott Wetch here today on behalf of the International Union of Elevator Constructors and the State Association of Electrical Workers supporting the Bill. We sponsored the Bill over 20 years ago by then-Senator Torlakson to establish this program. Because of the increased incidence of accidents and injuries in residential elevators, we've introduced this Bill. I'd like to point out a couple significant points in the Bill. Mr. Chair, we have limited this legislation to just elevators, not stairlifts and platform lifts.

The average elevator in the State of California is $30,000. They can go upwards of over $50,000. The cost of the permit from the Division of Elevators in Dir is a few $100. So the Bill would increase the cost to the installation by a few $100.

Also, in response to concerns raised by some of the opposition about current elevator mechanics working in the residential elevator sector, we have submitted to the Committee authors amendments that will grandfather in those existing residential elevator mechanics and allow them to sit, to take the test, and become certified. With that, I'd like to introduce Greg Hardeman from the Elevator Constructors Union.

Good morning, Honorable Chair, Committee Members, and staff. My name is Greg Hardeman. I represent the International Union of Elevator Constructors, Local Eight. With the support of our counterpart in Southern California, Local 18. I have over 20 years of experience in the elevator industry. I have 14 years of field experience working on construction, modernization, repair service in both commercial and residential elevators. I've also been a rep for eight years for our union. And for the last eight years I've been chairing our JATC.

And to the analysis that said, we're kind of short on apprentices graduating or apprentices available. We have over 300 apprentices on our applicant list That's approved by the State of California available to hire today. And Southern California has a similar number if not more so, there wouldn't be a lack of registered apprentices for hire. And as you know that elevators are one of the safest forms of transportation. But in the private residence sector, it is not. Numbers on injuries and accidents are hard to come by.

Last year in San Francisco, a firefighter fell while responding to a two alarm fire in San Francisco in a private residence elevator and had to go be rushed to the ER. The lack of oversight and regulations by the state or federal government on accidents on private residence elevators make it tough to come by information. But as field experience, I could tell you when I've worked on an elevator that a non licensed person worked on before me.

Crucial safety devices are typically jumped out is what we call it, that would allow the elevator to run with doors open and create unsafe working conditions. Our industry is also very dangerous. We are one of the highest fatality rates in the construction industry and the same would go in the private resident sector. But since there's no regulation, those numbers of workers deaths are hard to come by as well. So That's why we're looking to increase our years to become a mechanic from three to four years. And I stand here and humbly ask for your support for this Bill. And thank you very much.

Thank you. Others who wish to express the support position on this Bill.

Mr. Chair, Members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades, also in support. Thank you.

Mr. Chair Members, Sarah Flocks, Labor Federation, in support.

Sandra Burrero, SEIU California, in support.

All right, see no one else come forward in support. We will ask if there's an opposition witness. If so, please come forward. Good afternoon.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. My name is Kevin Rusin. I am employed by McKinley Elevator. I am also a Member of AEMDA, which is the Accessibility Equipment Manufacturers and Dealers Association. I have been working in the accessibility industry since 1991. We appreciate the work of the Committee and how it improves the Bill. However, there is still a huge concern within the accessibility industry.

Safety is the highest priority for the people who use our products as well as the mechanics that maintain them. Currently, California's Department of Industrial Relations accepts federal U.S. Department of Labor approved apprenticeship programs called the CET, which is a certified elevator technician and cat certified accessibility technician. The Bill continues to try to remove them.

In the union training program, there is nothing specifically about accessibility products until the last course, and only two units of the 10 in that course discuss accessibility products and private residential elevators. Therefore, less than 2% of the union training program is devoted to accessibility products, including private residential elevators. And we believe, therefore, that they are not properly trained on these devices. Whereas the already accepted Cat program has 270 hours and 4200 field hours of training specifically devoted to accessibility and private residential elevators.