Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

So if you're watching a stream, Watch from home. You want to provide your feedback, feel free to email us at that address. We do not have a quorum. I'm going to wait a moment because we also do not have any Senate authors at this moment. So I'd ask if any of the Senators or Senate staff are watching, if they can send or make their way over here, or send your boss over here and we can get to work. Thank you.

All right, well, we will be prepared to begin as a Subcommittee with Senator Haney here. We can go ahead and do that. And now we have Senator Cortesi with us. And so, Senator Cortesse, whenever you're ready, you may go ahead and take a seat. And will you be starting with SB 332 then? Senator Cortese will be starting SB 332? Yes. Okay, great.

Thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Members, for your patience. You know the situation. I was in the corresponding Senate committee just trying to get that adjourned and get over here. So I'm grateful and we really appreciate being here to present SB 332 to you today and appreciate the committee's help efforts, discussions, conversations on something that came upon us relatively quickly and your responsiveness and reaction and that of your staff. The Bill itself reflects months of prior negotiations and an agreement between Minor League Baseball players and their union, major League Baseball Players Association and MLB, which, of course, would be the management side. The measure codifies the first ever nationwide collective bargaining agreement for Minor League Baseball players by exempting the 362 California based Minor League Baseball players, I should say 362, from certain wage, overtime, rest period, record keeping, and meal periods, as long as there's a collective bargaining agreement. Obviously key, as we've discussed in our own conversations back and forth, the employment schedules and the nature of the employment makes it very challenging to meet standard California statutory requirements. SB 332 ensures minor league baseball players across the country will see a significant new increase in regular season salary, plus the addition of spring training and offseason pay, amongst other things that will be included in collective bargaining negotiations wrapped up in an agreement. And I will allow the experts here and those who've been involved in those negotiations to answer any questions if they come up on the specifics there. The Bill does protect Major League Baseball from any civil action brought against him as the employer against a claim of meal, overtime and rest break violation. I think that's really the most significant piece of the Bill from the standpoint of the jurisdiction of this committee, although you get to be the judge of that, and the Bill has an urgency clause under the circumstances. With me to testify today is Amy Tovar from the San Francisco Giants. With the chair's permission, I'll turn it over to her. Thank you.

Thank you very much for today's hearing. I'll just make a General announcement. Every witness will have up to two minutes. So please, Ms. Tovar.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, Members of the committee, thank you for allowing me to testify today in support of Senate Bill 332. My name is Amy Tovar. I'm senior Vice President, General counsel for the San Francisco Giants. This Bill is critical to the successful operation of the nine minor league baseball teams throughout California and the over 350 minor league players that are assigned to their rosters. Earlier this year, the Major League Baseball Players Association and Major League Baseball negotiated the first ever collective bargaining agreement covering minor league players. More than 99% of the minor league players voted to ratify the CBA. This historic agreement governs salaries and benefits on a nationwide scale. The CBA is premised on the idea that players are salaried exempt employees. The players union has formally supported expressed support for treating minor league players as exempt. Minor league players are already treated as exempt under federal law, without passing Senate Bill 332, California minor league teams would be subject to state wage and hour laws that are incompatible with the CBA and with the player development process. For example, without the exemption, players in California would be required to track their hours and would be forced to take meal and rest breaks during the middle of their baseball games. To avoid costly overtime, teams might prohibit players from showing up to the ballpark early and restrict them from engaging in voluntary activities and extra training. Running, yoga, et cetera. These are activities that players rely on to improve their skills and advance to the major leagues. This Bill outlines a limited, common sense approach to compensating minor league players, honoring the terms of the CBA, and avoiding the counterproductive constraints that would come with treating minor league players as non-exempt hourly workers. Thank you very much, and I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you so much. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 332? Please approach the microphone behind the Senator Cortesi there and name organization your position on the Bill. Okay, we'll bring it back. And is there anyone here in opposition to SB 332? All right, let's bring it back to the committee.

Well, first of all, go Giants. I want to thank you, Senator, and thank Major League Baseball for coming forward with this and to working collaboratively with other minor league players. I think this is a reasonable, common sense thing for us to do. We understand the unique nature of being a minor league baseball player. As you said, if they were forced to do a lot of things that are included for other employees. I think it would be a burden on them and actually create challenges for them and their ability to be successful in ways that they want to. I also think it's important for this committee, as we recognize the right of all workers to collectively bargain for their own salaries and benefits and agreements and all of that, and they agreed to this as part of their contract. And I think that's a very important thing. As a Giants fan, especially this year, we are valuing and recognize even more our minor league players, as many have come up through the year and done incredibly well. And I know they bring just tremendous joy and entertainment to people all over our state, and not only when they come to the major leagues, but obviously in the respective ballparks across the state, including here in Sacramento. Thank you for taking this on, Senator. I'm proud to be a co author with you. And with that, when the time comes, I'll move the Bill.

All right. I also want to join in thanking the Senator in very short order in bringing this issue that is of urgency both to Major League Baseball, the owners as well as to the players. Oftentimes when there are these national bargains and agreements that are made, I understand the challenge of ensuring that it complies with or there's consistency with all the 50 states. And I think that's when a lot of different organizations learn that California, for good reason, has very strong labor standards and we take them very seriously. And it's through the conversations, the very productive conversations with the Major League Baseball Players Association as well as Major League Baseball, that there was a sense of comfort in allowing for these exemptions, knowing that the players are being taken care of and that there was a mutual agreement. And I'm going to add an amendment to Samura Haney's comments go Giants. Go San Jose Giants. Because I have a long standing relationship with that organization, being from San Jose, as is Senator Cortese. And I've recalled the anecdotes when I was a public defender and one of the judges used to house two or three of the players every season because they could not afford housing. And so the housing subsidy aspect of this is of critical importance, especially in California, whether it's here in Sacramento, in San Jose, other parts of the state. The fact that that's now being accounted for, I think is a really big win for the players to allow them to chase their dreams, but do it in a way with some dignity and some stability. And so we don't have a quorum, but at the appropriate time, I'm sure we'll take it. And so I do want to thank the Senator, the San Francisco Giants and others with Major League Baseball for engaging so quickly and thoroughly with us in a manner that got us to a place of agreement where we can move this with urgency and hopefully get it into the Assembly floor and moving on to the Legislature, into the governor's desk as soon as possible. Would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you. Mr. Chair, for a moment there, when you said amendment, I thought maybe you were going to ask Ms.. Tovar for an exemption to the territorial rights issue in San Jose.

We could have another hearing on that one. Right?

It's okay. You can breathe. That was a joke. Sort of. Anyway, I'll be brief with the close, but I actually really want to acknowledge the work that was done even before I got to this Legislature two and a half years ago, because it's what created this moment. And I think, obviously, there are sponsors here who came forward very voluntarily to get this done and have done the work in their own right around putting a collective bargaining agreement together and so forth. But if this Legislature, including you, Mr. Chair, and your committee, had not created prior legislation that would really require these kinds of workers and this kind of workforce to be classified as employees, then I don't think we'd be here today. We wouldn't be here today. And it goes to show that clearly, we stand on each other's shoulders in terms of policy, but that folks can come together as they have today management, labor, and, of course, legislators who have worked hard to again create these kind of circumstances for workers. So thank you for getting that done before I got here. I got to avoid some of those fights by getting here two and a half years ago. But again, that's what got us here today. And with that, when the time comes, from all your colleagues, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, well, we will move on to the next Bill of yours, SB 740. Senator Cortese, I don't know, Senator Cortese, you have another piece of legislation.

I thought that close was good enough for both of them.

I don't know if you were going to go catch an early game, but I think that they're at the all-star game.

Beating the traffic.

All right, item two, SB 740.

All right, thank you again, Mr. Chair, Members. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to present one of my bills, in this case, Senate Bill 740, to you today. Senate Bill 740 extends the skilled and trained workforce requirements now applicable to petroleum refineries to additional industrial facilities, including commercial facilities for hydrogen, biofuels, and carbon dioxide capture. As with petroleum refineries, the skilled and trained workforce requirements will apply to contractors performing onsite work at these facilities. The Bill does not affect in house work at a facility. This Bill will keep communities and workers safe. Manufacturing of chemicals like the ones identified in SB 740 is inherently dangerous work. Exposure to these chemicals can be extremely hazardous for a workforce untrained in their impacts and I know the Members of this committee know that all too well. Historically, the state has chosen to use a skilled and trained workforce in high risk environments like this. In fact, this Bill was modeled after the former Senate Bill 54. SB 54 at that time was signed into law in large part because of the vulnerabilities exposed after the Richmond Refinery fire and the resulting community and legislative concerns. Since the passage of former Senate Bill 54, there's been no such fire or explosions, period. Full stop. As with any other industry, industrial maintenance and construction should require an adequately skilled workforce equipped to prevent and reduce the risk of fires, explosions and leaks of noxious air, solvents or other substances, and any and all adequate industrial protections to protect the surrounding communities. With us today to testify, we have Chris Hannon, President elect to the State Building and Construction Trades Council and Rudy Gonzalez from the San Francisco Building Trades Council. And with chair's permission, I'll turn it over to them.

Thank you and welcome. Mr. Hannon. Congratulations on your new role.

President elect Hannon said that I could go first because I'm a Giants fan. I appreciate that, brother. Never felt so safe than with my sisters, brothers and siblings from the nurses union here. Chair and honorable Members of the committee, it's a pleasure to be here. We certainly appreciate the leadership of our good Senator, Mr. Cortese. The industrial work that we perform is inherently dangerous. And San Francisco construction workers and the families that we represent know, just like every other Californian, that we need to move aggressively and boldly into our transition. But all too often, the terminology used by elected officials falls flat on the ears. And for the lives and health of so many industrial workers across the state, this is actually impacting San Francisco workers right now, where we have had a slowdown of work. We are sending and following our contractors into refineries in Contra Costa County and other counties. And so this is of vital importance to the Members that I represent. Look, the just transition ought to have, at a minimum, the same labor standards in our renewable sectors. I'd like to see all renewable sectors covered under this. But we believe this is an important and key step toward preserving an industrial standard for labor protections and workers rights that can translate and continue to keep an experienced and expert, frankly, workforce that's capable of moving out of the current transition or the current energy model into renewables and into other opportunities. So we stand in support of the State Building trades and thank the Senator for his leadership. Thank you.

Good afternoon, honorable Chair Committee Members. My name is Chris Hannon. I'm honored to be here as President Elect of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, representing nearly a half a million of the best trained women and men in the construction trades. This Bill is about safety. The industrial processes that are taking place all across California need to be built by the best trained workforce in the world to not only ensure the safety of the construction worker, but also to ensure the safety of the surrounding communities and the environment. Any questions about available workforce? We have more apprentices in the state of California union construction apprentices that are training to be skilled, journey level Members than the next three largest states combined. The state of California leads every state in the apprenticeship, robust apprenticeship. Not only will this be great places for our Members to work, this will create new pathways into the middle class, bringing communities of color, bringing women into our trades to work in a still dangerous environment, but safely. Safely for the construction worker, safely for the communities that these projects are in, and to be able to provide the necessary resources and the necessary energy for the future of California. We're in strong support of this Bill and ask for your support today.

Thank you. Is anyone else here in support of SB 740? Button just come up microphone. Name, organization, and your position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Timothy Jeffries. I'm the international representative for the Boilermakers. I stand with State Building Trade in strong support of this Bill. I think this Bill speaks to veterans and the components, the apprenticeship training programs they mentioned. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of SB 740? Just name, organization, or affiliation and your position on the Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Dominic Lucero. I'm a business agent for Boilermakers, Local 549. Thank you, chair and Members of the committee. I had served for over three years as an instructor for the apprenticeship program. During the transition brought about by Senate Bill 54, I had the privilege of being on the front line for elevating these workers to skilled and trained status. The ease of which individuals can gain employment at these most hazardous facilities was concerning. A person could work at WinCo Foods on Monday, then disassemble a line with sulfur dioxide in it on Wednesday. This is not an effort to restrict employment, but to place a standardized, time tested method for workers to gain access to a lifelong career without injury to themselves or the community. The solution is commonplace. If you work with hazardous items, you should be given every opportunity to protect yourself and those around you, the foundation of which requires formal training. Quote, "let no man's ghost return to say his training let him down," sign in a New York fire Department. We have an opportunity. Thank you.

Thank you. And so, because our primary witness didn't take up all their time, that'll be the rest of the time of the witnesses here on out, just your name, affiliation, and your support of the Bill in this case.

Yeah, my name is James Bradshaw, local 549. And I'm in support of SB 740. Thank you.

Hi my name is Maurice Jones, Local 549. I'm a recent graduate apprentice, and I support 740.

My name is Charles Mccoyano, graduated Boilermaker at Local 549, and I support Cinnabill 740. Thank you.

My name is Corey Hunter. I'm a fourth year apprentice, Local 549 Boilermakers, me and my daughter support SB 740.

My name is Nicholas Garcia. I'm a business agent for Local 92, Southern California. I'm a graduate apprentice again, went through the thing, business agent, and I support 740. Thank you.

My name is Brian McBride. I'm a 33 year Member of Local 549, and I'm in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Tim Conley. I'm also a Member of Boilermakers 549. I'm a 41 year Member, and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Randy Thomas. I'm the business manager of Boilermakers Local 549. We stand with the state building trades and supporting this Bill and supporting the community. Thank you.

Hi, my name is William Perkins, Journeyman Boilermaker, 17 years, and I support 740. Thank you.

Hi my name is Jacob Moore. I'm a third year apprentice with boilermakers 549 and I support Bill 740. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Teme Ross, and I'm a helper out of the Local 549, and I do support the SB 740.

My name is Marcy Hogan. I'm a very proud Member of 549. I'm a safety tenant. I do support this Bill.

Hello. Trinidad Chavez boilermakers 549. I support 740. Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Johnny Blackman, and I am a journeyman boilermaker from Local 549, and I stand with the state and support the Bill 740.

Hello. My name is Francis Garcia. I'm a Journeyman Boilermaker, proud Member of 549, and I support this Bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Osbaldo Troche. Business agent from Bowler Makers Local 549. Graduated apprentice. I stand with the state building trade in supporting SB 740.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone here in opposition to SB 740? There's a couple of seats up here, so feel free to grab a seat with microphone.

Hello, Mr. Chair. Senator Cortese, I'm Cassandra Goth, vice President of Government affairs for Calpine Corporation. We're one of the largest generators of clean energy in the state and country. And also we have proudly signed over a dozen plas MLAs since the beginning of time with the building trades, in fact, and now we're engaged in carbon capture and sequestration. We built the first ever carbon pilot project that we're celebrating on this Friday with nearly 200 people appearing at a ribbon cutting ceremony in Pittsburgh, California, and we built that under a PLA. We're hoping to build a full carbon capture storage project outside of Yuba City here in the next couple of years. And when that was just a glimmer in our eye, we reached out to labor immediately. They are an important partner to us, and we enjoy working with them, and their workforce is important to us. This Bill, we just don't understand it enough. We understand PLAs. We understand MLAs. We understand there are penalties associated here that are criminal, and we need to just understand how that works for us. This is a new technology and new project. The engineering studies are still being done, so we don't know what we don't know. But we've had a lot of good conversations with the building trades. They're helping us through this. I told them I'd help them with Cal ISO tariffs, transmission tariffs, if they needed it. But this is their expertise and not ours. So we intend and will do definitely a PLA MLA on these projects, and battery storage and other ones. We just want to understand how this law works, especially with the criminal penalty. So I thought it was important to come here and let you know our position isn't a no to labor. It's how does this work? And again, they've been generous with their time, and we're pretty confident that we will be able to figure this out because they're an important partner to us. Thank you.

We certainly appreciate your feedback. Senator Cortese, did you.

A couple of things there. First of all, thank you for being here and thank you for working with the sponsors of the Bill, as you always have, evidently. Certainly we're familiar with Calpine in the chair and I in our home district as well. And the PLA, I will defer to the experts sitting to my right as need be. But the PLA is not inconsistent with the skilled and trade standard that's here. In fact, what I take on the positive side from your testimony is we have heard, some of us in labor committees and in other committees, legislatively and even recently, with the infrastructure package that was brought forward that somehow PLAs or these kind of standards would slow things down. And the fact that you in your own testimony, acknowledge Calpine's ability to move forward and keep moving forward quickly on that kind of infrastructure with PLAs, I think is really kind of an endorsement of what's going on here in some sense. Lastly, I know I'm not trying to make an editorial comment, Mr. Chair. I'm trying to respond to the specifics. I would ask, on the flip side of this, for Building Trades to continue to work with the opposition to make sure that all of their concerns are assuaged, because the last thing we want to do is slow down that kind of job creation that Calpine is involved with.

Sure, yeah. It was a very polite, concerned position. So we do appreciate that. Clearly a lot of cooperation going on before we continue the dialogue. Is there anyone else in opposition or concerned position with SB 740? Okay, we'll bring it back to committee. Anyone? I don't know if Building Trades, if you have any comment from what the Senator said or opposition.

Yeah, we look forward to helping Calpine understand our skilled and trained journey level Members. Apprentices can build anything in the world, and we're building the best projects in the world right now here in California. So we're happy to work with them and help them understand.

Okay. Any questions or comments from the dais? Yes, Senator Reyes?

I do want to appreciate the opposition. I think that the best comments that can be made is, here's a good Bill. We've been good players, and we want to continue to be good players, and let's figure out a way to make this work for everybody. I appreciate that from you, and I appreciate the Bill also. It's a good Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. And, Madam Secretary, if we can actually do a roll call for Quorum so we can take some action on some of the bills that Senator Cortese is putting forth.

Cholera here. Flora here. Chen, Haney, Ortega, Rayes, ward established.

Okay, so we do have a Quorum established. And with that, is there any other question, comments, or motion? A motion. And a second. Senator Haney.

I just want to quickly say, first of all, congratulations on your new role. We're all very excited to work with you on this issue and many others. And good to see you, Mr. Gonzalez from San Francisco and a good friend and champion for labor. This is so important. I know that as folks have talked about, not only for us able to move into the future on the type of industries that we need to be growing dramatically, but to make sure that we do it in the safest way possible by creating jobs that are high skilled, highly trained, protect communities, uplift workers. This is just such a win win. And thank you for your leadership, and I look forward to supporting it and many other efforts to expand these industries aggressively while also supporting our workforce and our communities.

Thank you. And I'll second that the praise in terms of bringing forward a Bill that, as Mr. Gonzalez said, address just transition. We should have labor standards and strong labor standards. And that's how we move forward together to make sure that we have safety as well as good quality of life, good quality of jobs, as we invest so much more into these new technologies, and the potential is tremendous. We should not leave any workers behind and certainly should not have any issues with public safety as well that we need to contend with. So I would like to be added on as a co author, Senator Cortese, and please feel free to close at this time.

All right, thank you very much. And I only want to acknowledge before putting our order book away the tremendous success on the prior SB 54 statistically. We didn't run all the statistics by you. We know that you already knew them. But I'm not sure the public knows how successful skilled and trained has been in this space. This is without controversy. This is without dispute. And to apply it now to four emerging areas is going to be a tremendous boon. We appreciate that you recognize that. We appreciate the work that the committee did with this analysis and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, can we take roll call? Vote on SB 740.

The motion is due pass to appropriations. Kalra, aye. Kalra, aye. Flora? Flora. Not voting. Chen. Haney. Haney. Aye. Ortega. Ortega. Aye. Reyes. Reyes. Aye. ward.

All right, that Bill is out. And I would also ask if we can get a motion on Senator Cortesi's other Bill. SB 332. We have a motion from Vice chair second from Assemblymember Reyes. Madam Secretary, if you can take the role on SB 332.

The motion is due passed as amended to Appropriations Committee. Kalra, aye. Kalra, aye. Flora? Aye. Flora. Aye. Chen haney.

Senator Haney on SB 332.

Aye. Ortega? Ortega aye. Rayes? Rayes aye. Ward?

Okay, that Bill is out, and if we could have a motion on the consent calendar, which is SB 422. We'll motion in a second. Yeah, you already have it. We can take a roll call vote.

The motion on SB 422, the consent calendar do pass. Consent to appropriations. Kalra? Aye. Kalra aye. Flora? Aye. Flora, aye. Chen? Haney? Haney aye. Ortega? Ortega aye. Rayes? Rayes, aye. Ward?

All right, the consent calendar is out, and so we're awaiting authors. So, again, if we can have senators get over here, if Senator staff is watching, please complete our agenda for the day.

Thank you. Up next file. Item three is SB 525. Senator Durazo, just get settled in. Whenever you're ready, you may begin. And again, just a General comment that each side on all these books have up to two witnesses. Up to two minutes each side.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chair, good afternoon, and Members of the committee. I am pleased to present SB Five Two Five, which will establish a $25 minimum wage for our healthcare workers. Raising the minimum wage for healthcare workers in the state is critical in order to help retain staff and more importantly, probably attract new workers. Unfortunately, many healthcare workers who have left or are thinking about leaving their jobs after facing the trauma and the dangerous working conditions throughout the pandemic and also struggling with low pay. We have heard from healthcare workers such as medical assistants, clerical workers and cooks, who are making less than $25 per hour. And they are struggling to make ends meet, like pay the rent or pay for childcare or gasoline. They have had to take on two or three jobs and do not have time to take care of themselves while they are taking care of their patients. The impacts of this staffing crisis are being felt by healthcare workers and those that they care for. During the pandemic, everyone acknowledged the extraordinary courage of all of our healthcare workers. We praised them and prayed for them. Many lost their lives to save us. Now that the worst of the pandemic is over, it is time to acknowledge the sacrifices of our healthcare workers, especially those who are earning minimum wage. This Bill is not intended to solve all of the issues with our healthcare delivery system. The men and women who work must be part of that broader conversation. Members, I know that distressed hospitals probably will need help, and I share the same concerns. In fact, I, along with the rest of our Legislature, supported an allocation of additional $150,000,000 for the distressed hospital loan program, bringing the total to $300 million available for distressed hospitals to start getting that help as soon as possible. How can we help distressed hospitals, the buildings, and not help distressed people? By denying livable wages to the people who change and launder the dirty bedsheets, the people who mop up the floors in the ER room, or the people who feed the patients and the hospital staff. Most hospitals are not distressed. Most health facilities are actually able to afford this. The legislature's budget deal also included an investment of close to $35 billion to the healthcare industry with the MCO tax. This investment increases provider rates for primary care, specialty care, outpatient procedures, and other services. The bottom line is that hospitals, clinics and any similar medical facilities cannot run their day to day operations without addressing the needs of their workforce. We have made several amendments to the Bill in the Senate, and I will continue to work on these issues around distressed hospitals, clinics, and the timing and implementation. I have spent my entire life fighting to raise wages for working Californians hotel housekeepers, janitors, laborers, teachers and nurses. Poverty wages hurt everyone. We're simply asking to raise wages for healthcare workers so that they can make a sustainable wage to raise their families. To put this into perspective, in Los Angeles County, $25 per hour still qualifies workers for subsidized Low income housing. If we want a strong health care system, if we want health equity, then we must pay healthcare workers a wage that allows them to live in the communities they serve. Thank you very much. With me today, I have two individuals who work in the industry Rosa Altamirano, dietary at St. Francis Medical Center, and Luis Arieta, families together of Orange County. Thank you.

Thank you, and each witness, two minutes, but interpretation is not included in that, so feel free to interpret appropriately.

Ola Minambre Del Cervico De Limentos and El Hospital De San Francisco de Lingua Estada Al Cuidado de LA salute for Mazda Quincer de misanio c de cacioni compromiso solo me pagan unpoco Mazda De CETA Estoya quarres preservo Minimo De Vinte Cinco De LA travajadores de LA salute. California soila pereva viviente de Los De Los Tesa PIOs cadinostravajadores de LA salute Mirenta Fuentrementada Menteos Peruna partimento deon sola Recamara El costo de LA vida Sigo Mentando permanesa ival Estoya Trasada convarios villas. Nocrosando me Solamente Mirenta principal menteura de Masde mildolares porcastoia trasadenes. I prefer Lucindo parapagar mirenta itene poco de comida noes travacadores the hospital capone sukorason I AlmaJo al mentali Salario minimo parallos travacadores de LA salute. Salute. Mejoraria mucco Nostrazidas iresa manera Brindar LA MEJORA tenciona Significa permanent personas Desta Manera Tambien fort Alice Medica los travajadores de LA de LA saluda California. Les pido perfabor LA esse bay Cinco Ventico. Gracia.

Hello. My name is Rosa Altamirano. I'm a food service worker at St. Francis Medical Center in the city of Linwood. I've been in healthcare for over 15 years, and despite my years of dedication and commitment, I'm only paid a little over $17 an hour. Today I'm here to voice my support for a $25 minimum wage for healthcare workers across California. I am living proof of the challenges faced by healthcare workers and how it's getting harder every day to survive on our current wages. My rent was recently increased by $100, and I now pay 1500 for a one bedroom apartment. The cost of living continues to soar. While my wages remain stagnant, I find myself falling behind on bills juggling to prioritize my rent and gasoline for transportation to work. I currently have a Bill that's over $1,000 because I keep falling behind and need to have a roof over my head and food to eat. At 60 years old, I should be thinking about retirement, but instead, I'm just struggling to pay my bills and have enough to eat. It's not just about me. It's about every nurse, every technician, every caregiver who pours our heart and soul into their work. Low pay has been affecting staffing at hospitals and the quality of patient care. I myself wouldn't want to be a patient at my facility because I see the impact of short staffing. Many of my coworkers are leaving for better paying jobs. And I get it. Why would they continue to risk their lives when they could go to Target or a fast food restaurant and get paid more? Raising the minimum wage for healthcare workers like me means we can pay our bills and support our families. It means that experienced healthcare workers will stay on the job and we can recruit new people to the field. Instead of being stressed every day about how we're going to survive, we can focus on providing the best care possible for our patients. By taking this step, you will not only uplift the lives of thousands of dedicated healthcare workers, but also strengthen the foundation of our healthcare system. On behalf of the Healthcare workers of California, I'm calling on you to support and pass SB 525.

Hello. Hi. Good afternoon. Committee Chair Chora and Members of the Labor Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak in support of SB 525, which would create a $25 healthcare work minimum wage. My name is Luis Aria. Since 2019, I've had the honor of working with mostly Low income immigrant patients as a medical assistant at Families Together Orange County. My work is challenging and sometimes dangerous. During the pandemic, I was attacked at a COVID-19 testing vaccine site in my clinic. In addition to working at a clinic site, I also help bring care directly to the unhoused. This means bringing care to encampments to those who feel like they can leave their few belongings or are too ashamed to come in to seek help, I apologize. I'm a little cold. I have no thyroid, so the AC is getting me a lot. I know there's a story behind how each person who's found themselves on the street without anywhere to go. So I'm here to share my story and ask for your help that healthcare workers and our patients desperately need. I worry about the future for both my patients and my own family. They are between 200 and 250 workers at families together Orange County. We have around four offices. Since I've started Working Together Families Together, about 70 coworkers have left, which means doctors, PAs, nurse practitioners, medical assistants, the whole run around. And working in the healthcare industry is my calling. But I understand why so many workers are leaving the healthcare field. They are leaving to work in other industries where they pay higher, which are restaurants, Target, McDonald's, in and out. But when there are not enough healthcare workers, our patients suffer. Everyone's suffering at our clinic, workers like me find ourselves doing the work meant for three people. Patients are having to wait longer. Critical follow up calls don't happen, and there are more and more gaps in care. Our patients deserve better. But at the end of the day, no matter how much healthcare workers love the work that we do, we go home and struggle to make ends meet. Each month, most of my and my wife's paychecks go towards housing with little ease left to put food on our table and keep the lights on. With SB 525, you can take immediate action to keep and attract more healthcare workers, including at community clinics like Families. Together with SB 525, you can help hundreds of thousands of families who are struggling to keep our heads above water. I urge you to vote yes on SB 525. Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you. Now, I know there's a number of folks outside. They're going to be coming in, so I'll allow the sergeants a moment to organize folks. But for those in support of SB 525, just your name, organization, and your position on the Bill, please.

Mr. Chair and Members, Michelle Teran-Woolfork with the California Commission on the Status. Women and girls in strong support. Thank you to the author.

Hi, my name is Shelley Butler. I work at Watch Healthcare. I'm in strong support.

My name is Katie Templeton. I represent the LA LGBT Center in Hollywood. Strongly support.

My name is Jose Munoz. I am a patient in San Diego, and I'm in strong support.

Good afternoon. My name is Zanye Avery. I work at Edgemoor Hospital in San Diego County, and I am in strong support.

Hi. My name is Celine Gonzalez, and I work at Edgemore in San Diego. And please vote yes on SB 525.

Hi. My name is Sarah Johnson. I've been at El Viena Edgemoor for 20 years. Edgemoor is in Santee, California. I'm with SEIU. 221 And we're requesting you to possibly vote yes on SB 525. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Trina Yuso. I work at Desert Regional Medical Center in Palm Springs. I've been with SEIU, UHW, for 14 years, and I strongly urge you guys to vote for this Bill for our patients. Thank you.

Hi. Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters. We're here for a very important Bill we're proud to support.

Hi. I'm Erica Castillo, and I work at Greater El Monte Community Hospital. And I'd be pleased if you guys could vote. Thank you.

Chair Members. My name is Ron Roulette with the NorCal Carpenters Union. I'm the political Director. On behalf of our entire organization, we support.

Izzie Swindler on behalf of San Francisco City Board of Supervisors and Support. Thank you.

My name is Melissa Setzer. I'm a medical assistant at WellSpace Health here in Sacramento, and I'm vocal support SB 525.

Sharon Brooks Boyd, retired from Stanford Hospital. Now a patient that accesses the healthcare system. Please vote yes on city Bill 525.

Hello, my name is Jesus Figueroa Casio, I'm a nursing home worker for more than 20 years and I'm with SEIU 2015. So please, we would like you to vote for AB 525. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Andres Ramirez, on behalf of all home in strong support of the Bill. Thanks.

My name is Navani Saxton and I'm from Mainland Empire. And as well, I do go vote for I'm a medical assistant as well too. So SB 525. Definitely.

Good afternoon. My name is Gloria Bridget HealthRIGHT 360, SEIU Local 221, facilitator three. Please support the Bill.

Hey, guys. Prince Turner working at Alameda Health Systems in support of SB. 525 Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tamika and I'm with SEIU 2015, and I'm just asking you to support this Bill on behalf of all my Members.

Good afternoon, my name is Jessica Orantes, medical assistant at Highland Hospital in Oakland, and I ask that you guys support this Bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Angel Valdez, I work at La Clinica de La Raza in Oakland, and I'm here to encourage you urge you to support SB 525. Thank you.

Hi, everyone. My name is Deborah Barrios. I'm a nurse at Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital. I'm also a shop steward for SEIU 1021. I'm also a patient for the Petaluma Ronar Park area and I go to this clinics. I urge you to support SB 525. Thank you for your time.

Hello, my name is America, I work for MCCN Medical System for ten years and I urge you to vote yes for SB five two five.

Hello, my name is Tanya Castro, I'm from Victorville and I support SB 525. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Rocio. I'm from Dignity. Help. San Bernardino. I'm here to support SB 525. Everybody will benefit from this, from our EPS housekeepers to the cooks. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Brandon Dawkins. I'm with SEIU Local 1021. And I'm a health worker with the San Francisco Department of Public Health. I support SB 525, and I encourage you all to support SB 525. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Ecedra Savalza, I work at Fresno Kaiser and I ask you to support 525 today.

Hi, my name is Morel Vong. I work for Mercy Hospital Folsom Dignity Health. I've been in the ER for 17 years and I strongly urge you guys to support SB 525.

Hello, my name is Dennis Torres, I'm a dialysis technician at Vallejo, California, and I support SB 525. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Kathy Mendoza. I'm a dialysis nurse, and I urge you to vote for SB 525.

Hi. My name is Joy Hunt. I'm a Member of SEIU USWW, and I strongly urge you to vote yes.

Hi, my name is Jose Luis Pavon with SEIU USWW. We represent janitors, security officers at healthcare facilities statewide, and I urge you to support SB 525. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers California chapter in support and solidarity on SB 525.

Buenes tardes LA Proquesta. She'S a. Patient and she's here to support the SB 525. So it'll go through.

Hi, my name is Alicia Godinez, and I'm here as a patient and I ask him for support for SB 525.

Good afternoon. My name is Forrest Cameron on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, here in support. Thank you very much.

Marika Yoshihar, on behalf of the California Coalition for Worker Power. In support.

Jessica Stender, on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates. In support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? If not, are there witnesses in opposition to SB 525? And if we can have our, yeah.

We're not going to give testimony. Chair We're just here in respectful opposition unless amended. John Chaban, California Nurses Association.

Okay, thank you. Is there anyone speaking in any witnesses? Okay, there are. Okay. So, yeah, before we get the me toos and all that, we'll go ahead and have witnesses up to two minutes each. And we heard from the California Nurse Association. We have a couple more witnesses here.

Well, good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. I'm Diane Hansen, chief executive officer for Palomar Health in San Diego. We are the largest healthcare district in the state, entrusted with the care of more than half a million residents. Please understand that district hospitals play a unique role. We serve the uninsured, low-income patients and underrepresented groups that I know you care about. We are the safety net. On the heels of the Pandemic, hospitals in California are struggling. While it is true that some private hospitals returned Cares Act funding, organizations like ours took a $45 million loss with a $25 million shortfall in relief funds. I stand before you, sit before you, actually, at a time of absolute crisis for California hospitals. I want you to think about your own districts. Chances are you have a hospital that is in jeopardy. That's because at this moment, more than 50% of California's hospitals are operating at a loss, and more than a dozen are facing bankruptcy. All serve a disproportionate share of low-income patients. This includes a hospital within 10 miles of ours, the only other hospital in north San Diego County providing critical safety net services. We are scrambling to determine how we can manage an influx of patients when they fail, which could be within a matter of months. I am deeply concerned. SB 525's massive 8 billion per year price tag, will bankrupt even more hospitals. For Palomar, it would be an immediate hit of $60 to $80 million annually, further threatening our viability. We would have no choice but to explore potential reductions in workforce, services or even the closure of programs putting our patients access to care at serious risk. Please do not allow us to fail on your watch by choosing politics over the welfare of our patients. I respectfully urge you to vote no.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members. My name is Denis Vega Tapia, and I'm here on behalf of Community Health Systems. As a community health center operating in San Bernardino, Riverside and San Diego counties, we provide high quality care to more than 27,000 patients annually. The majority of our patients are of low-income residents, people of color. More than 75% of our patients rely on the Medi-Cal program. Community health centers across the state see more than 7.7 million patients. We offer critical service to all patients, regardless of the ability to pay, including primary care, dental, behavioral health, women's health services and more. We connect families to community resources in an effort to address social determinants of health. The pandemic was not easy, to say the least, and health centers across the state strive to remain on the road to financial recovery and sustainability despite public health emergency challenges. We continue with an unwavering commitment to serve the most vulnerable Californians. While we support paying a higher wage, we simply cannot afford and sustain this massive and drastic unfunded mandate. Community clinics do not have the ability to simply charge more to recover costs. We have a complicated payment system that requires the state and the federal government to set rates, and that mechanism is not flexible. Because of this, just like other health centers, community health systems will have to explore all options to comply with this unfunded mandate. They might be included reduction of closures of women's services, optometry, school-based behavioral health sites, mobile medical clinics and more. SB 525 will be devastating to many employees and this bill will reduce access for millions of low-income patients who rely on our community clinics for primary care. We are often the last resort. SB 525 will deepen inequities in our healthcare system, jeopardizing care of our most disadvantaged, such as children and our growing senior population. The state of California needs community health centers to remain strong, to effectively deliver the goals of CalAIM and the medical expansion. Therefore, we must protect health centers. We respectfully urge you to reject SB 525. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, is there anyone else in opposition? And earlier, I characterized the nurse association. They're opposed unless amended, not opposition. And we just heard from a couple of opposition witnesses, so if you're in any of those categories, please come up the microphone. Name, affiliation, and your position on the bill.

Good afternoon. I'm Diane Sposato from UCLA Medical Center. I'm a 42-year registered nurse. I'm asking you to please, I oppose 525 unless amended to remove RNs. I'm not a minimal-wage worker. I'm a licensed professional.

Thank you.

Hi, there. I'm Jamille Cabacungan, a nurse at UCSF Medical Center for eight years, proud CNA Member, and we ask you to please oppose Senate Bill 525.

Thank you.

My name is Michelle Binkley. I'm a registered nurse at UCSF and also a member of CNA. I've been a nurse for 20 years, and I respectfully ask you to amend this bill to remove registered nurses from the language. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ruben Badelan. I am a registered nurse working at Kaiser Sacramento Medical Center, and I oppose this bill unless you remove RNs from this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sujan Effington. I'm a critical care nurse for seven years with Providence. I oppose this bill. I think RNs should be removed from the bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Mary Cudney. I've been a nurse for 23 years. I'm a Member of CNA. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Jill Leon. I've been a nurse for 15 years. I work with Kaiser Walnut Creek and a Member of CNA. And I oppose this bill unless amended to keep registered nurses out.

Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, and just going forward and appreciate that anyone that says opposed unless amended, we're going to assume the amendment is to remove registered nurses unless you state otherwise.

Hi. My name is Shay Hira. I'm also a nurse. I've been a nurse for 19 years, and I'm opposed against the 525 bill.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Nanette Woodson. I'm also registered nurse. I do oppose the bill unless it's amended for the nurse.

Thank you.

My name is Natalia Kadkin. Hello, I'm a registered nurse at Kaiser Permanente Sacramento, and I am opposing to the bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Lucille Katbi. I'm a registered nurse for more than 25 years. I oppose to this bill unless remove the registered nurse from it.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Lila. I've been a nurse for 20-plus years, and I oppose unless the RNs are out of this amendment.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Suzanne Dibenedetto. I'm a registered nurse at UCI, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Christine Elkins, UCI nurse for eight years, and I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Laura Landon, RN, opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. Sydney Simpson. Kaiser. San Francisco. CPMC, San Francisco. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Julie Glage, Kaiser San Jose, registered nurse. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Melanie Brady, registered nurse at Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center. And I oppose, same situation. I also am an instructor for BSN program at APU. I have 58 students in two sections critical care and patho, and they would like you to consider the same that discouraged them from going into nursing.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Misty Lathi, I'm a nurse at Kaiser Los Angeles Medical Center. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Meredith Salazar. I serve the community of Yuba Sutter as a registered nurse at Adventist Health and Rideout and I oppose this bill unless amended to remove RNs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Victoria Marzan. I work at UC Davis for 50 years. I oppose this SB 525, unless RN is removed from that language.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Robin Bewley. I work at Hazel Hawkins Hospital in Hollister, California, and I oppose the bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Diane Beck, and I'm also a registered nurse at Hazel Hawkins. I've been a registered nurse for 15 years, and I oppose the bill unless the registered nurses get taken off.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Sonia Duran, work at Hazel Hawkins Hospital, been a nurse for 20 years, and I oppose it unless amended. So please, just amend it.

Thank you.

My name is San Cho. I'm being a nurse for 30 years with the CNA. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Cynthia Bogado. Kaiser, Los Angeles. Nurse for 25 years. Opposed SB 525, unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Meagan Pruden. I'm a nurse in Culver City. I encourage you guys to consider that hospitals, safety net hospitals were able to afford nurse ratios, so they should be able to afford increasing pay for their workers. I am opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. Julie Volkmer, Sacramento Region, 15 year nurse. I oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Ray Carter. I'm a 40-year veteran nurse, and I oppose this bill unless it is amended to exclude RNs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa Biebe, registered nurse, UC Davis Medical Center. Breaks my heart to say opposed unless amended, but please amend it.

Thank you.

Cate Buckalew, registered Nurse, Sacramento area. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Michelle Sanchez, UC Davis Health. Opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Ramona Mall, UC Davis Health. I've been a nurse, I've been in healthcare for 33 years, 17 years as an LVN, 15 years in the RN. And I do understand your plight, but I have to oppose unless amended for registered nurses.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Susan Adams. I've been with Palomar for 22 years now. Hello, Diane. I believe our workers in healthcare need a livable wage. However, I think it's a little different situation with the RNs, I believe we should amend it.

Thank you.

Thank you. My name is Shirley Toy. I've been a nurse for over 40 years, and I've also served on the CNA bargaining team in the US, UC system. And I stand opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. John Chavan, California Nurses Association. Chair, members and staff. We are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Jennifer Jean-Pierre, 15-year nurse at Natividad Hospital in Monterey. I oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Erin Blue McGoy. I've been a nurse for 15 years. I work at Mercy San Juan Medical Center and I oppose unless you please amend it to exclude RNs.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Rebecca Keating. I've been at Mercy San Juan for 20 years, and I'm opposing this bill.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Brenda Bivens. I'm registered nurse. I work at Mercy San Juan Medical Center, and I'm opposed unless amended. Please amend it.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tanya Hollins, and I've been a nurse for 31 years at Kaiser San Leandro. Started off as SEIU for the first five years, which was Local 250 at the time. Anyways, I oppose this year bill unless it takes out specifically RNs. Your bill's verbiage states it is protecting nurse practitioners, physician assistants and doctors, but no mention of the staff RNs. So I oppose unless you reconsider. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Sarah. I've been a behavioral health nurse for 16 years. I started as an aide. I have a lot of respect for that job, but also opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jane Churchon. I'm a nurse at Mercy San Juan in Carmichael, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

My name is Frank Bartuska, Mercy San Juan Hospital. I've been an RN for 30 years. We oppose the bill unless amended. Please allow RNs to negotiate their wage through their collective bargaining process.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Lisa Bartuska. I've been a nurse for 14 years. I was a frontline healthcare worker. I'm a critical care nurse. And please oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Maria Magat. I've been a nurse for 36 years at Kaiser. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Paulie Nacipeda. I'm a nurse for 20 years. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jen Sarkany. Kaiser, San Francisco. I work at Kaiser on Gary, and I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is David Hausman. I've been a 35-year nurse at Tri-City Medical Center in San Diego, and I oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Jessie Zoniquay, registered nurse at Mercy General Hospital for 15 years. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Tesra Bay. I'm a nurse at Mercy General Hospital for eight years. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

My name is Sandra Larkin. I've been a nurse for 26 years. I work at Kaiser Santa Rosa. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Eric Young. I'm from UCSF Medical Center. I'm a nurse at the OR. I oppose this bill unless the nurse is amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Lucy Castillo. I am a registered nurse at Kaiser Modesto Hospital. I've been a registered nurse for five years, and I am opposed to this bill unless it is amended to exclude registered nurses.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Alison Jimenez. I'm a registered nurse at Kaiser Permanente in Vallejo, and I oppose this bill unless it's amended.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Kathleen Gonzales, and I work at Kaiser Vallejo for 25 years as a labor delivery nurse. Our hospital just applied for magnet, so there is money in there. Although that is the truth. I oppose this SB 525 unless amended.

Hello. My name is Anna Camacho. I'm a dialysis nurse with Kaiser Santa Clara. I urge you to oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Krystal Cortez. I'm a registered nurse at Salinas Valley Health, and I am just requesting that you oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Brittnee Sandoval. I am representing Salinas Valley Health, and I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi, there. Taylor Houlette, registered nurse. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Michelle Aviles, registered nurse at UCSD. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Janelle Owens. I've been a nurse for 23 years, primarily in critical care. I oppose this bill unless it excludes our RNs.

Thank you.

I'm Gloria Morrison. I've been a nurse for 18 years, work for Dignity. I oppose this bill unless amended to remove nurses. I also have to say I was a nursing assistant in home health aide for twelve years prior to becoming a nurse, and I do fully support this bill once RNs are removed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Jason Cruz, registered nurse at Redwood City Filipino, and I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Genevieve Bottom. I've been a registered nurse for 13 years, and I oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Cassandra. I'm an oncology nurse at Mercy General. I oppose unless amended.

Hello. My name is Linda Lumas. I'm a registered nurse for 40 years, and for nine years I was an LVN. And I oppose this bill unless it is amended.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Alyssa Peart. I am a cardiac cath lab nurse at All Valley Medical Center in Lancaster, California. I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Joanna Bustamante. I'm a registered nurse at Kaiser Redwood City, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Holly. I'm a registered nurse and oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Michelle Gaffney. I'm a critical care nurse at Shasta Regional in Redding, California. I oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kathleen Dennis, registered nurse, Mercy General Hospital, greater than 25 years, and also a member of the CNA and NOC board of directors. I really encourage you to amend this bill and then pass it. Otherwise, I have to be opposed.

Thank you.

Amy Arland, registered nurse from Fresno, opposed unless amended.

Thank you.

Diane McClure, registered nurse, 34 years at Kaiser Permanente, also a member board of directors, secretary for CNA and NOC. I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Cathy Kennedy, President of CNA NNOC, a nurse of 43 years. Oppose SB 525 unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Chuck Davis. I'm an RN at UCLA Medical Center and the Neuroscience Stroke Center. And I oppose SB 525 unless amended. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Karen Del Rosario, a nurse practitioner for 17 years and registered nurse for 20 years. I oppose SB 525 unless it's amended to exclude nurse practitioners and registered nurses.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Cindy Deon. I work at UCSD, and we oppose this bill unless registered nurses are amended from this.

Thank you.

I'm Janet, registered nurse and public health nurse for 43 years, the last 24 years at Kaiser Hospice. I vehemently oppose this bill unless amended to remove RNs. Let's put patient care ahead of corporate profits.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Denice Cuaresma. I'm a nurse at Good Samaritan Hospital in downtown LA. And I oppose the bill until amended for RNs.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Jamila Austin Berry. I'm a registered nurse. I work at Kaiser in Manteca. I oppose SB 525, unless it's amended to exclude RNs. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Neil Rudis. I'm a nurse at UCLA Medical Center, and I oppose this bill unless amended to remove RNs. I am in full support of our brothers and sisters receiving a living wage.

Thank you.

Hi, My name is Michael Hernandez. I've been a nurse for eight years. I work at UCLA Medical Center, and I am opposed unless amended to exclude RNs.

Thank you.

My name is Isa Lamanganya. I'm a registered nurse for 23 years. I was a CNA prior to that, so I do support the healthcare workers getting a minimum wage, but I do not support it if the RNs are a part of the bill, so I oppose it unless it's amended.

Thank you.

My name is Christy Ugalde. I'm a registered nurse at Kaiser Permanente in Fremont. I'm opposed unless amended as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Deborah Paclib. I'm a Mills Peninsula registered nurse, and I do oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Lawanda Reed. I've been a nurse for 20 years, work for Kaiser Oakland. I oppose the bill unless amended to remove nurses.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Charlotte McPherson. I'm a registered nurse at Kaiser Oakland. I've been a nurse for 17 years. I was also a CNA prior and an SCIU Member, so I support our brothers and sisters, but I oppose this bill unless amended to remove nurses. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Normita Hawa. I work in City of Hope. I've been a nurse for 25 years, and I oppose this SB 525 unless it's amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good Afternoon. My name is Mike Cabrera. I've been a nurse for 23 years. I work for Kaiser Permanente. Thank you for your time and attention and your consideration. I do oppose SB 525 unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Letitia Nguyen. I work at Anaheim Global Medical Center. I oppose this bill unless amended to exclude RNs.

Thank you.

Hi. My name is Mai Lee. I work at Alhambra Hospital. I represent the nurses at our hospital in Alhambra, California, and we oppose the bill unless amended to remove registered nurses.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dina Scott. I've been a registered nurse for 22 years. I work at UC San Diego, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Margarita Lechuga. I am a registered nurse at California Hospital. I oppose SB 525 at this time unless it is amended to exclude licensed clinical staff like myself. Registered nurses. Then my opposition will turn.

Thank you.

My name is Norma Resendez. I work at California Hospital, downtown Los Angeles, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Laura Topete. I am a nurse at California Hospital, Los Angeles, and I oppose the bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Leslie Oyes. I'm a registered nurse at Arrowhead Regional Medical Center in San Bernardino County. I've been a nurse for 17 years, and I oppose this bill unless amended.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Raya Nell. I'm an RN with CNA. And I oppose unless amended.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Cynthia Gutierrez. I'm a registered nurse at Arrowhead Regional, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Caroline Nganga, I'm a registered nurse for twelve years. I work at Desert Regional Medical Center, a Member of CNA, and I oppose this bill unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mary D'Esposito. I'm a nurse at Providence St. John's in Los Angeles. And I'd just like to say a bill, a contract is only as good as its language, so until it's amended that nurses are not included, I do not support this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Ron Weiss, been. A nurse for 13 years. I believe healthcare workers should get their raises, but just leave the nurses out of it.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is... RN in Richmond, California, and I look forward to supporting this bill once it's amended. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Joanne Preece, representing the Community Clinic Association of Los Angeles County. Respectfully in opposition to this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Andrew Signey and I'm representing Eisner Health in Los Angeles and we also respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, greetings, Max Perrey, on behalf of Aliatos Health and our 17 community health center members in Northern California, we oppose this bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, Toni Panetta with the Alameda Health Consortium, on behalf of eight federally qualified health centers that provide services to 286 thousand patients in the East Bay, we are opposed unless amended to this bill.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Cheryl Trinidad from THE Health and Wellness Centers, and we respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Hi. Karen Lauterbach, Venice Family Clinic Community Health Center in Los Angeles. And we respectfully oppose the bill.

Thank you.

Hi, Sendy Sanchez with the Community Health Association Inland Southern Region in the Inland Empire. And while we support higher wages for all healthcare workers, we respectfully oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, Dennis Cuevas Romero with the California Health Plus Adverts Kits, representing 1300 health centers in the state in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. Ron Bridigo, here on behalf of the more than 400 hospitals and health systems throughout the state of California in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and members, Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona, here on behalf of the County of Kern and County of Fresno in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, good afternoon. Kalyn Dean, California State Association of Counties, on behalf of all 58 counties in a respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Jonathan Clay on behalf of Scripps Health in opposition.

Thank you,

Chair and members. R.J. Cervantes here on behalf of the California Dialysis Council in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vanessa Cajina on behalf of Cal PACE, the statewide association of programs of all-inclusive care for the elderly, regretfully in opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Samuel Goodman here on behalf of Kim Stone of Stone Advocacy, representing the California Orthopedics Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Megan Allred on behalf of San Anthedro Health, in opposed unless amended position.

Thank you.

Tim Med, representing the California chapter of the Maryland College of Cardiology, the California Rheumatology Alliance, the California Society of Plastic Surgeons and Grossmond Healthcare District in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Jen Chase from the University of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Sherreta Lane with the District Hospital Leadership Forum on behalf of the state's 33 district municipal hospitals. In opposition.

Thank you.

Courtney Jensen, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Mira Morton, on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association in opposition.

Thank you.

Amber King with Leading Age California here in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Brandon Marchy with the California Medical Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Peter Kellison, on behalf of the California Association of Health Services at Home representing licensed home health agencies. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Maria Yee. I am a senior healthcare provider from San Diego, and I strongly oppose this bill.

Thank you.

Jennifer Snyder with capital advocacy on behalf of the California Association of Health Facilities, in opposition.

Thank you.

David Creager for the United Hospital Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Erin Levi. On behalf of the California Assisted Living Association and Universal Health Services, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, let's bring it back to the committee. Questions, comments? Assemblymember Ward. Sorry, I speak fast sometimes.

Senator Durazo, I want to thank you for working on this issue. I think there is a lot in common that we share to make sure that we are elevating the respect that we give for our healthcare workers across the systems. And especially like so many workers in California, not just giving them that respect, but also give them the comforts that they need to be able to survive in our community given the cost of living and other issues that we are seeing out there right now. And this bill is appropriately aggressive to be able to try to accomplish just that. And I think that we heard even from many of the opponents as well, the support that they have for their colleagues as well in the systems that they think that they deserve that as well, too. There are a couple of areas here, as I've been studying this meeting with both proponents and opponents that I really wanted to dig into because my kind of fundamental concern here is that as much as we would love to elevate a compensation, elevate something here in the healthcare systems, right? What might be the counterbalance? What might be the unintended consequences? And is that going to break something that will cause patients to suffer and set us back? Right? Are these the right approaches to accomplish what we agree we want to accomplish? So my first concern let's address for the benefit of all those that came out here today to speak on this, from our registered nurses. Why not exempt them? From what I hear and understand, many are already at or above the $25 an hour level. There are, I think, some isolated examples across the state who also deserve to be brought up as well. Probably would be, I think, over near time with kind of market interest to be able to sustain the employment at their individual hospital systems. But especially in this committee to pit some nurses against other nurses, whether you're wearing a purple shirt or a red shirt. Why, we've been reticent to accept that amendment to date?

Yeah, well, let me just first say this is not a position that anybody wants to be in when there are some working people in the healthcare industry who have their reasons for why they don't support and then there's workers who have been lower paid, sort of pitted against each other. What everybody wants is a good standard of living. What everybody wants is to be compensated in a fair way so they could raise their families and they could have a career that they look forward to. So I want to start out with that because that is the starting point for me. When I agreed to author this, it was with the idea that we were going to lift wages for everybody and regardless of where you stood, whether you were covered or not covered directly, your wages, you were going to be better off and our whole community is better off. And I guess I'm also thinking through our budgets, year after year since I've been here, we have approved billions and billions of dollars, some directly into the industry and some that is through our own public health services or public human services. This state spends billions, tens of billions of dollars, if not more, making up for the fact that people don't earn enough. We have to then step up. We then have to again spend money, invest money, to help people because they're too poor, because they can't pay the rent. And that's the sort of thing that we have to remind ourselves one way or another. They either get paid through dignified wages or we as government have to step up and pay for food because there's food banks or pay for rent because they can't pay the rent. Or we could just go on and on and on. So to me, the solution has always been a good-paying job with the dignity that comes with that. My intention is not to hurt nurses. In fact, it's to help nurses. The nurses in particular, the union CNA, have always been out there, out front on the issues of health care for all, and I'm really appreciative of that. I want to make sure that nobody gets left out of any increase. Right. And there are nurses who don't make the highest wages here, and I just want to make sure that they're all going to be included and that nobody's going to be left out.

I would agree with that as well, that if we're hearing from some of their principal representatives that this is going to hurt them and that they're clearly and sincerely requesting that exemption because they think that there would be an unintended consequence to members of their profession, how do we respond to that?

I have never seen anybody who gets higher wages get hurt by somebody below them making better wages. That just doesn't happen. When we increase the minimum wage in this state, we don't hurt anybody who's above it. That becomes the floor. And when the floor is lifted, everybody does better. So I don't understand how anybody is going to be hurt by workers who are making $17 an hour, $18 an hour or less. Right. I don't understand how somebody who's getting paid much higher is going to be hurt by that lifting the bottom is that exactly. This is the minimum. It's not the max. It's not saying that's the ceiling. It's merely saying we're going to lift them up.

Right. And I don't disagree with that. I've never seen that either. However, and those speaking in opposition, many also acknowledge that they want to support their colleagues in the industry, working side by side with them to lift them up with their wages. But they're sincere in their analysis that this is somehow going to set a lower bar for them, at least in maybe their negotiations or how people view, would this reset sort of the valuation of their profession? I think it's a legitimate concern, and this is one of three things that I just don't want to have an unintended consequence on. And I take their opposition as large as it's been today, but also leading up to today with great heart. Right. And I think that we need to spend this summer, as this moves forward, really working with them to, one, demonstrate what the labor economics would look like. And if they're correct, we got to fix it. I think they deserve to have it fixed.

I agree with you. We have been having meetings, we have been talking. There's been a lot of meetings on this. And I pledge to you, I will continue to work really hard on this issue.

You always do.

I don't feel comfortable. Nobody else feels comfortable in this situation. Again, I know that our primary goal is to lift up those who are at the bottom, and that's our mission with this bill. But I pledge to you, I will continue to work on the issue of the nurses.

Absolutely. And then the second really broad issue that I have is we talked often sort of at the macro level, right? We've got a lot of work to do around containing costs and to get health care affordable and within reach, quality health care for everybody and reliant on the systems that we have out there, whether they are for profit hospitals, not for profit hospitals, our district hospitals, our community clinics. There is, I think, different financial considerations that are at play there as well. And I will say fundamentally as kind of guiding principle. I believe that for all the resources that are going in to fund a healthcare system, that our workers deserve to come first. My concern, as you know, probably representing San Diego, our community clinic systems have a positively disproportionate impact in service in our area. They are absolutely essential for providing quality health care. And I've heard very strongly from them that this is absolutely going to affect their bottom line. I believe it it will come at a cost to them and in position with their inability to have any flexibility in setting the rates that they're able to work on. And I know that that is part state, part federal as well in their challenges. Are they going to break? They are alleging that while some workers will be lifted up, other workers will be laid off because they just have to make everything whole. And it's a horrible Sophie's Choice, right, to be able to say that in order to do something good over here, that something else is going to have to suffer. But it's something I'm trying to reconcile. Are we going to push some workers to the point of getting a pink slip? Are we going to reduce time of service or healthcare goals to patients? Questions of access? I mean, I think that those are legitimate concerns that I don't know. I can't say for certain what's going to happen. And that makes me nervous, rightfully nervous. Our district hospitals, I have Grossmont in my district, I have UCSD Healthcare in my district, much of the very same input as well, an already overstressed system that this is going to break them and have these kinds of unintended consequences ultimately with the patient's suffering. And how do you respond to that?

Well, I did make a commitment to work on the issue of distressed hospitals. Distressed hospitals could be a small hospital. It could be in a rural area, but it could be in a big city area just like mine as well. So I made a commitment to look at that. We're trying to figure out how to define what a distress hospital would be because from our research, the overwhelming majority of hospitals are not in distress. It's a small number, but that doesn't mean we don't pay attention to them. It's all the more reason why we need to pay attention and make the commitment as we started to do within our budget, right. We've started to make that commitment to them, and we're making commitments when it comes to the MCO, we're going to have raise the MediCal rates, right? That's going to go a long way towards helping financially. There are a number of ways in which we're already helping, but if you're specifically in greater distress, if you're specifically in greater financial need, then we need to pay attention to those. And I'm all for that, and I'm all for doing that in such a way that doesn't wait until a hotel that's on the brink actually close. I mean, hotel, hospital that's on the brink closes down, right? I'm not saying wait for that crisis. We can do that before we can identify those hospitals. We can let them, work with them, have a team work with them, and have a whole plan. We talked about this morning in another hearing where a hospital was under threat in a particular area. But they're pulling together a plan. They're pulling together creating a coalition around that hospital, how to deal with financial issues, how to deal with permit, all sorts of things. But they're doing that together. There was a hospital in Santa Cruz that was under the threat of closing down this last year. They pulled together a coalition with government to put together the pieces. So I'm looking for how do you define the distressed hospital, how to help them if they truly are working within thin margins, right? The issue of if I can, I'm sorry, the issue of when wages are going to go up, then that means we're going to close down is the most common issue I've heard in my entire life. It happens every time we're going to raise wages. All the time, and it makes us all obviously throws us off, like, wait a minute, you mean if I raise the wages here, it doesn't matter if it's a hospital or if it's a hotel or if it's a fast food. We get thrown the same argument that if you raise wages that people are going to be better off. And so we have to remind ourselves that where there is a real problem, let's really zero in on the real problem, not allow these broad statements to become the narrative, because that just doesn't work either. Working people, unless we raise these wages one way or another, either by law or by collective bargaining agreements, unless we raise those wages that way, they don't get raised. We don't see some interest in our state coming forward and say, you know what, I want to raise their wages. I want to raise the minimum wage. We have to do that. When we see that as government, the current minimum wages aren't working, we have to do something about it. We can't just let people work and work and work, work two or three jobs. We know what the result of that is. The result of that is our families suffer and our communities suffer. And on the particular needs of clinics which has been raised to us, we're trying to come up again with language that helps, but we're also in discussions with the Administration, with the Department of Health Services. How would that work? There's federal rules involved and so we have to be very cognizant. It's not just, okay, let's carve them out and that's the end of that. In fact, I don't think they want to be carved out, but they also have a different financial issue and different financial problem.

No, thank you. A lot of ground covered there, I'd say. First, on the issue about our responses to distressed hospitals, that was right to be able to act on what we did last year, but they shouldn't be coming distressed in the first place, right? We have a lot of other macro issues that we've got to be working on right now so that we're not revisiting this. And to the extent exactly what I was saying about any bill, as well intended as it is. If this creates a cost pressure on the total balance sheet of another hospital and it pushes them into a distress category, bailing them out or doing additional work on the back end one is more expensive on our state budget as well too. And we're cycling down a path that's in the wrong direction and it's something that I really need to think about because I don't want that unintended consequence. The issue about, and we both reference this, are we going to raise wages and will there be an unintended consequence and are they going to really lay people off? Maybe sometimes they do, but what they often do is they end up having to raise their, raise those raised costs get passed on to consumers, right? They get passed on to insurance. All points of the insurance spectrum for us paying our premiums, we've all seen that incredibly increased over the last decade. It's all part of what's going on. So that cost does get absorbed somewhere and our inability to really work with our clinics on medical reimbursements and answering that piece for their systems is one thing, but on all the other systems as well, that will be passed on somewhere. So I'd love to hear from my colleagues as well too on this because there's a lot of really serious components to what we're talking about. But we do share the common goal. I know what I want to do. It's easy to just say like, they absolutely deserve it and they do deserve it and I want to vote yes. I'm not sure if I should. And so that's what I'm trying to think through, is to make sure that we are not just raising that bar and having that be the lay of the land, but also responsibly saying, how are we going to make sure that it can be afforded and that everything will be made whole? That's what I'm thinking through right now.

Great, thank you. I appreciate your comments and questions. Thank you.

Senator Reyes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I had the privilege of meeting with the proponents, with the opponents, and there was a common theme with everybody I met with. The workers deserve to get paid more. Everybody agreed. Everybody agreed. I don't think I heard from a single person who said they don't deserve this, or they shouldn't get a raise, or we can't, nobody said they don't deserve it. And I think we start with that premise, and then we have to find the way to do it. I think that meeting with and I certainly appreciate having Mr. Vega here, our community health center from Bloomington. I happen to be one of the founders of that particular community health center. And I wanted to prosper to continue to serve our community for years and years to come. And I know, I understand it is a complicated payment system. We have to figure out how to work with that system to make sure we pay the workers a livable wage. In one of the meetings that I had, there was a comment made, and perhaps somebody can share the percentage of your workers who receive public assistance.

Thank you for your indulgence share. Matt Lege on behalf of SEIU California, the sponsor of the Bill. 48% of healthcare workers impacted by this Bill are on some form of public assistance, whether it's medical EITC or another form of public assistance and that was done by a report by UC Berkeley Labor Center.

I think that's a very important factor to consider because California is paying in public assistance or California is going to provide the assistance to our clinics or our hospitals to make sure that they do pay the workers in a dignified manner rather than have them receive minimum wage and then go apply for public assistance. They are providing services to the rest of California and should receive a dignified wage as a result of that. We're spending the money one way or another with public assistance or we provide the salary that they deserve for the work that they are providing.

Especially during COVID We saw so many of our healthcare workers. They put their life on the line and we lost many of them during COVID because they didn't take time to go home. They knew they had a responsibility to everybody else and provided that service for them. Our frontline workers, our essential workers, our heroes. And yet we struggle to provide them a dignified wage. One of the comments made by my colleague workers should come first. And I absolutely agree with that, finding that balance.

And I know you're not done in your conversations, whether it be with hospitals or with our clinics or with CNA. CNA, when we're talking about our nurses who are members of CNA who are at a wage that is much higher, that's a discussion to continue. And I think it's a valid discussion to continue to figure out what language can be included. But you also have RNs that are part of other SEIU RN 121 and others that are covered through this also. So finding the language, finding the right language, and I am absolutely certain that you'd be able to find it.

So I think those are the three areas, finding ways, and I know we often talk about the billions of dollars in the MCO tax to our hospitals, the Distressed Hospital Loan program, the amount of funding that is being provided but also there are additional expenses. So finding ways so that the hospitals are dealt with, especially our community centers are dealt with and the RNs are dealt with. Those are the three areas.

But there is no question in my mind that we have to begin with the one thing that everybody agrees with, and I do mean everyone that I met with, the raise to the 25%, whatever the steps may be that you land on. But that raise to a dignified wage is something that everybody agrees with. And so with that I would move the Bill.

Thank you.

Is there a second. Assemblymember Haney. To motion a second, Assemblymember Haney.

So I don't have a whole lot to add from what my colleagues, I think they covered most of the major issues that I think I know you're committed to continue to work on. I certainly have heard from the community clinics and some of the questions there about how we make sure that they can be sustainable. They have different funding mechanisms and even if they want to raise the wage, they may look at their sheets and go, I don't know how this is going to happen for us, considering reimbursement rates and federal funding and making sure we look at that closely.

And of course, continuing the conversation with our RNs and the CNA and respect everyone who's here and the work that they do every day. I think this should, I was going to say something actually very similar to what my colleague said, which is that everyone who is a part of this conversation is committed to providing accessible, quality, affordable care at the highest level for our residents that we represent.

And with that comes the deepest respect for the people who do that work and a deep belief that they should all be able to have a living wage, a living salary, to be able to provide for their families. I think this is the most essential thing we can do, is provide for the health of our residents. And everyone who's involved with that is doing skilled work. Everyone who is involved with that should not have to worry about whether they can pay their bills or whether they can pay their rent.

And if you run a clinic, if you run a hospital, if you're a doctor, a physician, if you're a registered nurse, you believe that, of course, that's why they all dedicate their lives to this. So we have to get to a place where everyone in our system, in our state, certainly everyone in our healthcare system, are making at least $25. It's a bare minimum.

In fact, we need to go, as the folks here who wanted us to amend it, much higher than that for everyone, including the folks who would be included in this Bill, deserve a lot more than that. And so that means that we have to think about how we fund health care. I, like the Chair, believe that we need Medicare for all and a system that provides for single payer for all.

That allows us to take out some of the aspects of our system that make it harder to do this. But at the very least, we need to put a lot more funding into the system, to our community clinics, to our reimbursement rates. There are some things that are being done in the budget this year that will allow us to do that.

And a lot of the people here have been a part of that collaborative process. So I am supportive of this and I know you're going to continue to work on the issues that were clearly raised today. And I want to thank everyone who came forward today to express the support or concerns, and certainly especially to the healthcare workers who will benefit from this.

SEIU, UHW, all of the folks from SEIU, and all of the larger coalition who came forward, thank you for your leadership and thank you for your leadership, Senator, to see this over the finish line and work with everyone to make sure the issues are addressed. And with that, I've seconded the Bill.

Is there any other comment from any other? Okay. I want to thank my colleagues for asking really important questions, tough questions, but also for the general sense that we all agree that our frontline healthcare workers deserve better and deserve more. I think the pandemic showed it. It was existent far before the pandemic. But during the pandemic, when you have workers that were deemed as heroes but treated as if they were expendable.

And so, there could be an argument that our wages in general need to be raised, but if you're going to start somewhere, I think healthcare workers have proven and shown their commitment to all of us. And I think everyone here agrees with that. Whether they represent the clinics or whether they're the nurses or other healthcare frontline workers, I think all of us recognize the indignity that we've allowed so many to suffer with.

And I think part of the reason why I put an aye record here is because of the author. There's been a lot of dialogue, a lot of very constructive dialogue. It's going to continue. I know that my staff has put it many, many hours into this trying to find a path forward, including with the nurses. It's complicated. It's not necessarily as simple as removing one word or two words, although I know that's what a request of the amendment is.

There are other complexities to it that we're trying to work through, and even if this Bill moves through this committee, I know my staff is still committed to doing whatever we can to try to find common ground, again, with a family that all works together in the same environment. But I think ultimately, and I know that the author has continued to make the commitment and I would just publicly ask that the work continue, especially with the nurses, to see if there is an opportunity to find common ground.

And I know the language to find some language that could work. And I know that those conversations will continue. And I do thank all those that came in opposition, as well as opposed unless amended, on the Bill today. But I think ultimately, when we think about the fact that there are so many working as healthcare workers at minimum or very close to minimum wage, that's just frankly unacceptable. And it's about who's in the best position to endure the fiscal pressure.

Is it the 40%, 80% are on public assistance? Are they in the best position to continue to endure? Because if we do nothing, it's not like the problem goes away. It's just that the problem is going to continue to be on the back of the workers. And acknowledging that there are fiscal pressures that will be put on hospitals, that will be put on clinics. But thinking in my mind, who's in the best position to absorb that and figure out a way to move forward with those increased costs, working with the Legislature, working with the state, with the federal government, without putting that burden on the workers.

And so I think that's why I'm in favor of the Bill. I support it. There is still other issues that I think continue to dialogue with the clinics, figuring out how we deal with situations where there are either distressed facilities or, frankly, facilities that aren't distressed, that they're going to face cost pressures. How do we ensure that services can still be provided in a way in a quality manner? I know that in talking with other friends from labor, there's still some conversations on some of the overtime exemptions. I know those are ongoing conversations that will continue.

And so, given the fact that up until this point there's been very open, constructive dialogue with the Senator, as is oftentimes the case when she's working on bills, especially of such magnitude and importance, I know that will continue. And I would encourage everyone to stay engaged if this Bill were to make it out of this committee and move forward to the Appropriations Committee.

But ultimately, I do respect what the author and what this Bill is trying to do, which is uplift the workers that are in a critical industry that are taking on huge burdens, that we have the opportunity to be able to lighten those burdens a little bit. And so with that, Senator Durazo, there's a motion on the table that would move this to the Appropriations Committee. Would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair, and especially you've spent years fighting for health for all in many ways, and I know you're not giving up. We were able to get health care for undocumented, which had been something that I know you fought for. You all have made that an important part of your lives and your career here and before. 48% of these healthcare workers rely on public assistance, there's a total of the net worth of an average California hospital is $339 billion. $120 billion in the total net assets of California hospitals.

There's money in the healthcare system. The question is where is it going? Who's getting it? How is it being used? And I'm proposing, we are proposing, that part of that go to the men and women who work as healthcare workers. We're not going to solve all of the healthcare industry's issues with this Bill. And I don't think it's correct to blame the workers if they get an increase in their wages for further distress on hospitals, on the healthcare industry. There's a much deeper, much bigger problem that's been in our system for many years. So let's step back.

Let's solve this particular Bill. And all the issues that you all raised, I appreciate very much. I pledge to you that I will continue to work hard on that. But I just want to end with that bigger picture of what's going on. A healthcare industry shouldn't be an industry. Healthcare should be a human need that's not driven by the profits. And so, how do we make sure that the working men and women have a voice since they work so hard for our human right? And with that, I appreciate all of you.

And please don't hesitate individually or as a group to talk to me and punch me if I have to be punched. Or kiss me if you want to kiss me.

Figuratively for both of those, figuratively.

Either way, if it's all for the purpose of getting a settlement, then that's what I would love. Thank you very much.

Thank you so much, Senator. Madam Secretary, if can take a roll call vote on SB 525, please.

The motion is due passed to appropriations. Kalra. Kalra, aye. Flora. Chen. Chen, no. Haney. Haney, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Reyes. Reyes, aye. Ward. Ward, aye.

Right. That Bill is out. Thank you so much.

And I believe you'll be presenting item five, SB 640, for Senator Portentino.

Yes.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you again. Mr. Chair and committee Members, I rise to present SB 640, which will require business entities that wish to enter into food service or hospitality service contracts with CSUS. California State Universities and its auxiliaries first be in a labor peace agreement.

With the appropriate union, the CSU continues to plan hospitality developments and contracting through private auxiliaries. These auxiliaries participate in private development and private contracting for food services, hotels, and event centers on behalf of the university. Such operations encounter strikes, pickets, boycotts initiated by workers in those professions.

As the CSU continues to expand operations, such disruptions may and will continue. The state of California is obligated to protect the interest of university students and taxpayers by taking measures to limit such disruptions to campus business. Upon entering into a labor peace agreement, the CSU, its auxiliaries, and associated labor organizations will then have mechanisms in place to avoid disruptive actions and ensure the state and its interests can continue fulfilling its mission continuously and without interruption.

With me to testify today is Leticia Saucero, a professor of law from UC Davis Law School. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. My name is Leticia Salcedo. I'm a professor of law at UC Davis School of Law, and I'm the co Director of the Community and Labor Center at UC Davis. I teach labor law, employment law, and torts. And I'm familiar with the National Labor Relations Act, and it's a particular interest of mine. I have three points to make today.

First, the state has the ability to require the use of these labor peace policies because it's acting in its proprietary capacity. The Cal State system has a real interest in ensuring that the services it contracts to be provided on its property are completed with as little disruption to its mission as possible. The state is exercising a proprietary interest in this Bill by ensuring that employers and unions operating on CSU property enter into agreements to avoid disruptions from labor actions.

Without these agreements, the National Labor Relations Act would allow labor strikes, pickets, actions, Boycotts, all of which are part of the accepted methods of negotiation between entities without labor peace agreements. The CSU has a financial interest as well in the revenues that come from these service contracts, and these labor actions would disrupt these financial interests. Second, the Bill does not impose any form of negotiation on entities seeking to do business on CSU property.

That is, the negotiation between the business and the union for a labor peace agreement is outside the scope of the Bill. It simply requires that businesses seek agreements from labor organizations that represent, or seek to represent workers in that industry. And third, labor peace agreements are not uncommon nationally or in the state.

They've been successfully implemented at various sites, including the Los Angeles and San Francisco airports. The states of New York and Maryland, Los Angeles City, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Malibu School District, Santa Monica College, Los Angeles County the Port of Auckland, the BART System. Portland, Chicago, Baltimore, DC.

New York City, Miami Dade County and Milwaukee County all have these agreements. I've been put them into place successfully. I welcome your questions and your comments. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in support of SB 640?

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

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to SB 640? Not seeing anyone. We'll bring it back to the committee. Assembly Member Reyes.

Thank you. And I know this is being presented for your colleague. My only comment just to take back is that in the committee notes, they advise that the author incorporate the employer's obligations into the definition of labor peace agreement. And I would ask that that be considered.

I'm sorry. If you could repeat that. Assembly Member

that the author incorporate the employer's obligations into the definition of labor peace agreement.

Okay, I will take that back. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments or motion? We have a motion from a summary. Ortega seconded by Assembly Member Haney.

And thank you, Senator Duraso, for taking this up for Senator Portentino. Would you like to close?

I urge and aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, Madam Secretary, if you can take a roll call, vote on SB 640, please.

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. Karla, Aye. Flora. Chen. Haney, Aye. Ortega, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Ward, Aye.

Great. That Bill is out.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Members.

Thank you.

I'm going to go add on. So we'll do add ons here. I think Assembly Member Ward has a couple, if you go ahead. And.

Our author is on her way, apparently. So in the meantime, we can go to file one, SB 332,

SB 322 Chen, Ward, Aye.

File item two,

SB 740. Chen, Ward, Aye.

File item for the consent calendar. That's SB 422.

Ward, Aye. Chen

I think we're all caught up. All right. Yes, we are aware. It's very cold in here. I'll bring some blankets next time, some throws.

You. All right, we'll move on to item six, SB 497. Senator Smallwood Quavas, whenever you're ready.

Thank you, committee Members. I want to start by saying thank you for helping us strengthen this Bill. We are accepting the amendments offered in the analysis and, yeah, I appreciate all the support.

I'm pleased to present SB 497, which would help ensure workers brave enough to report violations of the Labor Code, or Equal Pay Act, are protected from retaliation by their employer. California has some of the strongest workplace and equal pay protections in the country. However, our strong workplace protections are meaningless if workers are unable, because they are too afraid to speak up, to access their rights when they are violated.

California's laws do prohibit employers from retaliating against a worker for exercising their rights. However, the labor commissioner is unable to prosecute many retaliation claims because it is difficult for workers to show that the employer took action against the employee specifically in response to their reporting of a labor violation. A recent poll by the National Employment and Law Project found that 38% of California workers have experienced a violation of their workplace rights, but only 10% of those workers reported the violation to a government agency.

SB 497 would provide real protections for these workers by creating a rebuttable presumption that an action taken against an employee was retaliatory if it occurred within 90 days of the employee reporting the violation. This kind of rebuttable presumption already exists in other parts of the Labor Code and is working well to protect workers from immigration related retaliation, such as threats of deportation and retaliation for the use of paid sick leave. Adding this additional protection to the Labor Code violations will allow the labor commissioner to identify retaliation more quickly and prevent law breaking employers from avoiding accountability.

I have with me today to testify in support naratara with the National Employment Law Project, and Sarah Fee, a warehouse worker from San Bernardino.

Thank you. You can take a seat, whatever you like. And up to two minutes each, please.

Thank you so much, Senator and chair and Members. My name is Naya Theramita with the National Employment Law Project, or NELP, in our California office. We're a Member of the California Coalition for Worker Power and NELP, and the coalition are proud sponsors of SB 497.

And I just appreciate the opportunity to underline a lot of what Senator Smallwood Cuevas already just mentioned about the importance of this Bill. It's fundamentally about addressing the power and information imbalance between workers and employers. That imbalance exists because our current reality is that employers can fire workers for pretty much any reason under our system of at will employment.

And although we have so many strong laws in California that are designed to protect us in the workplace, if we don't feel safe asserting our rights, then they're fairly meaningless. And so it's too easy for employers to get away with punishing us for asserting our rights for saying, hey, I have rights and you can't do that. And we're going to hear from Sarah in just a moment too, about her experience.

I was a co author of a recent NELP report that focused on the scope of the problem of retaliation in California. We survayed 1000 workers across the California workforce, 1000 adults in the workforce. And the Senator mentioned a couple of the stats and a couple I just want to highlight.

38% of people who took the survey said they'd experienced a workplace violation, but only 10% of them actually reported a violation. Of those who reported a violation, more than half of them experienced retaliation. So it's very prevalent.

And also more than half of respondents said that fear of retaliation would prevent them from speaking up. So it's a huge problem. Retaliation occurs and it doesn't occur because workers don't feel safe speaking up. So the fear of it, the chilling effect of it is out there. We know it's too common. Okay, thank you.

Yeah. Just to wrap up, employers don't say, I'm firing you because you asserted your rights.

Right. So they have the information needed to disprove that a reason for an adverse action was not retaliatory. And so what we think SB 497 does is very sensible correction of shifting who is responsible for showing that retaliation didn't happen? The employer and not the worker who doesn't have the documentation. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Sarah Fee and I've been a warehouse worker for over two years. I work at KSBD, which is the Amazon Air hub in San Bernardino. The reason why I stay at Ksbd is because I love the people there and I love the community of San Bernardino. Unfortunately, there are a lot of problems in my workplace. These warehouses are not built to have people in them.

So we go under these unhealthy, unsafe conditions. And when we try to speak up on those things, we are retaliated against. When I first started speaking up, I was a leader in my workplace. I was in leadership roles. I moved headcount around. I did things that managers do. As soon as I started organizing, all that was stripped from me. Now I'm isolated. I'm only around a few workers at a time.

I am no longer in leadership roles. I'm placed in unfair and more stressful positions as far as work is concerned, lifting heavy boxes that should be lifted by two people, and it's just me doing, and I'm going to continue to fight. Right.

And I'm a proud Member of IAEWU, which is a committee that we formed at KSBD. So along with the strenuous work, the heat during the summer and the heat inside the warehouses, we're consistently moving and lifting stuff. We don't stop moving, so we're soaked in sweat and it's too hot in there.

And Amazon doesn't protect us from the heat. So we did delegations and we won some fans and we have water, but it's not enough. And so when I'm retaliated against as a leader on the level that I am for organizing, it has a chilling effect in my warehouse. So it's harder for us to come together and fight for the things that we need when the retaliation is so obvious.

Thank you.

I support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of SB 497 name, affiliation and position on the Bill?

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

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU in support.

Nick Cruz with the California Labor Federation and also on behalf of American Federation State County Municipal Employees in support. Thank you.

Jassie Greywell, UFCW Western States Council in support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates proud co sponsor, in support. And also on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition in support.

Thank you.

Hi. Jacqueline Crispino, on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women California Childcare Law Center and Ella Baker Center for Human Rights in support.

Thank you.

Morgan Fuller Colesrud on behalf of the Tech Equity Collaborative, grace and Child Poverty California and NARAL Pro Choice California, in support.

Thank you.

Thank you. Tim Shaddocks with the warehouse worker resource center in support. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Daniel Rivera. I also work at Ksbd. I'm also a proud leader of Amazon Workers United. I support this Bill. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Tia Kuhns, UCLA Labor Center, as well as on behalf of the California Coalition for Worker Power, which consists of 22 organizations throughout the state. Thank you.

Thank you.

Me nombre es Patricia.

Hi my name is itali with Trajabados Sunidos Workers, United San Francisco. And I support this Bill.

Thank you. All right, anyone in opposition to SB 497?

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition.

Temporal proximity is already something taken into account by courts today. If you had a situation where a complaint was made and the person was terminated the next day, I think you would find it very hard pressed to find any court, California court, that would deny that the plaintiff had settled their burden. Our concern is when you start to get out 60, 90 days, that's when judges tend to look at other circumstances, totality of the circumstances.

Was there an intervening event? What was the pattern of conduct? Was there something that happened to other workers who did not file a complaint? So really, courts are already taking this into account today. And our concern is that these presumptions are starting to be inserted into every Bill. There was a Bill last year, for example, that if a disciplinary action took place within an entire union campaign, which could take up to a year or more. That would be retaliation. So we have concern about the precedent that this Bill would set. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition to SB 497?

Izzy Swindler on behalf of public Risk Innovation, Prism Solutions and Management, otherwise known. As Prism, as I said earlier. Thank you. In opposition.

Thank you.

Sarah Polemu on behalf of the California Retailers Association. Opposed.

Thank you.

Katie Davey with the California Restaurant Association were opposed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau Federation, in opposition.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion.

A motion in a second. Any other question or comment? I want to thank the Senator. And on this one, I know you have a couple of bills here.

This one we actually not asking for any amendments on. We like it as is, and appreciate all the work that you've put in this Bill up until this point. And although, as the opposition pointed out, that temporal proximity is a factor, but creating a rebuttable presumption, I think, levels the playing field of what is otherwise an imbalance of power.

It's rebuttable. So there's still an opportunity for an employer to be heard. And what we want is to make sure that workers feel comfortable speaking out so they can be heard as well. And with that, I would appreciate being added on as a co author. And would you like to close, Senator?

Well, thank you so much, Mr. Chair. And, yes, we want to make sure that workers are able to come forward and utilize the workplace protections that are in place. And these are very vulnerable workers in Low age working conditions, unregulated working conditions. And we want to make sure that the onus is not on them who've already experienced a violation, but really where there's capacity to prove intent in terms of retaliation. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, if can you do a roll call vote on SB 497?

The motion is due pass to appropriations. Kalra, Aye. Flora. Chen, No. Haney, Aye. Ortega, Aye. Reyes, Aye. Ward, Aye.

So that Bill is out. We'll move on to item number seven, SB 725.

Thank you so much. I'm pleased to present SB 725, which would create a safety net for essential workers by requiring a grocery establishment that conducts a layoff as a result of our merger or acquisition, to provide workers at least one week of severance pay for every year of service. From 1993 to 2019, the number of grocery stores nationwide declined by nearly 30%.

One reason for this significant decline is the increase we have seen in food industry mergers and acquisitions, which exceeded over 300 in 2019 alone. These grocery store mergers and acquisitions can have devastating impacts on workers in their communities. And while employees have some protections under the Warren Act, it does not require employers to provide any material support to workers trying to transition.

In 2015, when Albertsons and Hagen merged, many workers were faced with extreme financial insecurity as they scrambled for new employment for Christina Rubinay. And I want to mention a Member who testified after the Hagen went bankrupt and shut down her store. She applied for work at numerous stores and was unable to find work.

Now a new grocery store establishment and acquisition approaches between Kroger and Albertson's when just this past year, 222 reported conducted by the Economic Roundtable found that Kroger employees reported that 78% of them were food insecure, 67% cannot pay. For basic expenses every month. 44% are unable to pay for rent, 29% are below or near the poverty level, and 14% are homeless now and had been or in the past year.

We must ensure that these essential workers, who are already among the most vulnerable in our state, are not forced to once again face such extreme food, housing and financial insecurities. SB Seven Two Five will protect these workers by providing them with the financial support they need to transition after mass layoff. With me today is Christopher Sanchez with the Western Center on Law and Poverty.

Additionally, joining me is Grace Garcia, a grocery worker from Bonds and UFCW Member who can speak to this issue. And lastly, Jassy Graywall with the United Food and Commercial Workers, is here to answer any technical questions you might have.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair Members. Christopher Sanchez, policy Advocate at the Western Center on Law and Poverty and strong support of SB Seven Two Five, which will provide a safety net for workers who have been laid off due to a merger. The unfortunate reality is that today many workers are living paycheck to paycheck and barely making it.

And the impact of a layoff could absolutely push these workers and their families into poverty or deep poverty if they're already facing that reality. And you may think that naturally, folks would find themselves in this situation should be able to turn to our state safety net programs. And while that's technically true, I have to say that our state safety net programs can be very difficult for folks navigating, which makes it easy for folks to fall through the cracks, especially for individuals who have never utilized these programs before.

It is critical that workers facing such transitions are able to receive support that provides them options if they've been impacted by layoffs, especially for those that have become industry experts who have faced more difficulties trying to find employment in their field. Lastly, I do want to uplift the impacts that these form of mergers have on local communities, because when jobs are lost in communities, they can feel the real impacts, especially in this specific scenario of grocery stores. We know that grocery mergers have significant impacts to access of food and healthy and nutritious food as well in black and brown communities, because we know historically that's where they've been closed.

It is for these reasons Western Center urges your Aye vote and I'll provide the rest of my time to my co witness.

Good afternoon, chair and committee Members. I am Grace Garcia, cashier at Vaughns in Glendale and a proud UFCW Member. I have worked in the grocery industry for 32 years.

Thank you.

Eight years ago, I experienced firsthand the pain of losing my job due to a merger. The painful experience did not only hurt me, but it also affected my children and my family. In 2015, I was laid off when my store was sold to Hagen as a part of the Albertson Safeway merger.

Hundreds of workers were laid off at the time as well. I didn't have a job for over three months, and the uncertainty of not knowing what was going to happen next was very stressful, not knowing how I was going to pay my rent and feed my children. As a single mother, I was only able to pull through these challenging times with the support of my family.

My mom and my sister helped me out financially, but other workers weren't as lucky. Many friends and coworkers could not find a job and struggled to put food on the table and pay rent. Some lost their homes and others had their cars repossessed.

After three months, I was finally able to get a job at Vaughn's and had to take a demotion and a pay cut. I went from making $18 an hour as a checker to 1575 working in the Starbucks kiosk. When Hagen closed my store, workers did not get severance pay.

We were left out on our own, forced to survive with little to no savings because with the cost of living, grocery workers live paycheck to paycheck. Now we are learning through the news that Albertson's top execs stand to reap over 145,000,000 from severance packages and other pay if Kroger Albertson's mega merger goes through. The news articles indicate that if the company's top execs quit or are laid off as part of the deal, they would be entitled to a full severance pay.

But what about us and our customers? We need community based safety precautions in our neighborhood stores. And what about the workers that, throughout the COVID pandemic, put our lives at risk so that customers could have the necessities for their families? But what about the employees who work nonstop so Albertsons could set record profits? Grocery workers need protection. SB 725 will mitigate the devastating impacts that mergers have on workers and our families, giving us the peace of mind of knowing that we could pay our bills for at least a month please pass the Bill.

To protect our hardworking people like myself, so workers can have the safety net to be able to navigate any financial hardships derived from the planned Kroger Albertson's merger. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here in support of SB 725?

Navneet Perry year on behalf of CSEA in support.

Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU in support.

Thank you,

Ron Rapp on behalf of the California Faculty Association in support. Thank you.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights advocates in support.

Thank you.

Nick Cruz with California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you,

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

Thank you. Is anyone here in opposition to SB 725?

Mr. Chair, Members of the committee, Louis Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition. One of our main concerns with this Bill is that the focus and the discussion has been on the mega mergers. Those mega mergers happen every so often.

We heard about it happening in 2015. We now have one major merger that's being discussed everywhere in the headlines. If the bills that are in this area want to focus on the mega mergers, then let's focus them there. Our main concern is the change in this area of the law affects every transaction that takes place. And because they don't make the headlines, we don't know. But there are transactions that take place in the state of California all the time, small and medium sized grocers buying another grocer, growing.

In fact, we've got 4700 supermarkets in the state of California, nearly 300,000 employees. The mega merger that you're talking about in this Bill is going to impact 300 stores. And so our concern is now when that mid level regional chain wants to grow and maybe they don't have the same format as the grocer that they're going to assume that store for, and maybe that format doesn't require the same number of employees.

Under current law, if they can't hire the same number of employees, then they have to go by seniority to make sure that the employees are taken care of. Well, now, if I'm a grocer and I want to go and make a transaction happen and I have a different format, or maybe I cater to the Latino community, that's my main market. And I want so many workers that speak Spanish, and if that store that I'm assuming doesn't have all those employees that speak Spanish, now I have to make a decision, because I may not have the budget to provide the severance pay that now is going to be required in this Bill.

So now that transaction probably doesn't happen. So now what have we done with these stores and these workers? So what we're saying is that this is a very broad net that this Bill is casting. And if what we want to do in the state of California is have an impact or send a message on mega mergers and make sure that those transactions are treated different, then let's have that conversation.

But just to go in and impact every transaction in the state of California we believe is going to have a detrimental impact on the economy and the growth of the grocery industry in California. Therefore, we ask for a no vote.

Thank you. Anyone else here in opposition to SB 725?

Mr. Chairman. Members Courtney Jensen on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition.

Thank you.

And Sarah Polo Moo with California Retailers Association. Respectfully opposed.

Thank you. Any question, comment, motions? Senator Reyes?

Yes. One of the comments that was made about the mega mergers versus a small and medium grocery store, I know that under existing law the grocery stores you're talking about are over 15,000 sqft in size.

That's right.

So we're talking about the bigger grocery stores.

Okay, and what is your response to the comment about the mega mergers versus just mergers?

That's right.