Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Monday should be. Which one? Here it is. Okay.

Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, Retirement will come to order. Good morning. The Senate continues to welcome the public in person, but also through the teleconference service and for individuals wishing to provide public comment that way. Today's participant numbers is 877-226-8163. The access code is 161-8051. Each side will be permitted an equal amount of time.

Lead witnesses will have two minutes each. There is no reserving time for other witnesses. All others wishing to testify must limit their comments to their name, affiliation and position on the measures.

Testimony taken via the Teleconference service will be limited to a total of 20 minutes for both sides. We're holding our committee hearings here in the O Street Building, and I want to ask all additional Members of this committee to be present in room 2200. Although it does appear that we have a quorum to begin our hearing, we do have 14 Bills on today's agenda. And for those following along, file item number ten, AB 1137, has been pulled from our agenda at the request of the author. Before we hear presentation of our first Bill, let's establish a quorum. Assistant, please call the role.

Senator Cortezzi.

Here.

Cortezzi. Here. Senator Wilk?

Wilk? Present. Senator Durazo? Durazo. Here.

Present.

Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevus? We have a quorum.

All right. Thank you. I'd like to take up the consent items which are AB 366 and AB 1140. Do we have a motion

Wilk moves.

Wilk has moved the consent.

File items number two and eleven. All on consent. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortezzi, aye. Senator Wilk?

Wilk, aye. Senator Durazo.

Aye.

Aye.

Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. These items are on call with three aye votes.

All right, so we have a majority vote, but we'll keep it on call for the absent Members. Now, let's hear from our first author. Welcome Assemblymember Aguiar-Curry.

And if you're ready, you may present AB 338.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. And Members. AB 338 expands the definition of public works to include fuel reduction activities performed as part of a wildfire mitigation project.

Members, our communities will be better protected from wildfires when the workers responsible for fuel reduction work are well-trained, using the safest practices, and are paid fair wages and benefits. I certainly understand and respect the opposition's concern for project delivery in the short term, which is why I unilaterally added a phased implementation to allow ample time for budgets and contracting practices to catch up. We have delayed implementation to allow budget to catch up and provide an exemption for volunteers, tribes, and the Conservation Corps that do this kind of work.

Members, nobody is more committed to delivering these projects. During my time in the Assembly, every single county in my six county district five now have had devastating fires. The last thing I want to do is to slow down mitigation projects. Hence all the exemptions and delays.

We have discussed our intent for this Bill with the Administration and have been assured we will receive their feedback and technical assistance shortly. Today, I can say with certainty that this Bill will change substantially as our discussions move forward. But we seek to triple the amount of these projects done annually in our state to combat wildfire risk. We need to secure that workforce. And everyone agrees, including our opponents, that there is a shortage of workers to do those now.

Meanwhile, billions of dollars for state and federal infrastructure and housing projects will come online over the next few years. And these similar jobs are competing for workers from the same trades. Not only should these workers be able to build a career and raise their families in the very communities they are working to protect, but we face a desperate workforce shortage for these projects in the coming years.

We don't fund competitive wages for them. I'm not an economist, but I will simply don't buy the concept that paying people less in a competitive employment market while you're trying to triple the projects you're doing is a sustainable project delivery strategy, not going to work.

And, Mr. Chair, I want to state for the record that we have every intention to working with IBEW as we receive technical assistance from the Administration shortly. It is my understanding that the governor's staff has reached out to confirm that their assistance is forthcoming. We have made sure the governor's staff is aware of IBEW's concerns, and I know Mr. Wetch and his clients will be consulted as we work to perfect the language in this Bill. With me today. In support is Tim Cremins from the Nevada-California Conference of Operating Engineers and James Thuerwachter from the California State Council of Labors.

All right, thank you very much. And I appreciate, as the witnesses are coming up, the understanding that you're working with the Administration on some amendments and that you're working with Mr. Wetch and his contention as well. I appreciate that commitment very much, and as does the committee staff. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members. Tim Cremins, Operating Engineers. We are committed to working out. We believe a solution is probable here, but also on the Bill. You've heard the Bill before. I think it's pretty straightforward, consistent with public policy. This is public dollars being spent on the maintenance of a public asset. And again, this Bill only applies to occupations within the building trades, not other trades.

So you're not sweeping in geologists or experts or vegetation experts. This is just occupations within the building trades. And remember, there are some big exemptions here. It does not apply to volunteer groups. It does not apply to Conservation Corps. It also has a delayed implementation to allow DIR and the others to prepare wage surveys. It does not apply to Indian tribal lands. And also, this is about building a stable workforce for this industry. It would establish training standards, apprenticeship programs.

And this is for an industry that is the most dangerous. Consistently with Cal/OSHA, it's one of the highest accident rates there is. So I think, again, it's a pretty straightforward Bill, and we don't think it's a big departure from current public policy. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. James Thuerwachter of the California State Council of Laborers, proud co-sponsor as well. I want to thank the author for her continued commitment to this important issue. Also want to thank committee staff for the many robust discussions that we've had. And we are also committed to working with the Administration and with IBEW as well.

As many of you know, we're comprised of about 70,000 men and women throughout the state. And like the operators, we build California's water, energy and transportation infrastructure. This Bill, AB 338, creates a real pathway for opportunities to answer to the green job sector. We talk about just transition and what that means for policymakers, workers and the economy.

And we have been increasing our presence in the renewable energy sector, and we have been supporting projects in wind, solar, and in hydrogen, just to name a few. Now, fuel mitigation is a growing industry. It's dangerous, but it's not dirty work. I want to emphasize that we already have programs in place to train our members for this work.

We have a long standing partnership with one of the largest contractors in the space. That company performs pre-fire mitigation work throughout the state, and that work is comprised of brush clearing, tree trimming and removal, and routine maintenance, just to name a few. Finally, AB 338 prioritizes worker safety.

Some opponents have argued that the smaller companies won't be able to reach prevailing wage status and will be priced out of the market. But this is about protecting our workers, right? The unfortunate truth is some of those smaller companies have actually cut corners by not providing the proper PPE or training. And that negligence has resulted in egregious workplace incidents.

Our self funded apprenticeship programs are flexible and robust. They prepare our workers with the right training and hands on experience to ensure the highest standards of safety for our workers. The safety and well being of our Members will always be our number one priority. And we strongly feel that any other organization doing this kind of work should hold the same standard. AB 338 creates and retains jobs in this emerging industry. So we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express the support position on this Bill?

Mr. Chair and Members Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trade Council. Also in support. Thank you.

Greg Herner, on behalf of Pacific State's Environmental Contractors, in support. Thank you.

Don Wilcox with the California Conference of Carpenters, in strong support.

Ron Rowlett Political Director, NorCal Carpenters Union. Strong support.

Dave Harrison, Financial Secretary with the Operating Engineers Local 3. Strong support.

Chris Dieter, Political Director for the Operating Engineers Local 3. On behalf of our 40,000 Members, strong support.

Good morning. Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. We need a full bore program on forestry fire suppression. Full support. Thank you.

Okay, let's move to opposition. Do we have lead opposition witnesses? Please come forward and you can begin. You'll have a couple of minutes.

Mr. Chairman and Members, Scott Wetch. On behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and Labor Management Committee of the Forest Products Industry. We're opposed, unless amended, to this Bill we do not oppose the concept of applying prevailing wages to this work in the forest industry. The IBEW has over 200 contractors in the state of California that do nothing but vegetation management for utilities, for the state, for local governments.

The problem is this premise of this Bill is to take prevailing wage in the construction arena and apply it to a new industry. That's what the sponsors just testified to. So the question is then, how do you establish what is the correct prevailing wage rate? If you look at the wage schedules right now for the operators and for the laborers, the majority of the equipment that has been used in the forest industry is not covered today in those wage rates.

So the only way to be able to establish what is the prevailing wage rate is to do a survey. I supported this Bill last year because I was under the assumption that there would be wage surveys. But in most recent conversations with all the parties involved, it's come to our knowledge that may not be the case. So we need some assurances.

Members, it's important to understand that we're not talking about just going and clearing property for a construction project. We're talking about going in, working with registered foresters, using specialized equipment to go in under the Forest Management Act, and thin forests with the highest environmental standards. It's not just going in. There's not a workforce out there that is in the construction industry that has been performing that type of work.

So we respectfully will continue to work with the author, but we have to remain opposed unless there's an amendment assuring that we will have a fair process to establish what, in fact the prevailing wage rate is, because people's livelihoods, people currently employed in this space are at risk. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express opposition?

Good morning, Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Mark Fisher, a legislative analyst from the county of Tuolumne. Proponents of this legislation have stated that the critically important nature of fuel reduction work should not be delayed or interrupted.

However, dollar for dollar, acre for acre, AB 338 would do just that. It will decrease the ability to perform effective fuel reduction. Forest management, many fuel reduction projects are fully grant funded, especially in rural forested communities like Tuolumne County that are especially at risk of catastrophic wildfires.

We must make the best possible use of this grant funding to protect our communities and our natural resources. The imposition of prevailing wage will increase the labor and administrative costs for contractors performing fuel reduction work, thereby reducing the number of acres that can be treated overall in each contract. We believe that AB 338 will reduce the strength of this critical workforce by decreasing the number of fuel reduction contractors available.

Requiring prevailing wage will place small local contractors at a competitive disadvantage. To meet regulations, contractors must register with the Department of Industrial Relations. This process is resource and labor intensive and would make it extremely difficult for small contractors to obtain and maintain prevailing wage status.

This would make it cost prohibitive for smaller contractors to even try to compete. In effect, the result would run counter to the bill's intent of developing a skilled and knowledgeable workforce by reducing the number of contractors available that already possess the skills, equipment and expertise that this type of work requires. The Governor recognized the importance of these kinds of projects when he waived environmental regulations to expedite forest management projects in 2019, when he approved $1.5 billion for wildfire prevention in fiscal year 21-22, and when he vetoed this same legislation last year when it appeared as AB 1717.

This is because he recognized that the pace, scope and scale of fuel reduction in California's forest should not be impeded by the sudden introduction of prevailing wage. On behalf of Tuolumne County, I respectfully request your no vote and AB 338.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express an opposed position? If so, please come forward. Name, affiliation and position.

Yes. Hello, I'm Eric Carlson. I represent the people who do the work, the contractors, associated, California loggers, and for the reasons articulated by the previous witnesses and some of our own, we respectfully continue to oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Mckaley on behalf of Humboldt and Mendocino Redwood companies, in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. I'm Izzy Willner on behalf of Del Norte, Kern, Mendocino, Placer, and Butte County Board of Supervisors in opposition. Thank you.

Nico Molina on behalf of the California Forestry Association, respectful opposition.

Mark Smith on behalf of the El Dorado Water Agency, the United Chamber advocacy network, which is a coalition of ten chambers in Placer, Sacramento and El Dorado County. I've also been asked to provide a me too in opposition from the Pacific Forest Trust, which has an opposed, unless amended, position on this Bill and would like to call your attention to El Dorado County's letter of opposition as well. Thank you.

Good morning. Justin Caporusso on behalf of the Mountain County's Water Resources Association in continued opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Mark Fenstermaker for the California Association of Resource Conservation Districts with respectful opposition.

Heidi Hanneman, California Special Districts Association with a concerns position.

Stacy Heaton, Rural County Representatives of California RCRC representing 40 rural counties statewide that are heavily impacted by wildfires in. Respectful but continued opposition. Looking forward to seeing the amendments. Thank you.

Hunter Stern with IBEW Local 1245 thanking the author for her work, working with us, but opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. We're going to go to the teleconference line now and ask the teleconference operator to queue up any opposition or support that we have by teleconference at this time. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Mr. Chair, we have no one who signaled that they wish to speak.

All right thank you for checking. We appreciate that. I'll come back to the committee. Are there questions or comments of committee Members? Yes, Senator Laird.

I apologize because I was late and I missed your opening statement, and I understand that you addressed one of my concerns. But let me just ask, because last year we were dealing with the issue that if contracts expired in certain places, this wouldn't be in place and there would actually be a gap because I represent so many areas that burned down where this force cleaning is really at issue, and so the date appears to have been moved. So how have you addressed the issue of how there would be no gap in the grants getting out the door and doing it?

We extended the implementation time

By a couple of years. Do you recall how?

I'm trying to remember how long it was. Let me see if I have that-

If I may, 2025.

I know, but it was much closer last year. I was just trying to find out the difference.

Well, we did extend it from last year. We took the veto message from the Governor seriously. And so we came back to ensure that the state departments and nonprofit profits responsible for wildfire fire mitigation have time to implement new prevailing wage requirements. We delayed the implementation for specified entities for one year and two years for nonprofits, exempt the contract less than $100,000 to protect smaller entities doing this work and specifies that public works only applies to apprenticed crafts, enshrines tribal and sovereignty.

No, I read most of that. I was just trying to drill down on one or two pieces. Is that so? Sorry to interrupt.

That's fine.

And then the other issue is I am unclear on, of all these that go out the door, how many of them fall under 100,000 or more, whether this is really applying to most of them or there's a significant number under 100,000. How does that work?

There is my understanding, quite a few that are under the $100,000 range. I don't have a specific number, Senator.

If I could ask the Tuolumne County representative if he's still here, if he knows what the difference is of the number of contracts in that county, whether most of them are under 100,000 or whether they're above, if that's okay. Mr. Chair. Through the chair. I assume that's a yes. I was asking you if it's okay to do this through the Chair. Yes.

I'm sorry. Always send her.

Yeah.

Yes. In Tuoleme County, there are zero contracts that do this kind of work that are under 100,000.

That's rather startling. I'll just take that for what it is. That's a very fire prone area. I spent a lot of time there when I was Resources Secretary looking at fires. Okay. Will you continue to work with people on this?

Absolutely. I mean, this is a really important policy, and we worked on it last year. I have had six counties that were on fire at one time. It's really important. We've had conversations with some of the opposition in my office numerous times. What their concern was was that why do we have to have skilled workforce? Well, first of all, many of them told us while they're meeting with us, a lot of our workers are getting older, and we're trying to find a workforce.

Well, we're trying to help you out, and I consider it. What we're doing here is to make sure we have good paying jobs. We have skilled workers. It's a dangerous, dangerous job.

I think the way I would look at it is that we have make a comment and then I'm done, is that we have two competing values, and we really subscribe to both values. We want there to be skilled and trained. We want there to be good paying jobs.

At the same time, we want this to work in fire prone areas in ways that we know that there's no delay, there's not a break that you can actually get your money's worth out of investing in this. And your job is far be it for me to tell you because you've been doing it already, is to really mediate against these values. And I think that's the question as you continue to work, and I will vote to move it along today and just hope you will continue to work against that.

Absolutely. And it's an important Bill for the governor's office as well, because we're trying to get these wildfire mitigation projects up and moving.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Durazo

Yes, I will be supporting the Bill, but I'm still very concerned by the issues brought up by Mr. Wetch that things that this is a change that could have an impact and could have a very serious impact. So I'm glad to hear the author and others saying that they're going to work closely to address those issues. As my colleague here said, we need and we have to have the skill, we have to have the safety of those workers, and we want good paying jobs, so let's not sacrifice one for the other. Thank you.

Thank you, and I just want to echo the comments of my good colleague from Los Angeles. And I appreciate that you said this is about helping, making sure that these are good jobs and that we're addressing the infrastructure needs. At the same time, I want to recognize that there are unions that have been in this space, that have worked in this space, that understand the workforce and what's needed.

And I'm glad to hear that you are working closely with the IBW in particular to ensure that amendments are being considered that can help make sure that we are doing and building this as a strong high road opportunity together. And so can you say where you are in those conversations in terms of working with?

Sure. We've been waiting for some conversations, additional conversations with the governor's office, and that's where we are. And we will include IBEW as well as the others that are interested in this policy. So we're still working on it. It's really important to the Governor as well and his staff.

I was hoping that we would have some people come to the table a little bit sooner, and they came a little bit later. And so now we are having additional conversations you know, this place is a pretty crazy place, lots of bills going on, and so sometimes things slip through the cracks.

Well, I appreciate those conversations and your work with the laborers and IBEW and others because these are important jobs. They need to be done well so that our communities are protected, particularly our areas that are prone to fire. We want to make sure that these are skilled jobs that are high road and that have all of the training, skill, and expertise that's needed to do it well. And I know that is going to happen through these conversations. So thank you very much for answering those questions. And I will support this Bill moving out. But I want to say I will keep watch to see what the end result is, because I know finish line.

But I just want to just share something really quick. When the fires were really going years, four years ago, and I had six counties on fire and we needed some wildfire mitigation back then, they're bringing in people to fight fires and wildfire mitigation out of state. And that really upset me.

And so this is kind of what's behind this as well for me, is that we have people that need good jobs and trained jobs. And so I don't want to be behind the eight ball again if this happens. And so I'm trying to be visionary. I understand that there's other smaller groups doing things right now. I appreciate that. We all appreciate the work that they're doing.

But let's look out there what the future is going to look like. So that's why I did it, because I was so upset that we had out of state people that are not trained and understand our environment and how we protect our environment and they're coming in and cutting down trees. So I just want to share that because that was one of the things that really got me going on this Bill.

And I appreciate that because what I do know is that these parties understand how to build skilled, train qualified, expert workforce to do this work and that takes resources to do it. So we need these to be good jobs and we need to bring in the partners that can actually train that workforce and particularly those who have been the only entities representing and training those workers in terms of the fire maintenance space. So I appreciate that and when the time is right, I'll be ready to support the Bill.

Thank you.

All right, thank you. Senator? Yeah. I'll be brief.

We clarified the amendments that you're working on, your commitment to keep working on those at the outset, thank you very much for that. Obviously, I think what we're hearing, which is new to me too, because I haven't consulted individually with all these Members but know these are issues sometime between now and four that probably need to be resolved so that we don't have the same questions surfacing there. I'm hopeful that Mr. Wetch and others like him can help us figure out a way to expedite the establishment of new prevailing wages not just in this space, which is kind of an old school space.

We have this problem with emerging green technology in all kinds of areas and we're not going to be able to wait around to establish prevailing wage and equity standards while work needs to be done. So hopefully this Bill starts to set a pattern for how to do that quickly between now and when it gets to our for a decision. Thank you. We'll give you an opportunity to close and then Mr. Wetch and I will be running over to 447 to present another Bill.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We do have a motion, I believe. No, I'm getting there from Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. You said at the right time. I didn't know if he meant support or motion. If not, I support Senator Laird. Thank you. We have the courtesy of a motion from Senator Laird and we'll ask the Assistant to call the role. Thank you.

File item number one, AB 338. The motion is due passed, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese

Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Laird, aye. Senator. Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas Aye. This Bill is on call with three aye votes.

Aye.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm going to go ahead and call up file item three Assembly Member Wicks on AB 472 and she has a couple of Bills in file order consecutively here. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Senator Laird if that's all right with him and I'll be back shortly thank you.

Are you going to go present in my committee, Senator?

Hopefully you'll catch up.

I think that's where you're headed is my committee?

Yes. I have to step out at five to eleven minutes. Yeah.

Thank you. Mr. Chair,

Welcome to the committee. You're presenting first, AB 472?

Yes.

The floor is yours.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Under current law, classified employees can be placed on involuntary leave during the period an employee is charged with a crime or is under investigation. When the proceedings that require the involuntary leave conclude in the employee's favor, the employee returns to work.They are not always fully compensated for that missed time.

Merit districts, which have an established personnel commission must pay a classified employee their total compensation for a period of involuntary leave. Non Merit districts, however, do not have this same right.

In addition, classified employees are not always compensated for time missed due to administrative delays. This can include, for example, an employee waiting for the DMV to renew their bus driver's license or for the Department of Human Services to reverify their employment authorization documents. AB 472 clarifies that regardless of merit or nonmerit district status, districts must fully compensate employees who return to service after being placed on involuntary leave.

This Bill also requires school districts to compensate classified employees who miss time due to administrative delays for necessary job related administrative determinations. This is simply a parity Bill. Certified employees already have these protections. Even probationary certified employees are protected. Classified employees deserve the same. I want to thank our sponsors, the California School Employees Association and AFSME.

With me here to testify in support is Jessica Hay from CSEA, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Welcome to the committee.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to comment today. My name is Jessica Hay and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association and we are proud co sponsors of AB 472.

First, I would like to thank the Assembly Member Wicks and her staff for their hard work on this Bill and the committee staff for your thoughtful analysis. CSDA represents nearly 250,000 classified school employees, many of whom are women and people of color. Classified employees are the folks that get kids to and from school safely, make sure kids have a welcoming, safe, and clean learning environment, support teachers in the classroom, and make sure students get the academic assistance they need, and so much more.

AB 472 would provide that full compensation for all classified employees placed on involuntary leave during a time that the employee is charged with a criminal offense, is under a criminal investigation, or is waiting due to administrative delays for any necessary job related paperwork or determinations. This really is a parity Bill, as Assembly Member Wicks mentioned. So all certificated folks, those teachers, both probationary and tenured teachers, have this protection already.And we really just believe that classified employees deserve that same protection.

It's a fairness issue, so classified employees should be compensated for the time missed in cases where charges are not brought, the charges are dismissed, or the employee is acquitted of any charges. They should also be fully compensated when they're on involuntary leave for those administrative delays. This issue came to us through our membership.

So we heard from a member who was facing criminal charges and was placed on an involuntary leave of absence. Because he was not certificated and he was working in a non merit district, he was not entitled to full compensation for that period of involuntary leave. Upon his return to work with the district, his charges were dismissed, but he wasn't allowed to get that compensation.

Over half of CSEA Members earn less than 30,000 per year, and most cannot afford to be on leave with no possibility of receiving their lost wages. For those reasons, begin to I was for those reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 472, and I'm here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. We appreciate your comments. And that was the only lead witness, right?

Correct.

Then this would be the opportunity for anybody in this room to do a me too, a name, organization, and the fact that you support the Bill. Welcome.

Good morning. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SCIU California. In support, thank you very much.

Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation in support. Thank you very much.

Carl Williams, California Federation of Teachers. Strong support. Thank you very much.

Steve McDougall, California Federation of Teachers, strong support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one, I don't have listed a lead opposition witness. Is there anybody that wishes to speak in opposition? You could just do the me too right now in this room.

Seeing no one, then moderator will go to the teleconference line. This is the opportunity for anybody to speak on Assembly Bill 472, and these are just me too's either for or against name, organization and position.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to AB 472, please press one, then zero. At this time, press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 32. Your line is now open.

Good morning, Mr. Chair. Members of the committee Aaliyah - with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. We are a proud co-sponsor of this Bill and support.

Thank you very much

Mr. Chair. We have one additional person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

And we'll now go to line 30. Line 30, your line is now open. And pardon me once again, line 30. You just spoke with an AT&T operator. Please respond.

Hello,

You're on. We're anxious to hear your position.

Hello. My name is Viacheslav Borshchev. I'm UFC fighter. I'm calling from Team Alphama, and I support AB 1136, the MMA pension Fund.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your opinion. Moderator, does that conclude the line?

It does, mr. Chair.

Thank you very much. I'm sure we'll be back to you in a minute, then we're going to bring the matter back to the Member. Are there any comments on this Bill?

No pressure.

I thank the author for bringing it. I move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. Would you please call the roll file.

Item number three, AB 472. The motion is due passed. Senator Cortezzi. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird Aye, Laird aye. Senator Smallwood-Queuevas, aye. Smallwood cuevas? Aye. This Bill is on call with two aye votes.

Thank you very much. And then you have the next Bill. Yes, and maybe I'm missing it.

I don't see any other authors here, but I would just tell people that particularly if you're later in the file, you could make a dash and you could get here. So we'll move to item number four, which is Assembly Bill 524. The floor is yours.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And Member. AB 524 prohibits discrimination against employees based on their family caregiver status. This Bill requires that workplace policies do not discriminate against people because they are family caregivers.

In April 2020, a group of hotel chain janitors were laid off because of the pandemic closures. When things started to open up again, everyone but the mothers were called back. The hotel manager assumed that they were busy helping kids with remote schooling.

Indeed, many of those mothers did want to return, and they desperately needed the income. But there were obvious assumptions that were made about if they wanted to return to work, and this type of discrimination we know exists in the workplace. One study found mothers were 79% less likely to be recommended for hire, half as likely to be promoted, and offered an average of $11,000 less in salary for the same position as similarly qualified nonmothers.

More than 200 local jurisdictions and states Alaska, Delaware, New York and Massachusetts have already outlawed employment discrimination against parents and other caregivers, covering almost 30% of the American workforce, except here in California. Throughout this process, we have listened to the concerns of business owners. We have, in fact, accepted two crucial amendments addressing the concerns of the Chamber.

Upon leaving the Assembly, we significantly limited those who can be cared for. And we borrowed a definition around who can qualify for this from a Bill I wrote last year around Chosen Family that the Chamber was neutral on and helped me actually craft that definition. That's a definition that says that you can have a designated person that you name.

They now have concerns about that definition, even though this is a different definition I worked with them on. And they will say that it's too broad, but it's a definition that I actually worked with the Chamber on. So I suspect that's what you'll probably hear from the opposition and we just respectfully disagree on this point.

We think we've narrowed the Bill in a way to hopefully accommodate some of their concerns and address some of their concerns. But we still think that this Bill is important because we do know that caregiver discrimination exists in the workplace. And we also know that when employers know about this and when they're educated about this implicit bias, that they can change their behavior.

And that's what the goal of the Bill is. It's not to be punitive against businesses. It's not to create more lawsuits.

It's to stop the discrimination that we know that exists, that disproportionately impacts women, and specifically women of color in the workplace. The Bill is sponsored by the California Work and Family Coalition, California Lawyers Employment Association, equal Rights Advocates, legal Aid of Work, supported by ARP, and dozens of organizations that focus on women and family issues. With me.

Here to testify in support is Jessica Stender for the Equal Rights Advocates and Liz Morris with the center for Work Life Law.

Welcome to the committee. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Or excuse me, you have up to two minutes.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members. Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates proud co sponsor.

This Bill addresses a problem that we see far too often. We've heard from fathers who have faced hostility for taking time off to care for a sick kid. One was even asked, shouldn't your wife be doing that? One mother was terminated because her employer, quote, foresaw that caregiving, her new baby would be a problem.

Opponents of this Bill are saying that the definition of family caregiver status is too broad and employers will not know who is a family caregiver. But this is a red herring. If an employer doesn't know that someone is a family caregiver, then by definition they can't discriminate against them on that basis.

The Bill does not give employers any kind of affirmative obligation to do anything. When someone is a family caregiver, it only says they can't treat them worse or penalize them for that. You cannot look at the definition of a protected class in isolation.

Most antidiscrimination categories are broad, and everyone fits into multiple categories like gender and race. Just because an employee is part of a protected group doesn't mean they will or can file a discrimination claim. Employees can only prove a discrimination claim if they prove they're treated adversely because of their membership in a protected class.

The legal question here will be whether there is sufficient evidence that the employee's status as a caregiver substantially motivated the employer's adverse action. The bill's definition of family is the same as used in current law, and it was adopted to ensure that LGBTQ Plus and other workers have equal rights under the law as the other Californians. Under California law, it is not currently illegal for an employer to fire someone because they become a parent or refuse to promote an employee after learning their elderly parent has moved in with them.

All this Bill does is ensure that workers are not treated unfairly because of their family caregiver status. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. Welcome to the committee.

Good morning. I'm Liz Morris, the Deputy Director at the center for Work Life Law at the University of California Law SF. Employment discrimination against family caregivers is well documented, harmful, and pervasive.

It jeopardizes the economic security of families, and it weakens our economy, especially by driving women out of the workforce. The question is what to do about it. AB 524 offers a viable solution that has already been tested in four other states and hundreds of local jurisdictions around the country.

What we've seen in New York, Minnesota, Alaska, and Delaware is that these laws work for employees and businesses alike. Why is this true? Unfortunately, many employers are not attuned to the fact that acting on biases against caregivers often violates other existing employment laws like prohibitions against sex and race discrimination. AB 524 would provide clarity that discrimination against caregivers is unlawful.

It would incentivize employers to recognize and weed out this form of bias, and by doing so would help employers to avoid not only caregiver discrimination, but also other employment actions that are already unlawful. In California, we've learned from the other states that the impact of caregiver discrimination or anti discrimination laws is that employers retain valuable employees, reduce gender inequities, and avoid litigation. I want to be clear the idea that these laws will not increase litigation is not just wishful thinking. It is the documented experience of businesses in those four other states. A rigorous 2021 analysis from the center for Work Life Law found that the likelihood that a company will be sued under one of these laws is essentially zero.

In the states that already prohibit caregiver discrimination, there was less than one lawsuit per state per year filed on average. The reality is that directing employer awareness to caregiver discrimination and explicitly prohibiting it would provide clarity to employers that acting on caregiver biases.

If you could please begin to wrap up.

Thank you. Yes, in many cases, litigation would be avoided under AB 524 due to this increased awareness. Thank you.

Thank you very much. This would be the opportunity for anybody in the room to do a me too in support, which is just your name, your organization, and the fact that you support the Bill. Welcome to the committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Senator Monica Miller, representing Alzheimer's Los Angeles, Alzheimer's Orange County and Alzheimer's San Diego in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kathy Van Austin, on behalf of the American Association of University Women California, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Jacqueline Crispino on behalf of California Women Lawyers National Council of Jewish Women at California, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence and the Childcare Law Center in support.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Morgan Fuller Colesrud on behalf of Ella Baker Center For Human Rights, Tech Equity Collaborative, Grace and Child Poverty California, and NARAL Pro Choice California in support.

Thank you very much.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsor, as well as UFCW Western States Council, in strong support.

Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Senator Michelle Taran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status. Women and girls. In strong support. Thank you to the author.

Thank you.

Nevni Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Thank you.

Hello, Mr. Chair. Senators John Horner, former CEO of the Morgan Hill Chamber of Commerce, now retired. From that current school board Member, but. Speaking for myself in strong support,

welcome to the Capitol, John. Thank you for your comments.

Good morning. My name is Forrest Cameron, here on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty. Here. In support thank you.

Thank you very much.

Morning. Seth Brown, here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are in support.

Thank you very much. Seeing no one else, this is the opportunity for any lead witness in opposition.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Senator. We are Chris Mckayley. On behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition Two points I'd like to make. First is the concern with the expansion of FIHA, the Fair Employment and Housing Act that today includes 18 protected categories. This would add a 19th, family caregiver status. Employers who are subject to FIHA include those of five or more employees, as well as the public sector entities.

And there's the litigation thread under FIHA, because not only are there damages, including punitive damages, and of course, attorneys fees as well. And so any expansion of FIHA is problematic. And that is added to this new category. A lot of attention has been made by the author and supporters as to the second clause of Subdivision Z, if I can just direct you to that. It defines family caregiver status. Now, in the second, it defines family Member, which was the point about designated person, et cetera.

But if you note the first sentence, family caregiver status means a person who contributes to the care of one or more family Members. Unfortunately, two significant terms are included in this opening provision without definition. One is contribute and one is care. How much contribution? Is it direct and ongoing? Is it once a week? What is care? Is that medical care is that to support their mental health, what is included? Look, if you're going to impose this new status on employers, then at the very least you should focus on providing clear guidance and definitions of those terms so that both the employee but also the employer knows clearly what these terms mean. For that reason, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And is there another are you lead opposition? Then you have up to two minutes.

Thank you. Mr. Chair Members, Courtney Jensen on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to AB 52 four as a job killer Bill. We appreciate our ongoing conversations on the Bill with the author and the sponsors.

I want to align my comments on the broad definition of family caregiver status with those of Mr. Mckayley. Although other states have acted in this area, their laws are much more focused on the level of care being provided and who is being cared for than the one proposed here. For example, in New York, the law protects employees who provide direct and ongoing care for a child under the age of 18 or for a specific universe of family members with a disability or a person with a disability who lives with them.

And that person relies on them for medical care or to meet their needs of daily living. This is the broadest law in the books of any state and is much less subjective than the language. In AB 524, we have submitted an amendment to the author that would change the contributes to the care of language to direct and ongoing, which we believe is much more understandable for employers and is already being used in another state.

Regarding our concern regarding accommodation, we appreciate the amendment that the author took in Senate judiciary Committee to make clear an employer is not required to provide any special accommodation. We have a remaining concern over what is special and what is not special, given this term is new in labor code and we believe this term will have to be litigated if we are not able to clarify that language. And finally, we do believe if not properly tailored, 524 will open employers, including small businesses, up to increased litigation.

A study has shown that employee lawsuits estimated that the cost for a small or mid sized employer to defend and settle a single plaintiff discrimination claim was approximately $160,000. US. Companies have a 10.5% chance of an employment charge filed against them. In California, that percentage is 56.5%. Again, we look forward to continuing the work with the author and hope we can find a place where this Bill will not unnecessarily increase litigation risk for employers in California. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That completes the main opposition witnesses. This would be the opportunity for anyone in the room to do a me too, which is just your name, your organization, and that you oppose the Bill.

Izzy Swindler, on behalf of Public Risk. Innovation Solutions Management, otherwise known as Prism, and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Chair and Member of Sarah Bridge on behalf of the association of California Healthcare Districts, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thank you. Tagan Smith, California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition.

Thank you.

Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no one else in too opposition. Moderator we will go to the teleconference line. This is the opportunity for anybody that is in support or opposition of this Bill to do a MeToo name organization and whether they support or oppose. So over to you. Moderator.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero at this time. We're going to go first to line 18. Your line is now open.

Good morning. Faith Borges on behalf of the Family Business Association of California and the California Association of Joint Powers authorities respectfully opposed.

Thank you.

We're now going to go to line 22.

Good morning. My name is Molly Mock and I am with Public Council. We are in strong support of AB 524. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

This is Katie Duberg with the California work and family coalition. We're a proud co sponsor of AB 524 and I've also been asked to express support on behalf of the following organizations the California Federation of Business and Professional Women, Citizens for Choice, Consumer Attorneys of California, the Friends Committee on Legislation of California, national Council of Jewish Women, California and WorkSafe. Thank you.

Line 27, your line is now open.

And having come behalf of the California. League of Food Producers in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 35, your line is now open.

Good morning. Jenna Shankman, representing Family Caregiver Alliance and the California Coalition on Family Caregivers in strong support. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Line 37, your line is now open.

Good morning. Rebecca Gonzalez with the National Association of Social Workers, California chapter, in strong support of AB 524 thank you.

Thank you very much.

Line 38, your line is now open.

Thank you so much and good morning. My name is Felicity Figueroa and I represent the Orange County Equality Coalition, and we are in very strong support of AB 524. Thank you.

Thank you.

Line 31, your line is now open.

Thank you very much.

Line 36, your line is now open.

Good morning. My name is Julia Parrish for Legal Aid at Work, proud co sponsor in Strong support

thank you very much.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else who signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. We'll now bring the matter back to the committee. And let me just begin by asking a question, and I sit on judiciary. We heard this and passed it out, and there were a couple of concerns raised. I think one was special accommodation, and you appear to have addressed those with amendments since that committee hearing.

We made those amendments in judiciary.

Okay.

Yeah.

And then the other question is, would you respond to the concern about no definition of care in another subject?

Yeah. Providing care for a loved one. Not every word we have in law has a definition, defined definition to it. Right. Like, we know that as a chair, we don't have to define chair because we know what it is. Providing care is you're providing care to someone. Do you need to take them to a doctor's appointment, pick your kid up from school when they're sick? These are things that we do with family Members, and we think that definition as written in the law explains that accurately.

I'm happy to continue dialogue. We've had a lot of conversations with the chamber. This is my second or third attempt at this Bill. Second attempt at this Bill. So we've had continued conversations. We will continue to have those conversations if there's a way that we can outline what that means without, in my opinion, impacting what the Bill is really trying to do.

I'm very open to that language. We just have yet to see it and what it can look like. But I'm open to continued conversations and to continued amendments as the Bill goes through the process.

But I do feel strongly that we have to provide a framework so that if you are someone who does provide care for a family Member, that the act of that responsibility should not be something that you can be discriminated upon against in your place of employment. And so that's really important to me.

Let me just say, as the author of a gazillion bills myself, I always don't want to water down or step away from the intent of the Bill.

Exactly.

We are with this Bill, establishing a nondiscrimination category, and there might actually be gradients.

Sure.

What is care if you're just there briefly and not on an ongoing basis? And so I would just encourage you to see if there's a place that.

We can land yeah.

Where you can land where you don't feel like you're watering down the direction of the Bill, but you address issues.

Like that in the definition. I'm happy to continue those conversations. We've had quite a few and have a very, actually, good working relationship with the opposition to try to land some of this stuff. We've made a lot of amendments along the way. I'm an author who makes a lot of amendments to try to get it right. So I commit to you, Senator Larda. I will continue to talk to the opposition and see if we can find a place to land that.

Thank you. I appreciate it. And let me just appreciate you for addressing this issue. Let me ask if there are any questions from the rest of the committee.

Well, I just want to echo just your tenacity on this issue. It sounds like this has been something you've been striving toward for a long time. And I want to just say how much workers on the ground, particularly Low wage workers who are in unregulated industries, need to have that protection.

And unfortunately, that's why so many of the classes are growing in terms of that protection, just because, unfortunately, there are some industries that will not consider the conditions that workers are in unless there's a law that requires them to do so. So I just want to say I'm appreciative of the policy. My question that I had is that particularly when we think about those Low wage industries, those workers through language, through, in some instances, criminal history, there are a lot of reasons why folks don't have the information, can't get access to the information, don't know what their protections and rights are.

How is that being addressed in this Bill? Is there a way, how are we ensuring that those that will be protected know that this new protection?

Yeah, I mean, I think you're heading on a question, I think, for a lot of our bills, but also the specific, I think, audience you're referring to is often disadvantaged in many ways. And so it's incumbent upon all of us to make sure that we're educating. But we have a very strong coalition of organizations, dozens and dozens of organizations who have far reach and scope, many of whom are legal aid organizations that work with our lower wage sector to make sure they understand their rights and know what their rights are.

And so I think the implementation of this is going to be important. Also, the education, not just for the workers, but for the employers. I think a lot of employers are genuinely trying to do the right thing, and they need to be educated around what this new law would be.

And so I think that's going to take both the supporters of the Bill and frankly, the opposition to help explain what this now means if this does become law. So it's my commitment to continue to do that. I think our unions can be a strong force for us there, along with the broader coalition of organizations that are supportive and in opposition, frankly.

Thank you for that.

Thanks.

Might there be a motion?

Make the motion to move the Bill.

Okay, we have a motion. Would you like to close?

Respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Would you please call the roll

file item number four, AB 524. The motion is due passed. But first we refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortezzi. Senator Wilk. Senator Gerazzo. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird aye. Senator smallwood cuevas, aye. Smallwood cuevas, aye. This item is on call with two aye votes.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I see Assembly Member Muratsuchi here for item number eight. And while he's making his way to the podium, the two people that weren't on the consent agenda are here right now. So if you would mind lifting the call on the consent agenda, we can get that out.

File items number two and eleven, both on consent. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-cuevas aye. These items are out on a five to zero vote.

The consent agenda is out. I'm supposed to leave.

Don't leave yet, Senator.

Excuse me just a second for conference here's. Assembly Member. I apologize for the delay.

We're coming and going because of the vagaries of Assembly schedules. So you're presenting Assembly Bill 938. And I apologize because in about five minutes I have to leave, and the Senator has agreed to stay to be a remaining person until somebody, so please present Assembly Bill 938 and let us know at the beginning whether you're accepting the amendments.

Yes, I will be accepting the amendments and thank the committee very much for their work on this Bill. Senator, I would love to hear your thoughts, especially as Chair of the Senate Budget Committee, because this is ultimately a budget issue. But I rise today to present Assembly Bill 938 to give teachers and essential school staff a 50% pay raise and to close the wage gap.

Schools across the country schools across the state are facing a workforce crisis with too many teachers and school employees unable to afford to live in the communities that they work in. In particular, there is a growing wage gap between teachers and comparably educated college graduates in other fields. The data is clear. Teachers earn 23.5% less than their similarly educated peers. Nearly two thirds of young adults recently surveyed cited pay as one of the top three reasons why they were not interested in becoming teachers. We need to close this wage gap to get more young people to aspire to become educators.

This Bill will also require school districts to report their progress in closing this wage gap every year for the next seven years. We know that in countries like Finland, Australia, Canada, Singapore, for example, teachers and school staff are paid competitive salaries in these countries. Teaching salaries, teacher salaries are commensurate with other fields like business, engineering, law. The bottom line is, we want world class schools. We need to pay teachers and essential school staff what they deserve. I am proud to be joined today by Carl Williams, the President of the Safety Council of Classified Employees, and Kevin Tan, a math teacher from the Jefferson Union High School District.

Welcome to the committee, and you have up to two minutes.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the committee. My name is Carl Williams. And I'm not only the President of the CFT Council of Classified Employees, but I'm a proud senior custodian for the Lawndale Elementary School District.

I'm here today to talk to you about Assembly Bill 938 by Assembly Member Muratsuchi. In the last decade, this august body took the initiative to repair the historic damage done to our public education system caused by the Great Recession. The local Control Funding formula was created to provide our schools with the resources they need to educate our generations in a way they found to be best for their communities. California set a funding goal in order to accomplish this and gave the state budget a decade to meet the goal.

It has been a remarkable success for students, especially those with greater needs. It was a hot air balloon that raised us up. Unfortunately, the economy has moved on. Staggering inflation, increased housing costs and demand for higher labor costs have transformed the LCFF into a lead balloon. Classified school employees provide safety and security for our students and fellow staff. We run the offices, drive the buses, maintain the facilities and provide nutritious meals.

But the sad fact is our workforce can now turn to fast food jobs for higher wages. Both classified employees and certificated teachers are unable to live in the districts we work in, and we can find wages that help make ends meet elsewhere. This is why we are seeing staffing shortages across the state.

If you could please wrap up. You've reached two minutes.

Yes, sir. AB 938. Our values with addressing this problem will provide us a new North Star for the Legislature to guide us in future budget. It repeats the efforts the state made in the last decade to Fund LCFF. This Bill provides hope, but not a mandate, that increased funding will enable districts to raise wages, improve working condition and entice workforce, and allow those who have been calling to the public education the means to pay for housing, health, food and other costs. Again, this is not actually--

I really meant wrap up.

I urge an aye vote on 938.

Thank you. Thank you very much. And I am turning the gavel over to Senator Smallwood-Cuevas right after I tell you that you have up to two minutes. Welcome to the committee.

Good morning, honorable Members of the Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee. My name is Kevin Tan and I just completed my first year teaching mathematics at Westmore High School in Daly City right outside of San Francisco, and I am here today to urge you to vote yes on AB 933. I was born and raised in Daly City to immigrant parents, and I'm grateful to teach at the same high school that I graduated from years ago.

Prior, I've worked in the tech sector alongside brilliant folks, but throughout the years found the work to be unfulfilling. I changed courses to become an educator and to be an agent of change for my community and for the amazing youth to pursue higher education. But like the majority of educators and support staff from my district and the state, I am concerned about my future.

In public education, living in one of the most expensive areas in the state and country, it doesn't help that I work for one of the lowest paid districts in the entire Bay Area. I am fortunate to live in staff housing provided by my school district, but still find myself constantly struggling to sustain myself financially. Even 88% of my monthly budget goes to work, goes to paying bills and rent. Being a homeowner or even starting a family hasn't even crossed my mind because of lack of funding. Clearly, I'm not the only one.

After a single year of teaching, I've already seen one too many of my colleagues leave the teaching profession and move on to other work. Our students deserve educators and school staff who make a respectable wage and more with the current cost of living. Let us be established in the communities we serve in the long term and not some revolving door with schools that struggle to fill critical roles that ensure student success.

Your two minutes is approaching.

Thank you. I implore you to please vote yes on AB 938. Our students, educators, and school staff Members deserve more than what we are asking. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more folks who want to come forward? This is the time for me toos and supports.

Madam Chair. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. Proud co-sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SCIU. Proud adjoining co-sponsor.

Navnit Puryear with the CSEA. Thank you. In support.

Sierra Cook with the San Diego Unified School District, in support.

Hi. Katie Hardeman with the California Teachers Association, in support.

Good morning. D'Artagnan Bird ASME California. In support.

Steve McDougall with the California Federation of Teachers. Strong support. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Michelle Warshaw, on behalf of State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmand in support.

Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business officials. Support if amended.

Anyone else in support? Seeing none, we will move for anyone in opposition to this Bill. Okay. Seeing none, we'll go to the phone lines. Moderator, can you please queue up the calls?

For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Madam Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you, Mr. Moderator. We'll come to the dais. Any comments or discussion? Seeing none, we will ready to--Assembly Member, would you want to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We did the--File item number eight, AB 938. The motion is due passed. But first amend and re refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Durrazo? Senator Laird? Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. This Bill is on call and has two aye votes.

Who did we get done while I was gone?

Thank you, Mr. Chair and fellow committee members. Me. Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee for allowing me to present AB 1204 in honor of Assemblyman Holden, who sat with us today -- a bill aimed at addressing the issue of employees being misclassified as independent contractors in the construction industry. Despite efforts from the Labor Commissioner, the labor movement, and high road contractors who adhere to labor law, the problem of misclassification remains rampant in the industry, with low road contractors putting their profits above employees' benefits, like workers compensation, insurance, and rest breaks. The misuse of independent contractors allows these low road contractors to underbid law abiding contractors and ignore state labor law requirements, creating unsafe workplaces for employees and leaving workers responsible for finding remedies to be paid properly. AB 1204 seeks to limit the number of independent contractors working under a single subcontract, helping curb employee misclassification and ensure accurate certified payroll reports, while decreasing the likelihood of project abandonment.

The bill does not affect legitimate subcontracting relationships where employers properly classify themselves as such, and their workers as employees. By enacting AB 1204, California will join other states in setting clear standards and limits for the use of independent contractors in the construction industry. To testify in support of AB 1204 is Mike West, with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, and Mike Greenley, with the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, who will share some employee misclassification experiences and how it's affected their lives.

Please come forward. You'll have a couple of minutes each. Please. Thank you.

All right. Good morning Chair and members of committee. My name is Michael Greenley. I'm currently the Political and Communication Director for Painters and Allied Trades, District Council 16. Prior, I was an organizer and lead organizer for the District Council for nine years. And I've been in the Trades for 29 years. During my role as an organizer, I visited hundreds upon hundreds of job sites, and on more and more of these job sites lately, we find that we're running into specially licensed contractors that have been awarded a project, who have turned -- in turn, subcontracted labor out to tier 2 or tier 3 subcontractors, who misclassify the workers to pay lower rates, or classify their workers as independent contractors.

On public works, this also cheats the employees out of the prevailing wage they are entitled to and circumvents the apprenticeship utilization. I have one recent example, Project Davis, where it was awarded to a company, where they stated in their Notice of Award: they will not perform any work or employ any personnel on the project. They then, in turn, subcontracted the work out to four other subcontractors, who most in turn claim to be sole proprietors.

I have been on projects where as many as ten to twelve workers on a job site are claiming to be independent contractors or sole proprietors, all the while working under one tier 1 contractor, under one bid and under one scope of work, while receiving direction from one foreman. At this point, these workers are no longer independent contractors, they are employees. AB 1204 is a great step in the right direction, when it comes to battling some of the bad actors we are encountering, with subcontractors that are knowingly and willingly committing violations at the expense of workers to make a profit. I thank you for your time and ask for your support on AB 1204.

Thank you for your testimony. Next up.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members, Mike West on behalf of the 500,000 women and men of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. To expand upon what Mr. Greenley stated, this issue is not unique to the Painters and Allied Trades. In fact, many of the trades have similar or identical experiences with multiple sole proprietors, working under a single subcontract, on the same work of improvement. Amendments taken in the Assembly clarify that a general contractor can sub to as many independent contractors as they wish, and specialty contractors can have an additional sole proprietor, or as many contractors in the same classification, with employees that they choose. This bill does not prevent a homeowner from hiring multiple sole proprietors, as long as they are licensed, which is already required by law. I'm happy to answer any questions. This bill has no registered opposition and I would appreciate your support for AB 1204. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other support witnesses in the room? Seeing none. Is there any elite opposition in the room? Seeing none come forward. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition in the room? Seeing no one come forward. We'll go to the teleconference line. I ask the teleconference operator to please queue up any support or opposition on the line. Thank you.

Anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero at this time. Press one, then zero. Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

Thank you. We're going to come back to the committee, but I'm going to ask, Senator, that you defer your close. I want to go back to the file order and then we'll come back -- have you close when appropriate -- and I'll make that determination, and then we'll take up action on the bill.

Sounds good.

Thank you very much and appreciate you handling that presentation. Back to the file order. That would be Senate Member Santiago at file item number 5.

And I see, we have right behind you, file item 6. Some of them are ... all ready to go. So that'll be the order, and so on and so forth. You can present whenever ready, Assembly Member Santiago.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. And I'll be briefer on my comments to allow for a comment from our witnesses, if that's okay with you.

Please. Thank you.

Thank you. First, I want to thank you for your work and -- to help us make this a better bill. This bill is just basically, simply about protecting property service workers, ensuring that public entities who contract services are also held to the same standard that private corporations are held when they contract services. AB 520 would just deter public entities from contracting public property services who commit wage theft. It would hold them accountable and jointly liable for those wage theft violations. Mr. Chair, I have two witnesses for me if you'd allow.

Yes, please.

Thank you.

And I'll just ask him to self-identify when you come up. Just identify yourself. You'll have two minutes and we'll let you know if you go beyond that. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members. Sandra Burrow on behalf of SEIU California. And thank you, Assembly Member Santiago, for authoring this important bill. Public entities give contracts to property service companies based on the lowest possible bidder. And this naturally encourages these companies to commit wage theft. Private companies, like Assembly Member Santiago already said, are already jointly liable for wage theft. So this bill just treats them -- public entities -- the same. AB 520 would prevent public funds from rewarding companies who exploit workers. And I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Lead support witness, you'll have a couple of minutes. Please identify yourself and go forward. Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and members. My name is Marquise Hayes. I'm a security officer, a member of the SEIU-USWW. I am currently working at the Legislative Data Center, here in downtown Sacramento. I've been assigned here for about six months and I've been doing security for over several years. I'm a father of two kids. I help support my father, whom is unable to work right now. I grew up here in Sacramento and I live in the Elk Grove community. My duties as a security officer include guarding the building and ensuring public employees and visitors feel safe and supported. The employees in my building feel safe and welcome. They treat me like family and they even bring me food. Even though I guard a public building, I am employed by a private company. The public employees I interact with treat me with respect. I think they'd be shocked at how common wage theft is in the security company -- security guards.

I have personally been a victim of wage theft. The state shouldn't do business with companies that violate labor laws. When you earn $19 an hour, every dollar counts because it can be a difference that keeps the lights on. AB 520 would prevent the state from doing business with companies that take advantage of workers. I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Is there anyone else in the room who wishes to express support on this bill? Name, affiliation, and support. Hi.

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

Great, thank you.

Jose Luis Pavon, SEIU-USSW. In support.

Thank you. Are there opposition witnesses? If so, please come forward. Is there more support?

Christina Alvarez, SEIU-USWW, request support.

Okay, thank you.

Joy Hunt. SEIU-USWW. In support.

All right, great. All right, one more time. Last call. Anyone else in support? All right, we're going to go to opposition. Opposition witnesses, are there any in the room? Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position in the room? Moderator would you please check the teleconference line? Let us know if there are opposition or support witnesses, please. Thank you.

Thank you Mr. Chair, for those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero. At this time, Mr. Chair, no one has signaled that they wish to speak.

All right, thanks again for checking. Bring it back to the committee. Comments, questions or a motion on this bill?

I just want to thank the security officer for sharing his story and how important that work is. I had the honor to work with the building services workers. And we know that many of these companies, though they have tremendous contracts, and they are in these very extravagant commercial properties, too often will not pay the worker who actually makes sure that folks get to their cars safely at night -- to make sure when someone is injured that first responders can get to them. And I'm just happy to move and support this bill so that we ensure dignity, always, in that work.

All right, thank you, Senator, anything else from members of the committee? We'll give the author an opportunity to close and then we'll come back for a motion.

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

Thank you. Is there a motion on the bill?

It is.

All right, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas moves the bill. We will now call the roll.

File item number 5, AB 520. The motion is due passed, but first re-referred to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo Aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. This bill is on call and has three aye votes.

All right, thank you. While Assembly Member Kalras is coming up, Senator, did you want -- I want to go back to file item 12, momentarily. Let the record show that all testimony was received, all public had the opportunity to speak on it. I preempted the close on that bill, but I'd like to ask Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, who presented -- you can do that from right here, Senator. She presented on behalf of Assembly Member Holden. If you'd like to close and we could take up the vote on that bill now.

Sure. Thank you. Mr. Chair. I just want to say misclassification is something we have to address. It often leaves workers, particularly the employees, without the vital benefits and supports that they deserve. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, great. So we have the need for a motion. Senator Durazo. All right. Senator Durazo moves file item 12, AB 1204, Holden. And we'll ask the assistant to call the roll.

File item number 12, AB 1204. The motion is due pass. But first re-referred to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortese. Aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo. Aye. Senator Laird. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. This bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right. So the bill has enough to get out. We'll keep it open for the absent members and Senate Member Kalras

Senator Kalra, thank you for your patience. We'll now call on you for file item six, AB 636 and you may begin whenever.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm proud to present AB 636, which will require H-2A visa employers to give all H-2A farm workers on their first day of work the written notice of basic employment rights with a separate section in Spanish or, if requested, in English, describing an agricultural employee's additional rights under state law.

Last year, more than 43,000 foreign farm workers were imported by roughly 100 California growers and farm labor contractors under the H-2A federal visa program. This number has been increasing annually. H-2A workers in California are largely recruited in Mexico and are tied to a single California employer who provides them with housing, meals, and transportation to work sites. Many H-2A workers have never been to California before and neither speak nor read English. If they are fired for any reason, they are subject to immediate deportation, which is a powerful disincentive to report any abusive workplace conditions they are subjected to.

This Bill gives the Labor Commissioner significant discretion to develop a template containing the summary of additional rights and a poster on their website for H-2A employers to use to comply with the notice requirement. I'll note that in introducing AB 636, we incorporated feedback from the Administration on last year's H-2A worker protection Bill, AB 857 and we look forward to their support this time. AB 636 creates a safer, legally compliant workplace for H-2A farm workers and therefore, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Testifying in support on this Bill is Mark Schacht, the Deputy Director for California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and Ana Vicente de Castro, directing attorney for the Agricultural Worker Program of California Rural Legal Assistance.

All right. We'll ask the witnesses to come forward, support witnesses, and you'll have a couple of minutes each.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Mark Schacht with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, sponsors of the Bill. For more than a decade, we've been litigating wage theft and workplace abuse cases against unscrupulous employers in the H-2A system which we call Bracero 2.0. One of the most common themes in the Department of Labor's approval of job orders to import workers into California is their routine approval of job orders/contracts that contain false or misleading statements about what California law protections apply to these workers.

Last year, we reviewed approximately 200 job contracts for workers certified in California, and between 50 and 70% of them contain false and misleading statements about housing, tenancy, charges for tools and equipment, charges for meals not taken, failure to disclose that workers are entitled to travel pay compensation when they're going from the employer's housing to the work site if that transportation is required.

We've raised these issues repeatedly with both Democratic and Republican administrations at the Department of Labor, specifically with the Federal Office of Foreign Labor Contractor Compliance. And they tell us that they're unable to include a notice like this in requirements for California, or other states' growers, because they lack the statutory authority. They also tell us that they're unable to keep up and monitor law changes in the 50 states that would enable to do this accurately.

So we're coming to you; we're asking the Legislature to ask the Labor Commissioner, who does have the expertise to develop, as Assembly Member Kalra said, the template that employers would be required to use. And I want to just, in closing, thank Assembly Member Kalra for his leadership and continuing to try to get this Bill done. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

We'll keep that in mind. Thanks for your testimony. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members. I'm Ana Vicente de Castro. I'm the directing attorney of the Agricultural Worker Program for California Rural Legal Assistance, a nonprofit that has represented and currently represents thousands of H-2A workers through representative actions.

H-2A workers are brought into this country by their employers and are vulnerable to exploitation because they are under the control of their employers for all their basic necessities. They are fed and housed by their employers and are told to work hard without complaining or risk being sent back to their country.

Most H-2A workers are coming to California for the first time. These workers usually don't know anyone here and don't know their rights. They don't have access to resources because they're usually housed in isolated locations. Workers advocates cannot gain access to these locations. They have no cars and no public transportation is available at the isolated locations they are usually housed.

I have personally interviewed H-2A workers that didn't know that they have to be paid for all the time they spent on the fields, in the transportation between the fields, and from housing to the fields. I've seen workers that didn't know that they should have been reimbursed for tools that they purchased to perform their work. I've spoken to H-2A workers that they didn't know they had the right to sick leave to treat their medical emergencies, and had to go back to Mexico to get medical treatment without getting paid and risk losing their job and visa. I have represented workers that didn't know they have housing rights in California. So in my experience, most H-2A workers don't know they are protected under California law and federal law, like their fellow domestic agriculture workers.

So H-2A workers' vulnerability also impacts the domestic agriculture workers and the whole agricultural worker force because employers have no incentive to hire domestic workers when they prefer a more unaware, malleable, and uncomplaining H-2A workforce. This must change. The provision of California legal rights disclosure notice to H-2A workers will empower these workers with knowledge, reducing their vulnerability and improving work environment for all workers in the agricultural business in California. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Other support testimony? We can take that now. Please come forward.

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

All right, thank you. Is there anyone else in the committee room who wishes to testify in support? Seeing no one come forward, we'll go to opposition. Do we have opposition witnesses in the room? Seeing none, is there anyone who wishes to express an opposed position in the room? Seeing no one in the committee room come forward, Moderator, would you please check the teleconference line and see if there are opposed or support witnesses on that line? Thank you.

For anyone who wishes to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero. Press one, then zero, at this time, Mr. Chair, we have at least one person who signaled that they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

Great. Thank you. We will now go to line 41. Line 41, your line is now open.

Moses again, on behalf of the Specified Action Network in support. Thank you.

All right, Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, thank you, Moderator. We do have someone else who came forward in the committee room. You can identify yourself and affiliation and your position.

Tiffany Mock on behalf of CFDA Union of Educators and Classified Professionals in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you for being here. We'll bring it back to the committee, now, having heard all public comment and witness testimony, any comments or questions, a motion?

Yes, I moved the Bill and want to thank the author for being so persistent and also all of the organizations that do all this amazing work and just for people who are completely ignored, invisible, and yet we have food on the table because of them. So thank you to all the organizations.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durazo's prepared to make the motion.

We'll give you an opportunity to close first.

Thank you so much, chair and thank you, Senator Durazo. Yes. This is the fourth year, two vetoes. And we're in a really good place with the Administration, as you can see, without opposition. I think there's been a lot of work put into this, and I want to give credit to Senator Monning, who first introduced the Bill in 2020 as a great champion for farm workers. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, thank you very much, Assembly Member and we will honor the motion by Senator Durazo on this Bill. And we'll ask the Assistant to call.

The role file item number six, AB 636. The motion is due passed, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriation. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Durazo? Aye Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas? This bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right, three aye votes. Enough to pass, but we'll keep it open and we'll move now to should be followed. We don't see oh, Assemblymember Bains is right here, right in front of me.

He's looking everywhere except in front of me. Please come forward and we'll hear file item 7 now. AB 892. Thank you. You may proceed whenever you're ready.

Thank you. All right. Thank you, Chair and members. AB 892 is a district bill that specifies that Kern County Hospital Authority, and its associated entities, are subject to the MMBA and the Brown Act and the CPRA. Kern County was authorized to create the Kern County Hospital Authority by enabling legislation passed in 2014 and 2015. This change was critical to ensure the long-term financial health of Kern's only public hospital, which has served the county since its inception in 1867. While this new governance structure has created many new opportunities, it also has created some new challenges. Ensuring the long-term health of Kern Medical is of particular importance to me, as a hospital is where I completed all of my clinical rotations as a medical student and my residency. The hospital is the reason why I became a doctor.

I know how important Kern Medical is to the most underserved residents in Kern County. Hospital has a Medi-Cal caseload north of 70 percent, and it is our region's only level two trauma center with the closest trauma centers, Fresno and LA, which are several hours away. Losing Kern Medical would mean losing lives, and as the closure Madera Community Hospital has shown us, the San Joaquin Valley cannot afford to lose a single hospital, clinic or doctor.

The Valley is already one of the largest health professional shortage areas in our nation, and our residents need more healthcare infrastructure, not less. While already a good bill, AB 892 also represents a legislative vehicle that will be used to reflect a compromise and consensus building process, that Kern Medical and SEIU have agreed to work through with my office. We are in the process of exploring opportunities to operate the hospital with more public transparency and accountability, while also putting Kern Medical in the best possible position to grow in a financially healthy way. I want to thank SEIU and Kern Medical for agreeing to participate in this process. AB 892 has no opposition, and I respectfully request the committee's support moving the bill forward today. With me in support is Beth on behalf of SEIU.

All right. Thank you. Beth, you may proceed, when ready, for a couple of minutes? Thank you.

Sure. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malinowski of SEIU California. Privileged to be here today to offer some remarks on why SEIU California is a proud sponsor of AB 892, and to answer your questions as well. First, I'd like to start by acknowledging Dr. Baines and dedicated staff who have jumped right in to work with us and bring forward an important conversation, regarding the Kern County Hospital Authority, where SEIU represents roughly 1600 workers. As Dr. Baines noted, about a decade ago, this legislative body took action to establish KCHA. It's a public entity with the sole purpose of maintaining and operating Kern Medical Center, and its network of outpatient clinics and services. The Authority, KCHA, is critical to the health of Kern County. And in the years since the Authority was established and the board seated, we at SEIU have started to see where improvements are needed.

Improvements to guarantee greater public transparency and accountability between the Authority and the community, as well as improvements to bring clarity to the rights of workers, as the Authority evolves. The bill before you today, as noted, is focused on reaffirming and strengthening language in the enabling statute regarding the Brown Act, CPRA and MMBA, clarifying they apply to all entities controlled, owned, administered, or funded by the Authority. With your aye vote today, as noted by Dr. Baines, you'll not only be moving this policy forward, but a broader conversation. Again, Dr. Baines has graciously started a conversation space between SEIU and the Authority, and we're hopeful we'll be addressing additional policy concerns through this bill vehicle. So, again, as sponsor of AB 892, appreciate your aye vote today.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express a support position on the bill? Seeing none, we'll go to opposition. Are there any oppositional witnesses who wish to be recognized at this time? Is there anyone who wishes to express an opposed position at this time in the committee room? Seeing none. Moderator, would you please check the line and note for us whether or not there are supporter opposition witnesses on the teleconference line? Thank you.

For support or opposition for AB 892, press one, then zero at this moment. Mr. Chair, we have no support or opposition. Well, actually, we do. Someone just queued up. One moment as we gather their line number.

Thank you.

It looks like we'll go to line 42. Please. Go ahead.

Hey, how are you doing? This is Chris Bruno. I'm with. Up Next Fighting. I want to say that I support AB 1136, the MMA pension Fund.

This is a wrong item. Moderator we need to have the witness we to have the witness queue up again during the appropriate time for public comment on that would be on file item nine. Moderator for that particular witness based on the content. So we'll come back to the witness. If there are no other folks on the teleconference line moderator we will move on.

We have no further support or opposition.

All right, great. Thank you. Coming back to the Committee on AB 892. Yes, Senator Laird.

Thank you. And I don't want to delay a love fest, but just maybe to draw you out on one thing. We were talking because last year we saved the hospital with Watsonville, and what was central to it was complete transparency and accountability. And the hospital is failing in Hollister right now. And one of the reasons is they're struggling to be transparent. This seems to be that transparency.

And one of our colleagues told me a few months ago that this hospital was in trouble. So is this sort of a unifying thing to have the transparency, to sort of take the tough steps to make sure that the hospital is going to be sustainable in an ongoing way?

Right? Absolutely.

Do you want to comment just slightly? More than absolutely.

Kern Medical is a very important hospital to my community, as any rural hospital is to any community. It's the central point of so much that happens within community. It's the progression of health. It's the progression of a community altogether. It's the only level two trauma center in the Valley where the closest are a couple of hours away. This Bill is going to directly make sure that there is a level of transparency that it should be applying to as well. Basically, just make sure that the same rules that apply to every other transparent hospital that receives funds from government is enacted.

Well, I appreciate it, and I think what I was shamelessly fishing for is that I think this is a model or template for other hospitals to follow that you cannot get community support, you cannot get a state grant unless you have a path to sustainability. You're being fully accountable, you're being fully transparent, and you are engaging the community. And so it sounds like that's what's happening here. So, Mr. Chair, I would be very pleased to move the Bill.

I just wanted to add yes, that is very true. And that's also wanted on both sides, on the hospital side, in addition to the community side. I think it's just exactly what you said, creating a model and creating those steps in place.

All right. Okay. Thank you. Senator Laird has indicated he'll be on the record with the motion, but we'll give you an opportunity to close first.

Thankfully, ask for your aye vote.

All right. Okay. Ask the assistant to call the role on Senator Laird's motion. Thank you.

File item number seven, AB 892. The motion is do pass. But first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk. Senator Durazo? Durazo aye. Senator Laird? Laird aye. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. This Bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right. Bill is on call with three aye votes. Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Haney. File item 9, AB 1136. We know you have at least one teleconference witness.

Great. Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and members. I'm here to present AB 1136, which is the Mixed Martial Arts Pension Bill. We are a state that, as you all may know, is home to a thriving mixed martial arts sports industry. We have the most fights. We have the most fighters. This is an over billion dollar sport worldwide and it is thriving here in California. It's also a sport that is regulated by the California Athletic Commission. We have a responsibility to those who fight in the ring, here, in our state to make sure that they are safe and healthy when they are in the ring. And I know you all would agree. We also have a commitment and responsibility to all of our workers, especially those that we regulate in this way, to be safe and healthy when they finish their work and that they can live with dignity. This bill will help them do that and provide support for these fighters, once they finish fighting.

This bill would allow -- or make MMA fighters at 50 years old, eligible to receive a pension. This would be funded entirely through ticket sales, the sale of sports paraphernalia, and souvenirs. It comes at no cost, or an observable cost, to the state. Fighters would receive a notice once they are eligible and annual notices will be sent to the fighters on the status of their pension once they vest.

Specifically, every ticket sold, $1 would go towards this fund and they would vest between 12 and 14 fights, which is around 39 scheduled rounds. As you all know, we already have a similar fund that exists for professional boxers, and this would extend it to these other fighters, which has been under consideration for some time and now is finally coming forward in this bill. This is a highly competitive and physically demanding sport. It's regulated by our state and this would allow us to fulfill our responsibility to these fighters once they retire. I want to thank you, Mr. Chair and your staff for your feedback and the analysis and the suggested amendments. And the sponsors and I are committed to getting this bill right and working with you all, if it is to move forward out of the committee to work on, and continue working on, those issues.

This bill has no formal or organized opposition. It's received very broad bipartisan support every step of the way. And here with me to testify in support of AB 1136 is Commissioner Scott Wetch, from the California State Athletic Commission, the sponsor of the bill, and professional mixed martial artist Josh Emmett. We also have Tara Welch here, the counsel for the commission, to answer any technical questions.

Mr. Chairman and members. Scott Wetch. Today I'm here in the capacity as the senate's appointee to the state athletic commission. Even though I was just appointed a few months ago, I do believe the reason why the Senate Rules Committee appointed me, was because of my labor advocacy background. And I do view my responsibility on the commission as to looking after the well being of California fighters. I'd like to thank your staff. I'd like to say, parenthetically, that in my very first commission meeting, I asked to be appointed to the subcommittee on this issue of a benefit and pension fund. I want to thank your staff.

I think this bill has, with the amendments being suggested, have improved this bill incredibly. Specifically in clarifying that no general fund revenues would be used to fund any of these benefit funds, specifying the notification to the vested martial artists and fighters, and then establishing a clear Administrative Procedure Act hearing process for determining rights, benefits and other obligations, amongst several of the other amendments. We think this has really improved that. I'm here with staff today to answer any questions, but I would like -- and it's my honor to introduce a personal friend of mine, Josh Emmett, who I think without question, stands with Tony The Tiger Lopez and Uriah Faber as one of the greatest fighters to come out of Sacramento, ever, but he's also a better person than he is a fighter. And with that, we'd ask Mr. Emmett to come up.

Welcome. And you'll have a couple minutes.

All righty, how are you guys doing?

And if you could state your full name for the record.

Yes. My name is Josh Emmett. I'm a professional mixed martial artist fighting in the UFC. I'm currently ranked 6th in the world, in the featherweight division, and I'm from Sacramento, California. And I'm here today in favor and strongly support AB 1136, the MMA fighter pension. I feel this is a step in the right direction for the future of the sport. And I feel for all the professional athletes that have dedicated their life, and put their health on the line every time they step in the ring or the octagon. This would mean the world to me, getting this bill passed. And speaking on behalf of all the MMA fighters, it would mean the world to them as well. And I just wanted to thank you guys for your time and I appreciate it.

Thank you for being here. Are there any other persons who wish to express the support position on this bill in the committee room at this time? Come on up. At this point, you state your name affiliation, if any, and support.

Max Griffin. Professional mixed martial arts fighter, born and raised in California. AB 1136 is really important. I did a news story, actually, a month ago-

I can't have you testify in full, but you can indicate your support for it. We're only allowed two lead witnesses per-

I indicate my support for this Bill.

And we appreciate you being here. Thank you. Your support is on the record. Thank you. Anyone else who wishes to do that, come up and express support. Great, thank you. Anyone in opposition? Are there opposition witnesses here? Seeing none. Anyone who wishes to express an opposition position in the committee room? Okay, seeing none. Moderator, is there anyone on the teleconference line who wishes to express a position one way or the other? Again, this is AB 1136, Moderator. I think we should have at least one.

Mr. Chair, we have one person who signaled. That they wish to speak. Just a moment, please.

Thank you.

We're going to now go to line 43. Your line is now open.

Hello. My name is David Encante and I am calling from the California State Athletic Commission. I am currently an athletic inspector and I support AB 1136, the MMA Pension Fund. Thank you.

All right, thank you. For anyone else who wishes to speak, please press one, then zero. We're going to go to line 44.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Saleem Haniff calling in as an MMA judge and Combat Sports official in strong support of AB 1136. Thank you.

Line 42.

Hey, how are you doing? This is Chris Bruno, retired MMA fighter. That fought with Celtic Gladiator. And I'm in support of AB 1136.

Mr. Chair, there is no one else.

All right, thank you for checking. Moderator we're going to bring it back to the committee before I go to other committee comments, Senators, if you can bear with me a moment. The author and sponsor, I appreciate both of you. I think essentially, if you combine your comments, we get to acknowledgement of a lot of the concerns raised in the committee analysis.

In a more perfect world, frankly, we'd have some amendments that we'd be asking you to take right now. I think with the negotiations, if you will, that have been going on between this committee and the BNP committee and the time frame that we're up against here right before the Legislature recesses for a few weeks, we weren't Able to get to a comprehensive point of resolution on those, and we're not going to negotiate those like this from the dais here today.

But that said, I am recommending that we move the Bill forward with the understanding that each and every item in the committee analysis that was brought up, and well thought out, I might add, are issues that you'll continue to try to address and commit to address at BNP, but also with the assistance, continued assistance of this committee.

I'm not going to recite each and every one of those items because I think, unfortunately, sometimes those kinds of oral representations get lost in translation, and I don't want that to happen. I would rather have you get everything committed to writing that all parties agree to, particularly the two committee staffs and yourself as the author, Assembly Member Haney. If there's anything else you want Mr. Wetch as the sponsor to add in that know we're happy to open up time.

There may be a question for him, I don't know, by other senators, but just want to make sure that we have that understanding going forward. We think, I will add, in talking to the sponsor myself and talking to you very briefly in the week prior to this hearing, there, in my opinion, are reforms that probably go beyond the initial step of this Bill that need to be taken up at some point. With regard to the model, the pension model that we're using here as a point to tether to with this Bill. I say we, I mean, you as the author, the Legislature itself, we got to tether to something to get started here and to get this going.

But then that something needs a lot of work in and of itself. And I hope you or one of us continues to go down that path in the future to make sure this isn't a one and done and that we challenge ourselves to come back, not just with a better piece. Of legislation here before we get to the floor, but with legislation in the future that comes back and takes up what I think are probably going to need to be a series of reforms based on what I've seen and read.

So with that, I don't know if you can wait and address any of that, if you will, in the close and let me see if there are any other comments by my colleagues.

Well, Mr. Chair, can I ask one of the supporters a question?

Thank you. Mr. Griffin, if you could come up for just a second. I'd like to ask you, when I was a kid, like that was a really long time ago, when I was a kid growing up, they had something like, you know, I remember going to these wrestling matches with my godfather, it was fun. Kinji Shibuya and Pepper Gomez--nobody remembers those names. I remember those names.

Absolutely. Thank you.

I do.

Do you?

Ray Stevens and Pepper Gomez used to, and then they tag teamed.

But for some reason as many years ago as it was but that was so long ago, but for you today, what does it mean to be able to take the next step towards having something as a pension?

Yeah, Max Griffin here again. We don't have anything. I know a lot of jobs. They have 401(k)s. They have something for after the retirement. But as us, we put our bodies on the line, our health on the line. Me and Josh are at the highest levels of the sport: We're on ESPN; We're on TV. We're at the highest of the high, and we have nothing after. So for us, it's not going to save our lives or whatnot. It's not that much money, but something helps to help us get a down payment on this something.

And especially if it's money, that's not from the taxpayers, it's money that's from the fans, per se. The money is not coming from anyone that's paying except for the people for the fight. So it shouldn't have much opposition. I know there's small details that need to be adjusted, but why not? is more my question.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thanks, Senator, and appreciate you giving the witness an opportunity to expand a little bit. I've said everything I had to say, and I'll turn it back to the author now for a close.

Absolutely. And again, I want to thank you and I want to thank your staff and also the staff of the BNP Committee. We took a number of amendments there, but I know there were other things flagged there, some of which were the same flagged in your analysis.

And so we are absolutely committed to continuing to work on those, assuming this moves forward. As you said, I think there's a couple of things. One is the things that we can get right over the process as we get this passed, and then the work that needs to continue after that. I think there are questions around this Fund that are similar to the ones that exist for boxers, and we should continue to strengthen, to codify, to clarify, and to make sure that also, I think that there's enough funds in there to be able to support the needs of these folks when they're done.

I think that was always a thing for me as well when we took this forward, is how do we make sure that this is actually a significant amount of support for them once they're done and not just sort of something that is very nominal. I think it should be more significant. So the reason why I think it's important, even with all that, to get this done and create it is folks are fighting right now, and we want to make sure that we have a framework that they can vest into.

And until we create it, it's hard to begin to have people vest and have them be in a position and us in a position to be able to strengthen it. Many of the folks who, if we pass this this year and it's signed, they won't actually begin to receive this for potentially a decade or a few decades, but we have to have them vest, and we also have to begin to collect the funds as we reform it. So I'm committed.

I know you're committed, and this is not for better or worse. I think the last Bill I will run personally or others will run on this particular topic to make sure we strengthen it. Even with all that, I know the sponsors and I are fully committed to working on it further with you and your staff as it moves forward.

And I again want to thank Mr. Emmett and Mr. Griffin for them being here. Last thing I'll say, this has been for the people who are part of this sport, whether they're referees, former fighters, current fighters, really a sign for them that we recognize the sacrifices we make. We see them, we understand what they do to put themselves on the line, and that we value them.

And they've told us that again and again. So the funds there for them are important, and we have more work to do there. This has also been a hugely important and unifying and hopeful thing for people who take part in this industry, in this sport, and have such tremendous sacrifice and skill with it with that respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, well, thank you very much. And do we have a motion on the move? There's a motion by Senator Durazo on AB 1136 and we'll ask the assistant to call the role.

Please file item number nine, AB 1136. The motion is due passed, but first we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Wilk? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This Bill is on call with three aye votes.

All right, you have enough votes to get out and you're on call for the absent Members, thank you for being here. And again, thank you to the witnesses who traveled to be here, testify their own lived experience. We always appreciate that. We're going to file item ten, which no, we aren't. That was pulled. I didn't cross it off this list.

We're going to item 13, AB 1484, Zbur. Assemblymember, please come forward and you can present whenever you're ready. Thank you. Okay.

Mr. Chair, Members, I'm proud to present AB 1484, a Bill that strengthens rights for temporary workers alongside our sponsors and cosponsors, SCIU, the California Labor Federation, and AFSME. Temporary workers are a vital contingency of our workforce and help employers meet short term staffing needs, such as absences, emergencies, and workload increases.

In recent years, cities and counties across the state have been using temporary workers to fill long term staffing needs, often rehiring them year after year. Cities and counties have grown increasingly reliant on temporary workers instead of creating permanent positions; This reliance has created an overlooked group of workers who often do not receive retirement, health insurance, disability, or union benefits. This inequity is amplified even further as temporary workers are disproportionately identified as women and people of color without college degrees.

AB 1484 addresses the inequities created by the misuse of temporary workers by allowing a union representing permanent workers to request that temporary workers performing similar work be included in the same bargaining unit. This Bill does not restrict a city or county's ability to hire temporary workers, nor does it give temporary workers permanent status. This Bill merely gives these employees the option to bargain alongside their permanent colleagues. With me today are Sandra Barreiro of SCIU California, sponsor of the Bill, and David Canham of SEIU Local 1021 to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you. Witnesses may come forward and you'll have a couple of minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is David Canham and I'm the Executive Director for SEIU Local 1021. In this role, I oversee contract negotiations for schools of public sectors jurisdictions in Northern California, including countless cities, special districts, school districts, and community college districts. I've observed a growing trend in the public sector of importing harmful employment practices from the worst employees in the private sectors. Today, I'm here to address one of those practices: the abuse of temporary worker status and to shed responsibility, to shed responsibility and cut costs and to keep workers silenced and in second class status.

A new generation of public sector workers, who are 70% women and 72% people of color, have been locked out of workplace fairness, job security, equal pay, and benefits. In some of our jurisdiction, as many as 40% of the workforce are temporary workers. When workers have no protection, no due process, they are effectively silenced.

A few years ago, when my union, SEIU Local 1021, ran a local campaign to shine a light on the plight of temporary workers in San Francisco, one of our vocal activists was a temporary worker who actually administered the exams for applicants trying to enter permanent status. After speaking out to the board and the media, he was simply told he was no longer needed. After 21 years of employment as a temporary worker, he had no recourse.

This year, one of our union's local activists from San Mateo County, after she spoke out on this Bill and for local change, was told she no longer had a job. Although SEIU Local 521, her union was able to negotiate her return to work, she was too afraid to come here today, fearing that she would be retaliated again, once again.

Temporary status silences workers. This is not an accident. Every worker deserves to be treated fairly and deserves a voice. I urge you to take the important step forward today of passing AB 1484 to protect workers and ensure basic fairness in public sector employment. Thank you, Chair and the committee.

Thank you for being here. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Assemblymembers Zbur, and I'll line myself with Mr. Canham's comments. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, I'll add that PERB already recognizes that temporary employees, including retired annuitants, share a community of interest with permanent employees. Temporary status alone does not constitute a separate community of interest.

And dividing workers based on status, in this case, temporary and permanent, is one of the oldest union busting techniques. We recognize the legitimate staffing needs for temporary employees, which is why this Bill doesn't make temporary employees permanent, nor does it prohibit their use. It simply creates more opportunities for temporary employees to be represented meaningfully. There are laws intended to prevent temporary employee misuse, but without accountability, employers are using temps in the same positions year after year while leaving vacancies unfilled.

The practice is bad for pension systems, it degrades the quality of public services, and it creates a two tiered system of employment where some workers can be paid less and denied job security, even though they're performing the same job for the same employer for years. The opponents are concerned that this Bill could reduce employer flexibility because treating workers as disposable is more convenient.

AB 1484 would create more opportunities for temporary workers to build bargaining power. It would also afford temporary workers minimal due process rights by providing them access to the grievance process after 30 days, but it specifically allows for unions and employers to waive this provision. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

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

Mr. Chair Member. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. A proud co-sponsor of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. In support.

Morning. Oh, afternoon. D'Artagnan Byrd AFSCME California, in support.

Pam Fair SEIU Local 721. In support.

Brandon Dawkins SEIU local 1021. In support.

Good afternoon. Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates and the California Employment Lawyers Association. In support.

Tiffany Mok on behalf of CFT. In support.

I actually need a mulligan. And proud co-sponsor ASCME California.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else? I'm sorry. Anyone in the room who is identified as an opposition witness at this time, please identify yourself. You'll have a couple minutes. Thank you. It looks like there's two, right?

Yes, there's two.

Okay, great. Thank you, sir.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California. First, I would like to acknowledge that we are not opposed to the underlining premise of the Bill that there should be a pathway to representation for temporary employees. Our concerns are around many of the procedural components of the Bill that will make implementation a challenge. We have submitted amendments to the committee author and sponsors to address several of our concerns with provisions within AB 1484 which have unintended consequences.

First, the definition of temporary employee is too broad and includes staffing agencies, retired annuitants, and paid interns. The Bill would inflexibly mandate that the temporary employees must be included within the same bargaining unit as permanent employees, regardless if there is a community of interest, and precludes local jurisdictions from creating a specific bargaining unit shared by all temporary employees with similar interests.

We have requested this process mirror our bargaining unit determination we use at the local level today. Perhaps most critically, AB 1484 provides temporary employees with rights in excess of those provided to permanent employees. The Bill proposes that temporary employees who have been employed for more than 30 calendar days shall be entitled to use any grievance procedure in the MoU to challenge any discipline without cause.

By contrast, nearly every public agency has a probationary period for permanent employees, often six to twelve months, during which the employee may be released without cause and without triggering a grievance. This probationary period is a critical part of the hiring process. We are requesting that the grievance process be negotiated at the local level within the MoU, which is consistent with how we do this currently for permanent employees.

Lastly, the Bill includes difficult and unworkable notification provisions that conflict with existing law for permanent employees. We have requested that five day notification within the Bill is modified to mirror existing law, which is 30 days. For these reasons, RCRC opposes AB 1484, but believe there is a pathway to address our concerns and allow temporary employees access to representation. And we look forward to working with the author and the sponsors moving forward. Thank you.

Ah, good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members of the committee. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, here respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 1484.

Healthcare districts are public healthcare providers, operating clinics, skilled nursing facilities, and 33 public hospitals. While we understand the intent of the Bill, we believe the implications on public health care providers will be detrimental to our ability to provide care. Hospitals utilize temporary employees to fill necessary staffing gaps and to continue to provide care.

We use a myriad of temporary workers, primarily through staffing agencies. Under AB 1484, we would be required to join any temporary employee to their relevant collective bargaining unit. While the sponsors may note that staffing agency employees are beyond the scope of the Bill under the theory of joint employment, this is incredibly uncertain.

If it is the intent not to include staffing agency employees in the Bill, this should be clarified within the language to prevent ambiguity and future litigation. Since hospitals simply pay staffing agencies who are responsible for delivering pay to workers, public hospitals have no way to comply with the provisions of the Bill. Private staffing agencies would be responsible for collecting union dues on employees that likely no longer even work for the facility which the CBA belongs to.

It is not likely the staffing agency would assist in the compliance of this, yet the liability falls on our public hospitals. Hospitals and other public healthcare providers are required to follow mandatory patient and staff ratios, most notably nurse:patient ratios.

When a nurse calls out sick or an entire unit goes on strike, we must find additional staff to fill these gaps. When we do not have the permanent workforce, we utilize temporary employees. If staffing agencies will no longer contract with us, or we are unable to hire due to the uncertainty in the law, patients will go without care.

If patients come to a hospital to receive care and we are unable to provide one of the eight mandatory services, we are now in violation of EMTALA, a federal regulation protecting patients' rights. We believe and understand the importance of representation amongst our employees and agree staffing agencies need to be addressed. However, that is well beyond the scope of AB 1484.

Without amendments to address our concern, public hospitals will struggle to provide care to California's communities. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote that we do look forward to continued work with the author and the sponsors. Thank you.

All right, that concludes the lead opposition witnesses, but we can take testimony from folks who want to express an opposed position at this time. Name, affiliation and position. Thank you.

Good morning. Lindsay Gullahorn with Capital Advocacy on behalf of San Bernardino County. Respectfully opposed.

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

Good morning. Kyra Ross, on behalf of the City of San Marcos, the town of Truckee, and the Marin County Council of Mayors and Council Members, all in opposition to the Bill.

Good morning. Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the cities of Palo Alto, Buena Park, Pleasanton and Fremont, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Izzy Swindler on behalf of Kern and Del Norte County Board of Supervisors, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hi. Alyssa Silhi, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Parks District and also the cities of Rancho Palos Verdes, Rancho Cucamonga, and Carlsbad in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties as well as the Urban Counties of California in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, opposed, but with great respect to the author and look forward to working together toward a resolution. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, Members. I'm Mike Robeson. I'm here on behalf of the American Staffing Association. If you can just indulge me for a second--

I can't indulge you other than name, affiliation--

The analysis points out that the staffing industry is neutral on the Bill and there is concern raised that--

you have to pick a side. We don't do that.

We don't believe it applies to the staffing industry. I think it's worthy of some discussion in the committee why the Bill doesn't apply to the staff--

I'm going to ask. You're out of order. If you want to be recognized by if one of these senators or myself wants to recognize you and ask you a question, you're welcome to say you're here and available for questions if somebody would want to ask.

Appreciate that. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. I can't change the rules 2 hours into a committee meeting without First Amendment violations and everything else. Had I acknowledged at the beginning of the meeting that we were going to hear people who were neutral lead witnesses, If there is such a thing, then that would be okay. But that wasn't the way the rules were set up for the hearing.

So we're going to proceed according to those rules. Thank you very much and we appreciate everyone's testimony here. We'll try to come back and acknowledge those that still need to be heard. We're going to go to the moderator now and ask the moderator to please check the line for opposition and support witnesses and queue those up if there are any. Thank you.

For those who wish to speak in support or opposition to this Bill, please press one, then zero, at this time. Press one, then zero. We're going to start with line 46. Your line is now open. Pardon me just a moment. Line 46, just a moment, please. Line 46, you can press one, then zero again. We're going to go to line 49.

Yes, Hello, Chair and Members. Faith Borges, representing the California Association of Code Enforcement Officers and the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities in respectful opposition.

Line 46.

Hi. My name is Payton Talbott. I'm calling from A1 Combat and I support AB 1136, the MMA pension Fund.

We'll now go on to line 48.

Hello. My name is Omar Khweiss. I'm the General Manager of the San Joaquin County Mosquito Vector Control District, with respectful opposition to Assembly Bill 1484. Thank you.

Line 45, your line is now open.

John E Pena with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Mr. Chair. There is no one else.

All right, thank you. Moderator, great job. We'll come back to the Members of this committee for any discussion, questions or concerns. Senator Laird?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I take some of the opposition witnesses pledge to continue to work very seriously, and I hope you do as well. And I take seriously, in particular the public hospital districts, and it even came up in just a previous item here, and we've been talking about working with them. It's come up in other bills. And that is really significant. They're on the edge.

And so if there is a genuine problem because some people aren't truly temporary or whatever it is, I just would like you to face into it, address it with them, because that's very important and I think that could govern the outcome of this Bill further on down the line. Do you want to respond now?

Yeah, I think some of this has to do with this whole issue with respect to temporary staffing, and we don't believe that the Bill applies to that. But I do recognize that we probably need to focus more on doing some more clarifications in the Bill. And with respect to the hospitals, to the extent that it isn't, we will focus more on that as we move forward.

I really appreciate both the things you said. Thank you.

Thank you.

Senator Durazo?

I'm sorry. The answer that you just gave, is it that temporary staffing agencies will not be covered? Is that what, right, did I hear that right?

If someone is an employee of this temporary staffing agency, then they would be an employee of the temporary staffing agency. If a staffing agency obviously is just sending people to an employer and they become a temporary employee of the employer at the local government level, it would apply to them. So I think the Bill is clear, but I think we will, given Senator Laird's and the questions about this, refocus on the issues of the staffing agencies and of the healthcare entities.

Thank you. First of all, let me just say I think that's a pretty easy clarification to make, the difference between a direct hire and somebody who's actually, as you just described, on the payroll of a staffing agency, which shouldn't be covered the way I read the Bill, but would certainly encourage you to clarify that so we don't end up with dozens of questions and concerns on the floor later on.

I want to give the so-called neutral witness an opportunity to speak on any clarification on this temporary staffing issue because I know that you do represent folks in that space and I'd like to hear from you.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Well, to Mr. Zbur's credit, he kind of said it already. So the temporary staffing industries are the employer record of the temporary employees that they hire. We don't think the Bill as written applies to us. We think it could be clarified better and we've suggested how it could be clarified. And so if, we're happy to work with everybody involved to do that. But thank you for Mr. Zabur, for actually making my statement.

Thank you. We appreciate your affirmation of the direction, again coming into this hearing today, the predisposition of the committee and the committee staff that did the analysis that this is a direct hire Bill. But to the extent that the author had any other intent, we'd want you to tell us that right now. What we heard today is that that's not your intent and you're going to try to put clarifying language in to make sure everybody in the world understands that. So we appreciate that.

It's not my intent and we had a nod from our Bill sponsors, SEIU, that it's not the intent. So I think we can clarify that. We'll work on clarifying that language even further. We've made some clarifications; I think it's pretty clear, but we'll work with folks from the staffing agencies and the hospitals to fine tune that.