Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

[Roll Call]

Do we have a quorum? That's outstanding. Okay. I also would like to welcome our new Members here, Ms. Boerner and Sen. Member Hart and Luz Rivas. This is exciting. We have only one item on the agenda, so let's go ahead and get started, if you would, please.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. Thank you for the. zero, right, we did establish quorum. So today I'm proud to present AB 1693. This is my first time in the Committee too. I've never been before Perth, so it's fun for all of us to be here. I'm proud to present AB 1693, which eliminates our outdated requirement for college degree to access state jobs. It focuses on the needs of a position and mandates that a degree requirement be justified by the demands of the position itself. This will help with equity and access to good jobs here in California. With me today is Julia Pollock, chief economist at Ziprecruiter.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Lackey. Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit testimony in support of AB 1693. There are several compelling reasons to consider removing the bachelor's degree as a requirement for state jobs. The first is that the requirement is exclusionary, eliminating from consideration 64% of the state's working age population, including about two thirds of military veterans and older workers, many of whom have completed equivalent training and acquired valuable skills and experience.

The second reason is that the requirement is often irrelevant. The Burning Glass Institute has conducted extensive research on what it calls middle skill occupations, defined as positions requiring some education or training beyond high school but short of a college degree. That category applies to many state jobs, and the research has found that the skills demand for those jobs do not differ significantly between those jobs with and without degree requirements. The third is that the requirement is costly.

Requiring degrees for employment can place a financial burden on candidates that is later passed on to the state in the form of higher than necessary employee compensation costs. The fourth is that there are alternative gauges of candidate skill. Those include occupational licenses, online certificate programs, and skills assessments administered during the hiring process.

It is for these reasons that eight state governments, including Maryland, New Jersey and Pennsylvania, numerous local governments and many hundreds of major companies, including IBM, Dell and Bank of America, have already dropped degree requirements for most jobs. In a recent survey of employers conducted by my team at ZipRecruiter, a leading online employment marketplace, 72% of employers reported practicing skills based hiring prioritizing skills over degrees, and 45% reported having dropped degree requirements for some roles in just the past year.

So, to conclude, removing an exclusionary, irrelevant, costly and unnecessary barrier to entry could provide state agencies with an opportunity to alleviate staffing shortages and improve public service delivery, all while building a more diverse and inclusive workforce. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses that would like to express support for this measure? May come to the mic.

Sorry. Hi, good morning. Daniel Cheryl, legislative advocate on behalf of SEIU Local 1000, we'd like to express our support for this Bill, especially given the high vacancy rates that the departments where we represent workers experience. We feel this Bill is a good approach, common sense. We also. Sorry, is there like feedback? No, we're fine. Also, we just would like to express our thanks to the Committee and consultant for the analysis.

We definitely would like to continue in conversation with the author around ways that not only SCIU Local 1000, but other state worker unions can provide input onto how these requirements can be adjusted. And as the analysis pointed out, given the conversations and work we're doing with CALHR around opening apprentice positions to non state workers, we'd like to be especially mindful about which positions and how state agencies are approaching this possible adjustment in posting positions and requiring years of experience in place of college degrees. So thank you.

Thank you. Do you have anybody else who would like to express support for this measure? Okay, any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, we are not in opposition and we don't have an official position. I just wanted to first thank the author. Your office has been receptive to hear some very late concerns. The one kind of issue that gives us pause is that typically any sort of change to minimum qualifications is negotiated with the exclusive representative, the union, and through mutual agreement, the minimum qualifications can be changed. So that's the only issue that's giving us pauses.

We just want to make sure that we can preserve positions where they are on the salary schedule and that nothing will lead to deskilling. And again, thank you to your office for being receptive to some late questions. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California again, not in opposition, just didn't know where to figure out where I fit. But we did approach your office and thank you so much. And we know that we're going to have ongoing conversations. I think the way that the Bill is currently written, we're concerned that it makes it look as if these jobs that are open, that they might seem like it's kind of an anti college position.

And what we want to make sure is that, yes, there are alternative pathways to state and civil service, which is really important to address the high vacancy rate problems. And we also need to acknowledge that there are other life experiences or other experiences that can help provide the skills, knowledge and abilities for these different job classifications. So, again, would love to work with you in your office, and thank you so much for this.

Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to make any remarks either against or in support of this measure? Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee. Any questions, comments? We're very quiet. Give you a chance to close.

Thank you. Second thank you. I want to start by thanking Governor Newsom, who had an Executive order on this topic that requires that we revisit the question of skills based hiring when a job is reviewed. The question is, when does that happen? And does it happen right? There doesn't seem to be a system by which we're ensuring we're doing the work of opening up these jobs to the people who are most qualified to take them rather than those with degrees.

I want to thank those who brought concerns forward. My office is happy to continue to work for them. I think we all agree in concept that we want to see the people with the best skill set hired for these jobs, not people with an arbitrary degree that may or may not be relevant to the work ahead of them. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Okay, I think we have a motion and a second. I think we're prepared to call the question.

The motion is do passed and be referred to the Committee on appropriations. It's moved by Boerner, seconded by Rivas [Roll Call] We have five votes. We're going to place that Bill on call.

Thank you all.

It'll be placed on call. We'll hope to see our chair.

I think the motion may not have been to appropriations. It appears to be non fiscal. The motion to appropriations. Sorry about that. You're right. Okay. We stand. Corrected.

I think we're good.

Of course, you know better. That is always the case.

I'd like to open the roll for AB 1693 for absent Members. Please call.

Current motion is do pass and re referred to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is 5-0. [Roll Call] That bills out with seven to zero votes.

Meeting adjourned.