Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

All right. Welcome to Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. Sergeant, please call the absent Members. I have one announcement I would like to welcome and introduce our new consultant, Erin Hickey. Welcome her, it's her first meeting. Reminder for our witness policy. For each Bill, we will take two primary witnesses in support and two primary witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will get up to two minutes each for public comment. We ask that you state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

We obviously don't have a quorum, so we are going to go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee. All right, so we'll have Assemblymember Rodriguez, who is here, please come up and open with your Bill.

Madam Chair and Members, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1843, which would significantly improve and expand the mental and emotional support options available for our EMS workers and their private ambulance companies. With over 35 years working in the EMS field, I know firsthand the difficulties of being a first responder and encountering traumatic incidents daily. We are constantly exposed to death, severe injuries, and life-threatening conditions, all while working long, irregular hours. This combination of factors creates stressful home and work environments.

In 2018, voters approved Proposition 11, which provided private emergency ambulance employees up to 10 employer-paid mental health sessions through an employee assistance program, an EAP. However, these resources have been inadequate or difficult to access. For example, EMS workers cannot access providers who specialize in their first responder-related issues. As a result, these workers are often using their limited EAP sessions just to find the appropriate provider to serve their needs.

The American Psychological Association found that 15 to 20 sessions are needed for our first responders to begin recovering from diagnosed PTSD incurred on the job. Therefore, the current allocation of up to 10 mental health treatments per issue is insufficient. Additionally, private ambulance employees face challenges in scheduling appointments with providers in a timely manner. This Bill would require appointments to be scheduled within 48 hours upon request to ensure private ambulance employees receive timely care.

AB 141843 would also require peer to peer support services to be available for private ambulance employees. Peer to peer support services are a highly effective program in which trained colleagues offer emotional and social support to their peers.

Unfortunately, in a 2016 survey by the National Association for EMTs found that only 28% of agencies nationwide adopted peer-to-peer support programs. With AB 1843, our first responders will have the resources to support the need to address their mental health needs to recover so they can continue providing Californians with emergency care and service they deserve. AB 1843 will improve and expand the mental and emotional port options for our EMS workers in the private ambulance service.

With me to provide testimony are Jack Gandell, acting President and a regional national representative of the International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, and Lee Alameda, President of the Turlock Emergency and Medical Services Association, local of the United Steelworkers. Thank you.

Thank you. Before we have our witnesses, I would like to establish quorum secretary, please call the role.

[Roll Call] Quorum established.

Quorum is established. Thank you. Go ahead.

Hi, thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Jackie Andel and I have been an EMT in Los Angeles County for the last 16 years. Today I'm speaking on behalf of the International Association of EMTs and Paramedics, or IAP, and the over 3000 EMS professionals we represent across California.

The IAP would like to express our support of Assembly Bill 1843, a Bill that seeks to expand the employee assistance program, or EAP sessions, that are currently available to EMS professionals in the state. We believe that this Bill would provide critical treatment, advice and support to the men and women who put their lives on the line each day to provide health and safety to their communities. As you know, EMTs and paramedics are the first point of contact for a person in need of emergency resources.

EMS providers are on the front line to help Members of the community who are often experiencing some of the worst moments of their life. The various, often devastating situations in which first responders must respond to these calls for help often understandably takes a toll on their mental health. Like in the National Institute of Health reports that EMS personnel are 30% more likely to experience depression and anxiety than the average person.

AB 1843 proposes that these EAPs be more widely and immediately available to EMS providers with more enforced standards of care and accountability. This expansion and oversight could be vital in alleviating mental health crisis at the source and in turn improve workplace attendance and engagement, life satisfaction, and lost productive time across the board. Simply put, recognizing and addressing this need for expanded mental health support for EMS providers through AB 1843 can only stand to strengthen the overall health and safety of our state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Lee Alameda and I am the President of TEMSA USW Local 12911 in the Central Valley. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today on behalf of my local Members and our siblings of USW Local 1853 in Southern California. Every day our Members leave for work not knowing what type of situation will be encountered that day.

The one thing we do know is that the dedication and care we provide within multiple communities can mean the difference between life and death. As first responders, it is our privilege to serve our patients with the best care possible. Unfortunately, the care that may be needed by us is not given the same consideration nor commitment.

It is the reason I am here today to speak in support of AB 1843 to ensure that access and follow through to receive mental health care and effective EAP Program Administration responsibly is achieved for first responders without delay. AB 1843 provides a critical pathway to achieve these much-needed services. Currently, we have Members who have, after months of follow-up, still unable to get an appointment or receive any EAP assistance. Repeatedly they have been told by program facilitators there isn't enough available.

I'm sorry, there isn't anyone available to see them and to follow up monthly on their own. To no avail, It defeats the purpose of an EAP if the Mental Health Care needed isn't there for months on end or at all. As we perform our jobs that place us directly into volatile, dangerous situations, the P at TSD effects and impacts are very real. We need our EAP services immediately.

Responding to critical incidents is what we do each day, putting ourselves at risk without any thought other than saving lives. Today, we ask to support AB 1843 to ensure our Members have immediate access to what they need to potentially save their own lives when experiencing their most difficult challenges. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on behalf of the first responders who need this for their mental health and well-being.

Thank you to Assembly Member Rodriguez for authorizing this crucial Bill and thank you chair and Members for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Now we will move to additional witness in support of AB 1843. We ask that you just state your name, affiliation, and position on the Bill.

Hi, good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with Ask Me California, here in support. Thank you.

Hello. Catherine Viera, Houston, on behalf of United Still Workers District 12 and USW Local 1853 in strong support. Thank you.

Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. My mic on? Yeah. Good afternoon, I'm Sean Henschel, here on behalf of American Medical Response, California's largest provider of emergency ambulance services. AMR is respectfully opposed to AB 1843. As is currently written on the EAP section, problems of mental health and the inherent stress associated with EMs are not in dispute today. Regrettably, the EAP language proposed today does not solve the problem. This comes down to what is the purpose of the program.

EAP is intended to serve immediate and short-term issues and to triage referrals when appropriate, to specialize long-term care. Our data around current utilization of EAP is below 3%. Of the 3% of employees that use EAP services. The average utilization is four and a half visits, with just 10 employees out of 5000 using the full 10 sessions. The low visit utilization demonstrates that employees are being referred to long-term treatment before maxing out on their EAP sessions.

PTSD and other serious mental health issues do not simply go away after 20 visits. They can require years of long-term mental health treatment, correctly pointed out by the author, this long-term coverage is being provided under existing health insurance, as is required under Proposition 11. AMR did research regarding directly paying for up to 40 visits per year with long-term mental health provider, but that would actually identify the company as an insurer. Therefore, they settled on mental health coverage, education, increased EAP access.

Even public EMS employees are not required to have that level of coverage. The cost of increased EAP is not our concern. Instead, we take issue with spending more and getting little in return that addresses the actual problem. What we need is for health insurers to pay reasonable reimbursement rates to mental health professionals to ensure long term access. What we need is more mental health professionals that specialize in EMS issues.

As the actual name proponent of Prop 11 in 2018, I can personally share that the changes laid out in the Bill were not discussed, requested or even needed by our ASME workforce. To be clear, PTSD already is covered under the details of Proposition 11, and despite the claim by the author, our employees are required under the Proposition to have health insurance that provides coverage for psychotherapy care enclosed.

Again, AMR's opposition is not about a cost issue, but simply that if an increased benefit is going to be funded by the employer, it should actually help address the problem. AMR respectfully requests a no vote at this time and welcomes any dialogue from the author or this Committee.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition? Please just state your name and position on the Bill.

Madam Chair, Dominic Tamari here on behalf. Of the Ambulance Providers Medical Alliance, we endorse the words that Mr. Henschel just said and we are also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you I don't see any more witnesses in opposition. Are there any questions from our Members?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the colleague for bringing this forward, and I understand the opposition's concern, I do. But I also understand why this is necessary. My colleague, who was in the sheriff's Department for almost 30 years, mental health is something that we've talked a lot about in this building in the last few years, it's something we're shining a light on. It's something that we need to address.

There was a man that I served with who, a few years older than I am, drank himself to death, didn't have anybody to talk to. When I was a firefighter, I personally hosted more than once engine companies at my house with a chaplain coming in because guys just needed to talk. Right? And I'm not saying that the firefighters are always the smartest and the brightest on these issues. Right. We're usually just tough and just want to deal with it.

And we haven't done a great job of letting them know what resources are available to them and really encouraging to do that. So I appreciate this Bill. I also think, though, from an agency perspective, from an industry perspective, we need to do a better job of really making sure our men and women understand that these resources are available to them. And quite frankly, they need to go

Because, City of Modesto, I don't know if I have the numbers exactly right, but they're running about five times as many calls with 1972 staffing levels. Right? That takes a toll on people, and you can't expect them to go to work every day and not break at some point. So I appreciate this Bill and I absolutely supporting it today. But I also understand the concerns of the opposition because we have not done a good job of utilizing the resources that are already out there.

I think we need to put some emphasis on that as well. Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other questions from Members. Thank you for that. You may close.

Thank you with that, Madam Chair. And I want to thank my colleague for those remarks. Obviously, it's something dear to me as well. It's been in the field for over 30 years. And the more services we give to our employees, the better, especially during these times of difficulty and challenging, as you related to. So with that, Madam Chair requestfully asked for an aye vote. Thank you.

We have a first, need a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to appropriations. [Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

While we wait on another author, I would like to take a motion on the consent file. We have a first and second secretary, please call the roll.

Motion on AB 1832 and AB 1888 is do pass consent to Public Safety. Motion on AB 1890 is do pass consent to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Calendar consent calendar is out. All right, since our other presenters are not here by I am, I'm going to go ahead and present my bill. Member Flora, please chair the meeting.

Thank you. Madam Chair, you'll be presenting ACA 14.

Thank you. Neither the Governor nor the Legislature have the authority to ensure basic labor standards apply to the University of California due to 150 year old outdated provision of the state constitution. Article 9, Section 9 of the state constitution was adopted nearly 150 years ago before basic labor standards were in place.

As a result, UC has repeatedly prevailed in court and excluding hundreds of thousands of Californians who work for UC from basic state labor standards that apply to all other California employees in 2021, UC prevailed in court in their assertion that they are exempt from the minimum wage. In the same year, UC prevailed in court on being exempt from the Equal Pay Act.

Basic state labor standards such as equal pay for women, the minimum wage, overtime pay meal, and rest breaks, sick leave, prevailing wages, and restrictions on outsourcing of jobs should cover all Californians. ACA 14 provides California voters the opportunity to amend Article 9, Section 9 of the state constitution to ensure basic labor standards apply to UC just as they apply to other employers in the state. I am joining this effort to move ACA 14 because California voters deserve the opportunity to decide on parity and consistency.

I want to conclude by repeating what ACA is not. Nothing in the ACA impairs UC's ability to continue contracting out for services, including for an emergency of any kind. The ACA does not impact academic freedom or the scope is basic labor standards. That's what the scope of the Bill of ACA is. The ACA doesn't add rights for UC workers that don't already exist in the code for all other workers in the State of California.

I have both co sponsors here to testify and support Michael Avant, President of AFSCME Local 3299, and Sarah Flocks with the California Federation of Labor. You have two minutes.

All right. Good afternoon. Michael Avant with AFSCME 3299 represents service workers at the University of California and in support of ACA 14. Article 9, Section 9 of the state constitution was adopted nearly 150 years ago before basic labor standards were in place. Equal pay for women, minimum wage, overtime pay, meal and rest breaks, sick leave and pavilion wage, and restrictions on outsourcing of jobs.

This outdated provision of the state constitution has allowed UC to repeatedly prevail in court and keep 250,000 Californians excluded from basic standard labor standards. ACA 14 is about consistency and parity. No other workers in California are forced to bargain for basic labor standards. No other employee, big or small, public or private, is granted wholesale immunity for those basic standards. California voters have kept our state's constitution as a living document. We have amended it over 500 times.

We are grateful for the Assembly leadership from both parties and look forward to the ongoing support. Again, we ask for your vote to give California voters the opportunity to update the provision of these state constitutions without making any change in protecting academic freedom. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please.

Mr. Chair, Members, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. I don't have much to add to my predecessors, but the University of California is one of the best University systems in the country, and yet they want to be exempt from the basic labor standards that cover every other worker in the State of California. And the author went through these, minimum wage, overtime, health, and safety things that other workers in the state protections, minimum protections that they enjoy.

And so we just ask for your support for this Bill to let the voters decide. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of ACA 14? Name and organization, please.

Afternoon, Chair and Members, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California here in very strong support. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

John Chavan, California Nurses Association, in strong support.

Thank you so much. All right, anyone in opposition to ACA 14, come on up, and you'll have two witnesses for two minutes apiece.

Ready.

Ready when you are.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair Ortega and Members of the Committee. My name is Catherine Newman. I'm the Provost and Executive Vice President of Academic Affairs of the University of California. And on behalf of Michael Drake, I'm here in opposition to ACA 14. Here's the main message. ACA 14 is unnecessary, and if it is passed, it will significantly impede the University's ability to function as an educational, research and healthcare institution.

With rare exceptions, UC already meets and often exceeds the labor standards required by state law, including those mentioned in the Bill. Our workers are protected by state statutes, by collective bargaining agreements, and UC's own extensive employee policies. UC strives to be an exemplary employer and a reliable partner with our valued labor unions and our employees. And that's not just talk. When many firms cut workers during the pandemic, UC protected thousands of employees.

We are especially grateful for the tremendous sacrifices made by our healthcare professionals and support staff during that time and thereafter. The issues ACA 14 seeks to resolve are addressed at the bargaining table and even through bills, and that's where the discussion should remain, in our view. We do not need the ballot box to be true to our mission and our responsibilities. We are already attending to both.

For example, UC employees are covered by legislation specifying labor protections, including timely payment of wages, contracting for services, meal and rest breaks. These are all items mentioned in ACA 14, and none of them require a constitutional amendment. What is the harm of adding ACA 14? Plenty. It would undermine our entire enterprise. That's because ACA 14 would treat the University of California differently from every other higher education entity in the state, both public and private.

We would be held to one set of labor and employment laws, while other California universities receive accommodations that allow them to pursue their necessary functions. In fact, the state expressly excludes the CSU system from many of the same requirements that ACA 14 would impose.

Ask you to finish up your thought. Thank you. You can finish your thought.

Okay. Finally, ACA 14 does in fact risk at the academic autonomy of the University.

Thank you so much.

If you want it to remain the excellent University you've heard about, you will vote no on ECA 14.

Thank you so much. Next witness, please.

Thanks. Good afternoon. Chair Ortega, Dhair Flora, and other Members. I'm Suresh Gunasekaran. I'm the President and CEO of UCSF Health, one of the six academic health centers in the UC system. UCSF and the other UC medical centers treat patients from every corner of California for their complex healthcare needs. They arrive daily, weekly, and monthly to our medical centers. ACA 14 would compromise our ability to care for those patients. This includes patients that come from affiliate hospitals.

Of all of our medical centers in every community, including your constituents, UCSF Health has 17,000 employees who enable world class care to occur. We pay competitive wages and offer robust benefits to recruit and retain our healthcare workers. We adhere to the region's policy and only contract out when necessary. However, sometimes we need, we must contract out in situations of emergencies caused by both understaffing, given really high patient loads, or critical equipment needs.

For example, UCSF, just in the last year, has in our children's hospital, experienced a huge surge in patients that could not have been foreseen because of COVID and RSV. We had to staff up to take care of those patients. ACA 14 would require UCSF and other UC health systems to follow onerous state contracting rules and processes which are not designed for operating hospitals. Other public and private hospitals in the State of California don't have those restrictions.

When we have broken equipment, when we have patient surges, we need additional staff. Otherwise, the staff that are there on site are not supported. They're unable to meet their mission. So it's critical that just like every other hospital in California, we have the ability to move nimbly to put our patients first and meet our mission. ACA 14 will harm patient care at UCSF and other UC medical centers. If we can't staff our beds and maintain critical equipment, we will be forced to delay care.

This will harm patients. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no on ACA 14.

Thank you so much. Anyone else in opposition to ACA 14, name and organization, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. Sorry about that. Good afternoon, Chair Members of the Committee. Rony Berdugo here on behalf of the California Hospital Association, in respectful opposition to ACA 14. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. Janet Lopez, representing UCLA and UC Merced, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Amiee Alden, representing UCSF Chancellor Sam Hoggood and UC Irvine in opposition.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Christopher McCauley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Lorraine Cabello, on behalf of UC Davis and its chancellor and UC Santa Cruz in opposition.

Hi. Good afternoon. Miguel Martinez with UC Berkeley Chancellor Carol Christ and UC Santa Barbara Chancellor Henry Yang, in opposition of ACA 14.

Good afternoon. Angela Gilliard with the University of California Health System in opposition. Representing the other UC health systems, UC Davis, UC Irvine, UC San Diego, and UCLA in opposition respectfully.

Good afternoon. Jack Yanis asked to register opposition on behalf of the Orange County Business Council. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, Members. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, also in opposition.

Hi. Kaitlin Chell. On behalf of UC San Diego, UC San Diego Health and UC Riverside, we oppose.

Max Perry, on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. Apologies, our letter didn't make it in time for the deadline, but also opposed.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from the Committee, Mr. Lee?

I want to thank our Chair, Assemblyman Liz Ortega, for bringing this forward and inconsistent with my support for all our measures to make sure that the UCs are following our state labor regulations, labor laws. I would like to ask to be a co-author at it if possible, and I am happy to support the Bill, and I'll move the Bill as well. Thank you.

Thank you very much, Mr. Ward.

Thank you. Also, I want to thank you for bringing this forward, I do think, first of all, to our employees of the UC that we appreciate the work that they do day in, day out to be able to provide the critical services at our hospitals and at these University facilities. It's hard work. They're underpaid, and we all do our part to try to make sure that we're meeting the moment to be able to support them.

But of course, we, as the Legislature, are only able to do that with other higher education segments. There's, I think, an important reason why the UC has been carved out and is protected separately under the constitution, which is why we are putting forward a question to the voters to be able to let them decide whether or not the same labor standards should apply. In the comment that we're treating different segments differently or there's going to be one set of labor laws versus other systems.

I think, again, because we have the power, and we are very thoughtful about lifting up many of those standards for other workers, but we don't have that power. We can never have the opportunity to be able to afford that to some employees here that are employed by the UC because of this sort of bifurcation of authority. So for that reason, I think that it's important, just on an equity sake, that we're having some parity, maybe between the systems. That's how I view it.

And I know this is different than the measure that this Committee heard last year, which we also supported and moved forward out of the Assembly. Coming into the Senate, they took a lot of amendments, and I think what's coming back here today is now different than what we saw in the Labor Committee last year.

Madam author, could you possibly maybe elucidate where things are as far as ACA 14 that you see as improvements that were really necessary to be able to bring those in on introduction, or how much of those were either concessions or changes that the Senate had induced that we need to have some closer study on?

I'm going to ask. She's here. Liz Pearlman, to answer that question from AFSCME 3299.

Hi. Good afternoon. So the Senate actually rejected ACA 6, and ACA 14 is the exact same as ACA 6.

It was amended when it got to the Senate, right?

Yes. And this reflects those amendments.

And this reflects those amendments. Okay. So the amendments that we did not consider, the language, the improvements or otherwise, the changes that the Assembly did not consider, what are those now incorporating into this measure?

What was incorporated into the Senate is what's incorporated into this measure today.

Which is?

So there were just some technical amendments. I think I would just have to. But there wasn't anything substantive to the difference between ACA 6 and ACA 14.

Okay.

But there are other suggested amendments that weren't incorporated.

Would anybody from opposition, like to speak to kind of the evolution of this Bill.

Hold on one second. We'll turn your mic on, sir.

Yeah, actually, just to, sorry. Can I provide clarity?

Please.

There was an amendment that was to provide clarity that this only applied to public sector codes, and that was the amendment that was taken.

Okay, thank you.

Mr. Ward, would you like to hear from the opposition?

Of course.

I was just going to reiterate the same thing. As this Bill passed out of Assembly Labor Committee last year, the requirements that would apply to the University would make it applicable to same labor code sections that apply to public or, sorry, private employees. On June 20 in the Assembly, the mill was amended to apply to public sector of state employees.

Okay, thank you. I think that, again, very much principally support what our chair and the author is trying to do here to put a question before the voters. So there is parity for all employees, like employees in California. And I know that this is going to invoke, I think, a lot of important conversation at the subsequent steps that we have in front of us right now. So I'll look forward to monitoring this as it goes forward, but appreciate it, and we'll be supporting today. Thank you.

Thank you. I also want to add, just in closing, if that's okay, to the Chair.

Does anybody else have any questions? I mean, you're the chair, so you can say whatever you want, but any other questions?

I just need some clarification, because in my notes, we were talking about changes in patient counts. So I'm assuming like flu seasons influx, and maybe with wildfires and stuff like that, maybe the hospitals are inundated with patients. Could you help me better understand what you're talking about or what the concerns are with that?

Yes. Under this proposal, we'd have a pretty onerous process to be able to access staff, specialized staff, in a pinch quickly. We'd have to go through a review process for that contract to be done. Whereas today that decision is made locally at UCSF, understanding what's in our emergency room, and we'd be able to move quickly on that.

Actually, from what I understand, our state contracting outlaws do allow for contracting out in case of emergencies. So there's nothing in this ACA that would prevent the UC from being able to take emergency action.

I would say that the clarification that we need to make is that there's a difference between emergency and urgency. And what I would say is, in healthcare, significant urgency, in long wait times in an emergency room, significant urgency. If we have four MRIs in the emergency room, that go down to two. The definition of emergency versus urgency is critical to this discussion.

And what I would argue is that we're losing a lot of flexibility and latitude in that, because when we are healthcare institutions who are really putting our patients forward, we should be allowed to make that decision. And that's where I think this is really nebulous. It's hard to be prescriptive and that review process would be really difficult for us to navigate.

So who right now makes the definition of the emergency or the urgency? Does anybody?

Currently, there's five state public hospitals that live under this current state contracting codes. And those hospitals make those determination. Obviously, in the case of emergency, and they live within the current codes. These are the five state public hospitals and they make that determination on the spot. Absolutely. If there's an emergency and an urgency. Absolutely.

But I would say know to be clear, those five state hospitals don't resemble UCSF medical center in any way, shape, or form in terms of the complexity of patients that we see both in transfer and through our emergency room. So I would say that when you take a look at the objective metric of case mix index, which shows the acuity of the patients that are coming through, the UC system uniquely has the highest case mix index in the State of California.

Thank you. I think you want to say something, too. No?

Just that the Legislature will have the power to address any of the concerns that the UC has going forward, just as they have with other state contracting codes, with other institutions.

Okay, and just one other concern that my colleague brought up as far as wages go, fair and compensation minimum wage. Is there something not being done? Correct me for not knowing everything on this, but go ahead.

The University has prevailed in court when minimum wage cases have been brought against the University and they've claimed immunity from minimum wage laws, and they've prevailed. The courts have sided with them.

Okay, Sir, do you have a response to that?

Yes, I just want to say again on behalf of the University of California, we are and have been paying minimum wage for the last several years. In fact, for many years. Prior to the state's determination of the state minimum wage, a few years ago, the UC minimum wage was higher. It was $15 an hour.

Going back to 2017, as the state's minimum wage has kicked in, we have been meeting that wage each and every time it gets increased. In fact, our University policy now speaks to the requirement that we match that state minimum wage. So it may be the case that we have prevailed in court in the past. However, when it comes to whether or not we do pay minimum wage. We do across the board for several years.

The issue is one of enforcement. Essentially, if workers can't prevail in court, it doesn't matter if the University says that they intend to pay minimum wage. If they don't, how does the worker enforce it?

Thank you. I'm bringing it back to the chair.

Thank you very much. Any other questions from Alanis? Zbur?

So I want to thank the author for bringing this Bill. I'm strongly in support of it. I also represent UCLA as part of my district, and I strongly believe that the University of California system needs to be subject to labor laws and that it shouldn't be voluntary. You know, I think the question comes into place about whether or not they should be subject to the laws that are more appropriate for public service employees or those in the private sector.

I think the one set of issues that I'm hoping the author will continue to focus on know it's important, I think, that the UC system remain competitive with Stanford and University of California and others. And to the extent there are things that are more appropriate models that are in the private sector labor laws than in the public sector, I'm hoping that you'll at least look at those. I haven't gotten into the weeds on this.

I did meet with the University of California today, and they were concerned that some of the things would put them in a different position vis a vis Stanford and University of California, USC and some of those folks. And so my bottom line is I support the Bill. I think I thank you for bringing it, but I'm hoping that at least on some of these kinds of things, that you'll think about whether or not we're putting the UC systems, and that's not saying that they should be exempt.

What it's saying is, are the labor standards that are applicable to Stanford or University of Southern California more appropriate for some subsets of the things that they're doing?

Thank you very much. Any other questions from Alanis? Seeing none. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Yes. Just want to reiterate, the scope of the ACA is basic labor standards. Basic labor standards, especially as we just celebrated Women's History Month. I want to reiterate that what we're asking for is for the voters to be able to vote and affirm that they want equal pay for women, the minimum wage, overtime pay, sick leave, prevailing wages, at our premier institution in the State of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. We're going to need a second. Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is to be adopted and referred to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]. The measure is out.

That measure is out.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members; I am very happy to present AB 2135 to you today, which is a bill that helps the state enforce its labor laws. Wage theft affects tens of thousands of workers every year in nearly every field. For families living paycheck to paycheck, wage theft means that balancing budgets is impossible. Unfortunately, those same individuals often don't have the capacity to seek justice without additional support.

Bad actors also create a disadvantage for honest contractors living up to the high standards we hold in California for public works. Unfortunately, as you'll hear from Greg and Andres, who will speak after me, the current complaint process for public works is leaving workers out in the cold, and the statute of limitations is creating situations where not only are workers' complaints closed prematurely, but bad actors can continue to operate unabated.

It is the state's rule to ensure that all contractors meet our standards, and AB 2315. Sorry, 2135; we mixed around some numbers here. AB 2135 gives the Labor Commission the time necessary to ensure that we live up to this responsibility. And the bill basically does three simple things. It extends the statute of limitations on complaints submitted to the Labor Commission from 18 to 24 months.

It allows the Labor Commissioner to continue ongoing investigations beyond the statute of limitations for good cause and if people are working in earnest. And it prohibits an open investigation from being closed solely due to the statute of limitations. So I am joined by Greg Lewis, the business manager for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 761, and Andres Posada, who's Director of the Labor Management Compliance Council, to also speak on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Okay. Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Greg Lewis. I'm the business manager for Plumbers and Pipe Fitters Local 761, representing over 1000 Members in LA County. I came here today to ask you to stand with working families and vote yes on AB 2135. This bill is about enforcing prevailing wage laws, making sure that workers are getting paid what they earned, and holding bad contractors accountable.

One example of how the statute of limitations has impacted workers is a public works project in my hometown of Santa Clarita. It was a senior center. Prevailing wage violations were found on several contractors on this job, including not submitting the required forms, not hiring apprentices, incorrect journeymen to apprentice ratios, misclassifying workers, but most importantly, failure to pay prevailing wages.

Cases against these contractors were opened with the DLSE in 2020 and were under investigation until they reached the statute of limitations in 2023, and the cases were simply closed. So the people working on that job, getting dirty, digging ditches, installing pipe fire sprinklers, air conditioning, toilets, and everything else, were not appropriately paid for the work, and the contractors just got away with it. Unfortunately, this happens all too often, affecting union and nonunion workers alike.

With today's cost of living, the last thing we can accept is workers being ripped off. This is not a victimless crime. These are Californians struggling to keep a roof over their heads. When workers get ripped off, people lose their homes, their families break up, and we all pay a price for that. This is a common-sense bill that will give the DLSE more time to investigate the cases. Open cases won't close just to a time limit, and it'll help workers get the money they earned.

This will also help ensure that awarding agencies and taxpayers get what they paid for and hold bad contractors accountable. That's why I'm asking you to vote yes on AB 2135. Thank you.

Good job. Well, good afternoon, committee members. My name is Andres Posada. I'm the Executive Director of the Labor Management Compliance Council, or LMCC. We are a joint labor-management corporation committee that monitors compliance with the prevailing wage requirements applicable to public works projects. I've been doing the labor compliance work for over 15 years, and I've been in charge of this department for the last six. During this time, we've been cooperating and coordinating, and partnering with the Division of Labor Standards enforcement in two main ways.

First one, we're supporting their outreach efforts by co-hosting events that are free and open to the public in order to spread knowledge about the importance of the requirements and the duties and responsibilities for all the participants in public works projects. Now, the second way in which we have partnered with the state is by submitting complaints to the DLSE, the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement. My team conducts site visits and requests for payroll, and then we crunch the numbers.

We try to figure out if there's an issue, and when there's a problem, we forward a complaint to the state. Regrettably, the problem that compliance agencies like mine have been experiencing during the last five to six years is that many of the cases that are forwarded to the state in the form of complaints are being returned to us as having reached the statute of limitations.

At a personal level, I can tell you that my office since 2021 has received approximately 26, almost 27% of its cases has reached out the estate of limitations. And this is pretty bad news for the workers whose last line of defense is the state. And obviously, this is sending a bad message to unscrupulous contractors that are taking advantage of the workers and not to mention that people is losing faith on the state as the enforcer of labor laws.

So I'm here asking you to support and to pass 2135 as this bill will provide protections and fairness, and justice for employees.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support? Just state your name and position.

Good afternoon. Chair and Members, Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. Thank you. All in support.

Good afternoon. Vince Sugrue with Sheet Metal Workers Local Union number 104 in support.

Good afternoon. Elmer Lazarda with the California Labor Federation in support.

Good afternoon. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, Scott Governor here on behalf of the Construction Employers Association. We're the largest union signatory building contractors in the state here in respectful opposition. Certainly, it's in our best interest to ensure that workers are paid. The problem here is that the proponents haven't provided any evidence that a problem actually exists. There's no data in the analysis of the fact sheets, which shows this is a legitimate problem. They point to a single project.

But the interesting thing is we don't know when that complaint was filed with respect to when the project was completed. For example, one of the proponents suggested they go to work sites, and they file complaints right then and there, right on the spot. The 18 months doesn't apply in that scenario. The 18 months kicks in once a project is completed.

So if they file a complaint today on the annex, for example, DLSE doesn't have to resolve that complaint until, let's say, the project is done in 27, until mid-28. They get five years to resolve that assessment. So, I'm not sure where the disconnect is here. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of the law, but the 18 months isn't really applicable. And now we're creating an open-ended statute of limitations, which, from an employer standpoint, is a problem.

I guess what I would suggest is we're talking about workers living paycheck to paycheck. The question is, if they contend that DLSE isn't doing their job, why? I mean, I'm not sure it's accurate. We're waiting for data from DLSE. You should be speeding up the process, not slowing it down. Under this bill, these workers won't be paid for years after their completed work. So, if someone is paycheck to paycheck, they're already out of luck.

Madam Chair, Members of Committee, Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors, we too are here to oppose this bill today. Like the previous witness, we are concerned about what is the definition of the problem. We don't understand why it's taking so long. Our contractors lose in the marketplace when wage theft occurs. We are union contractors.

So we should be going the opposite direction, not giving them more time. For these reasons, we are opposed. Thank you

We pay our wages pursuant to our collective bargain agreements at above prevailing wage. And so we're as interested as anybody to go after those contractors that are not paying workers their proper rate. There's no daylight between us and the proponents on wage theft. The question is, what is this bill needed? It seems to be way too long for the workers to be getting their pay. And two, I just want to point out that the longer that we extend the tail of liability, it benefits larger contractors.

I represent contractors that are family-owned businesses all the way to the very large mega-corp contractors. And what we're seeing is a disturbing trend in California, where we're losing the smaller and medium-sized businesses because of all the different regulations and concerns, larger corps are much better to endure these longer tails of liability to the extent that we're putting deadlines out further on the horizon for people to get their money. And in some cases, it's indefinite.

If an investigation is ongoing, there is no limit to the 24 months. We're concerned. We're concerned about the economic diversity and competitiveness in the marketplace. Again, I represent very large contractors, but I also represent very small. Small and medium cannot handle and endure the longer tail of liability that this bill creates. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition?

Ashley Hoffman with the California Chamber of Commerce. In opposition. Align our comments with the witnesses. Thank you.

Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We support the eloquent comments from the other witnesses. We are in opposition.

Good afternoon. My name is Dave Wooley. I'm a small business owner and a former senior deputy with the California Labor Commissioner's Office responsible for enforcing these laws. And the two gentlemen in opposition framed it very well. It's the tail.

Just your name and position.

Have a nice day.

Thank you. Any other witnesses? Okay, questions from any of our members? Do we have a motion and a second? Assembly Member Craig?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. I want to thank the two gentlemen in support of the bill who are here and just say PLA agreements should be absolutely guaranteed and insured in the state of California. No doubt about that.

To the gentleman in opposition, you bring up some very valid points in terms of the way that the Labor Commissioner and the Labor Commission in general, how their timelines work and how they may not work to protect workers at the end of the day because of various different issues.

A couple of months ago, Cal Matters issued a report, and this might be helpful to you and to the author, that there is a huge backlog with regards to the timeline of when someone puts in a complaint or a claim to the Labor Commissioner and the time it takes for that claim to be even looked at or resolved.

I'm working on a policy that actually allows CalHR to be able to hire more individuals on the state side because every agency and every department is completely, they're not fully staffed. And so we have a huge backlog of claims of wage theft or PLA agreements not being verified, et cetera, et cetera.

So my suggestion to you would be potentially to speak to the chair of budgets of Foreign State Administration and see how the Labor Commissioner's most recent changes within the department can help your bill and ensure that workers have their claims verified while at the same time addressing the issue that the claim doesn't start until the end of the completion of the project.

So what we have here is like a disconnect of valid claims versus also the way that the department and the agency itself move those claims forward in a timely and efficient manner that helps the workers but also ensures that the companies are responsive and also have an opportunity to provide data.

I think at the end of the day, there's no disagreement here that PLA should be honored and that employees should be paid, and that companies should also have a reasonable time to be able to move forward on both sides. But this is also post-COVID, and so post-COVID, we are still not fully staffed, and there's still a lot of lags in the agencies and departments.

So I believe that your bill has really good intent, and I hope that the Labor Commissioner also has the staff that's available to fully help you while at the same time looking at their own guidelines to ensure that the policies that we're moving forward aren't in contradiction to the set of guidelines that they themselves have for the department.

If I may, I completely agree, and I think that short staffing is exactly one of the biggest issues that we're facing. The problem is the workers are punished because of that. And that is the problem. Right? So we don't want cases to be closed because DLSE is short-staffed, and they just couldn't get to it, and Greg can speak about the case specifically in my district, related to our senior center, but they had been responsive every time they were asked a question by DLSA. Responsive immediately.

Responsive immediately. And it would take months for DLSE to come back and ask another question. And then, at the end of the day, the case was closed because of the statute of limitations, not because they weren't responsive, not because they didn't do their responsibility, not because the workers didn't deserve a clear decision. And I think we all agree that we want decisions as quickly as possible. That certainly is a benefit for the workers, and that's what we want to have happen.

But if the people who submitted the complaint are working in earnest and moving the case forward, and the delays are happening on the DLSE side for good reasons sometimes, right, then there needs to be an ability to get to resolution for that worker and not just shut down the complaint because we reached a time limit. This is simply extending it an extra six months. Not unreasonable. Our intent is not to extend it into infinity and beyond.

And so we're happy to work with folks to make sure that that's not an unintended consequence of what the bill is working to do. But we simply want to make sure that there is resolution for workers in this process and they're not left out in the cold. And I would love for Andres and Greg to chime in to answer any of the other concerns that were raised.

Through the chair. Yeah, go ahead.

Through the chair. Just to address one comment that was mentioned. I just gave one specific case on one job. This happens all the time, and we monitor prevailing wage jobs. Most of them are not a project labor agreement job. They're just strictly prevailing wage jobs. And as soon as we find out, we send our apprentices to these jobs, and sometimes they'll give us reasons that just red flags go off, that things aren't, that the prevailing wage laws aren't being followed.

And we start a compliance case, and we turn it into the DLSE while the job is going on. We don't wait till the job's reached its completion date to file these complaints. So everything we're doing is within that timeline. And like Ms. Shiavo said, it's just the workers are paying the price for it.

Okay, so I would like to clarify here that my office has been sending cases with ample time to the DLSE and don't take me wrong. We cooperate with them. As I have mentioned in the past, we understand the issues and the problems that they are dealing with. But in the same way, we also understand that ultimately, workers are putting their hopes in their hands, and after a case reaches the statute of limitations, there's nothing else that can be done.

I continuously have conversations with the head of the labor compliance, I'm sorry, of the DLSE, Division of Labor Standards Enforcement for Southern California. And he has been telling me for quite a long time that they are going to improve in the way how they handle cases. But like I said before, in some cases, we have sent out our complaints to the state with ample time. We're not talking about weeks or months but years.

And then we are following with the DLSE, and we have been getting responses every single 23 months that we just ask for a question. And what they get from them is, "Oh, yeah, case in progress, case is under investigation," but then the case expires at the end of those two years, and then that is leaving those workers without any hope, any other research to go.

So what we would like to do is, obviously, as it was mentioned before, we don't want to extend these cases forever. That is not the intention whatsoever. We understand that there is the best interest, it's in the best interest to protect the workers.

So a prompt way to handle these cases is what we're looking for here, and to provide the DLSE with at least time to process these cases and do not let them expire, because ultimately, there's human lives that are being affected for these cases when these cases expire. Thank you.

Do you have another question?

Just a follow-up. I think what I'm hearing you say is that it's not just an issue of when you file a case with ample time and giving the department six extra months to complete it. But what I'm hearing is that there is a disconnect between the department actually achieving an end result within a certain amount of time.

So even if you were to extend it six months, is there something in your bill that says that they must be done with a completion of a case by a certain time so that even if those six months were to be granted and they still don't find it, you're going to have the same result. You're still going to have cases that are not completed or that the statute of limitation expires?

So is the issue here the extension of more time, or is the issue that the department, it's not doing its job accordingly on a timely?

We, yes, the bill says an investigation shall not be dismissed solely on the basis that the Labor Commission or their designee did not complete their review and assessment within the prescribed time. So, basically, just meeting the statute of limitations is not sufficient to close a case. And that's one of the main points of the bill. So in the experiences that we've had, and to say there's not a problem here.

In 25 or more percent of the cases that they're covering and working on on a regular basis, they did an assessment of over 400 bills and over 100 of them came back closed just because of the statute of limitations. I think short-staffing has a lot to do with it, right? People are not able to do the full investigation or get through completing the case.

And as Andre said, people are putting their livelihoods in our hands and trusting that we're going to see through an investigation and at least deliver a response. Even if the response is no, we don't find a violation here. There should be a conclusion to the case, and it's not just always coming up against a statute of limitations because they're short-staffed.

Any other Member questions? Okay, do we have a motion and a second for AB 2135? Secretary, please call the role.

The motion is do passed to Appropriations. [Roll Call] That measure passes.

The measure passes. Thank you. 11. So, our final item is AB 2011. Assembly Members Zbur will be presenting for Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Of course. Thank you. Madam Chair, Members: I'm proud today to present AB 1211, a bill that establishes the permanency of the small Employer Family Leave Mediation Program under the Civil Rights Department. This bill allows employees and small businesses to mediate their claims through a free-charge program. Due to concerns about costly litigation and small businesses' ability to uphold California Family Rights Act standards, the Legislature established the Small Employer Family Leave Mediation Pilot Program in Budget Bill AB 1033 in 2020.

As we know, small businesses support the foundation of California. They're integral parts of local economies. They create meaningful jobs and lasting impressions. The tough truth is that most small businesses cannot survive lawsuits due to the impacts of legal fees. This program has proven successful at mediating claims between small businesses and employees. Respectfully, the program has mediated 555 complaints and provided a total settlement amount of $688,250, all of which is paid to the respective complainants.

Secondly, this bill adds reproductive loss to the types of leave that the program applies to. Today, to speak in support, we have Ashley Hoffman with the California Chamber of Commerce and Annalee Augustine from the Family Business Association.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We really want to thank the legislature for implementing this program in 2020 to ensure that our very smallest businesses have an avenue to resolve any disputes that arise concerning leave. We have workshopped this bill. We've made some tweaks along the way to ensure-sorry- to improve its functionality. And we are very happy that in talking to the department, they do consider the program to be successful.

As was stated, more than half of the cases that they have mediated have resulted in settlement with all of the funds going to the workers. So we're very happy with the success of the program, and we think with costs of legal fees and illegal services on the rise, we think this no-charge program is a win-win for both sides. And we urge your support today to make this program permanent. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Annalee Augustine here on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, an organization dedicated to helping the 1.4 million family-owned businesses in California survive and thrive, and also deeply dedicated to the 7 million employees of family businesses in California. Thousands of family-owned businesses in the state have between five and 19 employees and would be eligible for this program. Many of those also do lack resources, such as time and significant amounts of money to litigate.

And for small businesses, one lawsuit can be detrimental. Family businesses deeply value flexibility and time off for the types of leave that would be eligible for this program, too. As you know, family businesses, it's really embedded in their structures to have this flexibility. Oftentimes, too, they'll think that they're in compliance with all of the laws, and they'll be acting in good faith and not realize that there might be some administrative matters that weren't handled correctly, and so the opportunity to mediate prior to litigation is extremely helpful. Studies have shown that family businesses promote women to executive management faster than other businesses and then also are less likely to lay off workers during tough economic times. So again, we're dedicated to helping those family businesses, many of them small businesses, that would be eligible for this. For those reasons, we're pleased to support the bill. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Madam Chair, Chris McKaley, on behalf of the LA Chamber of Commerce as well as the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, in support. Thank you.

Richard Markson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association, in strong support.

Good afternoon. Anthony Tannehill, California Special Districts Association, in support

Lawrence Gayden. On behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in support. Thank you.

The motion is do passed to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, any questions from our Members? Is there a motion? We have a motion in a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

That measures out.

On behalf of Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan. Thank you all.

Now we will open the roll for absent members.

AB 1832. The consent calendar. Ward. Aye. Zbur. Aye. AB 1843. Ward. Aye. Zbur. Aye.

Seeing no further business. We are adjourned.