Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Grayson, file item 11, AB 2301, win and file item 13, AB 2770. Committee on Public Employment and Retirement, AB 2798. Speaker Revis is being pulled by the author. We are limited to testimony for four minutes for substantive testimony in support and four minutes for testimony in opposition. All others who wish to speak must only state their name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill for Committee Members. We will take up add ons at the end of the hearing.

If you need to leave during the hearing and return, please make sure that you are at the dais or on the microphone and in view of camera for public view when casting your vote. The Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years so that everyone is crystal clear. Conduct that disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited.

To address any disruption conduct, I will direct them to stop and warn the individual that if they continue, they may be removed from participating in this hearing and may temporarily recess the hearing. Good morning, Committee Members. We need to establish a. Well, no, we haven't. We need to establish a quorum. Secretary, please call the world to establish a quorum.

McKinner. Here. McKinner. Present. Lackey. Here. Lackey. Present. Boner. Vince Vaughn. President Greg Hart. President Stephanie Nguyen. Luz Rivas.

So we have a quorum. Yes. So we will start from the beginning. Members, let's take up the consent calendar. First, is there any Committee Member who wishes to remove an item from the consent calendar hearing? None. Is there a motion and second, on the consent calendar? Call the roll, please.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. See no further business before the Committee. This adjourned.

I almost adjourned the whole meeting. You know. A little rusty. A little rusty. The consent calendar has passed. I know. So we're going to start with Zbur. We have it here. We're going to start with Assemblymember Zbur. That's okay. We need to laugh. Laughter's good. Assemblymember Zbur is here to present file item number eight, AB 2889. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members, I'm proud today to present AB 2889, a measure that makes resolving labor disputes more efficient, effective, and fair within the Los Angeles County and the City of Los Angeles. This Bill is sponsored by AFSCME and SEIU and AFSCME UAPD. The Public Employee Relations Board, otherwise known as PERB, currently has oversight jurisdiction over disputes between almost all public agency employers and employees. However, current law provides the city and the County of Los Angeles with a local alternative to PERB oversight.

The Los Angeles local alternatives have the power to investigate unfair practice charges, determine whether those charges are justified, and if so, prescribe appropriate remedies. The standards that apply that claim to apply in the City of Los Angeles give employers some unfair leverage that is not present in other parts of the state.

This means that unions that bargain with the city and the County of Los Angeles are the only public employee unions in the State of California that are not afforded the same extent of protections that other public employee unions obtain from PERB. A bit of history: in 2011, the Legislature enacted protections to prohibit union busting within the jurisdiction of PERB. That year, SB 857 prohibited PERB from awarding strike preparation expenses as damages from an unlawful strike.

Due to a drafting error, the employee relations entities and the City and County of Los Angeles were not expressly identified in that law, which means these protections may not apply to unions under their jurisdiction. Many of the activities workers routinely engage in during a contract campaign, such as membership rallies, wearing union buttons, or participating in a strike authorization vote, could be used to justify damages. However, I think we can all agree the right to collectively bargain is not meaningful if workers cannot engage in concerted activities.

This Bill is not only about aligning labor practices across the state, it is also about fairness for all public employee sector unions and employees in California. AB 2889 provides PERB with exclusive initial jurisdiction over requests for injunctive relief by both the city and County of Los Angeles, just as it already has for other public agencies. It also clarifies that the local employee relations entities in the City and County of Los Angeles do not have the authority to award damages resulting from a strike.

This ensures that local public unions in the City and County of Los Angeles have the same protections from union busting tactics that all other unions under PERB jurisdiction have enjoyed for a decade. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today I have Sandra Barreiro representing SEIU California and Janice O'Malley, representing AFSCME California, co sponsors of the Bill, to provide additional information and assist with questions.

Thank you, Assemblymember Zbur. Let's hear from the witnesses in support. Again, we're listening to testimony for four minutes total for primary witnesses in support.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley, legislative advocate with AFSCME California, and thank you, Assemblymember Zbur, for authoring this Bill. AFSCME California- we were the original sponsors of the Bill back 13 years ago, along with AFSCME UC Local 3299. And then it was authored by then Senator Ted Lieu, now Congressman Ted Lieu. And it was to protect every public employee in California from attacks on our right to strike and saving workers millions of dollars in fine, false and frivolous claims.

When AFSCME sponsored SB 857 in 2011, the assumption was that it would cover all public employees and those under the Myers-Milias-Brown Act. And the MMBA, as we call it, is the act that establishes collective bargaining rights for California's municipal, county and local special district employees.

You see, back in 2011, before a Court of Appeal decision established established PERB in the MMBA, it failed to identify ERCom and ERB, and therefore it's legally left unclear whether both these entities, employees in the City and County of LA, fall under the MMBA jurisdictions.

I'm not sure if there's a statute of limitations on calling a Bill a cleanup Bill, but when AFSCME sponsored SB 857, the law was created to protect all unions from union busting tactics, as the right to collectively bargain is impaired when workers are dissuaded under threat of exorbitant damages from engaging in concerted activities. The premise that an employer is entitled to strike preparation damages, including where no actual strike even occurred, directly interferes with the ability of workers to exercise their rights under the law.

Therefore, we ask your support for AB 2889 to afford the same strike protection rights to LA City and LA County employees as all other public sector employees currently enjoy. Thank you.

Good morning. Sandra Barreiro, SEIU California. We are co sponsors of this Bill. I want to thank Assemblymember Zbur for authoring and the Committee for bringing it forward. I won't call it a cleanup Bill, but I will call it a parity Bill. It simply applies the same procedures that apply to nearly every other public employer in the state, to LA City and LA County. The prohibition on PERB assessing strike damages also already applies to nearly every public employer.

It doesn't change the ERB or ERComs jurisdiction because they don't currently process initial requests for for injunctive relief. We can trust PERB to solve any disputes quickly and make sure that any potential for disruptions are limited. And I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name and organization only.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. Co-sponsor in support.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Louie Costa with the State Legislative Board of Smart Transportation division in support.

Thank you. Let's move to witnesses in opposition. Any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses would like to come up and give their name and organization in opposition? Hearing and seeing no opposition, let's bring it back to the Committee for questions or comments. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I just have a comment. As a representative of Los Angeles region, one of many, because LA has not officially weighed in on this and since it directly affects them, I'm going to lay off this measure today and reserve my right to change my vote when it comes to fall.

Thank you. Are there any more Committee Members like to make a statement? Mr. Hart moved the Bill. Assemblymember Nguyen? Second. Please take the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Zbur, would you like to close?

Thank you. I respectfully asked for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number eight, AB 2889. The motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] Put this Bill on call.

We hold the roll open. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Assemblymember Maienschein. Assemblymember Maienschein, you're here to present File Item number 9, AB 2971. This Bill also enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair. You may proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Classified school employees are the people who keep our schools running smoothly, from serving meals to cleaning classrooms. Unfortunately, many schools are facing staffage shortages which makes it harder to support students and maintain a healthy environment. And to make matters worse, there are no clear guidelines on how many staff members schools actually need. The COVID-19 pandemic has made these issues even more urgent. That's why I'm here to present AB 2971.

This Bill will make sure that community colleges and their employees are included in discussions about staffing levels, especially during emergencies like pandemics. AB 2971 will help us have better conversations about how many staff members schools need to keep students safe and supported. It's an important step towards creating a stronger and more resilient educational system. Thank you and I respectfully request and aye vote. And with me here to testify in support is Mitch Steiger from the California Federation of Teachers.

Good morning. You have four minutes. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair, Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to co-sponsor this Bill. Very straightforward Bill, just adds community colleges and community college workers to a process that was created last year, is currently being developed to make sure that we develop some sort of a reliable classified worker staffing ratio.

While I think it's safe to say that the needs for classified workers are different in community colleges, they are no less than they are in other types of institutions, because the students there are mostly adults. Hopefully they're not as destructive as K-12 students maybe, but the facilities may be bigger. There are more technical labs. The needs for administrative support and counseling could be just as great.

And the other thing that we think is very important to consider is that because the students are adults, there's no law that says you have to keep going to community college. And so most of them work. A lot of them have kids and other family responsibilities.

And if the building is not being maintained, if it's dirty, if it's not safe, if the administrative support isn't what it needs to be, that's one more thing pushing those students out of school and make it that much more likely that they won't achieve whatever it is they're trying to achieve in community college. So we think there's no good reason for community colleges and community college workers to be excluded from this process.

There is every reason to have them in there, and we urge your support for this measure.

Thank you. Is there any more witnesses in support? Please come to the mic and give your name and organization.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are processing our support position.

Matt Broad on behalf of CSEA in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME, California, here in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Any witnesses in opposition would like to come up and give their name and organization? Seeing no witnesses. I'd like to bring it back to the Members. Are there any questions or comments?

Move the Bill.

Second.

Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Respectfully request an aye vote.

We see the Bill was moved by Assemblymember Nguyen, second by Assemblymember Hart. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll Call]. That Bill has 4-1. We have sufficient votes. We'll put it on call.

Thank you. Assembly Member Fong, Assembly Member Fong, you're here to present file item number three, AB 2328. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair, and the motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Higher Education. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair Members. Assembly Bill 2328 establishes parity and disciplinary protections between classified employees of merit and non-merit school and community college districts. Non-merit employees are protected from disciplinary action for causes that arose before they became permanent employees or for causes that arose more than two years prior, unless the cause was concealed or not disclosed during hiring.

Merit employees, however, do not have those same protections, meaning they can be disciplined for causes that occurred at any point in their employment even before they became permanent employees. Causes or allegations of employee misconduct should be acted upon in a timely manner to address that conduct and to allow for a proper defense or appeal. Employees in merit and non-merit districts should not be subject to different standards and protections.

Assembly Bill 2328 would ensure that our classified workers, who are often the lowest wage earners in our schools and community colleges, have the same protections, whether they're in a merit or non-merit district. Here to testify and support is Cassie Mancini with the California School Employees Association.

Thank you. You have four minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Cassie Mancini, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified school employees across the state. We'd like to thank the author for his support of this Bill. CSEA is proud to sponsor AB 2328 a parity Bill which would extend the same basic disciplinary protections that already exist for classified employees working in non-merit districts to classified employees working in merit districts.

Current law already protects classified employees in non-merit districts from being disciplined for conduct that occurred while the employee was on probation or conduct that occurred more than two years ago. These are important and common-sense protections for school employees to ensure a fair disciplinary process.

After two years, memories fade and the evidence needed to disprove a charge is often lost to time, and disciplining someone for conduct that occurred while that person was on probation is counter to the very purpose of a probationary period, which is to evaluate employee performance during a set time period and either retain that employee or release them from probation based on that evaluation.

Current law, which has been on the books for nearly 50 years for non-merit employees, makes sense, and this Bill will ensure that it applies equally to all types of classified employees. And with permission, I'd like to read a brief statement on this Bill from Julie Glenjuco, a paraeducator at San Lorenzo Unified School District who couldn't be here today.

Please do.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm proud to support AB 2328 which will create stronger merit system districts. Especially now, employee retention is of the utmost importance and the termination or other discipline of essential classified school employees should only happen with valid cause in a timely and fair manner. The merit system affords opportunities to employees to improve and grow with the support of evaluation tools and timelines, but issues must be addressed immediately to ensure they are corrected. The same must be true for the disciplinary process.

AB 2328 will provide parity for all merit school district employees with their counterparts in non-merit districts. I urge you to vote for this Bill which will ensure that our students and our schools are staffed by the best possible classified school employees and districts committed to fairness, equity, security, and opportunity to succeed. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come up and give your name, organization and position.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I would like to bring it back to the Committee. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

With Miss Nguyen moving the Bill. Mister Hart. I mean, sorry, Mister Lackey seconding the Bill. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll call] This Bill has three votes. We'll put it on call.

Thank you. Next, Assemblymember Fong, you're here to present file item number four, AB 2931. This bill also enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair and the motion is due pass and refer to the Committee on Higher Education. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members. Assembly Bill 2931 exempts community college districts with merit systems from classifying part time students employed part time as student tutors in the district that they're enrolled in. Under current law, these districts must classify all staff unless exempted. While appropriate for most staff, this process is not necessary for part time students, which is why existing law exempts even full time students who are employed part time and part time students in a work study or work experience program.

However, not included in this list are part time students who wish to work part time as student tutors. Community college districts who employ personnel commissions are hesitant to hire part time students as tutors, depriving the majority of our students of this enriching opportunity that benefits our students and campuses. We know that more than 65% of all community college students are enrolled as part time students, and research has shown that tutoring increases student engagement and improves education outcomes for both the tutors and those being tutored.

By clarifying that part time students are exempt from classification, Assembly Bill 2931 helps more students participate in the enriching activity of peer tutoring. Here to testify in support is David Neben, on behalf of the Los Angeles Community College District.

Thank you. You have four minutes.

Good morning, Chair McKinnor, honorable members of the Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee. I am David Neben sharing testimony on behalf of Chancellor Francisco Rodriguez of the Los Angeles Community College District. The Los Angeles Community College District is a proud sponsor of AB 2931 and as Assemblymember Fong just mentioned in his opening statement, this bill addresses the critical issue of peer to peer tutoring at community colleges.

Currently, at community college merit districts, full time students are eligible to be hired as part time peer to peer tutors at their colleges without having to go through the personnel hiring commission. AB 2931 will treat part time students the same as their full time student counterparts and exempt them from this requirement, thus expanding the hiring pool of eligible part time, peer to peer student tutors.

Studies have shown that peer to peer tutoring is as effective as, if not better than, direct and indirect instructional time for students. More than 65% of the community college students are enrolled part time throughout the state. This bill would enable an estimated additional 200,000 part time students from the six merit districts to be eligible for employment as part time student tutors.

At the Los Angeles Community College District, we serve approximately 100,000 students this past academic year and over 72%, or 72,000, of those students were part time. Peer to peer tutoring benefits not only the student being tutored, but also the tutor by improving their understanding of the subject matter, building their leadership development and confidence level, and enabling them to work on campus versus requiring them to travel away from their college for employment. AB 2931 would significantly increase the learning power of all students enrolled at merit system community college districts. I thank you for your time and respectfully request an aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please come forward and give your name, organization and position.

Kristal Padilla with the Community College League of California, in support.

Is there any opposition to the bill? Any witnesses to opposition? Thank you. Seeing none, I'd like to bring it back to the Committee. Any comments? So who moved the bill? Nguyen moved the bill. Fong moved the bill. And who's second? Lackey second. Would you like to close?

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, Members. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please take the roll.

The motion is due pass and re-referred to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll call] This bill has five votes. Sufficient votes to get out. We'll hold the bill.

Thank you. Assembly Member Carrillo? Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo, you're here to present file item number 10, AB 3041. The first question is, do you accept the Committee's proposed amendments?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Thank you. This Bill enjoys an aye, excuse me an aye recommendation from the Chair. And the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Labor and Employment. You may proceed when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, good morning. First again, thank you. I'd like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Committee staff for working so diligently on this Bill for the past year or so. Since we two yeared it from last year, I'm proud to present 3041, a Bill that would establish a new career development apprenticeship program with an alternative examination and appointment process in state civil service.

This new apprenticeship model will provide a new method for merit-based hiring that increases access to state careers and brings broader candidate pools to the state's most persistently high vacancy rate classifications. The state currently has an apprenticeship program with civil service. However, the nontraditional apprenticeship programs are limited to current-state employees only. This apprenticeship program will be open to non-state employees as well as current employees looking to develop new skills and move into higher-paying classifications.

All apprentices under the new program will be represented employees and receive benefits. While they'll be provisional employees during the apprenticeship period, upon successful completion of the program, they will automatically become permanent, full-time state employees. Current state employees that join the apprenticeship program will have the same mandatory return rights that they have now.

This apprenticeship program will not change existing apprenticeship programs, but like all other apprenticeship programs, they will be required to be registered by the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and the Department of Industrial Relations and will involve a joint apprenticeship Committee with equal representation by labor in management. While this Bill authorizes new apprenticeship models, CalHR will work with the State Personnel Board to ensure that application processes for each apprenticeship is competitive and meets the merit principle, just like they do now for current classifications.

We're committed to working with our labor partners and our stakeholders on the successful implementation of this model. Apprenticeships provide life-changing opportunities for individuals and remove barriers of employment and advancement. I believe this Bill increases the state careers and brings broader candidate pools to state employment.

What we have known from previous years that there are more than 1,200 vacant positions across the State of California in various different departments and agencies, which does not allow the state to fully function and really give the benefits and resources to the people of California. We are looking for solutions on how do we bring more people into the state and be able to provide jobs, and at the end of the day, the benefits to the people of the state.

So with me is a representative from CalHR.

Thank you. You have four minutes.

Okay. No additional commentary. We can answer any additional questions from the.

Is there any witnesses of support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Committee Members have any comments? Assembly Member Lackey?

Yeah, I would just like to say that I'm thankful that apprenticeship programs are proven to be very, very powerful partners in the CTE or career technical education chain, and they lead to very, very meaningful careers to many people who would be facing other circumstances. So we're very, very thankful for this, this proposal. It's just a common-sense measure. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Assembly Member. I am sorry, we do have two witnesses in opposition. Three witnesses in opposition, please come up.

It looks like two witnesses. You have four minutes total to give your testimony.

Good afternoon or good morning. What time is it? It's morning. It's been a long couple days. Hi, my name is Omega Brewer-Gonzalez. I'm the Government Affairs Director for SEIU Local 1000. We represent 96,000 state workers throughout the State of California. We are cautious and cautiously optimistic, but at this time, our position is opposed unless amended.

I'm going to pass the microphone over to Ken Anyanwu from our Apprenticeship Department to give context as to the reasons.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Ken Anyanwu, Apprenticeship Coordinator with SEIU Local 1000. And so, for nearly a decade, Local 1000 has been a recognized leader within nontraditional apprenticeships and civil service apprenticeship development. We strongly support the expansion and development of apprenticeship, but as Omega stated, unless amended, we would be opposed.

AB 3041 effectively creates a temporary workforce wherein we do have the potential for folks to be required to complete a two-year probationary period and not have the ability to claim any portion of the job history thereof unless successfully completed. Further, you know, it does with these amendments, in a sense, undermine the proven workforce training model that apprenticeships have traditionally taken the form of.

Further, we're concerned about the sunset date of this Bill extending into 2032, provided that our Governor does have the goal of 500,000 apprentices to be registered by 2029. So we look forward to continuing collaborating with CalHR and finding some mutually agreeable language to pursue the expansion of apprenticeship. But as stated, we do have some material concerns that we hope to resolve before advancing further with this Bill.

Thank you. You have one minute.

I'm sorry, Assembly Member. If I could add also, we also want to just make it clear that CalHR. We are in conversations with CalHR as recent as yesterday evening, and so we, you know, there has been movement. I want to make sure that, you know, we are stating that for the record, and so we're hopeful that those things can be resolved by the next policy committee. But I just wanted to make sure that I clarified that as well.

30 seconds.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California. Also opposed, unless amended but we feel optimistic with conversations we've had with the author's office that our concerns will be addressed. Thank you.

Is there anyone else in opposition that would like to speak? We moved by Assembly Member Nguyen, second by Assembly Member Fong. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the year-long now conversation that we have had with our labor partners.

I think ultimately, we are all in agreement that the vacancies across the state need to be resolved in an effort to really provide the services and resources for the people of California. So I am hopeful that we are able to reach an agreement. At the end of the day, there is no position that any one of us would want to say that a state employee should not have access to a pension and to benefits and to healthcare.

But we do need an entry point to get people into jobs, and I think that's where we're all trying to land. And so this is a critical Bill on the effectiveness of government across the State of California, working with CalHR and our labor partners to really come to a resolution to help the people of the state. With that, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Assembly Member Carrillo, last year, we had an informational hearing regarding vacancies throughout the public sector, and this Bill could help deal with that for state civil service. But I have concerns that this Bill could be abused by the state to increase its resilience on temporary workers to perform permanent employee jobs. And I share the concerns of the opponents expressed here today. However, to move this along, to give the parties more time to try to work things out and work together. And I know you will.

I know how Assemblywoman Carrillo works on her bills, and so I know you guys will work this out. I will give it an aye vote and move it along. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended and re-refer to the Committee on Labor and Employment. [Roll call] This Bill has five votes. The sufficient votes to get it.

We'll put it on hold for this. Thank you. Okay. Assemblymember Low? Assemblymember Low, you're here to present file item number five, AB 2421. This Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair. You may present when ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2421 which makes communications between a public employee and the union representative confidential. With me today is Randy Perry with PORAC, and also Tim Talbot, legal counsel, PORAC. And respectfully ask for aye vote.

Thank you. You have four minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Thank you. I am Tim Talbot, and I am legal counsel to PORAC. PORAC is a co sponsor of AB 2421. The California Legislature has enacted a body of labor relations statutes that guarantee public employees of this state the right to form, join, and participate in the activities of labor unions for the purpose of representation on all matters of employer-employee relations.

These same state laws guarantee labor unions the right to represent their members in their employment relations with public agencies. If public sector labor unions are to function as guaranteed by state law, union members must be free to communicate with their union representatives about representational matters such as discipline, grievances, and contract negotiations, without undue interference from the public employers. Union members must be assured that what they tell their union representatives in confidence cannot be forced out of their representatives by the government employer or its agents.

Union members must know and be secure in feeling that their union representatives will not be transformed into unwilling agents of the employer. AB 2421 accomplishes these objectives and aligns with existing precedent of the California Public Employment Relations Board. As stated by PERB, it is beyond dispute that the employer's inquiries into discussions between employees and their union representatives have a tendency to chill the protected activities of both employees and representatives.

Allowing an employer to compel disclosure of substance of conversations between employees and their union representatives manifestly restrains employees in their willingness to candidly discuss matters with their chosen union representatives and inhibits union representatives in obtaining needed information. Purpose held that such coercive questioning by employers unlawfully interferes with the rights of union Members and public sector unions and constitute unfair labor practices.

In response to concerns raised by opponents of AB 2421, this Bill does not seek to create an evidentiary privilege like the attorney-client privilege or the doctor-patient privilege. The confidentiality predictions only prohibit public employers and those acting on their behalf from questioning union members and union representatives about confidential communications undertaken as part of the union's representation of a member. Persons other than the employer or its agents are not prohibited from asking questions about union communications unless protected by other laws.

This Bill also does not prevent public employers from questioning union representatives about what they personally observed so long as the employer does not expand the inquiry into confidential communications about union representational activities. Likewise, individual union members could not refuse to disclose co worker misconduct they witnessed in the workplace. For this reason, AB 2421 will not hamper employer or workplace investigations into allegations of discretionary discrimination, harassment, or workplace safety.

The employer and its agents remain free to question employees, including union representatives, about misconduct they witnessed in the workplace. Finally, only the authorized union representative and union members are protected by the Bill. Confidential communications between union members and union representatives are protected from disclosure, but represented employees can voluntarily waive the confidentiality of such communications if they choose to do so.

Given the limited nature of AB 2421, PORAC acknowledges that section one of the Bill imprecisely refers to establishing an evidentiary privilege and to superseding the American Airlines case. Section one can be amended to better clarify the intent. The Bill can also be amended to cover other California public sector labor relations statutes as appropriate, and we urge that you vote aye for this Bill.

Thank you. You have 1 minute.

Madam Chair and Members. Randy Perry, Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of the other co sponsors, California Association of Highway Patrol in support.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please give your name, organization and position.

Good morning. John Shaban, California Nurses Association in strong support. Thank you.

Matt Broad on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Coby Pizzotti, on behalf of California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in support.

Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association and the California Association of Professional Scientists in support. Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Matt Heady for Long Beach Police Officer Association and the California Fraternal Order of Police. We are in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation division, State Legislative Board in support.

Seth Bramble, speaking this morning on behalf of the California Teachers Association. We are processing our support position.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Thank you so much. You have four minutes total.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities today here in respectful opposition to AB 2421. I wanted to first thank the staff for the analysis and the author and sponsors for your comments addressing our opposition's concern with the Bill. However, our concerns are consistent with the issues raised in response to similar past legislation and that the Bill would restrict, in our opinion, the employer's ability to meet our legal obligation to conduct internal investigations into workplace safety, harassment, threats of violence, and other allegations.

If the employer is limited in its communications with employees, it'll make it much more difficult to create safer workplaces free from unlawful discrimination and harassment. In order to conduct proper investigations that uphold the public's trust, it is critical that a public employer have the ability to interview all potential parties and witnesses to ascertain the facts.

The Bill could interfere with investigations because the employee representative could potentially prevent an employer from compelling a comprehensive investigation by applying privilege over virtually any work related communication between themselves and the employee. This is especially problematic because the union representatives not only represent one worker, but the bargaining unit as a whole and could themselves be a part of the investigation, giving something similar to attorney-client privilege to two employees.

AB 2421 lacks the guardrails to prevent potential conflicts of interest that could arise during employee conflicts, and I want to raise a question that was raised in a previous version of the Bill of what a union agent's duty would be if a union agent learned that one represented employee suspected of harassing a second represented employee intended to continue to give unwanted attention to the second employee in a way that did not rise to a level of criminal conduct, how would the agent reconcile the privilege to the first employee with his or her duty to represent the second employee?

Finally, given the broad nature of the Bill, it could be right to prohibit employees from communicating with employees about anything from day to day activities to matters that are important for government operations. Employers may not even know they are violating the Bill by communicating with staff because only the employee or their representative could know what was made in confidence and for those reasons where we're respectfully opposed. But look forward to working with the author and sponsor.

Thank you. You have a minute.

Thank you. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. While our members are nearly all private companies, we are really here today because of the prior legislation that has been considered by the Legislature that would have applied to both public and private entities and the precedent that a Bill like this was set for the private sector as well.

Again, also want to echo the thank-you to the authors, staff and the sponsors for meeting with us several times to talk about this, and very glad to hear that there is a willingness to amend section one of the Bill. A lot of our concerns really had come from the reference to American Airlines in that case and the use of such a privilege in civil litigation, including where the union steward had been a precipitate witness to discriminatory and illegal behavior.

We do have some outstanding concerns, however. For example, we share our colleagues' concerns about the ability to conduct investigations in the workplace. We as employer do have legal duties to investigate those situations when we become aware that they have occurred. We do also echo some of the analysis about the clarity needed in the Bill, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please come forward and give your name, organization and position.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean with the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California and Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in opposition, and also for my colleague, the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California, respectfully opposed.

Seeing no more witnesses. I'd like to bring it back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? No one. No comments. The Bill was moved by Assemblymember Hart, second by Assemblymember Nguyen. Secretary, please call the roll. I'm sorry, Assemblymember Low, would you like to close?

I just want to acknowledge opposition and look forward to continued conversation and addressing some of these outstanding concerns. Respectfully ask the Committee for consideration and aye vote. Thank you.

The motion is do passed and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] That Bill has three votes. We'll put it on call.

Thank you. Assemblymember Nguyen. I'll be handing the gavel off to my vice chair, Assemblymember Lackey, as I present my Bill.

Assemblymember McKinnor, you're here to present file item number 12, which is AB 1997. And as expected, I think it does enjoy an aye recommendation from you. Anyways, it is a due pass to refer to Committee on Appropriations and you may proceed.

Yes, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. AB 1997 simplifies CalSTRS reporting requirements for school districts across the state to reduce reporting errors, address auditing findings, update benefit changes, and correct overpayments that may occur at CalSTRS.

The bill simplifies reporting requirements regarding credibility compensation, credibility service towards addressing challenges and accomplishes this by defining annualized pay rate and redefining what credibility services mean, requiring transparency regarding annual pay rates and salary, clarifying the inclusion of supplemental pay for credibility services, creating one definition for credibility compensation and consolidating the compensation into three pay types, reducing administrative complexity and burdens for CalSTRS and CalSTRS employees. Jocelyn Martinez Wade, Director of Governmental Relations at the California State Teachers Retirement System, and Derick Lennox, Senior Director of Governmental Relations and Legal Affairs at the California County Superintendent Association are here to testify in support of this bill today. Thank you.

You may proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee. Joycelyn Martinez-Wade with the California State Teachers Retirement System, sponsors of AB 1997. I want to take this opportunity to thank the Chair for authoring this important bill. And next, I really want to take the opportunity to thank our member and employer partners for working with us for well over a year to craft this legislation to simplify our very complex statues relating to credible compensation and credible service.

We see issues, as the author, covered with reporting errors and this will fix the foundational problem that leads to audit findings, benefit adjustments and overpayments for our members. Again, this bill solves the problem by simplifying the statutes that we have. The Chair covered the details, I think. So again, just to express the gratitude. Happy to answer any questions and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Derick Lennox, on behalf of the 58 county superintendents of schools. Like Joycelyn, I would like to credit the author and CalSTRS in particular for introducing and sponsoring this measure. Though the provisions of the measure are quite complex and technical, they are the result of deep inquiry over the past year, as CalSTRS mentioned, between retiree organizations, employers and the system. So big thanks there.

The only thing I'll note is that county superintendents sort of have a front row seat to how the reporting system works from the employer side, and it is the employer reporting that leads to either correct reporting or inadvertent errors along the way. So we get to see what's working well and what's not, and the changes that are occurring in AB 1997 are going to address those root cause issues where we do have system complexity and ambiguity.

So this is a really important measure, and I just want to acknowledge that it follows up on an important bill from two years ago, AB 1667, which addressed the timely, accurate and consistent reporting advice that comes from CalSTRS, as well as really importantly, the relief that's provided to retired members when errors do occur, because it impacts them very directly. So now we move on to the deeper inquiry of root cause analysis, and we're so pleased to support the bill as a result. Thank you.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Excuse me, do we have any other witnesses that would like to express their support? Please come forward.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools. Thank you to the author and the sponsor, in strong support.

Kathy Kinley, Chair of the Governmental Relations Committee, California Retired Teachers Association. We are in support.

Thank you on behalf of California Retired Teachers Association, the large organization. We're very appreciative of the bill moving forward and would appreciate your support.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. Pleased to be in support of this very important measure.

Anna Mathews with the Faculty Association of the California Community Colleges, in strong support of this measure. Thank you.

Good morning. Martha Zaragoza-Diaz, representing the Delta Kappa Gamma California, a statewide women's educators organization, in strong support.

Seth Bramble here on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we are processing our support position.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

All right. Now let's move to witnesses in opposition. Okay. Seeing none. Anybody in the room like to express their opposition? Okay, I see none. Bring it back to the Committee. Are there any comments, questions? Okay, we have a motion and a second. It's up to you to close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Madam Secretary, if we could call.

The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

[Roll call] This Bill has five votes. We'll put it on call for add-ons.

I just wanted to add that it's kind of unusual, as a former school board member to see employers and employee groups all in agreement. It's very refreshing. So congratulations.

AB 1941, item number one. Item number six. AB 2538.

Thank you. While we're waiting, we will take up the consent calendar for add-ons. Madam Secretary.

Item number 11, AB 2301; Item number 13, AB 2770. The current vote is 4-0 with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]. That Bill, that vote is 5-0. We'll put it on call.

Thank you.

Assemblymember McCarty, you're here to present. File Item number 2, AB 2088. The Bill enjoys an aye recommendation from the Chair. And the motion is do pass and refer to the Committee on Higher Education. You may proceed when ready.

So we have a motion a second.

Motion to second, so I shouldn't go with my 30-minute presentation? Okay, good. Thank you. This is a bill we may be familiar with. We're working with the administration to try to clean up some of the issues related to classified employees essentially giving them a right to apply for a job, giving them the first chance.

So, the hypothetical you have somebody who's a bus driver for a school district, they're working part-time ish hours, and there's an opening in the cafeteria for lunchtime.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair, Matt Broad here, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, proud to co sponsor this Bill.

So why shouldn't they get the first crack at this job? All things being equal, this wouldn't guarantee them the job. This would just give them the first crack at applying for these positions. With me today are CSEA and CFT. I'll let them explain the reasoning a little bit more and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. You guys have four minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Matt Broad here, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, proud to co-sponsor this bill.

Again, the reintroduction of AB 1699 from last year. I'll just very briefly speak about the status of amendments between last year's bill and this year's bill. We made it all the way to the Governor. Unfortunately, the administration sent the bill back with a veto with instruction to keep working with education employers and that's what we've done.

We made sure to meet with them over the past couple months and hear concerns about the mechanics of the bill and do our best to address those concerns without compromising the spirit of the bill.

And I think that's what we have today. And just to summarize, the sort of three big things we address is one, we're much more deferential to the collective bargaining process.

Districts and unions can negotiate alternative agreements at the same time when selecting between two internal candidates that can also be bargained, which was a concern last year.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, we're now requiring that employees must meet the job qualifications at the time of application as opposed to the start date. I know that was a big sticking point for some of the employer groups. We're committed to continue talking with them.

I'm not sure there's any silver bullet that's going to get them to be neutral or support the bill, although they have our commitment to always keep talking and with that, I just ask for your aye vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also proud to co-sponsor this bill and would just add to the presentation from the author and the previous witness that at heart we see this bill as really being about respect, that this is about the state sending a message to classified workers that their work is valuable and we understand that it's tough to be a bus driver who works 2 hours in the morning and 2 hours in the afternoon.

It's very difficult to keep people in these jobs, in large part because they often just don't get enough hours to make ends meet. They can often make more money by going to do something else, but they love the work. They love being able to be a part of the education system and contribute to it, and they like to stay there, but they often can't just because they can't get the hours.

And this bill is about us sending a message that we want them to stay there, that their years of service are valued, that their work is valued. And with this step in that direction, we can give them the hours that they need to make ends meet and stay on the job. And so with that, we would urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please come forward. And give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Janice Omalley with AFSCME, California, in support.

Seth Bramble with the California Teachers Association processing our support position.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. You have four minutes in total.

Good morning, Madam Chair Member. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully, in opposition to AB 2088, we definitely appreciate and recognize the efforts of the sponsor and author to come back to the version where we left off when it was enrolled and on the Governor's desk.

And we do recognize the changes. But regretfully, we still concur with the Governor's assessment that this will impact students and the services they receive. So we do remain in opposition.

I also want to say my thanks for the committee analysis that speaks about the 10 day waiting period. Not only do we think that is subject to interpretation of when external candidates could apply, but furthermore, it could have us miss out on opportunities to actually recruit in when we don't have an internal candidate to bring someone into the school education community and the employment community there.

We also appreciate the note that expanding the scope of bargaining and establishing a legislative standard for future bargaining to be modeled on AB 2088 could be considered an overreach and detrimental, again, to student services.

We've talked very broadly, I think, last year when this bill was moving through the process. So I want to again revisit some specific concerns that we do have with the way that AB 28 continues to model hiring practices.

So one example comes to special education, and the individualized education plans are considered to be the cornerstone of a quality education for a child with a disability. These IEPs often call for special assistance. So these are classified, classroom based positions that can support that child's individual needs.

The formal agreement between the school and the parent is very much a contract, and not adhering to that contract would put us in, would put us out of compliance.

So the point here is, waiting 10 days to find a special assistant would potentially put the district out of compliance and that child out of a classroom. Second, we've heard from districts that AB 2088 would negatively affect their DEI initiatives.

Proponents of the bill have shared that classified employees are some of the most diverse employees in our state, but that is a statewide statistic and does not speak to local school communities.

And finally, our schools that have created personnel commissions and follow the merit system to limit bias in preferential hiring. These districts have shared the model set forth in AB 28 would be counter to their efforts to remove bias and preferential hiring.

So for these reasons, we do oppose AB 2088. And my colleague from the Association of California Community College administrators would also like to express his opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. On behalf of 116 colleges and 73 districts, we have taken a position of oppose. Consistent with what you heard from my colleague, we are concerned about the changes that would make on collective bargaining and the impact it would have on our efforts to improve diversity, equity, inclusion. So, therefore, we must remain opposed to this bill.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Give your name, organization and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeff Bacher, representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Superintendent of Schools. And we respectfully oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Andrea Ball, on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education and the Central Valley Education Coalition, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Michelle Gil, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, in opposition.

Thank you. Scene. No more opposition. Bring it back to the Committee. Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, although I like the spirit of this proposal, I have two very strong concerns, and it has to do as outlined in the opposition. The special education concerns, they're pretty severe. And also, 10 business days is a long time.

And so those two factors are deal breakers for me at this point. So if you can amend those out or do whatever you need to do, then I may consider changing my vote. But at this point, I have to oppose.

Okay. Any other Members? Bring it back to the. Can I get a motion? Would you like to close?

Yeah. Thank you. Maybe I'll just address M.r Lackey's question, too. So we're willing to continue to engage with the opposition and folks concerned. You know, we think we did some already looking at the veto message and our introduction, and, you know, we'll take a look at the issue.

I think we have something we can talk to maybe about afterwards on special ed from our witnesses.

But I think that this is something that we can do and this will help kids and help people. The whole thing about diversity, I just want to address that. That's so nonsense. Because the bus drivers, you go to any school district, it's the most diverse employee group you see there, are the classified employees.

So the fact that we're not going to get more diversity by opening up to bus drivers to apply for the cafeteria job is ludicrous because they're all diverse in the first place.

So this is really going to make sure that people don't leave those jobs and go work at Mcdonald's and make $20 an hour. Literally, why would somebody keep a job when they work 2 hours, 3 hours in the morning and 2 hours, 3 hours in the afternoon?

It's super hard. And it's a common sense thing. It's like, oh, let's give them first crack at the job during the day when they can sweep the classrooms or serve lunches.

It's a logical thing that you would think you'd want to do. So we think there are some logistics issues that we're addressing. We thought we addressed them. We'll continue to engage with the opposition and thank you for the back and forth and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Can I just make a comment real quick?

Yeah, absolutely.

Thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing that up. And as you all know, I have a special needs daughter. And I will say she loves her teachers, but she loves loves more than anybody the janitor, the bus driver, those folks that are classified.

And I would like to think that if there was a shortage in her classroom, that the janitor, I mean, every morning when I drop her off, she looks, she waves, she calls for his name, and everybody knows her. But those were the employees that she loves the most, because they give her that nurturing, that special attention that she needs.

Thank you. We have a motion by Assemblymember Nguyen and a second by Assemblymember Hart. And I would just like to say thank you for this bill. And you brought this king's water bottle into a laker room. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll Call]. This bill has 3 to 2 votes we'll put it on call.

[Roll Call]

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Seeing no further business before the Committee, this hearing is adjourned. Thank you. It. It.