Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. As you can see, many of our other Members are on their way or in other committees, so we're just going to go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee. One of our authors is already here and ready to go, so we'll go ahead and start with item number eight for today's hearing. I also want to announce that Assemblymember Kalra will be replacing Assemblymember Lee.

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 just state your name, affiliation and position. Assemblymember Luz Rivas, could you come up?

I know IATSE is here, they could help us. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. First, I would like to thank your Committee staff for working with my staff on this Bill. AB 2738 increases enforcement of existing labor laws in several ways. First, it makes small changes to a Bill from last year that granted local public prosecutors like city attorneys and county council, the authority to enforce state labor law.

Second, it allows local public prosecutors to also enforce the live event worker safety law authored by Assemblyman Ward by expanding their authority to that section of the Labor Code. Lastly, it increases the enforcement of the live event worker safety law by increasing the transparency of contract agreements between entertainment vendors and public venues to ensure that stage crews being hired are properly trained. Stage production workers who set up, operate, and tear down live events face serious workplace hazards.

They work with complex systems in all types of weather conditions. There's a history of accidents, injuries, and even fatalities of workers performing such work, often due to a lack of training or knowledge of best safety practices. The lack of safety training and enforcement is dangerous for workers and event attendees.

In 2022, AB 1775 set an industry-wide safety standard for staging and live events production by requiring entertainment vendors that produce events, such as concerts at state-owned or operated facilities to certify that all entertainment workers have adequate and appropriate safety training. However, AB 1775 put the onus on entertainment vendors to certify that workers met the safety requirements. The temporary nature of setting up live events like concerts make enforcement of the law challenging for statewide enforcement agencies that have thousands of workplaces to inspect.

AB 2738 strengthens the enforcement to protect stage production workers by holding public venues accountable and increasing transparency in contracts to verify that production companies are using trained workers. Additionally, it expands the existing authority of local public agencies to enforce the live event safety law in addition to other safe other labor laws.

Lastly, it makes a small change to AB 594 from last year that requires, rather than allows, a court to award reasonable attorney's fees to the public prosecutor if they win the case so that local public agencies are adequately funded for enforcement. Today I have our sponsor, Steve Lutge, Business Manager of IATSE International, and Sarah Flocks, representing California Labor Federation, as witnesses.

Good afternoon. My name is Steve Lutge and I'm an international representative of IATSE and a member of Local 16 stagehands in San Francisco. I'm here testifying for the California IATSE Council representing live event workers throughout the State of California. I would like to thank Assemblywoman Rivas for authoring this Bill.

Assembly Bill 2738 seeks to protect the general public, stage production workers, and the performing artists by increasing the transparency of contract agreements between public venues and entertainment vendors to ensure enforcement of existing health and safety training requirements for workers established by Assembly Bill 1775. AB 2738 would expand the existing authority of local public enforcement agencies to enforce existing laws and clarify that all parties, including public venues, are accountable for ensuring worker and public safety at live events.

AB 1775 was passed in 2022 and established a statewide industry health and safety training standards for live event productions. Staged production workers face serious challenges. They set up, operate, and dismantle staging equipment in all types of weather conditions and locations. This can result in workplace injuries and fatalities. AB 1775 codified requirements to ensure workers have those trainings. The law offers adequate protection but lacks the timely enforcement mechanisms that reflects the transitory nature of the live event industry.

The short-term nature of these contracts and the lack of transparencies for certification of employees make enforcement difficult. When a live event is over the stage, production workers dismantle the stage and move to other venues, making enforcement investigation nearly impossible. AB 2738 strengthens enforcement tools by increasing transparencies of contractual agreements. This Bill requires public venues to disclose the entertainment vendor vendors that they must use certified and trained stage production workers in their contracts for live events.

Additionally, it expands the existing authority of public local public enforcement agencies to enforce section of the Labor Code and section set forth in AB 594. AB 2738 creates new transparency and tools to increase compliance and enforcement of an important health and safety law to protect live event workers and the public. Thank you for this reason. We urge you for your support. Thank you.

Madam Chair Member Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation we were the sponsors of both AB 594 and 1775. We think it is a great model to have local enforcement of statewide law. This expands it into some health and safety parts of the code. We all know, the challenges that Kalosha faces, having that extra layer of enforcement is incredibly important.

But what I really want to focus on is what I believe the opposition is going to come up and say after me, which is an opposition to the change we made, a very small change from saying courts may to courts shall award to the prevailing party attorney's fees. The reason for this, and there's a letter of support from the Oakland City attorney, is that these are public enforcement agencies that are being tasked with a whole new job, which is to enforce labor law.

We want them to be able to recover their costs. This is how they're funding this work. We want enforcement to work. The other reason is that this levels the playing field, so that public enforcement agencies are able to take cases for low-wage workers, for small cases to get injunctive relief, the cases where there aren't big damage awards. This is the only way by recovering their costs, it's the only way they'll be able to continue to do this work.

And they're going to say that this is contracting out to private attorneys that are going to try to make money on this. That is generally when you don't have a Department that's staffed to do the work. Fresno, the City of Fresno, is now taking advantage of AB 594 and they are starting to enforce labor law. We want to encourage that across the state. And so we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. I do want to take a minute to establish quorum. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll call]

Quorum is established. Do you have any members, other witnesses here in support? Just name, association, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. and Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the San Francisco City Attorney, David Chu's Office, echoing this sentiment with respect to the may/shall issue in particular, in support. Thank you.

Elizabeth Medonia, IATSE Local 50 Sacramento business agent and we are in support of this.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters, SAG-AFTRA, and the California School Employees Association in support.

Tom Davis, President, California IATSE Council, in support.

Thank you. Any main witnesses in opposition?

John Shaban, California Nurses Association, in support.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Tes, my colleague kind of, I think iterated some of our concerns with the Bill related to the change to the Maienschein Bill from last year, AB 594. We did have concerns with that Bill and just some issues that we have seen when we allow for public prosecution of statewide laws and some inconsistent enforcement and, as mentioned, contracting out to private firms.

So I think our concern was last year that Bill, I believe, did contain the same language about shall, and then it was changed to may, and now it is, I think, being changed back to shall. So had concerns and have reached out to try and understand a little bit better about the change that was made last year and why the decision to kind of revert that back this year. And so look forward to continued conversations on that issue.

And some of our Members are still looking into another provision Bill related to the Public Records Act request. And again, look forward to continued conversations with the author's office and sponsors. Thank you.

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

Ben Ebbink, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in opposition just to the attorney's fees provision, not the live events portion of the Bill.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition for the reasons discussed by the Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, I'll open it up for Members if there are any questions. Seeing no questions. We have a motion. Second. Do you have any closing comments?

Thank you. And I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll call]

The Bill is on call. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Haney. We will now hear item 1 and 2.

Great. Which one is first?

We'll do AB 1976.

Okay, great. Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Members. AB 1976 ensures widespread access to naloxone in California by requiring it to be in all locations that are required to have a first aid kit. Specifically, all workplace first aid kits will need to contain naloxone nasal spray in order to provide more access to this life saving medication and to prevent opioid overdoses. Drug overdoses in California are deadlier than car accidents and homicides combined.

In 2022, over 7300 deaths were caused by an opioid overdose, with a growing number of those deaths being youth and the difference between life and death when someone overdoses can be how quickly the naloxone can be accessed. For naloxone to be effective and save a life, it requires someone near the person overdosing to have access to the medication.

Because opioid users who are in the midst of an overdose cannot self administer the medication once they become unconscious, the opioid crisis is hurting our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers in every county throughout the state. There is no excuse to not make this life saving intervention available in first aid kits. When someone overdoses, just like a fire extinguisher or defibrillator, we hope we never have to use it, but the risk is great enough that it should be there in the rare case that we do.

By requiring naloxone in all workplace first aid kits, we will ensure that people always know where they can find it in an overdose emergency while protecting our communities who have been affected by the fentanyl epidemic. In fact, the Biden Administration just released a statement as part of their plan encouraging leaders to have naloxone in first aid kits, recognizing that easy access to naloxone is key to saving lives.

With me today to speak in support of the bill is Meredith Holder, an emergency room nurse, speaking on behalf of the Emergency Nurses Association and I believe, Honey Mahogany, owner of the oldest LGBTQ bar in San Francisco, The Stud. I also wanted to thank you, Madam Chair, for your leadership on extending naloxone access.

I think we all have to be working together to make sure this critical life saving intervention is available and also say that many of the bills that were passed on naloxone access this past year were bipartisan, Republicans authoring them, Democrats authoring them. This is something where we should be able to have common ground and make sure this lifesaving intervention is available. Thank you.

Witnesses, please. Just a reminder, two minutes each.

Thank you Chair and Members, for allowing me to speak today. My name is Meredith Holder. I am an emergency department nurse from San Francisco, a city that has been renowned for its beauty and spirit, but is facing the harsh reality of the opioid crisis that has now only gotten worse since fentanyl is everywhere. San Francisco is not the only community in the state facing these issues. For the first time in California, as Assemblymember Haney said, overdose deaths are now deadlier than car accidents and homicides combined.

I'm here today speaking on behalf of over 5000 nurses of the California Emergency Nurses Association in support of Assembly Bill 1976. This bill is a proactive solution that acknowledges the opioid epidemic by ensuring widespread access to naloxone, or Narcan in California by requiring it to be in all locations that would have a first aid kit. Naloxone is a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose within minutes, and it is a critical medication. In my line of work, this is a life saving drug.

Overdoses can happen anytime, anywhere. By ensuring naloxone is readily available in workplace first aid kits, we're being proactive to prevent tragedies. Placing naloxone in first aid kits equips ordinary citizens with the ability to save lives, much like the use of a fire extinguisher or a defibrillator, opioid users in the midst of an opioid overdose cannot self administer once they become unconscious. The drug must be readily accessible and administered by someone near the person.

As a nurse, my job first and foremost, is to ensure patient safety and to act as a patient advocate. Today, I advocate for those who I will care for in the future. While thinking of those who could have been saved by naloxone, administered by a bystander in the past, please support creating more equitable access to naloxone to provide prevent opioid overdose deaths.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Honey Mahogany, and I am a social worker, but also a co owner of The Stud bar in the south of Market neighborhood in San Francisco. As someone who has seen firsthand the devastating impacts of the opioid overdoses in our communities, adding naloxone in first aid kits is about safeguarding our colleagues, our friends, and our loved ones against an ever growing epidemic.

San Francisco, like many cities across the state, is on the front lines of an opioid crisis. There is a crisis on our streets, and that crisis is fentanyl. It has invaded our communities, affecting people from all walks of life, mothers, fathers, young professionals, the elderly, and even children. It is a crisis that, like many, has become deeply personal as we have witnessed the devastating impacts on friends and family. Opioid overdoses becoming more lethal than both car accidents and homicides together is very troubling.

The reality is that no workplace, no community, and no family is immune to this crisis. As Assemblymember Haney said, in 2022 alone, over 7,300 deaths were attributed to opioid overdoses. The numbers are sobering because behind each number is a tragedy that could have been prevented, a life that was cut short, a family that was shattered. However, there is a life saving medication called naloxone, and naloxone has been proven to save lives.

It can reverse an opioid overdose in a matter of 30 seconds, allowing vital time for emergency services to arrive. Adding them into our first aid kits isn't just about protecting the employees. It's also about ensuring that bystanders and witnesses, those who are seeing this overdose happen in real time, are immediately able to locate a first aid kit and prevent a death. There are no dangerous side effects and they are completely safe to use even if the person who received the medication isn't experiencing an overdose.

Every life is valuable, and the cost of naloxone pales in comparison to the value of a human life. The implementation of this policy will prevent tragedies and ensure that the most effective tool to stop overdoses is available.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support?

Good afternoon. Adrienne Shilton with the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in proud support.

Good afternoon Chair Ortega and Members. Brian Miramantes with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists, in support. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Trent Murphy with, with the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives in support.

Thank you. Do we have any other main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll hand it over to our Committee Members if they have any questions or comments. Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to the author for bringing this very important bill to the Committee. A couple of months ago in my district, I hosted a mental health fair at a local college, at Occidental College.

And we invited individuals from various different organizations to do nonprofit work and really talk about our mental health crisis, our housing homelessness crisis, and our fentanyl crisis. And I got a training on how to use Narcan. And I was both intimidated, but also surprised at how easy it was and how much just knowing how to administer and help someone in need, if needed. If I'm ever in a situation, I now know how to help.

And I think, unfortunately, we live in a reality where that is our current situation across the state and across the country. So I just want to commend you for the work that you do in saving lives and if possible, love to join you as a co author on the bill.

Of course. Thank you. Appreciate that.

Any other comments? I would like to also thank you. As a colleague on the fentanyl task force, this is an issue that's very close to my heart. I spent last year educating, learning, hearing countless stories about ways that people are losing their lives every day, but also ways that we can save lives. And that's what this bill is about, saving lives. And, you know, especially in the workplace, where we spend most of our time. So really, thank you for bringing this forward.

We do have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

No. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And thank you for those comments and to everyone for your leadership on this issue. This is something that I think we can all come together around. Appreciate your leadership and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Motion is due pass to Appropriations Committee. [Roll Call]

This bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, go ahead. AB 2374. I also would like to welcome back Assemblymember Ash Kalra, our former Chair. He just can't leave. Just kidding. Can't stay away.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. AB 2374 strengthens California's Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act by expanding protections for laid off janitors. In 2002, California passed the Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act to prevent mass layoffs of janitors when there is a change in the staffing agency at the same facility.

If a janitorial services contract is terminated, the act currently allows the laid off janitors to continue working in the same position under the new janitorial staffing agency for 60 days.

However, the recent mass layoffs across all industries have exposed the shortcomings in the existing Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act. For example, on December 5, 2022 X, formerly known as Twitter, which is in my district, ended its 12 year contract with a janitorial agency.

This decision, because of the holes in this act, left those janitors without a job overnight right before the holidays. X was able to exploit those loopholes in the current law to not provide the adequate transitional employment period to the laid off janitors.

Additionally, the 60 days of transitional employment is no longer adequate time for laid off workers to transition between jobs. This is partly due to the fact that a third of Californians don't have adequate savings to cover basic necessities in the event of an unexpected job loss. Two months pay is often not enough for an individual to cover their rent, utilities, food and other necessities while looking for a job.

To update the California Displaced Janitors Opportunity Act and ensure our janitors are not being exploited by large companies, AB 2374 will require a newly hired janitorial staffing agency to retain all laid off janitors for 90 days instead of 60.

Close loopholes in the act by removing the exemption for janitorial staffing agencies with less than 25 employees, require companies to relay information about their newly hired janitorial staffing agency to the terminated agency within five days.

I also want to say we've had productive conversations with the opposition, especially around the liability pieces of the bill and we will be taking a look at their suggested amendments, and I believe that we will be able to find a pathway forward.

We have here to testify in support of the bill, Ramniq Saini and Julio Alvarado from SEIU Local 87 Janitors Union.

Benua periles De Fabor, De K Pasal and Leombros. Ambien Fumos affectados desa Fortunada Mente for La Compania, Twitter Fueron and Las Vegas on the era De nostro cheques maintenance tomaros to Cambodia.

Can I translate for him? My name is Julio Alvarado. I am part of Local 87 Janitor. I have been part of the union for 11 years. I was one of the ones that was affected by the latest movement of Twitter, which basically when this new company came in, they dispersed all of us. They just dismissed us, didn't let us know what was going to happen to us.

We had no idea what was going to happen to us if we were going to have jobs or anything like that. And this was right before Christmas of 2022. This affected us in a major way. It impacted us not just financially, but also mentally as well as financially.

And we were just very lost. We tried to have the new company hire us back. They didn't want to and they didn't give us any options.

[Foreign Speaking] Gracias.

We are here in support along with Matt Haney because he has always been there for us and supported us in every way that he can. We are very grateful for this and we hope that this moves on forward and helps not just our local, but all those in the same position that we were a while back and stops all the injustice.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Committee Members. My name is Ramniq Saini. I'm here on behalf of SEIU Local 87. First of all, I just want to thank Assemblymember Matt Haney for taking on this very crucial issue.

This is something the union has dealt with for the last two years. You know, as Kuka said, in 2002, Twitter, formerly known X, laid off, terminated all of our janitors right before Christmas.

And the contractor that was terminated did not tell the success contractor who the new contractor is, what's going on, where should the members go. In fact, then X brought in another contractor which had less than 25 employees.

And this is the reason why, you know, one of the amendments, we want to take it out because Twitter was smart, brought less than 25 employees and did not have to hire union employees.

And then after they laid off that contractor and then brought in another contractor which had 60 employees just to cheat the law in the state. So companies like X know how to play the game. And this is the exact reason why we're here in support of this bill. And just so thankful that Assemblymember Haney is taking this on.

This is something we already fixed in San Francisco, so now we want to fix it statewide so our members like Kuka, who live paycheck to paycheck, don't have to worry about sort of where the next check is going to come from. So just thank you so much.

Good afternoon. John Chaban, California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now move to witnesses in support.

Hello, my name is Abdo Hadwan. I'm the Vice President of SEIU Local 87, which represents the janitors in San Francisco, and I'm here in support. Thank you.

[Foreign Speaking]

[Foreign Speaking]

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters and the California School Employees Association in support.

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

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I do want to thank the author and the sponsors. We have had a lot of good conversations about the bill, as mentioned, primarily related to the joint liability provision.

I think the goal of the bill was to ensure that there is liability when there is an action, like what occurred in the lawsuit, where no notice was given as required by the awarding authority.

But as the language reads now, it would impose joint liability if the successor contractor fails to retain an employee or improperly discharges them, even if the awarding authority did give the proper notice.

So we're having conversations about amendments to that piece. We've also had good conversations about some of the notice obligations that would be imposed on the awarding authority.

We think those are best left to the worker's employer, who is already legally required to give them other notices, their paycheck, etcetera, and notice to the union, again, which the awarding authority is not the partner in the CBA.

In that case, it would be the contractor. And then finally the provision in the bill that would require retained employees to work the same schedules.

Our concern from the awarding authority perspective would be that that could impede our ability if in the new contract we wanted to make any changes to the work performed, the days or times at which those are performed. So having conversations about that as well. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, Chris McCauley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.

Ben Ebbing, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, also in opposition.

Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Emellia Zamani. On behalf of the California Travel Association, in respectful opposition.

Audrey Ratajczak. On behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Ryan Bradigan, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no others in opposition, I will now pass it over to our Members for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Kalra.

Thank you, chair I think we're all grateful. First time Member Matt Haney, especially when he's standing up with and for janitors. And oftentimes when legislation that's necessary is brought to light, it's when something like this happens to our workers.

And what Twitter did in this situation exposes a loophole that maybe we didn't anticipate a company would stoop so Low to actually treat workers like this.

But now that we're aware of that loophole, I think it is certainly an obligation of ours to do something about it, which Osama Rouhani, working with the sponsors, is recognized as necessary. And so I just want to move the bill.

I believe if it makes it through here, it will be coming over to judiciary. So we'll have another opportunity to take a look at it from that perspective. But I just want to express my gratitude towards the author.

Thank you. We need a second. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Sure. Thank you so much, Chair and former Chair, for your support. I also want to thank the opposition and to say that I do think that on many of the things that were put forward there, that we're going to be able to work some of these things out and clarify some things.

And so hopefully when we come to judiciary, we'll have done that. I also really want to thank Ramnik and Julio and everybody from SEIU Local 87 when they brought this bill forward.

One of the things that I asked them to clarify, as I said, so to be clear, you were able to fix most of these things in San Francisco, and still you want to spend your time and your energy to go fight for this, to make sure that janitors all over the state who are not represented by Local 87 have these same protections. And I thought that was incredibly powerful thing for them to want to fight for and to do.

And I'm very proud to be joined by some of their members here today and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes, we have a motion in a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call].

That measures out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and do the consent calendar next. If I can get a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

The consent calendar. Item AB 3105 and AB 3234. The motion is do pass consent to Appropriations Committee. On AB 2705 the motion is do pass consent to Judiciary. [Roll call]

Consent calendar is out. We will now go to Assembly Member Kalra. Item number six, AB 2602. Today you are former Chair, Member, and presenter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's great to be back here at the Labor Committee and honored to present AB 2602, which would require a performer's informed consent and proper representation when executing a contract for any transfer of rights to that individual's likeness or voice. Amidst the rise of the digital age, performers across the entertainment industry have inadvertently been signing away the rights to their digital selves through clauses that can look like standard copyright language.

Specifically, individuals are unknowingly authorizing studios to use their voice and likeness in all media by all current and future technologies in perpetuity and with no additional compensation. We have seen numerous examples of actors in the news who have been digitally replicated, some without their consent.

For example, the Apple TV series Ted Lasso utilized technology to essentially copy and paste dozens of background actors in an attempt to artificially fill soccer stadiums as spectators, effectively allowing studios to avoid paying real people while at the same time benefiting from using their digital copy or likeness. AB 2602 strikes the balance between industry progress and protecting performers' rights to their digital self and livelihood.

This Bill does not outright prohibit the use of digital replicas, but rather ensures that performers agree to license out their digital self that they are fully aware of the extent of and the intentions for that use. I've been working with opposition and in response to their concerns have taken amendments that strike out references to generative AI.

If AB 2602 moves forward to the Assembly Privacy Committee, I will continue to work in good faith with the Motion Pictures Association and the Recording Industry to address remaining concerns around retroactivity and defining digital replica. Here to testify in support is Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA and Ivan Fernandez, Legislative Advocate with the California Labor Federation.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA, the co-sponsor of the Bill, along with the Teamsters who support the Bill and their partners in the entertainment industry. As Assembly Member Kalra stated, we have seen exponential growth in this technology the kind of technology that can make it very difficult to tell what's real and what's fake.

And we are getting to the point now where, and we may already be there, where it's virtually impossible to tell whether an actor or a singer or any other performer is the real thing or a digital replica. And so we need to protect performers. This is not just about fooling the public, but for our embers, it's about their livelihood and the ability to continue on with their careers. So we need to give some meaningful consent.

I just wanted to... Assembly Member Kalra mentioned what the kind of very broad kinds of agreements in transferring these rights that occur. I just want to read to the Committee one of these transfers and how broad they are, just so you have some context for why we need this Bill.

Player consents to the use of the player's name, voice, actual or simulated likeness, actual or simulated, and biography with no additional compensation to player in any and all media and by all technologies and processes now known or hereafter developed throughout the universe in perpetuity. So I guess if they're going to create shows on Mars, they're covered. So this is an extremely important Bill for our members. I just would say, in terms of the opponents, we've been working on language with stakeholders.

We have an agreement between the union and the Recording Industry on language that I believe, and I think their leaders believe, takes care of their issues. I think, you know, we've distributed the language to all the stakeholders. We think it solves all, if not most, if not all, of the problems for the opponents. And with that, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation, co-sponsor of AB 2602 which as already been mentioned, a Bill that will protect working artists from the unpaid use or exploitation of their digital likeness or voice. Today, we enter a new frontier in the fight for worker protection and rights. This fight is not against technology, but against the use of technology to exploit deskill and abuse workers.

We believe that technology can be a productive tool when used to support workers, not when used to replace or control them. The guardrails put in place through AB 2602 are a model on how to regulate the use of artificial intelligence to ensure workers have real and meaningful oversight on how technology is used by employers. AB 2602 requires performers to have union or legal representation when entering a contract that allows digital replica of their voice. As mentioned, AB 2602 does not prohibit the use of AI.

It simply requires adequate worker representation with an ever-changing technology. Without this protection, employers could essentially create new content, which has already been mentioned as well. Using a performer's likeness or voice without proper authorization or direction from the performer. As a tool in the entertainment industry, AI can support a wide variety of projects, bolstering opportunities for actors across the industry. However, this only happens if guardrails are put in place to ensure performers are at the center of the decision-making process.

AB 2602 will address AI in the entertainment industry, but this worker centered concept can be applied to other industries impacted by emerging AI technology. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, any witnesses in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Ortega and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify on AB 2602 Assembly Member Kalra's Bill to regulate and potentially invalidate personal service contracts that address digital replicas. My name is Melissa Patak and I'm here on behalf of the Motion Picture Association and our Member companies Disney, NBC Universal, Netflix, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures, and Warner Brothers. We share the sponsor's concerns around the use of digital replicas without consent.

SAG-AFTRA and its members have for more than 80 years been our valued partners, and wherever possible, we work collaboratively to address their concerns, including on this topic. We respectfully oppose the Bill as it was introduced in February for the reasons specified in our memo submitted to the Committee, I will briefly summarize. First, the bill's standards apply retroactively to existing contracts.

It would be impractical for companies to review hundreds of thousands of existing talent contracts to analyze whether they might be subject to this Bill's requirements. And imposing new standards retroactively makes the Bill vulnerable to legal challenges under the U.S. and California's constitution's prohibitions on laws that impair obligations of contracts or that take private property without just compensation. Second, the Bill would require specificity in a contract that might not be known at the time the contract is made.

Failure to anticipate and include common and routine production practices that use digital technology, such as enhancing a stunt or adjusting a performer's voice, could be used to find the contractual provision unconscionable. Third, the Bill lacks definitions for key terms, which will lead to years of costly litigation to resolve its many ambiguities. Finally, the Bill would interfere with the rights of copyright holders, making it vulnerable to legal challenge under the preemption clause of the Federal Copyright Act.

We know the Bill was amended on Monday to remove the provisions on generative artificial intelligence. Those amendments clearly improve the Bill, but do not address all our objections. We know there are other amendments under consideration. We look forward to studying those. We've met with the author, staff, and the sponsors. We've had productive conversations and understand what they're trying to accomplish. We look forward to reviewing those amendments and continuing the discussions. Thank you and I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. Do we have any other members in or public in opposition?

Madam Chair and Members Carl London here on behalf of Recording Industry Association of America. Thank you. We are a tweener, not an oppose or upport on this. My understanding is that there have been high-level discussions between us and the sponsors of the Bill, that there are agreements that are not represented in the Bill today. We'll be looking forward to those as the Bill moves forward. It's an important issue for all of us.

We are partners in making and bringing the greatest music in the world to people, and predominantly from California, by the way, I might add. So we're looking forward to this. We hope it gets corrected by the next hearing, but we're working closely. Thank you.

Ashley Hoffman. On behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, respectful opposition. Aligned comments with the MPA. Thank you.

Trent Smith on behalf of the Walt Disney Company. Again associating our position with that of the MPA. Thank you.

Hello. Pat Joyce on behalf of NBC Universal, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Jaime Huff on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. I look forward to working with you further. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Tiffany Phan on behalf of Sony Pictures Entertainment, opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition or tweeners. I will pass it to the Committee for questions. Assembly Member Zbur.

So thank you, Mister Kalra, for bringing the Bill. I know that one of the things that we're grappling with in both federal and California government is how to deal with the rapidly evolving challenges and also benefits of, you know, the fastly evolving AI universe, which, you know, in my mind can be a huge boon and improve our quality of life on one hand, and on the other hand could be dystopian if we don't manage these things well.

I look at the Bill obviously completely agree with the, with the goals of it, which is, of course, to make sure that employees are being compensated for their value. Right? As part of that, on the other side of the equation. This is a really important Bill for me because I represent four of the major movie studios and a lot of the Recording Industry in my district. And that's not only the, the employers, but the employees.

And so I think it's really important to sort of get this right. The biggest issue, I think, on this, I have sort of two, one sort of question. I'm going to support the Bill today, obviously, because it's important in part because I know that you have committed to me and to others that you'll continue working with both the Recording Industry and the MPA on some of these issues. The one thing I will say, though, is the, the retroactivity issue. I've thought a lot about it.

I just can't sort of see how you deal with it. And so when you couple that with the fact that you've got some pretty vague language, which I think needs to be tightened up, which, you know is understandable at this point. But when you talk about, when you look at sort of this language, the provision does not clearly define and detail all the propositions, uses of the digital replica.

So we're talking about a digital replica of the individual's voice or likeness or likeness in a place of work, a replica of the voice. Couldn't that be like any recording that's ever been done of music, singing something that is now digitally been? I mean, that could be. That is one way you could interpret that. And I'm just raising that as an example of the fact that when you move down this, it's got to be, I think you've got to have some specific definitions.

You need to pick, not pick up, things that are sort of in common usage. And it's hard for me to understand how going back on contracts that may have been negotiated 20 and 30 years ago that are now viewed as commonly owned by either the recording industry or the movie industry, how you would upend those.

I mean, those would be, those could hurt not only the movie studios, but they could also hurt the individuals or the family or the estates of these people because they become unconscionable and unenforceable. So I'm just hoping that you'll pay attention to all of those things. And I just want to ask that you work with both the MPA and the recording industry to address some of these kinds of concerns.

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. We absolutely will continue to work. I know that this was taken a little earlier in the file order. In my intro, I did make some reference to dealing with issues of defining digital replica with industry as well as issues of retroactivity. So we do recognize the concern around retroactivity and its implication on the workload. For studios to review and identify all past contracts would be enormous. Plus, the issues you raised right now.

So my office is working on amendments that will hopefully address this concern, but also ensure there is consent on projects using digital replicas moving forward. So both on the definitions as well on the retroactivity piece, we can expect, you should be able to expect, all of you, that there will be work on that and amendments on that. If this gets through the community today, it would be going to Privacy Committee.

And so we would hope by the time it gets to the next committee, there will be some language that we will be able to share that's specific certainly to the retroactivity issue, the digital replica one as well, although I think that might be a little bit more complicated, working on definitions, fully committed on both of those issues to ensuring that we do try to get it right.

Because I think it is important to your point that even if we all agree with the underlying principle of the Bill, this one in particular, I think is really going to be focused on some of the detailed language in order not to create unintended consequences. So this is a very important industry for all of us, especially those of you in LA, Southern California. But it's a California industry both on the recording artist side, motion picture side. And we don't want to lose it.

We want to respect it. We want to respect the technology that can enhance it while at the same time protecting the performers. And so you have my commitment to continue, as well as the sponsors to continue to work to rectify some of these issues. As I mentioned also in my opening comments that we did already take amendments that struck out references to generative AI that was in response to concerns from opposition.

So I hope that shows that in good faith we are taking actions, not just words in terms of concerns being raised.

And one last thing I'll say is that I've learned a little bit about sort of how we do need to preserve both for the economy and for our workers, the ability for both the music industry and the movie industry to continue to be creative with these new creative tools that are out there. So, you know, I, that comment, plus I know we just went through very, you know, long contract negotiations between the movie industry and SAG-AFTRA and the unions.

And I would hope that where you head will try. I know that one of the, you know, not everyone is unionized. Obviously, we're trying to make sure that, you know, in some cases, the AI negotiations that went in, the union negotiations apply more broadly. But I'm hoping that you'll try to preserve what I think sounded like some pretty hard-fought negotiations over the last few months so that we sort of don't mess up the agreements that have.

Actually, that's a fair point. This Bill would not apply to the collective bargaining agreement from last year. And to your point, we do want creativity. We want creativity, and we want compensation. I think we can. We can figure out a pathway for both.

Thank you very much.

Assembly Member Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author for this Bill and the new space of AI. And thank you for working with the recording industry to come to a resolution as to what their concerns were. I know Miss Patack quite well and know that the MPA is an honest broker. And I know that you will find with our labor partners as well, a resolution to some of the concerns.

And, in fact, some of the concerns that you raised, Miss Patack, on AI apply to... I'm actually thinking about in a Bill that I have related to AI and elections. And so this is a new frontier that I think I'm glad that we're all getting in front of before we're just responding to it. But I will say in 2012, when Doctor Dre and Snoop Dogg introduced the late Tupac Shakur at Coachella in a hologram, it made me incredibly uncomfortable, makes me uncomfortable now.

And in many ways, I found it to be just disrespectful to him and, you know, in many ways, let him rest in peace. Right? I don't really want to see a new Marilyn Monroe movie. I want to think about the films that they've already made and respect that. And so it's. It's a new frontier, and I trust that you're going to work with those that are currently in opposition to get to a good place on the Bill so thank you.

And to your point, Assembly Member Carrillo, there might be artists, performers, that want their work to live in perpetuity, but they can put that in a contract and be compensated. But that should be up to both parties to make that determination. But I do agree that we have, we've had a great working relationship with the opposition that's going to continue. I think we can land this plane.

Seeing no other questions or comments. If I can get a motion and a second.

Just a question. I, you know, thinking through this, I know there's a few other bills in this area as well, too. What. What might this scope of the Bill do for public figures or for, or for historical figures? Or is this only... would this only prohibit anybody that had previously been, say under a contract for their work?

Yeah, this is specific to the entertainment industry.

Right. So where the entertainment industry is maybe reaching back into like using footage from history. Is that something that could be entrapped, I guess, by the work you do, and I appreciate, by the way, the work you are doing in great faith to be able to make some of these technical improvements.

Yeah, I think that's a good point. I don't know, Shane, if you've had.

Yeah, I think that's an interesting issue. And certainly it raises other issues like the First Amendment and the ability of folks to produce creative works. In our view, this Bill doesn't touch this. And when you see the amendments, you'll see that it's pretty clear it doesn't touch this because it's going to be about new performances by a digital replica. So I think we're safe there. But it is an interesting issue.

And I think, you know, we do need to provide protection to folks in the past, and there may be other legislation dealing with that as well.

Right. Definitely, you know, very supportive fundamentally because we want to make sure that anybody that thought that they were under contract for certain functions, they are fully supported, even if that's replicated in the future, and that we get the technical details right. And that as your to work through some of these other details as well. I know that you'll do so in great faith. So thank you.

Thank you.

Yes. Well, I was going to say thank you so much for bringing this forward. I also sit on Privacy, and this is not going to be the first or the last bill that we see related to AI as it's a new technology that's moving really fast. But I do believe that we can find the balance between protecting workers, having some kind of regulation, and innovation. We are the fifth largest economy in the world and everyone looks to us so really appreciate what you're doing here today.

With that, do we have a second? Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair, I just want to say thank you to you and the staff, as well as the dialogue from my colleagues. This is going to be something, I know the issue of AI generally, and this issue specifically will certainly be something that I think will be interesting for us to work on and we'll be working on for some time. So thank you. Respectfully ask for an aye vote

Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll call]

That measure is out. Thank you. We will now move to item number seven, presenting for Assemblymember Rendon is Assembly Member Wendy Carrillo for AB 2696. You may open.

Thank you, madam chair and members, on behalf of Speaker Emeritus Rendon, I'm here to present AB 2696. This bill closes a loophole that allows general contractors to avoid wage law enforcement with a complete jobs when they complete projects with their own personnel rather than subcontracting.

Current law allows for federally certified joint labor managed committees, or LMCs, to have direct enforcement authority for subcontractor wage violations. Despite this, LMCs lose that enforcement capability when the general contractor uses their own workforce or self performs construction work instead of subcontracting it out. AB 2696 closes the loophole in existing law by extending Labor Management Committee's enforcement authority to include direct enforcement on self performing general contractor on a self performing general contractor. Here to speak in support of the bill is Danny Curtin and Patty McCarron with the California Conference of Carpenters.

Thank you so much, madam chair, and especially you, Assemblywoman Carrillo, for doing this. I appreciate it, truly. I want to emphasize a couple of things. It's a fairly simple, clear issue, but I want to make it clear that it doesn't change the law in terms of wage theft or anything like that in any way at all. It's not a wage change of any kind. What it is is a little change in the enforcement capabilities that we developed in what I'll tell you in a minute.

This is still the wild west, especially in the private sector, in the construction industry, along with ag, garment, and I believe the restaurant industry is described as rampant wage theft by the Department of Industrial Relations. Your chances of getting an investigation are about once every 300 years. So it's still a very hot topic.

So we passed, the legislature passed several bills a few years ago to do joint liabilities so that the general contractors would, would share in the liabilities if their subcontractors were basically cheating, if there was wage theft. And that goes back 100 years in history in different industries. So it was a big step forward. What we didn't consider at the time was the fact that the general contractors often do use their own employees. And the bill was written in such a way that it was only effective for subcontracting joint liability.

So the problem here is we do not have standing, as Assembly Member Carrillo said, to go after the general contractor who may be abusing their workforce. But the real issue is it almost encourages general contractors to find a way not to use subcontractors. There's nothing wrong with a general contractor using their own employees. But if they're doing it to avoid enforcement for wage violations, then that's inappropriate. If they're doing it because they have a good workforce in that particular area, that's what they do. No problem.

Either way, we'd have an impact. We would have ability to go after them if they violate the law. So one thing I do want to say as well is, if you are not breaking the wage laws, this bill will not affect you in any way, shape, or form. So any contractor that is comfortably working in, within the statutes is going to be fine. I want to turn it over to Patty McCarron, who's the Chief Operating Officer. No, I have COO, director of operations. I'm going to have to give her a raise.

Yes. Thank you.

I'll pay her. So, for the California Carpenters Contractor Cooperation Committee, which is one of the LMCC's that does enforcement. So they brought this issue to us because they were running into trouble on the job. They do most of their work in the private sector, not in public works, which is much better enforced. So I'm going to turn it over to Patty.

Thank you. She only has two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. So Danny already gave some of the background, so I'll just dive right into it. We have been going on projects, private projects, and enforcing the 1701 law that was passed. We found when we go onto the projects, there are GCs that are self performing, so we have no standings. So we talked to the workers. The workers don't know who they're working for. And our reps have found multiple violations.

Nonpayment of minimum wage, non payment of wages, non payment of overtime, no deductions on checks that they receive. Workers aren't receiving rest breaks, no meal breaks, and oftentimes they're cash payment, which, you know, leads us into tax fraud, comp fraud, all contributing to the underground economy, which 1701 was supposed to help wipe out. And we've also encountered a number of child labor violations. So there are children working on these projects, and we don't have any standing to do anything about it. We can call somebody.

But again, everybody is completely overworked and unable to get out there. So we're doing our best, and we would love to close this loophole so that we can actually take action instead of having to wait for the labor commissioner's office to do anything, because, again, they're completely overworked. And so, let's see. The workers that we talk to are primarily Latino men, and we've talked to a number of women, many of them don't speak English. They don't read or write English.

And so they're given, when they are given contracts, they're in English, so they don't know what they're signing. You know, with the x is, as I mentioned before, the workers don't know the name of the company they're working for. And, you know, we just want to get these unscrupulous contractors taken care of so that we can enforce the labor laws and stop wage theft. This is a big problem.

Yes, thank you. With that, I'm going to call them up. And I will call them, sir. I will call them up. Thank you. I will now open it up to anyone who's in the room for support.

Well, I was going to suggest stand up and let you know they're here as opposed to all marching up is.

They can come up.

Hello. Thank you, guys. Dan Branton from local 109 right here in Sacramento in strong support.

How's it going? Matt Kelly, member of local 46 here in Sacramento, in strong support.

Jesse Peralez, carpenters Local 713 in strong support. Thank you.

Eugene Morris, carpenters Local 152. Strong support. Representing Stanislaus, San Joaquin, Merced, Mariposa, Tuolumne, Calaveras, Amador and Contra Costa.

Impressed.

Sean Reese, local 15, Redding, California, strong support.

Chris Martinez, local 1599, Redding, strong support.

Mitchell Vinciguera, local 2236 in Oakland. Strong support.

My name is Kyle Swarens, a representative for Contra Costa County, Solano County, and then everything north of San Francisco up the 11 corridor to the Oregon border.

Leonard Basoco, Carpentry Local 180 out of Solano County. Thank you. Support.

Herlindo Alvaro, local 180. Vallejo, in support.

Oscar Masarigos, out of drywall lathers 68 in Livermore and full support.

Cesar Placencia from Gilroy, California, from local 405, San Jose, in support.

Alexander Hampton, Local 46, Sacramento, strong support.

Marco Farro, San Jose 9144 strong support.

Hello. Jose Martinez, Carpenters Local 152, in support.

Good afternoon. Armando Murillo, Local 405, San Jose. Strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. We will now call up any, anyone who would like to come up for an opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Steve Cruz, on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, we're sort of a tweener. We don't have concerns with the underlying objective of the bill. Perhaps it's just drafting and didn't get a chance to talk to Danny specifically, but did call over to his shop and had a conversation in terms of our concerns, which is effectively we don't have any problem with going after contractors who have employed employees that are not paying their employees.

However, there were provisions in prior legislation, SB 727, that allowed for a safe harbor. When you have contractors, like in the case of BIA, with homebuilders, where they don't have employees, and they are taking steps to protect against wage theft, like getting affidavits, withholding payments to subcontractors, doing payroll checks, that allowed for a safe harbor in those situations. So, again, briefly talked just yesterday. So I short conversation and also with the author's office. And so we're just hopeful to continue those conversations, but wanted to just flag that issue for the chair and the members today.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Seeing none. I will pass it over to our Members for any questions or comments. CNN. Can I get a motion? In a second. We did? Okay. Okay. We already had a motion in a second. Secretary, please call the roll. I'm sorry. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

On behalf of Speaker Emeritus Anthony Rendon, respectfully request and aye vote on the bill.

Thank you. The motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call] that measure is out.

That measure is out. Thank you. We will now lift the call on items 2738. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 2738. Luz Rivas. Let's see. [Roll Call]

That measure is out. We can now add on to the consent calendar if anyone wants to add on.

Consent calendar. Flora. Flora aye. Zbur.

We will take a. We will take a small pause as we wait for other authors to come into the hearing room. Okay. Miss Schable is on her way. Thank you.

The new AI version of members. Well, good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to present on behalf of Assemblymember Garcia, AB 2873 which will make minor yet significant adjustments to improve the efficiency of the breaking barriers to employment initiative program. In 2017, AB 1111 authorized the implementation of the Breaking Barriers Program. AB 2873 does three things.

Primarily, it reserves 15% of future breaking barriers fund for community based organizations unable to meet requirements, but can justify equitable access and promote partnerships. In writing, this bill gives grantees flexibility in setting program goals considering the specific challenges of groups like undocumented or formerly incarcerated individuals. It also lets the California Workforce Development Board hire a nonprofit for technical help, expanding support for both community based organizations and local workforce development boards.

We have an opportunity to improve the breaking barriers to employment initiative, making it more equitable, more flexible, and easier to access. With me here to support the bill is Isis Orellana, a policy analyst for the California Workforce Association, and Jennifer Kerr, an English language instructor at Goodwill of the San Fernando Bay. Thank you. San Francisco Bay. Got it. Thank you, SF. Thank you. It's okay. Thank you. You have two minutes each.

Chair and members of the committee, can you hear me? Yes. Chair and members of the committee, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity today to speak on this important measure. My name is Isis Medina Orellana with California, with the California Workforce Association, and I'm here to discuss AB 2873 by Assemblymember Garcia. AB 2873 seems to make small but impactful changes to enhance the effectiveness of the breaking barriers to employment initiative at a very high level.

The Breaking Barriers Program establishes a grant program that partners local community based organizations with their local workforce development board to provide services to targeted populations who historically have difficulties in obtaining and retaining employment. In the seven years since the program's inception, breaking barriers has been instrumental in connecting thousands of California's most vulnerable populations to meaningful employment, education, and training for self sufficiency and economic mobility. The Breaking Barriers Program has demonstrated significant success and demand. Program enrollment is soon to exceed 8000 individuals served through 68 grants.

The program has high levels of interest, evidenced by 193 prospective grantees seeking a total of $97 million in funding established, staggering $58.8 million more than what was made available. The high level of interest in the program has had the unintended consequences of creating burdens on both local workforce boards and CBOs. While these partnerships between local workforce boards and CBOs remain a critical piece to the breaking barriers program.

We must acknowledge that in some instances, the popularity paired with short timelines created by the grant have created bottlenecks, especially especially for small cbos attempting to formalize these partnerships. The amendments and the breaking barriers to employment initiative make the program more equitable, flexible, and accessible, all while maintaining the program's intended goals. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion and urge the committee to vote aye on AB 2873. Be able to answer all your questions. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Jennifer Kerr and I represent Goodwill of the SF Bay, where I work as an English language instructor, and I'm here to share an example of the success of the program. Goodwill of the SFB is a mission driven, community based organization that helps those with barriers to employment seek meaningful work. We know that English language proficiency is highly correlated with improved job opportunities and that English language learners in the Bay Area comprise a population who have been historically excluded from quality jobs.

Last year, we enrolled a woman named Annie who was referred to us by another CBO. Sorry, I skipped apart. Hold on.

Our organization applied for and received funding from the Breaking Barriers Initiative to create a program that increases language proficiency and employment opportunities within our immigrant communities.

And last year in that program, we enrolled a woman named Annie who was referred to us by another CBO after arriving from the USA from China, she had to wait many years for her right to work documents to arrive, and while waiting, she became an important part of her new community through volunteer work at the YMCA, her local church, and the Chinese affirmative action group.

In 2023, she finally received her work authorization, but she was very worried about her level of English language proficiency and really nervous about speaking speaking during a job interview specifically. So she enrolled in Goodwill's job coaching for English language learners course, where I taught her how to create a strong resume, how to search for jobs, and how to succeed in an interview.

In just a couple of weeks, she got a position as a childcare assistant with Chi Ming, a nonprofit, community based agency, and her story really exemplifies the ways in which the breaking barriers initiative allows us to empower learners to break the barriers that have barred them from economic prosperity. It's not solely about employment, but about restoring dignity and providing opportunities to build stronger communities. To date, we have enrolled 275 people like Annie into our program.

Thank you so much. Thank you for your work. Do we have any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Do we have any in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it to the members. Any questions or comments? Okay, would you like we have a motion in a second. Member would you like to close?

On behalf of Assemblymember Garcia, I respectfully request and aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Jobs Economic and Economic Development Committee. [Roll Call]

That bill is out. Thank you so much. We'll go ahead and go with item number five. Assemblymember Schiavo, since you were gracious enough, you've been going back and forth. Appreciate your time. Let's go ahead and hear item number five. AB 2499.

Thank you. Third time's a charm. So I am very grateful, Madam Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present on AB 2499 to you today. No person should lose a job because they need time to recover from a traumatic event. And AB 2499 will ensure that family members of living, direct victims and survivors of trauma can take unpaid leave and time off to address safety concerns, heal or support their families.

One in six survivors of violent crimes report losing their jobs or being demoted because they had to take time off following a traumatic event. 90% of survivors of domestic violence report having to resign or be fired because of the abuse. Seven out of ten victims describe feeling unsafe or scared following the event. And low-wage workers, including immigrants, women, nonbinary workers, and workers of color, who are specially vulnerable to assault, are also least likely to have existing flexibility or leave protections on the job.

Although there are some protections, many gaps that leave survivors vulnerable and unprotected remain. AB 2499 will recognize additional reasons survivors need to take unpaid time off from work and allow family members of survivors to take time off to support their loved ones. Employers will benefit as well, for their employees will be far more likely to return and be able to be productive, given the appropriate time to recover and their safety secured. Our goal is to make sure people have greater stability and protections to heal.

No one should have to decide between their sanity, their safety, and having a job. We are not requesting more sick days or a faster accumulation. This is simply for unpaid days to heal from devastating trauma. And it's simple. Joining me today is Stephanie Hatten from Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice, and also joining me today is Staff Attorney Katherine Wutchiett, hey, with Legal Aid at Work. And I'll turn it over to them.

Just a reminder, you have two minutes each. Thank you.

Feeling privileged to be before you, Madam Chair and your Members. I'm Stephanie Hatten from Stockton, California. I am here in support of AB 2499. On July 15, my son Antoine was brutally murdered by gun violence at his home in front of two of his children. The next day, out of all things in our lives, we saw that our lives had changed. His wife and children had three days to move. We were doing funeral arrangements still had to be made.

I was taking care of his seven very, very traumatized children and the other family members, which is his sister. That's the only living sibling left. Having to meet with different people concerning his death, making final arrangements and then his wife to be told that she had three days to move and she was terminated from her job because the incident took place at the complex. 16 years she was at that job. Had this Bill been in place, we wouldn't have been alone.

More of our family could have used sick time to support us in getting victim services. As a State Board-Certified Addiction Specialist, serving my community for over 25 years, I could no longer perform my duties at my job due to the murder of my son. It was devastating and I could not return as quickly as they demanded me to. I used my bereavement leave. I took a leave of absence, but it still wasn't enough.

That time was used to support arrangements and getting the family restored to their mental state and just getting them to become functionable. Trying to get his kids back to college and trying to get the others back to school. As the head of the family, I had to try to get my daughter, who's a nurse, back to work. She's a medications nurse, and there is no room for error.

When I needed to find services for myself, there was no time, causing my employer, after multiple years, to ask my resignation. With AB 2499 in place, I would not have been left to choose between the safety and the well being of myself and my family. Instead, I chose to lose my job because I chose my family. The impact was tremendous, mental and financial. We are living in a house with 11 people, designed for five.

I come before you humbly today to ask you to consider this Bill that will keep hard working, professional people like myself that are impacted out of the welfare system. Applying for food stamps was devastating from a college educated woman who made sure that her children got college educations. We did that to support our families. Please allow this Bill to go through and allow us to use the sick time for victim services. I thank you all so kindly.

Thank you.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Katherine Wutchiett and I'm a Senior Staff Attorney at Legal Aid at Work, an organization dedicated to advancing the rights of low-wage workers. And as part of that work, we have a helpline where we get calls from survivors of domestic violence who are trying to figure out what can they do for their safety without having to lose their job.

And it's not surprising, given the fact that one in six survivors of violence and one in two survivors of domestic assault end up losing their jobs or having to quit or be demoted because they need time off or because of the violence.

And while California has some protections in place to support these families, it's not nearly what it needs to be, which is devastating, given the fact that financial dependence is often something that keeps people who are being victimized at home from leaving and causes people to return to dangerous situations. AB 2499 addresses some of these gaps, first by adding additional specific reasons that people can take unpaid, job-protected time off from work.

If they have paid sick days, they can use those days, but it's not paid leave outside of that, and it's only for specific reasons, capped at 12 weeks. So it adds additional reasons. And then, importantly, it also lets family members take that time so they can support each other.

If somebody has a daughter that's living in an unsafe home, they should be able to take the day to help them move, and a sibling should be able to go to court with their loved one if they're getting a restraining order from their stalker. In addition to that, it also expands reasonable accommodations at work so additional survivors of violence can ask for safety accommodations at work.

So these are just changes at work, only related to safety, and only if it doesn't cause an undue burden to the employer and allows family members to ask for those changes as well. And then finally, it makes it easier for survivors to access these protections by placing them all within one state agency in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, which is enforced by the Civil Rights Department, so that somebody who is experiencing violence doesn't need to go to multiple agencies to to enforce their rights.

For these reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other people here in support of the item?

Natasha Minsker, Smart Justice California in strong support.

Magaly Zagal with Greenburg Traurig on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence. I'm also registering support for the following organizations: Equal Rights Advocates, LA Alliance for a New Economy, LA Best Babies Network, National Council of Jewish Women LA, National Partnership for Women and Families, Orange County Equality Coalition, Parent Voices California, Public Council, Working Partnerships USA, California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, Child Care Law Center, Worksafe, and Our Family. Thank you.

Ryan Mira Montez with AFSCME California in support.

Melissa Cosio with Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice to sponsor strong support, as well as Californians for Safety and Justice in strong support. Thank you.

Shazzy Kamali with Legal Aid at Work, testifying on behalf of the following organizations in strong support: California Work and Family Coalition, Asian Law Alliance, BreastfeedLA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Immigrant Policy Center, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, Caring Across Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, Center for Workers' Rights, Citizens for Choice, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, and Electric Universe. Thank you.

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

Annie Chou with the California Teachers Association. We're processing a support position this weekend.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. I want to start by saying that we agree this is a very important issue. I think from our perspective, we believe that California does currently have a lot of robust protections for victims, not only under the existing code, but also in other forms of leave that exist.

Over the last just four years, California has expanded a number of those leaves. And, in fact, there have been nine new leaves are expansed in just in those last couple of years that do also apply to small businesses. As part of those existing leaves, there are also robust protections for caring, for example, a family member. And we also agreed to amendments a couple of years ago that would also include within that definition a non-family member as well.

Under current law, as well, if there is a need to move someone or something along those lines for safety, we believe that is covered under the current law. And so I think from our perspective, we have some concerns that a lot of the additional qualifying reasons would then be for non-urgent matters.

And because the leave is, you know, whether it's capped at 12 weeks, for example, under the way that the Bill is written right now, you would be entitled to essentially unlimited time off, even if it was just attending like a non-urgent appointment or something along those lines. So we have had some initial discussions with the sponsor and the author's office.

Again, I think our concern is really that a lot of this is protected by current law, or we feel like there are certain situations where maybe there should be some guardrails applied under the leave, for example, maybe an hours cap or something along those lines, especially because this would apply to our smallest businesses, because one of the amendments would be dropping the threshold on some of these leaves down to just employers with five or more. So, again, appreciate the ongoing discussions that we've been having. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen, Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jaime Huff with the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed, but looking forward to working with you.

Hi. Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in respectful opposition for the reasons articulated by Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturing Technology Association, respectively opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses. Coming back to the Members. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you to the author for bringing the Bill forward. As you can see, we are short some Members on the Committee at the moment. I'm wondering if you can address the concerns by Cal Chamber related to the uncapped leave in potential scenarios. And what have those conversations been like?

I'm sure your Bill is not intended to create ways in which people can take advantage of a potential new policy. So how would you address that at the moment?

Sorry, my daughter's school is calling me right now and I'm like, what's going on? So it's not uncapped. There is, there are guardrails on it. It's tied to the Family Medical Leave Act, which is up to 12 weeks right now. And if that were to change, it would change. And so I think that it does provide limitations because of that.

It's also unpaid and so it's not, we're not asking for additional paid time off or paid leave, which obviously would be ideal, but we understand the hardship that that could present to employers. So I have to respectfully disagree that there are not some limits and guardrails on it. And I don't know if you have any additions.

Yeah, I agree with what you said. And additionally, it's not just you experience domestic violence or sexual assault, you can take time off. There's a list of specific reasons that people can take this leave that have been tailored based on the experience of victim advocates and survivors and family members and what they've encountered in the workplace.

And my follow up is, for the small businesses that don't have the larger protections that some corporations may have, what are the guardrails for that small mom-and-pop employer to be able to hire temporary workers while someone may take an unprecedented unpaid leave? Can they, in turn, hire someone else to do that particular job and then what happens when that individual chooses to come back and what happens to that job itself?

Yeah, so I'd make the point that the smaller employers are already covered by other leave laws as well that serve different purposes. But because of that, they do have practices of figuring out how to fill in when somebody has a baby or somebody has a family member who has a heart attack. So this isn't different in creating like a completely new type of obligation for a smaller employer.

And actually, employers of all sizes, from one to, you know, any number currently have to provide leave for specific reasons related to domestic violence. So, leave to go to court. So while this does expand on the obligations, it's certainly not something new or unprecedented or wildly different from what they've been doing beforehand.

I'm sorry, I'm not sure that actually answers my question. So my question is if, yes, there's all the policies that already have the protections in place for the particular scenarios that you, that you've mentioned, but if the policy is to create an uncapped amount of time where--

It's capped at 12 weeks.

It's capped at 12 weeks. So within that 12 weeks, can the small, can an employer hire someone else, be protected and not face a lawsuit that that job opportunity may no longer exist when that employee chooses to come back?

This doesn't give any, there's no restrictions on employers being able to hire someone temporarily to cover the work if it's long term. I mean, also, I just want to state that it's not always a long term. It's not always 12 weeks. Right? Sometimes it's a few days, sometimes it's a week, sometimes it's a couple weeks. And so I think there's a lot of variation within what the need is, case-by-case situation. But there's no restrictions on being able to hire someone to replace it.

There's not currently language in here that protects a return, but because it is protected leave, theoretically, and I would defer to an attorney on this, theoretically, it would be protecting their return.

Yeah, that's right. The workers have the right to return to their position, but employers have the right to hire temporary employees, and employees don't have the right to always continue in their position forever. They can be hired in a temporary position.

Thank you for that. I think the Bill is set to go to judiciary where this conversation can continue. My concern, I think the intent of the Bill is profound and important, I just would like to see the guardrails to ensure that a small business does not, will not face any unintended consequences when the employee on leave chooses to come back, and then you have a temporary worker that that business is investing in to be able to do that work temporarily.

And so I want to see some guardrails that secure that opportunity in itself before it gets to the floor. But I will be supporting the Bill and look forward to the conversation in Judiciary and when it gets to the floor.

Thank you, yeah, and we're happy to hear any recommendations you have. Thank you.

I just want to say thank you to my colleague for bringing those points forward about the small business. Our family is in small business, and you raise a very good point. You know, it's not always, yes, we have the right to hire for sure as a business owner, but at times when that job is over, it's sometimes very challenging. That job doesn't exist. And you have to, you know, hold it for that individual coming back.

What do we, what do we do with that employee that we have, that we have temporarily? So it is a huge concern, and it's a great question. I look forward to get it flushed out in Judiciary.

I would just say, you know, I'm a small business owner myself. I come from a family of small businesses, small business owners who had from one employee to 25 employees, depending on how big the jobs were. And I would say that I think it's a balance, right, that we're trying to strike. And we have to find the balance between making sure that we're protecting small businesses and also making sure that people don't lose their livelihoods because they have suffered a traumatic event.

And I don't think it helps anyone for people to lose their jobs and lose their livelihood, like we heard today. Right? A professional, someone who dedicated their career to helping people, lost her job because of the trauma that their family had experienced. And so we hope to strike that balance and are happy to continue the conversation.

Thank you. Can I get a motion? Second? Would you like to close?

I just want to thank so much Miss Hatten, for being here today and sharing her story. And Miss Wutchiett, who, yes, so much for her expertise, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And I appreciate your willingness to continue working on this Bill as it moves forward as stated today. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

The bill's on call. Thank you. We will now call item number three. AB Assembly Bill 248, Assemblymember Mike Fong. Assemblymember, you may open.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. Assembly Bill 2487 requires that the deputy secretary of climate to create and maintain a California green jobs website. This website would be a centralized hub for Californians to access information about green jobs and other educational or job training opportunities. The deputy secretary of climate was established within the labor and Workforce Development Agency and is already charged with identifying workforce transition needs, recommending strategies for training and education, and tracking clean energy jobs.

By allowing direct access to this information, this website addresses a key part of the transition to our carbon neutral California and training workers in failing positions. But this is not just an energy transition, it's also an economic one. And it must be a just transition where workers are not left behind, where communities are not left behind, and where jobs are available to everyone, reducing social and economic inequality.

Assembly Bill 2487 requires that our deputy secretary of Climate provides California's the Green Jobs website and assures that all Californians can connect to good green jobs. Here to testify and support is Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with the California Environmental Voters. Thank you.

Hi. Hello chair and committee members, I'm Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California environmental voters and we're here to respectfully ask this Committee to pass AB 2847. AB 2847 represents a significant step forward in California's commitment to a greener economy. By mandating the creation of a California Green Jobs website, the state is not just focusing on environmental goals, but also on democratic principles and economic and social equity. By making information easily accessible.

California's transition to renewable energy sources and zero carbon resources by 2045 is not just about reducing carbon emissions, but also about creating new opportunities for Californians, especially in this unique opportunity, as billions of dollars in funding is coming down from the Federal Government to create good climate jobs. Requiring the deputy secretary of climate to maintain a website so that available green jobs are easily accessible will be a game changer for regular working people.

To obtain information on these new jobs created specifically, AB 2487 aligns with California's efforts to phase out combustion trucks and promote zero emission vehicles, which not only reduces pollution, but also drives the creation of a clean vehicle manufacturing industry. The state's leadership in climate technology, with a significant presence of climate tech companies, further demonstrates the potential for job creation and economic growth in the green sector.

The need for AB 2487 stems from the realization that while California is making significant strides in transitioning its workforce and economy, there's a lack of publicly sanctioned resources for communication, coordination and accessibility. The California Green Jobs website will bridge this gap by providing information about green job opportunities, training programs, and skill requirements. This ensures that all Californians, especially those in declining industries, have the chance to participate in and benefit from the state's green economy. In essence, AB 2487 is not just about environmental policies.

It's about empowering workers, promoting economic equity, and fostering a more inclusive future for all Californians. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I have a motion. Second. Assemblymember Fong, would you like to close?

Thank you so much members. Thank you. Madam Chair, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, please call a roll.

The motion is do pass to Utilities and Energy Committee. [Roll Call]

That measure is out.

Thank you.

We will now move on to our last, is it our final bill? Item number four, AB 2494, Assembly Member Calderon.

Move the bill.

Second.

All right. Okay. I made it.

You made it.

Thank you, Chair and Members. AB 2494 would require large employers to provide employees with COBRA eligibility notices at the time of termination or a reduction of hours. If an individual is fired from their job or their work hours are reduced, they can be at risk of losing their health care coverage. These Californians must wait for 14 days before receiving a notification from their health plan with information on how to access their COBRA health benefits.

And sometimes this is too late. If their notice is lost or delayed in the mail, the impacted individual and their family can miss the deadline to opt into these benefits. This bill ensures the employees are equipped with the information they need to prevent healthcare coverage disruption. And I do not have any witnesses. So.

So do we have any witnesses in support or opposition? We do have a witness in opposition.

We don't have a position. We are working in the author's office just on some amendments, just because this is a federal statute. So we want to work on some amendments to kind of clarify delineation of responsibility between employer and health plan and help achieve the goal that the Assembly Member mentioned today. So that's it. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you. Any questions or comments from the Members? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. And I do want to say that we are working. She's absolutely correct. We are working with the Cal Chamber on implementation and amendments. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call] That measure is out.

That measure is out. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We will now return to adding on.

AB 2374 [Roll Call]. AB 2602. [Roll Call]

Okay, Sergeant, can you call the absent Members?

[Roll Call]

That concludes our business for today. We are adjourned. Thank you.