Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum, and should we. Let's go ahead with the consent calendar. Since we have a quorum, Wilk moves on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

The consent calendar is on call. Thank you so much. So we will start with our fine Member. Senator Laird can kick us off. He is presenting SB 1205. Thank you, Senator Laird.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Senate Bill 1205 will guarantee workers access to medical care for on-the-job injuries by prohibiting employers from retaliating against workers who must receive medical care during business hours. It extends temporary disability benefits to all employees with occupational injuries who must miss work for medical care. Currently, employees with occupational injuries who seek employer-requested medical care are entitled to temporary disability benefits, but that same entitlement does not extend to employees with occupational injuries who must seek care on their own.

A 2003 Supreme Court decision found employers may deny wage loss benefits to injured workers who miss work to receive medical care necessary to treat their occupational injuries. In these cases, this decision even allows employees to deny injured work. Employers to deny injured workers the right to use their sick leave. Neither this decision nor current law protects workers from retaliation, even when they are willing to forego wages, temporary disability benefits, or sick leave while missing work to seek medical care for occupation, injury, and illness.

I think, in short, this only applies to existing temporary disability workers, and I think there was an understanding it extended it much farther than that, and that was reflected in some of the opposition. Opponents also argue that this bill will result in millions of new decisions and calculations that will need to be tracked and documented. However, most workers comp claims never trigger temporarily temporary disability payments.

In addition, without the wages being reimbursed, this incents people to do it in a way that it doesn't do a wage loss. So it's not like a big additional cost. It protects injured workers by ensuring they can access timely medical care without retaliation for their occupational rights. Here to speak in support and answer any technical questions is Mitch Steiger of the California Federation of Teachers, and at the appropriate time, I respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, proud to sponsor this bill. The author did a great job of explaining the basics of it. We just wanted to focus a little bit on a few of the points raised by the opposition in their opposition letter. The first of which is the argument that this somehow undermines the purpose of temporary disability.

We would first point out that we very directly copied and pasted this language from another section in the labor code related to temporary disability, as stated by the author, when the employer is requesting medical care. So this is something that's already out there. This is something that employers and insurers, and TPA should all be pretty familiar with, and all we're doing is applying it to cases where the worker is seeking medical care on their own and not directed to do so by the employer.

The opposition also states in their letter that temporary disability is intended to assist with wage replacement while an employee is recovering from an injury. That's exactly the reason that we sponsored this bill. As it stands right now, there's nothing in law that requires the employer to give a worker temporary disability. There's nothing that even requires them to allow a worker to use their own sick leave.

There's nothing that requires the employer to allow the worker to go get medical care even if they're losing all of their wages during their normal working hours. It's this weird sort of gap in current law that opens up all sorts of opportunities for retaliation and discrimination that we're trying to address. The employers also mention in their letter that there's no evidence that it's necessary. We have several members who would very much disagree with that.

I spent a lot of time on the phone with one yesterday, and they all want to remain anonymous. They're all very afraid of being retaliated against. But one of them sent me a screenshot of an email from their employer very directly saying: please note any follow-up workers' compensation appointments should be made outside of regular working hours. And even where an employer does allow workers to use their own earned sick leave, we would argue that's not what earned sick leave is there for.

That's why we have a workers comp system. That's why we have temporary disability. Workers should not be forced to use their own deferred compensation to take care of themselves for an occupational injury. The occupational injury, the fact that it happened at work, puts it in a different box. And it's where we think temporary disabilities should take over, and workers shouldn't have to use their own earned sick leave, maybe even sometimes their own earned wages, to get that care.

And finally, we would just respond to the argument that section 132 A already protects workers. This is a section of law that prohibits any kind of retaliation against a worker for filing a claim.

Again, this gets to the nature of this bill, where it's dealing with this very specific kind of narrow deficiency in current law, where the employer wouldn't technically be retaliating against you because you filed a claim; they would be retaliating against you because you had to go get medical care during your normal working hours because that's the only time you can go get your physical therapy or your whatever.

And so if there was a retaliation and then the worker filed a claim against that, the worker would probably lose because the employer can very positively say, find that they have a worker's comp claim. I'm not retaliating against them because of that. It's because they got medical care during normal business hours. There's already a built-in disincentive against doing this, where temporary disability just replaces about two-thirds of your current wages. Not all of them.

Most of our members in the classified division barely make minimum wage or maybe a little bit above that. So, even a one-third pay cut is usually too much for them to withstand. They will only take advantage of this when absolutely necessary. So we think there are kind of built in checks to make sure that it's not abused.

But we do think it's a very important measure to make sure that workers can actually have access to the medical care that they need, and we would urge your support. Thank you.

Is there another witness in support?

Thank you, Madam Chair and senators. Seth Bramble, speaking this morning on behalf of 300,000 plus educators, the members of the California Teachers Association, I would just say briefly, injured workers deserve care and compassion. They don't deserve retaliation and reduced wages. We urge your support.

Thank you.

Anyone else in the room in support of this bill, please state your name, affiliation, and position.

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

Madam Chair, Jason Marcus with the California Applicants Attorneys Association in support of this bill.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Louie Costa with Smart Transportation Division, State Legislative Board, in support.

Elmer Luzardo with the California Labor Federation in support.

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

Anyone else speaking in support? Okay, now we'll move to opposition. Are there witnesses who are testifying?

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Faith Borges, just on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities here today in respectful opposition to SB 1205. As in print today, however, I would like to begin by thanking the sponsor and the author's office for being generous with their time to meet with us to share their intent to ensure that injured workers' ability to access medical care is preserved.

This is an objective that is shared by employers, and we're aware of no objective information that an injured worker is being forced to forego essential medical care, which is a very troubling claim. California law includes various provisions, including various provisions of the labor code, prohibits discrimination in any manner against an injured worker and protects employees from the type of retaliation that's being asserted to the extent that there is an opportunity to continue working together to clarify that employees have the right to access medical care, we're happy to do so. That said, we are concerned about the current approach. In print, employees hurt at work are provided employer-funded medical care and tax-free temporary disability to replace lost wages while the employee's condition stabilizes or reaches maximal medical improvement.

As noted in the DIR injured worker guidebook, the labor code states that temporary disability is provided when the treating physician says an employee is unable to do their usual job for more than three days and the employer does not offer work or modified alternative work while the employee recovers.

To put it simply, a doctor would have to certify that the employee was unable to work in any capacity for a specific duration for each specified medical appointment, depending on the employee's classification or bargaining agreements, applicable benefits such as those provided in the Education Code 4850 salary continuation for first responders and would need to be coordinated with the employees, payroll department and claims administrator. Once a worker's condition is permanent and stationary and the claim has settled, they may receive permanent disability benefits and future medical care.

This system helps bring claims to a timely conclusion, which is good for injured workers and employers, and this bill fundamentally changes claims, payment, and administration in a way that is costly and frictional and will lead to delayed resolution and more litigation. Additionally, it's in direct conflict with multiple sections of labor code surrounding the delivery of benefits to injured workers. These are a few of our concerns, but as mentioned, we're hopeful to reach a workable consensus that protects workers and provides good stewardship of scarce public dollars.

I've also been asked to register opposition for my colleagues with CSAC.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and opposition. I do want to echo my colleague in thanking the author's office and the sponsors for having conversation with us. We agree with the concerns raised by my colleague, but I do want to raise a couple of other points. As the Workers Comp Appeals Board has noted, the worker's compensation system is ultimately a compromise between the interests of workers and employers.

On one hand, workers' claims are accepted regardless of fault, and employees receive considerable benefits, including $10,000 of medical care, even if their claim is ultimately denied. However, on the other side of the coin is what has held that the worker's compensation system does not effectively create a blanket wage replacement or leave policy for every possible future appointment once a worker is back at work. The workers comp system is intended to be a fair and balanced system to all parties. It is a no-fault system.

However, that means there must be compromises between employees and employers. This legislature, however, has provided employees with very generous rights, far more than other states when it comes to medical needs. That includes paid sick leave. California Family Rights Act, which includes up to 12 hours of leave. Sorry, 12 weeks of leave can be used in two to three-hour increments, reasonable accommodations laws, and more. Labor code 246.5 does explicitly say that sick leave can be used for preventative care or medical appointments.

So unless there's something I'm missing, in my opinion, an employer who is denying a worker the right to use a sick leave to attend a doctor's appointment would be in clear violation of that law. As an organization that has a hotline in which our attorneys talk every single day to employers, our experience is that employers are honoring that, whether it's that the use of CFRA or accommodations or otherwise for follow-up workers' compensation, employment. We are very hopeful again, that we can work on a solution.

But as the bill is in print now, must remain opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. And I see congratulations is an order for you since last year and seeing your baby. Anyone else testifying in opposition to this bill, please step forward and state your name, affiliation, and position only.

Hi, good morning. Laura Curtis. On behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Hi, good morning. Ryan Bordeaux on behalf of the California Hospital Association, also in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Anyone else testifying in opposition to this bill? Any me-toos, tweeners? No? Okay. So good. Senator, it looks like we don't have many members here. Would you like to close? And then when we have a quorum, we'll come back, and -

That's perfect.

I would do a very brief thank everybody for testifying and obviously, we are meeting with people and having a conversation. And I think the points that were still made by myself and Mister Steiger stand in terms of just a concern about foregoing compensation regardless of what rights exist now. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, and as I mentioned, we are going to wait for additional Members before we take a motion. Okay, so next, we'll move to our next item. Senator Padilla is in the house, so we will bring him up next. He has 2 bills with us today, SB 1049 and SB 1105. And these are file items number 3 and 4. Thank you, Senator Padilla, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning to you and to Senator Laird and our esteemed staff. I'm here to present SB 1049. I am back again, and I'm going to keep coming back every session because I promised I would to continue to push that we are complete in our approach to working poverty and wage standards and ways to address that very sad phenomenon in our state. SB 1049 would create, again, a formula.

Believe it or not, there never has been a baseline formula to assess how we set wage standards in this state, and it certainly hasn't been leaked to housing costs. And once again, this version of the Bill would require the establishment of that, both on a statewide and regional market and county wide level. A growing percentage of Californians overall workforce are economically stranded

Cutting to the chase, that means that more and more folks in our workforce, certainly the entry level of our workforce, rely on low wage or minimum wage jobs for 100% of their living. That is a different statistic today than it was 40 or 50 years ago.

More and more of them are continually required to work in that area of our workforce, more and more hours, which means that there is a lack of economic, traditional economic mobility that we have not seen, and it is a major contributor to everything we talk about in this state, whether it's housing or access to healthcare delivery or other social and economic inequities that we experience.

We are slowly under our feet, allowing the creation and the maintenance of two separate economies in this state. One that serve the one economy composed of folks who serve the economic interests of everyone else in the state who can participate in our economy, and those that are left out; I call them the invisible workforce. So we need to create a methodology, and that's what this Bill does. We need to create a link to housing costs, and that's what this Bill does.

We need to collect and report that data, and we need to begin having, and this is a small step, conversations about how we might incentivize private employers and others who have the capacity and the margin to be recognized that they will pay a living housing wage to their employers.

We need to find every way to get employers to be incentivized to put more of their workforce at a better wage standard so that everyone that is employed by them can afford to live anywhere remotely near where they work, where they can get to a point where they can build wealth and better stability for their families and their children. And more importantly, regardless of your political, philosophical persuasion, they can participate meaningfully in California's economy, and that's what this Bill takes steps to do.

The living wage certification for businesses, as I said, that's contained and outlined here, is a small first step, but it's an important step, and I hope that this Legislature will have bigger conversations down the road about how we can strengthen this piece at trying to get at working poverty in our state. With me is Kelly Batson, the interim CEO of United Way of the Bay Area, and Anna Hasselblad, Senior Director of Policy at United Ways of California. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Senator Padilla, and you all both each have two minutes to give your testimony, and then we'll take comments and support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Batson, interim CEO at United Way Bay Area, and at United Way Bay Area, we envision a community where everyone has the opportunities and the resources they need to thrive, and we look at the root causes of poverty and how we might dismantle those, and build the equitable pathways to prosperity.

And in our region, you know, in the Bay Area, which is about 10 counties, by some counts, 800,000 out of 2.4 million households pay more than 30% of their income on housing. And that statistic is from the real cost measure, which is a United Ways of California study that takes into account: what does it really take for a household to have what it needs to pay for all of its basic needs?

Needs for many households, the largest cost, of course, is housing, and this is especially true in the Bay Area. Senator Padilla's living wage certification Bill would define what a living wage is in California by where you live, by county, by region, by state. SB 1049 would also establish a business certification program to provide businesses and employers the chance to uplift that they're a certified living wage business or living wage employer, which is so important.

And, of course, you know, as usual, California, we love California to be the leader. There is a federal Poverty Line Act at the federal level by Congressmember Mullin, and we really hope that this Bill will also be a complement to that. If California households, you know, with that, California households will have an even better chance to become financially stable. And, of course, there's power and information.

Senator Padilla's Bill would establish and annually update what a living wage should be in California on a county, regional and state level. Representative Mullin's Bill would shine light on the updated number of households that would be eligible for public benefits. And then this real cost measure report by United Ways of California would continue to highlight the wage gaps that California has experienced across California. SB 1049 will not change the state minimum wage. Rather, the Bill should be the yardstick by which we set our priorities.

By determining accurate cost of living with regional considerations in mind, we would be better able to address the racial wealth gap and apply this formula to local demographics. It would make clear what investments are needed for our workforce and to improve the systems that can lift up families. For those reasons, United Way Bay Area offers its full support for SB 1049 by Senator Padilla and urge your aye vote. Thank you so much.

Good morning. Anna Hasselblad with United Ways of California. We represent all local United Ways across the Golden State, in every county, and we are a proud sponsor of SB 1049. And this Bill would provide the community and civic leaders and business sector public officials, etcetera, the vital information that they need to ensure that as we make budget decisions impacting families with low incomes, that we're fully considering what families need to earn and have a dignified standard of living.

And I want to put an emphasis on the word dignified. There is something there that's very important. Additionally, SB 1049, the business certification program, would ensure that businesses have an opportunity to communicate with consumers, that they pay a living wage, and employers could use the certification to recruit and retain employees, build partnerships, etcetera. This voluntary program would be a win win for businesses, employees and consumers alike.

Currently in California, a minimum wage earner must work more than two full time jobs to afford a one bedroom apartment in most markets. I'm going to pause for impact. That's a really incredible statement, and that tells you how far we have to go. If someone works one full time job, whatever that job may be, that should be enough to cover their housing and basic necessities. As mentioned by my colleague, the real cost measure, our study on what it takes to a household to meet basic needs.

Over one in three households in California cannot meet those basic needs. We're talking about a very big segment of the population. And that's what the Senator alluded to. Largely invisible in many ways. We seek to make them visible and to make systems react to their needs more promptly. And knowledge is power.

When we have an official state living wage formula that outlines clearly what it costs for people to live with dignity in California versus living paycheck to paycheck, will have the power to act to address those gaps. In fact, addressing those gaps and building sustainable investments through state policy and budget decisions is one of the most important roles that the Legislature and Administration plays.

The data that you all have at your fingertips to inform those decisions should reflect what Californian households face on a daily basis in each community, by each community. Every Californian deserves what it takes to be financially stable and build generational wealth. And employers should be supported in committing to a living wage to help them accomplish this. So for these reasons, United Ways of California urges your support of SB 1095 or, sorry, 1049.

Thank you so much. Anyone speaking in support of this Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning, Gina Plate on behalf of the Monarch School here in support of the Bill.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support.

Okay, we'll move to opposition. Anyone in this room that is giving testimony in opposition to this Bill? Anyone speaking in opposition to this Bill? Okay. With that, we'll move to the dias. Members, any comments? Any comments? Well, I just want to say to the author, thank you for bringing this Bill forward. This is critically important for California as we figure out ways to bring our economies together. And certainly, if we don't have evidence and data, it's hard to do that.

And I see this as a transformational policy and look forward to hearing more as it moves through the process here in the State Senate. I think we do have a quorum. No, we do not have a quorum, but do we have a motion? Sorry, Senator, would you like to close?

No, no, thank you, Madam Chair. I would just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Assistan, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call].

Okay, the Bill is on call with a vote of two to zero. And so we will wait for other Members and we'll close this out when we all get back. Thank you. Okay, so now, Senator Padilla, we're going to go to SB 1105 are you ready?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. I want to thank you and your staff for working with us on this Bill. SB 1105 would require that paid sick leave granted to agricultural employees can also be utilized to avoid hazardous environmental conditions such as smoke, heat or flooding under the declaration of a local state emergency. As the nation's leading farm state and one of the world's largest producers of food, farmworkers have been foundational to California's standing as the fourth largest economy in the world.

Despite the vital role that farmworkers play in California, they continue to face several disadvantages as compared to other populations. Working populations many lack access to healthcare and other critical safety net services, and farm workers do not enjoy the same protections workers as workers in other industries. Workplace conditions also expose farmworkers to several adverse environmental hazards resulting from extreme weather events that endanger their health and safety and economic livelihood, including working under extremely high temperatures, exposure to smoke from wildfires, and rain.

Agricultural workers are 35 times more likely to die from heat related stress than workers in any other industry in the United States. Agriculture is also one of the most hazardous industries in the United States, and the rapidly changing climate will only worsen conditions for these laborers.

In an analysis conducted by Mother Jones of the 168 farmworker deaths in California between 2018 and 2022, 83 of the 168 tragically lost their lives when temperatures in the surrounding area exceeded 80 degrees Fahrenheit, the temperature that trigger’s California’s heat safety requirements.

As average temperatures increase and heat waves, wildfires and extreme conditions increase, farmworkers will be at continued risk for losing their lives when the State of California has taken some of the most proactive steps to be a leader in occupational safety standards related to heat smoke. Farm workers need to know that during climate emergencies that they are not risking personal financial disaster by choosing their safety.

Allowing them to protect themselves and use the time off that they have earned and are entitled to avoid exposing their bodies to further risk. Farmworkers are part of the economic lifeblood of our state and putting food on all of our tables. We must do everything we can to empower these workers. With me today is Irene De Barraicua, Director of Policy, Advocacy, and Communications from Lideres Campesinas.

Thank you very much, Senator Padilla, and thank you for having me here today. Lidres Campesinas is in support of SB 1105, and Lidres Campesinas is a statewide network of women farmworker leaders, and as we know, farmworkers contribute to a $50 billion estimated economy here in California. These essential workers continue to labor without the necessary safety nets like unemployment benefits, to rely on during circumstances beyond their control. They often cannot afford to put food on their own tables due to reduced hours related to extreme weather conditions.

They also continue to be amongst the most vulnerable due to incomplete immigration status and the lack of adequate oversight that ensures their safety and proper worker protections. Farmworkers are losing months of wages and work due to climate change. This also contributes to an unstable labor force, something we all need to work together to preserve. We recently held a panel with farmworkers and asked their thoughts on being able to use sick time for climate related reasons.

They all agreed it would be really nice, although still many express they do not even get sick time. SB 1105 is a necessary move forward until we implement intentional wage replacement programs that do not exclude immigrant and essential workers. Recently, I heard Dolores Huerta speak about the 70 plus years of farmworker movement building and how there's still much work to be done. So this would definitely be a move forward. And on that note, happy Dolores Huerta day. Thank you.

In support of this Bill. Thank you.

Sorry, I have to raise that up a little bit. Good morning. Jonathan Clay on behalf of the City of Imperial here in support. These are all Members of our community, and so we're really proud of Senator Padilla for carrying this Bill and support him on this measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Ann Katten with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Thank you.

Abby Alvarez with the California Food and Farming Network, the Marin Food Policy Council, CCEJN, the Central Coast Alliance, United for Sustainable Economy, and the Pesticide Action Network and Routes of Change.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in support of this Bill? Okay, we'll move to opposition. Is there anyone giving testimony in opposition to this Bill? Anyone speaking in opposition to this Bill? Okay, thank you. And now we'll turn to Members.

Thank you. I think this is a good Bill, and I move the Bill.

Thank you for that, Senator Laird. Senator Padilla, would you like to close?

Thank you. Madam Chair, respectfully, ask for an aye vote.

Okay. We do have a motion. Okay, thank you for that. We have a motion. Assistant, will you call the roll?

On file item number four, SB 1105. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, this vote is on call at a vote of two to zero. Thank you so much, Senator Padilla.

Madam Chair, I don't see any other authors. So for the purposes of just getting the vote up, I would move the consent agenda.

Okay, so we have a lot of competing hearings today. We're going to take a 15-minute recess here in labor, public employment, retirement, and then reconvene. Okay. The committee on labor, public employment, and retirement. 20 seconds. Okay, so since we have more of our members here, we are going to go back to SB 1205, Senator Laird's Bill, to see if we get our motion put forward so we can call the vote. Thank you so much, Senator Cortese. Secretary, can we call the roll?

On file item seven, SB 1205 by Senator Laird. The motion is do-pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, at four to zero, this bill is on call. Next, we are going to hear from Senator Cortese. Are you ready to present on your bill? We're going to move in file order. We've been jumping around, so we are going back to file order. And that would be Senator Cortese, file item number eight.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and senators, I'm pleased to present SB 1299, sponsored by the United Farm Workers. The increased frequency of extreme heat conditions and its growing risks to workers highlight the importance and necessity of employer compliance with California's outdoor heat regulations to keep workers safe. SB 1299 promotes compliance with the existing outdoor heat regulation through a rebuttable presumption for heat related injury and death. Farm workers who suffer injury, illness or death while working for a noncompliant employer will be treated and compensated expeditiously.

The bill also establishes a farmworker climate change heat injury and death fund. To offset DIR's administrative costs. The new fund will be funded on a one time basis from the existing Workers Compensation Administration Revolving fund. That was a lot to say. Some of the largest agricultural counties in the state are experiencing record breaking heat waves. In 2022, King City in Monterey County broke its hottest temperature ever recorded at 116 degrees. Fresno recorded an all time high at 114 degrees.

Stockton in San Joaquin County shattered its 1988 record of of 106 by reaching 112 degrees. These record breaking heat waves are harmful to the health of agricultural workers from 2018 to 2019. In fact, the number of suspected and confirmed farm worker heat related deaths increased exponentially. With us today to testify, we have Martha Montiel, a farm worker representing the United Farm Workers, and Anne Katten, director of Pesticide and Worker Safety Project, and legislative advocate for the California Rural Legal Assistance foundation.

At the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you so much. Witnesses, please step forward. You each have two minutes and then we will go to testimony and not testimony statements in support. Please proceed.

Thank you. [Spanish]

Good morning. My name is Marta Montiel. I'm a farm worker and member of UFW and we're here in support of SB 1299. I'm not here to ask for more benefits for farmworkers. I'm not here to ask for changes to the state's outdoor heat regulations. It is getting hotter. Heat makes farmworkers sick. Heat has killed too many of us. The state gave us the names of 30 fund workers who died in 2019.

When the state looked into these deaths, they found that 13 of the employers of those 30 dead found workers were in violation of heat regulation. California does not keep track of how many workers are admitted to the hospital because of heat stroke or other illnesses.

[Spanish]

In the summer of 2021. I had impactful experience when I was working in the great fields and it was over 100 degrees. My colleague started feeling dizzy and almost became unconscious because there wasn't water nearby, there wasn't shade. We told the crew leader, but he didn't want to take responsibility and told us that we could turn her to her house or to her doctor office. This lack of response implanted by employers is the norm. Fighting climate change is not just about electric cars.

It's also about the simple things, cold water, shade and rest breaks. That's not too much to ask when you know these things really do save lives. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. I'm Anne Katten, pesticide and work health and safety specialist with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and we strongly support SB 1299 because by incentivizing compliance with the heat, illness and injury prevention regulation, it will say, save lives and prevent debilitating injury and illness. Like you've just heard of, the process for SB 1299 works as a farm worker suffers a heat related injury, illness or fatality while employed doing agricultural work. The worker or the deceased workers family files a workers compensation claim.

If the claim is contested, it's reviewed by the Workers Comp Appeals Board, whose judges routinely evaluate evidence of safety regulation compliance in workers comp cases. If the evidence demonstrates that the employer was not in compliance with the heat illness prevention standard, the injury or fatality becomes eligible for the rebuttal presumption under this legislation. If there is no evidence of violation of the existing heat illness prevention regulation at the time of the injury or death, then the bill simply does not apply.

But the case may still be ruled compensable. The Workers Comp Appeals Board will rule based on the evidence, including whether there was failure to comply with the heat regulation. 1299, however, does not change the existing heat illness prevention regulation. It doesn't apply to employers who are in compliance with the heat illness prevention regulation. It doesn't create any new workers compensation benefit levels. It doesn't impose any penalty on employers. We thank you for your consideration and we urge your aye vote of this important legislation.

Thank you very much for your testimonies. Next, we'll call those in support of this bill. Please state come to the podium and state your name, affiliation and position.

[Unintelligible] California Labor Federation, in support.

David Campos on behalf of the County of Santa Clara, in support.

Jason Marcus, California Applicants Attorneys Association, in support.

Rachel Deutsch, California Coalition for Worker Power, in strong support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters, in support.

Anyone else commenting in support of this bill? Okay, next we'll move to opposition. Opposition witnesses. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. We hear the frustration expressed by the opponents regarding continuing issues related to heat. However, our opposition really comes from the fact that this bill does not appear to be based on an alleged failing of the workers compensation system.

And we talked a lot about that system in the hearing today and want to remind that it is a no fault system with a vast, vast majority of claims being accepted and being accepted quickly. As this committee has stated when assessing prior workers compensation bills, creating a presumptual is an exceptional deviation and makes it so that employers, quote, "must accept liability barring unusual circumstances."

For that reason, this legislature and the administration has denied attempts to create presumptions or has vetoed such bills absent clear and convincing evidence showing data showing the need for those presumptions. We are still collecting some data, but preliminary audits that we have run show that very, very few claims related to heat are filed. Entity, for example, only had 13 in the last five years. If the proponents have other data, we are very happy to assess that.

I think just kind of an overarching point is that generally in the legislature, the administration enacts a presumption. It is because we have clear data showing that the workers compensation system specifically is a problem, and we have not seen that with this bill just related to the mechanics of how the presumption would work. We do have concerns about WCAB being the one are to assess whether there has been a violation of an OSHA standard.

For example, there was a bill last year, AB 594, by Assemblymember Maienschein, that would have tasked public prosecutors with enforcing OSHA standards, and that was actually promptly removed from the bill due to this exact same concern. And again, WCAB right specializes workers compensation. We have concerns about having them delve into other aspects of labor law. Also, it appears that any violation of a standard would trigger the presumption, even if unrelated. So, for example, there are certain regulations regarding training requirements.

If even just one supervisor was not trained, even if that supervisor had nothing to do with the worker at issue, the presumption would apply. And then finally, the language says that it applies to, quote, resulting injuries. So if the worker is able to show already that the injury resulted from work, no presumption would be needed. That claim would actually already be accepted under the current system. So respectfully, ask for a no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, chair and members of the committee, my name is Laura Curtis, and I'm here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. We are obviously very sympathetic to this issue, and insurers generally want to reduce risk. We don't want to see any heat illness claims, but we don't see that this bill is actually the solution to that issue.

I align my comments with the chamber, but I do want to underscore two main provisions of the bill or main issues with the Bill that we see as problematic. First, as the chamber has previously stated, this legislature and the administration have recognized many times that presumptions should be established sparingly. Just last year, Governor Newsom made clear in several veto messages that there must be clear and compelling evidence in order for a presumption to be established.

However, we are just simply not aware of the data to support a presumption in this case. So, based on these standards set by this legislature and the administration, we think that this bill fails to meet that clear and compelling evidence standard. Second, injury is defined in the bill as any heat related injury, illness, or death that develops or manifests after the employee was working outdoors or within the pay period in which the employee suffers any heat related injury or death.

So in this bill, there are no real limits on the timeframe as to what would constitute after working for agricultural employees, many of them are paid on a weekly basis. However, sometimes in other sectors, such as dairy farming, they're paid on a monthly basis.

So the injury must develop or manifest within a week or maybe a month after the employee is working, which could include them going home, working out, doing labor in their own yard or around their own house, playing sports, and then suffering the heat related illness still within that week or that month. And we see that as extremely problematic because the definition of injury would argue, arguably create an unrebuttable presumption of coverage for an employee who suffers an injury a week or a month after going home.

Such precedent would upend the workers compensation system. For these reasons, we are respectfully opposed to SB 1299 and do thank the author and his office for meeting with us on this issue. But we do ask for a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we'll have opposition testimony. Please just state comments. Please just state your name, position.

Good morning. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau Federation, in opposition for the reasons previously described. Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Roschen, on behalf of the California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Growers and Gingers Association, Western Ag Processors, the Strawberry Commission, and Nisei Farmers League. In opposition.

Chair and members, Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed.

Good morning chair and members. Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, California Grain and Feed Association, California Seed Association, and various other agricultural entities, respectfully opposed.

Okay. Seeing no more comments, we will turn it over to members. Senator Durazo? Yes.

Something like this should just be naturally taken care of when you work out in the fields, as I did as a little kid growing up in the fields with my sisters and brothers and parents, nobody watched out for the heat. We're really glad that now in California, there are some heat regulations that should have been enough. But when people continue to get sick and die, I think it's pretty outrageous.

If the heat regulations are followed, there's no presumption, and that seems to be as simple as anybody needs. So I'm surprised to continue to see opposition to the livelihood of people who work so hard to put the food on our tables that there is such power against them having these minimal protections. So I'm really disappointed, and I would be honored to move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. And I want to just align my comments with my good colleague from Los Angeles, and thank you, Senator Cortese, for bringing this bill.

California is getting hotter and hotter, and as we're dealing with climate change, we have to ensure that every workplace, particularly those that are outdoors, people who are preparing our food, who are working in the conditions of climate change, every day, day in and day out, are protected, and it's incumbent upon us to ensure that that happens as the state legislature. So with that, I'll ask you to close.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair, and Senator Durazo, for your comments as well. I'll be brief, but I do want to respond just very quickly to a couple of things. First of all, as we all know, despite the characterization, I think, by the opposition, a rebuttal presumption does not guarantee that a claim is going to be paid by any means.

It shifts the burden of proof to a presumption that is rebuttable by the employer so that those examples of somebody playing a sport two weeks after a high heat situation in a non compliance situation would somehow automatically lead to fraud or, to acclaim, not substantiated. If the employer has that information, they can bring it forward and rebut the presumption and presumably prevail. But we have, as Senator Durazo said, we have heat illness standards now for a reason.

The simplest way to avoid the presumption if the employer is worried about that is simply comply. Just comply.

If I didn't have a sponsor on this bill, to be perfectly candid, I would not even have the proof required for compliance in the bill, because I think if a farm worker is working 114 degree heat and succumbs to an illness or succumbs completely if it's fatal, which, and we have had those circumstances, there probably should be a presumption, a rebuttable presumption, but a presumption here, the sponsor, in trying to be fair, has said, look, we're not even asking for the presumption unless there's proof that there was non compliance with the heat illness standards in the first place, which, in terms of disappointment, having grown up as both a farm worker and an employer of farm workers in my own long standing family business, which still exists, by the way, agriculturally, I almost wonder why the opposition isn't saying, let's hurry up and take this bill before somebody comes along and just asks for a straight up presumption.

I mean, this bill is actually requiring an extra step beyond what we have in a workers comp claim, an extra hurdle for the employee. But I think the sponsors, if I can speak on behalf of my own sponsor in a spirit of fairness, came forward and said, look, we're not asking for this in cases where there's compliance. If there's compliance, that's all we're looking for. And if there isn't, up to the worker to prove that there wasn't. That's a pretty high hurdle.

With that, I appreciate, again, the comments and the consideration, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Durazo. Assistant, will you please call the roll.

On file item eight. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Smallwood [Roll Call]

Okay we have a vote, four to zero. This bill is on call. Thank you, Senator Cortese. Next, Senator Wiener. Oh. Okay.

We are going to go back to the top of the agenda with file item number two and that Senator Scott Wiener, SB 988. Senator Wiener, please proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you for hearing this bill today. I'm presenting Senate Bill 988, the Freelance Worker Protection act, which will provide basic protections for freelance workers in California. Currently, freelancers lack even the most basic of protections, most notably the right to be paid for their work on time. According to the freelancers union, 71% of freelance workers have experienced late or nonpayment, 59% report living paycheck to paycheck, and only 25% report that they consistently have written contracts for their work.

In 2023, both New York and Illinois enacted versions of this legislation, and California should follow suit. So SB 988 will require, for covered contracts of dollar 250 or more over at least a four month period. Will require a written contract. Will require that unless the contract specifies a different timetable, that the payment has to occur within 30 days of service being provided will contain some anti retaliation measures and damages protections so that if violations occur, there will be a remedy.

The state labor commissioner and Attorney General are both given authority, and of course, the contracts can be enforced in court. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote. With me today to testify is Gabi Conti, who is a member of the National Writers Union, and Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Gabi Conti. I live in Los Angeles, California, where I've been a freelance contributing writer for various website since 2013. I've experienced firsthand many injustices that could have been prevented with this bill. The first time I was published, I was not paid for my work, which I had to accept because at the time, I was told this was standard and the only way to get published. I wrote for that website for free for months before they finally started paying me $25 an article.

Now I'm a published author of a best selling book. I'm the writer of the number one fiction podcast on Apple and I still am faced with these injustices. Recently I was forced to take a kill fee for my work, which is another way freelancers get screwed over. A kill fee is usually 25% of the rate and often comes with multiple drafts.

The two times this has happened to me in my career, it was very clear that my full time editor was inexperienced, which led to me not getting paid for what I deserve for my time and my extra work. Currently, I am one of 25 freelance writers who haven't been paid since July for our work, which is currently running on a website. We all have contracts from this employer that state we will get paid for our work within 30 days of submitting our invoices.

I personally am owed over $5,000. We keep on getting promised we'll get paid soon and funding is coming in. But after months of no payment, I and others are now working with the National Writers Union. Since we told the website that the NWU would be handling our case, this publication is now claiming they lost funding because we are speaking up when all we are doing is simply asking to collect payment for our overdue invoices for the published work that we did.

The injustices I face as a freelance writer are just a snapshot of this industry. We are underpaid, sometimes not paid at all, and we are constantly getting taken advantage of. We need this bill to protect us. freelance isn't free. Thank you.

Good morning. Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, we are the cosponsor of this bill. The National Riders Union is affiliated with the Teamsters at the national level, and this year was the first time I had heard about the significant problems that freelancers face, particularly in the space of writing and photojournalism. But there are other areas as well, and that prompted our union to co sponsor this bill.

And it simply mirrors, as the senator said, two other laws that were passed in New York and Illinois. Those have worked great in terms of not just sort of government enforcement, but once the laws were on the books, hiring entities, whether they were publishers or websites, kind of got the message that they needed to pay the people that work for them. And there is one other place that this law exists, which is in Los Angeles. It was an ordinance recently passed in Los Angeles, and we feel it's time for the rest of the Californians to get this protection.

Are there any more witnesses speaking in support of the bill today? Please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position. Okay. Are there seeing none. Are there any witnesses speaking or testifying in opposition to the bill today?

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I want to thank the author for the amendments taken to date, and I agree. I think this is a good policy. My only concern is just one provision of the enforcement section. It says that if there's any violation of the law, there would be an automatic award of damages that are equal to the amount of the contract or the work performed. Our concern would then be that if.

If there was really no harm, the worker was paid on time, or if there was just a slight deviation from the law in the written contract, that would automatically entitle a plaintiff to amount of damages equal to the worth of the contract. So we've sent over an amendment to the author's office simply requesting that the court could have discretion over the amount of the penalty, and so look forward to continued discussions. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else here to testify in opposition to the bill?

Thank you. Chair and members, Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, just echoing CalChamber's comments. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing no further witnesses, we will bring it to the members. Thank you. We have a motion to move the bill. Yes. Senator, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Wonderful. Assistant, may we call the roll?

On file item two, SB 988. The motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

This bill is on call with a vote of four to zero. Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Thanks. We are still going in file order. So we have next Senator Durazo. And she is presenting SB 1346, file item nine.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the committee, SB 1346 is a narrowly tailored bill that closes a very problematic gap in temporary disability coverage for an injured worker who experiences delays in treatment through no fault of their own. Existing law limits an employee with a single injury causing temporary disability to not receive disability payments for more than 104 compensable weeks within a period of five years from the date of injury.

It requires an employer to provide all medical treatment necessary to cure or relieve an employee from a work related injury. In return, the employee cannot sue their employer. Unfortunately, in a small percentage of cases, this allows temporary disability benefits to end simply because necessary treatment was erroneously or unreasonably denied and the denial delayed the injured workers recovery and returned to work.

To address this, SB 1346 provides that when a denial of medical treatment made after a utilization review is overturned by independent medical review on medical necessity grounds or by the Workers Compensation Appeals Board, then temporary disability payments between that denial and the reversal are not to be included within the 104 week coverage time limit. With me to testify in support of this bill is Jason Marcus, legislative chair for the California Applicant Attorneys Association.

Madam Chair, senators, Senator Durazo, thank you again. Jason Marcus with the Applicant's Attorneys Association. Two things about this bill I'd like to point out. First, you may note that the similar version of this bill was put through the legislature and vetoed by Governor Newsom last year with the author's help. There have been some tweaks.

Specifically, in last year's version of the bill, if the worker's treatment that was denied and then overturned by the independent medical review process, the worker automatically was granted that period of temporary disability outside of the normal two year cap for that time between the initial denial and the overturn on their appeal. In this year's bill, we vested that power with the Workers Compensation Appeals Board.

That is our court system that deals with workers compensation claims and disputes so that only when a judge decides that there's a basis to award temporary disability outside of the tier cap will the worker get that cap. We think that addresses the concerns raised by both the opposition and by Governor Newsom and his veto message about potential frictional costs with this bill.

Secondly, I like to address an issue raised by the opposition where they state that independent medical review is over utilized, or they've told me that there is what they call unnecessary independent medical review. You've heard a lot of discussion today in all these bills about workers compensation, how it's a no fault system.

It's also a compulsory system, meaning when a worker gets hurt on the job, their only remedy is to file a claim and seek benefits through the workers compensation process, whether they want to or not. Which means that worker is subject to all of the rules and regulations that currently exist in the worker's compensation process.

So when a worker goes to their doctor and their doctor recommends treatment, and that treatment is denied through the utilization review process, in existing law, the only remedy the worker has to challenge that denial of treatment is through the independent medical review process. So frankly, I take a bit of offense at the opposition saying that that process is overused when the only remedy a worker has when their treatment is denied is to seek an appeal through independent medical review.

And if the worker doesn't appeal that denial through the independent medical review process, that denial is good for 12 months, meaning neither the worker nor their doctor can seek request authorization for that treatment again within the following year. So what's a worker to do when their treatment is denied? Well, they file an appeal because that's the only remedy they have. So again, I thank the author for her work, I thank the committee for allowing us to be here today, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses speaking in support of this bill? Please step to the podium. State your name, affiliation and position.

Sorry. Shane Gusman on behalf of the California School Employees Association and the Teamsters.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we'll move to opposition. Anyone testifying in opposition of the bill, please step forward.

Thank you chair and members Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities here in respectful opposition to SB 1346. In compliance with the California Labor Code, all employers or their claims administrators are required to have utilization review programs. An injured worker, their physician or their attorney can trigger independent medical review to appeal UR decisions.

In 2019, the California Workers Compensation Institute published a report using the top law firms identified in UR data, which showed that some attorneys submitted nearly all of their clients treatment denials or modifications to IMR. Others sent none. Our concern with this bill is the incentive it creates to send all ur denials to IMR in the very slim chance that the injured worker may be awarded additional disability payments.

This extends the claims resolution process by weeks or months, which is a shared point of frustration for injured workers and employers. According to a CWCI analysis of a nearly identical bill that was vetoed last year year, an examination of three years of claims data, less than 1% of claims would be eligible to receive the increased payments proposed in the bill.

Yet all claims administrators would incur significant costs of increased litigation before the WCAB and developing and maintaining automation and program systems, which are costs that add friction to the system. They are difficult to calculate for IMR determinations and subsequent treatment authorizations to calculate and administer additional payments. There's a decade of data demonstrating that a very small number of physicians continue to, excuse me, to prescribe treatment that is, outside of the established medical guidelines that drive disputed treatment. 89 doctors account for 40% of disputes.

This bill would reinforce bad models used by a small number of physicians and attorneys that cause the overuse of IMR, despite ur being upheld over 90% of the time, which needlessly delays claims resolution for injured workers. From a claims handling perspective, this bill creates one more loose thread that makes the claims process more complicated, lengthy and fodder for litigation. This proposal should be reviewed as part of a larger system reform effort, not as a piecemeal change. Until then, we're opposed to SB 1356, and I've been asked to register opposition for my colleagues at CSAC.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I want to echo the comments stated by my colleague and I think really emphasize the CWCI study on the similar bill last year, that this would impact an estimated only 0.3% of all claims, but should be viewed in the larger lens of the workers compensation system and unintended consequences that it would have on that system as well.

When we're talking about the right to appeal, yes, it is true that if a UR is denied, IMR is the mechanism to appeal that decision. However, our large concern comes from the statements that my colleague made about the small number of people that are responsible for such a gigantic portion of those IMR decisions, and the fact that IMR actually fails at a rate of over almost 93%, which is very significant. So for the reasons stated by my colleague and those reasons, we are respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here in the room speaking in opposition of this bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation.

Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay, I think that's it for testimony. I'll turn it over to members. Comments? Questions? Thank you, Senator Cortese and Senator Durazo, you may close.

Thank you. On behalf of that small number of workers who really need and deserve the benefits that they count on for their survival, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Assistant, do you want to call the roll?

The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. This is for file item nine, SB 1346. [Roll Call]

This bill is on call with a vote of four to zero. Thank you, Senator Durazo.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members.

All right, we will next, and I believe, last but not least, call up our chair, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, to present file item 10, SB 1030.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good after, or is it afternoon? Is it morning? Morning. It's still morning. Well, good morning, colleagues. I am here to present SB 1030, which would write the successful California Workplace Outreach program into law. This would ensure that workers receive crucial workplace rights information from trusted organizations in dozens of languages and regions across our state. The CWOP program first launched during the pandemic to educate workers on paid leave, COVID mitigation, health standards, and antiretaliation protections.

The Labor and Workforce Development Agency, LWDA, partnered with 62 community-based organizations who helped serve as trusted messengers to California's highest-risk workers in the regions and industries that were most impacted by COVID-19. The CWOP program was wildly successful, enabling labor agencies to rapidly disseminate crucial workplace information in 38 counties and for 96% of the state's population. However, the need for effective worker outreach is not confined to the pandemic-related issues. And this we know. We have changing workplaces, we have changing conditions.

We have workers, particularly those who are in the most vulnerable sectors, who must rely on trusted messengers to get vital information to protect themselves in the workplace. And data shows that each year, California workers are robbed of nearly $2 billion through minimum wage violations alone, simply because they don't have the information needed to protect themselves. We must maintain and grow our worker outreach models here in California.

This expansion reflects the recognition that the most effective way for workers to learn their rights on the job is through meaningful conversations with people they trust in a language, they trust in their own neighborhoods, in the times that are convenient for them, and being in community with other workers and leaders who also possess firsthand knowledge on unique challenges that they face so that we build a community of support and protection.

SB 1030 will write the California Worker Outreach program into labor code on an ongoing component, as an ongoing component of our commitment that every work in California should know and be able to assert their rights at work. That is why we do what we do to pass laws to protect workers because we want them to access those laws and to have protections that help make sure we have a level playing field for all of our business communities.

So here with me to testify in support is MaiKa Yang of the UC Merced Community Labor Center, and Griselda Reyes Basurto of the Mixteco Indigena. How do I say that? Indigena Community Organizing Project, MICOP. That's how I know it. MICOP. Please step forward.

You may proceed.

Thank you. My name is Micah Yang and I represent the UC Merced Community and Labor Center. As part of our mission, we conduct research and education on issues of community, labor, and the environment. We currently administer the California Workplace Outreach Program, also known as CWOP, in collaboration with three other UC campuses.

Since 2021, we have served as the regional lead for CWOP in the eight-county San Joaquin Valley region, in a region that's consistently ranked last or next to last in every major indicator of well-being. Through CWOP, our partnership with 14 organizations, and one of them are here, have reached over 480,000 workers via interactive outreach and 2 million touch points in 12 languages.

And CWOP plays a really critical role in building and strengthening an ecosystem of support and resources that advances the mission of state labor agencies like LWDA and DIR. And in response to COVID-19 outbreaks at the meatpacking facilities in our region that affected hundreds of of workers and led to several worker deaths, an organization quickly mobilized the community and met with Cal OSHA and labor unions to address this crisis, and their efforts not only garnered media attention, but also exposed and concerning practice of employers receiving advance notice before inspections.

This prompted Cal OSHA to pressure the company to comply with worker health and safety laws, and this is a clear example of the important role community-based organizations who are trusted messengers in our community, play not only like, you know, connecting with workers, but also they also make a tremendous impact on communities.

But they also serve as liaisons between state agencies workers, ensuring that employers prioritize worker health and safety. And industries with the lowest wages and high proportion of immigrant workers are particularly vulnerable to exploitation and issues of wage theft, workplace abuse, and unsafe conditions, and sustaining and expanding the statewide, regionally specific infrastructure of CWOP will safeguard these workers' rights and protections. Therefore, the Legislature's inclusion of the California Workplace Outreach Program in the labor code will advance compliance with labor standards across the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

[Foreign Language]

Good afternoon. Good morning, Chair and committee members, my name is Griselda Reyes Pasurto, CWOP program manager with the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project. MICOP supports, organizes, and empowers migrant indigenous communities on the central coast of California. I'm here today in support of outreach to empower indigenous workers at the greatest risk of exploitation. When I worked as a farm worker, I experienced devastating conditions, including never receiving overtime until after working a straight 10-hour shift and never having access to shade.

The CWOP program plays a pivotal role within our nonprofit, serving as a vital resource for disseminating pertinent information to indigenous agricultural workers. Often, this information fails to reach them in their native languages, highlighting the importance of our organization's commitment to ensuring that farmworkers receive information in their own languages. Leveraging the linguistic and cultural competence of our indigenous staff, we strive to provide farm workers with the support they need.

Thanks to CWOP funding, we've been able to deploy a workforce comprising former farmworkers who now empower others to assert their labor rights in agricultural settings. Drawing from our own experiences of hardship, including inadequate access to shade, clean water, and safe working conditions that were exacerbated by COVID-19 our promotores, community health workers, are uniquely positioned to build trust and provide support to farmworkers during vulnerable times.

Through proactive outreach efforts to CWOP, we can continue to mitigate emerging threats such as wildfires, extreme heat, and evolving viruses like COVID-19. I strongly urge your support and aye vote for SB 1030. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there others who wish to express a support position?

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, in support.

Rachel Deutsch, California Coalition for Worker Power, proud sponsor, in support.

Seth Bramble, speaking on behalf of the California Teachers Association, we are in support.

Faith Lee, with Asian Americans Advancing Justice Southern California. We're in support.

California Labor Federation, in support.

Chloe Steck, with the California Immigrant Policy Center, in support.

John Shaban, with the California Nurses Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Anne Katten, with California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, in support.

Good morning. Ivette Chaidez Villarreal, with Valley Voices out of Kings County, in support.

Good morning. Jorge Luna, Valley Voices, in strong support.

Elda Solomon, Southern California Black Worker Hub, in strong support.

[Foregin Language]

Daniel Jefferson, Filipino Workers Center, in strong support.

[Foreign Language]

Domenica Lopez, with the Jakara Movement, in support.

Mandip Kaur, with Jakara Movement, with strong support.

[Foreign Language]

I'm with the Indigenous Mixteco project, and I'm in support.

Angelica Campos, with the Ring of Democracy, and I am in support.

Jose Amezquita Morales, also with the Ring of Democracy, strong support.

All right, thank you. Do we have a lead opposition witness? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to speak in opposition to the bill? Name, affiliation, and opposition. Seeing none. I will come back to the committee for questions and comments. Motion by Senator Durazo. Before we take up the motion, we'll go back to the author and give her an opportunity to close.

Well, I just want to say thank you to the witnesses and everyone who came and spoke in support of this bill. This California Worker Outreach Program saves lives. It protects workers around health and safety, around anti-retaliation, anti-discrimination, wage theft, all of the things that we want to make sure that every Californian has the opportunity to work and to work safe and with dignity. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Great. Thank you. And whilst the assistants who take the roll at this time.

[Roll Call]

All right, 40. And the bill is on call.

Okay, we will start by lifting call on consent. Assistant, will you please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Consent calendar is out. And next we are. We'll lift call on calls on our other bills, and we'll start with file item number three, SB 1049. Padilla. This is do passed to the Committee on Housing.

[Roll Call]

This Bill is still on call with a vote of four to zero. Okay, we will now lift call on SB 1105. That is Padilla's Bill. That is do passed the Committee on appropriations. Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero, that Bill is out. Next, we will move to file item number six. I'm sorry? File item number seven. SB 1205. That is Senator Laird's Bill. Do pass to the Committee on appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of four to one, that Bill is out. Next, we'll move to file item eight. That's SB 1299. Senator Cortese, do pass to the Committee on Judiciary. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out with a vote of four to one. And next, we'll move to item number nine. This is SB 1446 by Senator Durrazo. I'm sorry, SB 1346. Need my glasses? SB 1346 by Senator Durazzo. And this Bill is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations.

Assistant please call the roll, Senator Wilk. No. Wilk. No.

That Bill is out with a vote of four to one. Next, we'll move to file item number 10, SB 1030, my Bill. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. This Bill is do passed to Committee on appropriations. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call}

That Bill is out with a vote of four to zero. Okay, we're going to go back to the top. File item number two, SB 988 by Senator Wiener. This Bill is do passed to the Committee on Judiciary. Assistant please call the roll That Bill is out with a vote of five to zero. Okay, we're going to move now to file item number three, SB 1049. Senator Padilla, do pass the Committee on Housing. Assistant please call the roll.

[Roll Call}

That Bill is out with a vote of four to one. Okay, well, that concludes our agenda for today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments in writing to the Committee. Thank you, everyone. The Senate Committee on Labor, public employment and retirement is adjourned.