Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

So we'll be hearing SB 1316. Senator, please proceed.

Thank you. I just wanted to highlight that. Thank you for the accommodations as well, and chair colleagues and Members of the public. SB 1316 ensures equitable pay for all employees at the California School for the Deaf and the California School for the Blind, matching salaries with staff in their respective school districts. One of the things that we'd like to note, it's important that these institutions are California's oldest schools for individuals with sensory impairments.

Despite their crucial role in serving the blind and deaf community, staff at these historical institutions currently receive significantly lower compensation compared to their neighboring public schools, making it a challenge to attract and retain qualified staff. New teachers at the school of the California Deaf School in Fremont are paid $14,000 less than their counterparts in the neighboring school district, highlighting the wage disparities faced by employees in these institutions.

We also know that teachers across the board are paid less than they deserve, so this just increases the disparity. This Bill addresses the wage discrepancies by mandating that the Department of Human Resources establishes equitable salaries for all staff and administration at the California School for the Deaf and the California School for the Blind. I do also want to highlight the fact that the schools are really largely governed by the state. These are special schools. There are schools in Fremont as well as a school in Riverside.

So it's roughly about three schools that we are identifying that we would like to ensure that there's equitable pay. With me, I have Ty Kovacs and his interpreter. We also have another witness, Doctor Nancy Hlibok Amann, Director of state special schools and services division at the California Department of Education. Thank you.

Hi.

First and foremost, thank you for the opportunity, for giving me the opportunity to speak with you. My name is Ty Kovacs from California School for the Deaf. I've worked there for 25 years. I graduated also, so a total of 35 at this school. The question really is, is how would you feel? I mean, before you know, you understand. I have. I speak two languages. I have two degrees. How would you feel if you earn 38% less than your counterparts across the street?

You know, the state prisons earn 38% more than the teachers do at our school, we require you have to be bilingual. We have 13,000 public schools in the State of California, so there's 13,000 different options where deaf only have two. Northern and Southern California. You know, it structured, and it was created to be a culture community, to provide resources and support for our students. Without the deaf school, there is no community and resources.

Where would the deaf children go, you know, to get the full language capacity? You know, this issue, we've been addressed. We've been addressing this for the last 25 years. You know, for the blind school in Fremont, in the Bay Area, the cost of living is just outrageous. And our kids are not getting the minimum qualifications of the staff that we need because of the cost of living. And so the mental health, the staff is exhausted. They get to work.

They're exhausted because of the travel time, and they're really not able to max out their complete potential in teaching because they're so exhausted in student life. The staff, we have 16 positions right now that are vacant. The teachers, I think they're between 10 to 12 vacant positions at this present time. This is anti discrimination. It's a violation. The Fair Pay act has been violated for the last 25 years. I can say that because I've been one that's been working for the last 25 years on this.

All the laws have been violated, ongoing every year until Senator Wahab showed up. And, I mean, she's been the help that we needed. SB 1316 is our opportunity to be able to address these issues, because our school is dying. We're almost under 300 students at our school at this present time. We lost almost, I want to say, 45 staff to Riverside. They've all transferred to Riverside, and they're continuing to do that because of the cost of living.

You know, the World Report Magazine recognizes the Fremont school for the deaf is one of the best schools in the country. We're only the deaf school, only deaf school that's ever been recognized, and we are struggling to survive on a daily basis, and our students are the ones going to ultimately suffer. And the time is now. We can't wait any longer.

If you really believe and uphold the law about the anti discrimination clause and the Fair Act pay, we need to address this issue now because the agent of change is together. I want the community to believe in equality and to stand against discrimination, and it starts here. And I hope that we all can work together to be able to provide a quality education and to serve our deaf and blind state students. And our fates is really in your hands.

Again, I really pray, hopefully help us save our school, especially in the Bay Area. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, sir. Next witness.

Good morning, everyone. I'm happy to be here this morning. I flew in from San Diego this morning. Barely made it, but we're here. My name is Doctor Nancy Hlibok Amann. And I am the Director of the State Special Schools and Services division at the California Department of Education. I'm responsible for the three schools and the three diagnostic centers in the State of California. And I'm very proud to explain to you that the State of California is actually responsible for three schools.

They serve birth to age 22, and the services that we provide, our direct classroom instruction. The teachers specialized and are credentialed. And we also have our student life who work with our students on campus, after school, overnight with full access to communication. All the students are bilingual. All are bilingual learners. And something I want to mention about this Bill 1316. It is absolutely critical to protect our schools.

Without this support, it will harm the ability to continue the employment for our students, for our staff in big cities, where there is competition at the state level for funding as compared to local school districts. Local school districts are paid more than our state employees. We have a team of experts and specialized experts working with students on a day to day basis. There is no other school compared to our three schools. They provide, our diagnostic centers provide support for special ed students.

They're always seeking resources from us. The Ed code must provide those resources and support for local school districts and families who want children to go to these three schools. I implore you to support this Bill. It will have a massive impact on our staff that we currently have working, and we can continue working and serving these students and families. I have just a brief story to share with you about one particular student who entered this deaf school during their middle school years.

The parents were shocked when the students told their mom in tears. I always thought my life was going to be very short on this earth because I've never met a deaf adult in my life. By the time she was in middle school, she'd never met any deaf person. And she believed that her life would end by the age of around probably 20 because she had never met a deaf adult.

When she got to our residential school, she saw so many deaf adults, so many deaf role models. There's such a large number of students that graduate from these schools and go on to be lawyers and educators. They own their own businesses. We have people that work for Google, that work for big corporate entities, and they come from our schools. So I want to again reiterate, please look at this Bill and support it wholeheartedly.

It would mean the world to our students, to our families, to the communities they build, and to our community. Because our community is your community. Thank you.

Thank you. One more witness, please step forward. Is that it? Thank you. Thank you for that. So any now we're going to move to support for this Bill. Can folks please step forward? This is just your name, your affiliation and position on the Bill. Perfect. At the mic. You don't need to sit at the table. That way you could just line up.

I'm so sorry. I am a student at school, school for the deaf in Fremont. Originally was from Indiana, so I moved to Fremont when I was three years old because it was the best education. It was the top number one in the United States. I could see that when I got there, there was so many opportunities.

I'm so sorry. This is just to support the Bill. So it's your name, affiliation and your position. Thank you.

I support the Bill. My name is Jovianna Ikeda and I saw .... At California School Fremont.

Thank you, thank you. So just your name, your affiliation and your support of the Bill? Your position?

My name is David Hegarty and I am representing student life in cottage and I support the Bill.

Hi, my name is Marissa Goff and I'm a sophomore and and I support the Bill.

Hi, my name is Zaco and I support the Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Doctor Barbara Guzman, I'm the alternative Vice Chair for Bargaining and Free with SEIU Local 1000, and we wholeheartedly support this Bill.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is ... and I work at student license and I support the Bill.

Thank you.

Hello, good morning. My name is Jeff Buckminst or Buckmaster, and I work at CSD in student life. And I support the Bill. Thank you very much.

Hello, my name is Klesha Chapman, I also work at the School, and in student life and I also support the Bill.

Thank you.

Crystal straight, representing SEIU 1000.

Thank you.

Representing State Superintendent Tony Thurmond, also proud co sponsor and support of the Bill.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill? Okay, now we're going to move to opposition. Do we have opposition witnesses? You speaking against this Bill? Okay, seeing none. Anyone who wants to voice opposition and State of position on this Bill? I'm gonna step to the mic seeing none. Okay. We could move to the dais, but it looks like a lot of our Members are out.

I wanna just wanna say thank you so much to the author for bringing this Bill, and thank you to those who came as witnesses and spoke and shared their support on this Bill. The work you do is invaluable to our state. The education that you're providing to the students we know will add to our future leaders. But I want to tell you, I want this Bill to get out today. But you've got a long road ahead.

This is a tough budget year, and I believe all workers deserve dignity and respect. And you've got to make sure that you do what you can to win the change that you want, but you've got to convince the Administration to do so. So with that, I'm going to be supporting this Bill. We're going to put it on call for the rest of our Members to vote on it. And we'll wait for the motion later. Thank you. Would you like.

Yes I just want to one, thank you guys for hearing this. I want to thank everybody who came out, both from Southern California as well as Northern California. And I really want to highlight the fact that these schools. And again, it's just three. So I understand your budget concerns as well. We do have the Department of Education also backing this. Of course, it's very little compared to all of the things that we talk about in regards to the state budget. And this is truly a community.

It is not something that, you know, the majority of us are used to. This is a community where kids can come and see and feel a part of something that historically, in a normal setting, they don't feel a part of the community. So I really just want to highlight and uplift the fact that this is a community, and so many of them, teachers and students, advocate for this. So thank you.

Okay, now we're moving on to the next item, and we're going to try to get back to file order. I see Senator Padilla is in the building, and we'll give a second just for folks to shuffle out. Okay. Senator Padilla.

Good morning, Madam Chair. I'm pleased to present SB 962. In 2008, the Port and Teamsters Local 911 developed a new plan for the Port of San Diego, creating a hybrid retirement plan, which included both defined contribution plans and a smaller defined benefit plan as a way to share costs and risk between employees and the employer. The defined benefit plan included a waiting period. An employee would accrue service credit once five years of employment were completed.

Unfortunately, evidence has shown that this requirement to accrue service credit after five years of employment has rendered this plan less competitive when compared to other regional public agencies, making it difficult to attract and retain employees.

SB 962 allows the Port of San Diego to eliminate the five-year waiting period on the existing plan on a prospective basis and provide existing and new employees with pre-2013 reciprocity the opportunity to accrue service credit upon implementation of this measure, while still maintaining employer costs below that of the standard PEPRA plan, which you may know an existing statute is a requirement. I want to thank you and your staff for working with us on this bill.

I want to clarify that we do accept Committee amendments. I also want to remind the Chair and Members that the Port of San Diego is an entirely self-sustaining, self-supporting public agency. I also have it on good authority, and my witnesses will speak to that, that we will have certification come forward to the Committee from the actuary as required by the statute, as well with respect to additional cost or risk.

With that with me today is Jonathan Clay, representing the port of San Diego, and Shane Guzman from Teamsters.

And you have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Jonathan Clay, on behalf of the Port of San Diego. First off, just like to say thank you to your staff for the work with us on the amendments. We commit to getting the final certification and working with your office on that before moving off the floor. So we understand the importance of that. Senator Padilla did a great job of kind of laying out the history there.

So I'll just touch on a couple of interesting things of why the port is pursuing this. This has really proved to be an impediment for recruiting new employees to the Port of San Diego that also have experience. And so when we were trying to recruit engineers or maintenance workers or folks that were coming from other public agencies that had time within the system, that five-year wait before any accrument of credit really posed an impediment to the Port and trying to bring in those experienced workers.

This was also an issue for the Teamsters. And so as we went through the latest round of working with our port family employees on trying to figure out a new system, these changes were brought forward. I think the only thing I'll just kind of highlight is the port also tries to do a lot of exit interviews as people leave the port to understand why they might be leaving.

And there was a high level of dissatisfaction with how that port retirement plan had evolved in terms of those service credit times that were imposed. And so this was really kind of spurring the port to have to kind of again, rethink how we were providing our retirement benefits to our employees. And so with that, we brought this forward. I think the last thing I'll highlight is this will again make sure that this hybrid plan doesn't cost more than that standard PEPRA plan.

And so, again, even though we're a self-sustaining entity, we're trying to make sure that we're keeping everything within the spirit and the law as it relates to PEPRA. So with that, pleased to be here and thank you very much.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, we are supporting this bill on behalf of our members at Local 911 that work at the Port of San Diego. We, as the author and the port representative, have stated, we feel like the experiment with the waiting period hasn't worked. It's, you know, people don't want to wait to accrue credit. It's one thing to wait to get eligibility, that's a different matter.

But to simply have to work for five years before you accrue any retirement is really detrimental to our workforce. And so we urge the Committee to support this bill, and happy to answer any questions.

Let's see. Well, we will bring it to the larger room here and see. Are there folks who want to speak in support of the bill today? Please step to the the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

George Brampthew, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses speaking against the bill today? Okay, seeing none. Anyone opposing the bill?

Don't see anyone at this time that wants to speak. Okay. So, you know, we don't have other Members here, but I want to say thank you for agreeing to taking the amendments, and we look forward to seeing the certification. Whenever we make these kinds of changes to PEPRA, it, you know, has an impact on the broader system, and we want to make sure that our systems are strong when it comes to the pensions. I am going to support the bill today.

We want to see the certification have a chance to look at them and to ensure that they are meeting the standards that we think this Committee should be able to determine by having a look at what's provided. But we want to make sure that we get it out today. So thank you. And would you like to close?

For the balance of the Members who have not yet arrived, when they do, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. We will be on call and we'll wait for a motion at that time. We're going to move to File Item Number Two. I see Senator Ashby. Oh, there you go. We are moving to Item Number Two: SB 1015: Senator Ashby.

Hello, Madam Chair. Good morning.

Good morning.

Nice to see you.

Hello. All right. Thank you, Madam Chair, for having us today. Let me start by saying that I am accepting the Committee's clarifying amendments and thank your good staff for their assistance. We are here today to present SB 1058, which extends Workers' Compensation and disability protections to county and special district park rangers. Park rangers across the state serve a variety of functions, including protecting regional parks, wildlife, and public visiting these areas. Additionally, park rangers enforce infractions, misdemeanors, and felonies that occur within the park systems.

During the month of February in Sacramento County alone, county park rangers made 83 arrests, including 21 felony arrests. In order to do this, park rangers must complete extensive training and are required to complete the POST-certified academy in order to be hired by their county or special district. Oftentimes, these park rangers are the first point of contact for disturbances, facing similar risks to other law enforcement who are also POST-certified.

However, despite all of this, the park rangers are not given the same Workers' Compensation and disability protections granted to state park rangers or other law enforcement agencies under the California Labor Code. In fact, some counties rely on deputy sheriffs or police officers to fill their park ranger positions, further emphasizing both the overlap in responsibilities and the disparities in Workers' Compensation protections. SB 1058 amends the Labor Code to safeguard park rangers on the front lines, addressing blatant gaps in Workers' Compensation and disability protections.

I have two witnesses with me and one person here for technical support. I have Chief Orman, who's the Chief Ranger at Sacramento County's Regional Parks, and I have with me Randy Bickel, who's the President of Sacramento County's Criminal Justice Employees' Union and a member of the Sacramento County Public Defender's Office. And also here for technical support should we need him is Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC.

Thank you, Senator. Please proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Leonard Orman. I'm the Chief Ranger with Sacramento County Regional Parks. I've been associated with that agency approximately eight years. I have a total of almost 40 years in law enforcement in California. When I became associated with this agency, it was going through a transformation that had started before I was hired there as a part time ranger in 2017, and that transformation really had to do with interpretive rangers.

Folks that do their primary job is to do nature guiding for folks visiting the park, offer different services to people that have to do with the environment and things of that. Enforcement was really the secondary thing that they dealt with. We got to a point where that was about even, and now we're at a point where our rangers are dealing with just law enforcement, period. That's all we have enough time to do.

The amount of arrests that we deal with today compared to ten years ago is at least double. Last year we did almost 350 felony arrests in our park system and 1,131 misdemeanors. And those deal with the most dangerous felonies down to DUIs and things of that nature. Just the other day, we were assisting a law enforcement agency from Yolo County that had detected a murder suspect in our American River Parkway. While we were assisting them, we ultimately did not locate that person. They had left already.

However, had there been some kind of violent interaction and a police officer from that county was hurt and one of our rangers, they would have been treated much different in the area of disability and Workman's Comp. Quite frankly, how the rangers are treated at this point--and I know this is a statewide issue, it's not just germane to us--is very different and very unpredictable for the employee when they're off, hurt, and the outcomes are very unpredictable.

It also really boils down to a recruitment and retention issue for me as the administrator of that agency. I mainly end up hiring academy recruits that I send through the police academy that all other officers go to, and it doesn't take them very long to figure out after they've been hired and they're in a full duty status that they are treated different, and that is one of the concerns they have when they make a decision two, three years in whether or not they're going to stay with that agency, knowing that it's a long career. Thank you.

Right at two minutes. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and Senate Committee Members. As you heard, my name is Randy Bickel, and like Chief Orman, I have over 35 years of law enforcement experience from the Bay Area before I too came up to Sacramento and served as a sergeant with the Sacramento County Regional Parks for four years. Although I have the luxury now of working for the Public Defender's Office as a criminal investigator, which has been a great change, I also serve as the Labor Union President, which represents the park rangers.

And like Chief Orman, serving with the park rangers, I was shocked, and to find out that they were not protected, the park rangers, under 4850 of the Labor Code. Park rangers are the emergency first responders that provide safety for our park patrons. They respond to emergencies, they render first aid, life-saving techniques, conduct water rescues, put out wildland fires, conduct search and rescue, and they make arrests.

The county and special district park police park rangers attend the same standardized police academy as every law enforcement officer as sanctioned by the Peace Officer Standards and Training, POST. County parks and special districts have become a popular location for the unhoused, and parks have seen an uptick in homeless encampments, and this has brought an increasing challenge for park rangers dealing with illegal narcotics, drug use and drug sales, criminal activity, crimes of violence, and overdoses.

Serving as the sergeant with Sacramento County Regional Parks from 2018 to 2020, I've witnessed firsthand that dangers county park rangers face daily, the several injuries rangers sustained in the performance of their duties. The park rangers, not only in Sacramento County but several counties and special districts statewide, are doing the brave work of emergency first responders. They're putting themselves in danger to protect others, keeping the parks and open spaces safe while protecting the natural resources.

They are the police officers of the parks, sworn and certified to protect park patrons. We respectfully ask you to protect them by supporting Senate Bill 1058 and extending the same disability benefits as defined under Labor Code 4850 to include them and peace officers up and down the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here in the room that is speaking in support of the bill today? Please state your name, position, and affiliation.

Madam Chair and Members, Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates, on behalf of PORAC, in full support.

Support. Is there anyone speaking in opposition to the bill? Any witnesses? Anyone that just wants to voice opposition to the bill in the room? Seeing none, this bill--obviously, we don't have Members here today. We are most likely going to have to move this to call, and so I want to just go ahead and give you a chance to close. In the beginning, you would take the Committee amendments? Yeah, I heard that. So thanks.

So I do want to just say one thing in close. It's the same job. It's just in a different location. They're working in the parks. And I also want to be clear that it's inequitable across park rangers in the state because somebody--and I don't know who, Senator Smallwood-Cuevas--but somebody from Los Angeles already put the Los Angeles park rangers in that Labor Code, so they're protected and covered. This is applying to park rangers in some other parts of the state, and it's inequitable, and I'd love to fix it. I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much, Senator, and as mentioned, we will get a motion on this bill and move it as soon as we have our folks' quorum in the room. Thank you. Okay, if you are presenting a bill in Labor and Public Employment and Retirement, please come down to Room 113. While we wait for Members, we are going to take a bit of a recess and reconvene as soon as we have presenters.

Okay, we are reconvening from our recess. We're gonna give a 10 minute. Sorry, not 10 minute. A 10 second warning. Okay. Our Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee is back in session and glad to see Senator Cortese is with us. And Senator Cortese, are you ready? Do you mind if we go to you on your bill first? Okay, wonderful. So we will hear SB 111162 Cortese. And you are also presenting for Senator Hurtado today, is that right?

Okay, let's go and file order, if we could. SB 1157. That's Hurtado's bill. Perfect. You can have a seat at the table. It's fine. If there are witnesses for SB 1157 in support. Please have a seat at the table. Thank you. We'll hear from Senator Cortese.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm here on behalf of Senator Hurtado to present SB 1157, a bill that clarifies human trafficking and forced labor definitions, sets rules for government contracts, requires compliance plans from California contractors, and outlines procedures to address labor issues in supply chains. I will also be accepting the amendments noted in the analysis on her behalf. Public procurement is a significant part of global GDP, highlighting California's potential to influence working conditions worldwide through its policies.

For too long, the ugly truth of forced labor has lurked behind the scenes of countless industries. Forced labor is found in virtually all industries, as many of us know, and for many decades has plagued supply chains and tainted the products they helped create.

Reports from the Bureau of International Labor Affairs and the US Department of Labor reveals that a staggering array of goods, spanning 159 categories from 78 counties, find their way into American markets tainted by the stain of forced labor, violating basic human rights to international standards. California, which is the fifth largest economy in the world, still has done little to follow the recommendation to better respond to and prevent labor trafficking.

Updating California's own procurement policies is an important step in combating this crime, both globally and in our own backyard. SB 1157 would revise existing law by requiring that any business that wishes to contract with the State of California complies with updated provisions currently enumerated in federal regulations in 2016 to better identify and prevent human trafficking and other forms of labor. Human trafficking and forced labor have no place in a state like California, or in the world, for that matter.

We must do more to protect workers in California and globally. Annually, the California government procures over $20 billion in goods and services. In passing SB 1157, the State of California will be ensuring our procurement system has the same explicit protection standards as the Federal Government has for the last eight years to prevent human trafficking. This bill is a major and overdue step in creating true preventative measures to address forced labor and exploitation in our progressive state.

Here to testify, we have with us Aradana Tiwari with Sunita Jain from the anti-trafficking. With the Sunita Jain Anti-Trafficking initiative at Loyala Law School. Madam Chair, I'll turn it back over to you, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Thank you so much, Senator. And before we move to our witness, we'd like to get a quorum, since we have the majority of the Members here. Assistant, will you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. And can we please also do consent? Because I know you have to leave soon after, so if we could just.

I'll wait till after this bill and we'll catch up with you.

Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Witness. Please. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Thank you. Senators, my name is Aradhana Tiwari, and I am the senior policy counsel at the Sunitha Jain Anti-Trafficking Initiative based out of Loyola Law School. The Sunitha Jain Anti-Trafficking initiative is dedicated to developing and advancing policies which prevent human trafficking and support survivors of human trafficking. I myself worked as an attorney for 10 years representing survivors of human trafficking, as well as those communities which are vulnerable to this type of crime.

It is for these reasons that we are the proud sponsor of SB 1157, and I thank you for letting me speak today on this important piece of legislation. Based on over 10 years of learning on how to better prevent human trafficking before it starts in our supply chains, SB 1157 provides specific and detailed guidance to California contractors on concrete actions they must take to ensure goods are made for and services used by the State of California are produced ethically.

SB 1157 is modeled on existing federal standards enacted statutorily in 2016, which sought to protect workers and support businesses. By adopting these standards in California, the state will be reinforcing these established best practices already required of companies and entities doing business with the Federal Government. These companies and entities include, but are not limited to, industries of tech, construction, automobiles, apparel, seafood, solar, food processing, etcetera.

Businesses which contract with the Federal Government have already taken steps to meet these federal procurement standards and should not be undercut by their state government giving those contracts to those who are not meeting those standards or trying to meet them. The minimum floor standards in SB 1157 help to establish consistency and provide uniform understanding of what all companies need to do to prevent human trafficking and uphold existing labor laws in California.

As noted in the analysis, SB 1157 does not impose any new requirements that are not already illegal. The new certification requires prohibitions against types of labor used, I mean used, and labor practices. The expanded list is consistent with existing labor law protections. Contractors are also tasked with exercising due diligence to ensure subcontractors certify compliance. Indeed, SB 1157 is not imposing new labor standards, but rather providing the clear guidance needed to ensure companies and businesses are meeting existing labor standards in their supply chains.

This sort of clarity and guidance is important for businesses seeking to uphold the law and enforce ethical practices, but also important to protect our most vulnerable workers. This bill stands only to benefit workers because SB 1157 will ensure that companies who are awarded and continue to get their contracts from the State of California are actually implementing and following policies and practices known to prevent human trafficking and protect worker integrity.

By ensuring that California will not award its public contracts to private companies that are not in compliance with these standards, the state can take major strides towards effectuating change in our own backyard, as well as influencing supply chains throughout the world. It is for these reasons that we kindly request your aye vote on this matter.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses today? Thank you. So now we will move to support for this bill. Anyone in the room want to voice support for this bill, please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position. Okay. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition to this bill? Any witnesses? Anyone who want to state opposition to this bill? Okay, we will bring now the conversation to the Members. Any comments? Okay, seeing none. Would you like to close? Oh, did you want.

I was just going to move the Bill.

Thank you so much.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

I thank you so much, Senator Cortese. Assistant, you want to call the roll?

For SB 1157, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that is a vote of 3-0. The bill is on call, and we'll take it up when we bring the other Members.

Madam Chair, I would move the consent item, which is item number four.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, consent calendar is out. 3-0, it's on call. Thank you so much.

And Madam Chair, would you like to catch up with the bills that have been heard and haven't had a motion yet?

Yes, let's do that.

Is that 1, 2, and 7?

At this moment, yes, it is. It looks like 1, 2, and 7.

Then I would move Item Number One: Senate Bill 962.

Thank you for the motion. Assistant, please call the roll.

For SB 962, the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Senate Floor.' [Roll Call].

That bill is on call with a vote of three to zero.

Then, Madam Chair, I would move Item Number Two: Senate Bill 1058.

Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll.

File Item Number Two: the motion is 'do pass as amended to the Senate Floor.' [Roll Call].

Okay, that bill is on call with a vote of three to zero.

And then, Madam Chair, I would move Item Number Seven: Senate Bill 1316.

Thank you.

For SB 1316, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

That bill is on call with a vote of three to zero. Thank you. So now we are going to go back to our file order with Senator Cortese, Senate Bill 1162. You may proceed.

You may proceed. Thank you.

Thank you again, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm pleased to present SB 1162, which is a bill sponsored by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, something that we've been working on for a number of months, going back to interim recess. The bill enables Labor Management Cooperation Committees, which are known as LMCCs, to accurately verify workers have the appropriate training to work on a skilled and trained project. So this is a compliance measure.

Currently, LMCCs have access to certified payroll records and online databases provided by the Department of Industrial Relations, which includes information on apprenticeship status and safety training certification by name, by a worker's name. Despite access to that information, LMCCs often encounter difficulties in identifying the correct individual because of common names, multiple workers sharing the same name. The situation underscores the need for an additional unique identifier that can effectively differentiate between individuals.

SB 1162 fixes this by requiring employers to include a worker's date of birth in their monthly certified payroll records, which is submitted to the LMCCs and only to the LMCCs. This vital addition empowers LMCCs to effectively locate a specific worker within the Department of Industrial Relations's database and leverage the provided date of birth to accurately identify the correct individual. By ensuring accurate ID, LMCCs can verify whether the worker meets the eligibility criteria to work on skilled and trained projects in alignment with state regulations.

This streamlined verification process will strengthen oversight and help LMCCs to enforce wage and labor requirements more efficiently and carry out legislative intent brought to bear by so many of us here. Joining us today to testify is Scott Wetch, representing the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, and I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Chair and Members, Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, also the California State Pipe Trades Council and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers. First, would like to thank the author and his staff. The genesis for this bill actually came from the Senator and his staff after conducting a tour around the state to meet with stakeholders with issues regarding public works projects, and we were very happy to be able to join him in helping sponsor this bill.

The Legislature has passed many bills, as you all know, requiring skilled and trained workforces on all sorts of different types of projects. One of the problems with enforcement is, under existing law, a contractor merely submits a monthly report to the project owner stating that they are in compliance with the skilled and trained requirement. But then there's really no enforcement after that.

Now we have access to--as does the Department of Industrial Relations--certified payroll records, which provide us with the name of each of the workers, but there's no way to actually confirm if they've actually graduated from a state-approved apprenticeship program, which is what's required to meet the definition of a skilled and trained worker. The Department of Industrial Relations has an existing database that lists all graduates, anyone who's ever graduated from a state-approved apprenticeship program.

You can access that database, and you can look up somebody by name, but obviously with multiple names, it's difficult to differentiate who the particular worker is. The other two identifying pieces of information that is on that database is the last four of a worker's Social Security Number, which is redacted, appropriately, and their date of birth.

Rather than suggest that we should have access to the last four Social Security, because historically that's been a sensitive issue in this building, the simple and elegant solution is just to require the date of birth, and that way, if Scott Wetch claims that he graduated from a state-approved apprenticeship program as an electrician, that can very easily be confirmed by accessing that database. Simple but very important element that would allow for enforcement. So we would be happy to answer any questions and would urge an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Wetch. Anyone speaking in support of the bill, please approach the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Madam Chair and Members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades, also in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Matt Cremins, on behalf of the California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, in support.

Vince Sugrue, on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, in support.

Thank you. Okay. Then we will move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness speaking against this bill today? Is there anyone speaking in opposition to this bill today? Seeing none, we will bring it back to the Members.

To Member.

One Member. The one and only.

I would move the--oh, excuse me, Senator. Yeah. I'm the one that can move the bill, though, so I will move the bill.

Wonderful. Thank you for that motion. Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Point well taken, Senator Laird, and Madam Chair, I appreciate the efforts of the Committee to dive into this bill and the anticipated support, but I do respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We are ready, Assistant, to call the roll.

For File Item Eight: SB 1162, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Rules.' [Roll Call].

This bill is on call with a vote of three to zero. Okay, we're gonna move to File Item Number Six: Senator Caballero. Thank you. SB 1303. Senator, you may proceed.

Thank you very much. Good. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1303, an important Bill to help increase accountability on public works projects. I would like to thank the chair and the Committee staff for their work on this issue and. And the labor code governing local government public works projects mandates that all workers receive prevailing wages.

Public agencies must ensure compliance with these laws, but increasingly, this enforcement is delegated to private, for profit, third party compliance companies. That's the new trend, is for local government to get out of the business of doing this and to hire for profit third party compliance companies. If the compliance companies find evidence of a violation, they can take punitive action against the contractor by withholding payment without due process. The compliance companies function with minimal and inconsistent processes despite receiving public dollars to do this work.

Additionally, the lack of rules regarding conflicts of interest and prior affiliations with contractors can compromise enforcement integrity. This Bill will ensure that if a public agency contracts with a private contractor to complete a public works project and delegates the enforcement of labor compliance to a for profit third party compliance company laws, are in place to protect the integrity of the process.

SB 1303 will require third party compliance companies to disclose any conflict of interest to the division of labor standards enforcement and to awarding agencies, and will prohibit third party compliance companies from receiving contracts if that conflict arises. The Bill will establish a structured process for third party compliance companies to follow if they believe a violation has occurred, ensuring fairness and transparency in the enforcement process.

Finally, the Bill mandates that awarding agencies and third party compliance companies seek resolution of disputed labor law violations by conferring with the contractors before withholding funds and stalling out projects. When a project is stalled, nobody's working, the project isn't proceeding, and there's disagreement agreement and so this would hopefully address that. I would also like to recognize the concerned raised the concerns raised by the associated General contractors. Unfortunately, due to timing, we are unable to provide the language for this issue.

We've sent it in to ledge council to mock it up and then to share. But I commit to working with them if the Bill moves forward. So with me today to testify in support of the Bill and help address any questions, and I'm going to mess this up. I'm sorry. George Parampathu from the California Labor Federation and Matthew Kremens from the California Nevada conference of operating Engineers.

Thank you. Sir, you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair and Members George Parampathu speaking on behalf of the California Labor Federation. The federation supports efforts enforced California's labor laws at every work site, but especially at public works projects where private companies are funded by taxpayer dollars. SB 1303 will help achieve this goal by increasing accountability for for profit labor compliance entities, which oversees certain public works projects. Under existing law. Public agencies that award funds for public works projects must ensure that parties comply with labor standards.

Recently, we have seen an increase in these public agencies contracting out this incredibly important compliance work to for profit companies. As noted in the Committee analysis, these for profit companies operate with little to no state regulation or oversight. This hurts contractors, the state, and the construction workers who depend on public works projects for their livelihoods. For example, one major gap in the current law is that these for profit companies can oversee projects even if they have problematic conflicts of interest.

This leads to compliance groups subjectively enforcing laws in ways that unfairly stall public works contracts or abruptly freeze the funding that pays construction workers for their hard work. That is unacceptable. SB 1303 brings much needed accountability to these private compliance groups by requiring them to fully disclose potential conflicts of interest to awarding entities.

With this simple fix, SB 1303 will ensure that these companies and the public agencies that contract work to them are fully accountable and are effectively enforcing our labor laws to protect workers and taxpayer funds. With that, we urge your aye vote on SB 1303. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Next witness.

Thank you.

Madam Chairman and Members, Matt Kremens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, we are the proud sponsors of SB 1303, which would provide some needed clarity and guidance as it relates to awarding agencies choosing to contract out labor compliance monitoring activities. As mentioned, existing law pursuant to Labor Code section 1726 authorizes awarding agencies of public works projects to withhold payments from contractors in situations in which they determine that the law is not being followed.

And I would note that this is strong public policy that ensures our strong public works laws are being adhered to. However, joint labor management committees and labor compliance entities have noted increasing instances of these, of these, of this process being turned over to third parties, who then have the powerful step of being able to withhold funds from contractors.

It's important to note that in many cases, these third party groups are not themselves party to collective bargaining agreements and are not necessarily well versed in how collective bargaining agreements interact with existing law, and this has led to high road union contractors having funds withheld from them on public works projects.

Additionally, it has been found in many instances that these groups have an inherent conflict of interest and that they do contract work with the awarding agency as well as the contractors who are bidding on the public works project, the awarding agency. Most importantly, though, there is currently nothing in statute to our knowledge, that authorizes these groups to take on this powerful responsibility, nor is there any statutory guidance to dictate how they would operate.

So, with all that being said, SB 1303 simply seeks to provide some statutory guidance as it relates to the these groups. Specifically, the Bill would require these compliance groups to disclose of a conflict of interest if one exists, and would prohibit them from monitoring projects of which a conflict exists.

The Bill would also establish a process whereby these for profit compliance groups shall be required to meet and confer with contractors and negotiating parties on these projects and notify the division of labor standards enforcement of their intent to withhold funds. By providing the statutory guidance, we will be protecting high road contractors and their employees from unnecessary payment delays and will be ensuring that third party compliance groups are enforcing the labor law in a fair and equitable manner. Respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other folks in the room that want to speak in support of this Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair Mike west, on behalf of the state building trade is also in support. Thank you.

Thank you. You're busy today, Mike. I see that.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Rob Carrion's special rep for the Operating Engineers Local 3. And we support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vince Sugrue on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, in support.

Thank you.

Sasha Horwitz. On behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District. We're actually neutral in the Bill, but we want to appreciate the author and the Committee for working with us on some amendments that we thought were minor and clarifying. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I think that's it on support. So let's move to opposition. Anyone here? Any witnesses to speak in opposition of the Bill, please step to the table. I don't. Yeah, maybe we can switch out. Yeah, to the front mic there. Thank you. We have limited seats at this table. Little musical chairs. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, chair and members. Melanie Perron on behalf of the Associate at General Contractors of California. I'm a little uncomfortable being the first person opposing a Bill this morning, but here I am. But in good news, we are opposed unless amended. Appreciate the engagement from the Senator and the sponsor that we are looking forward to the amendments to clarify some of our concerns. And that should remove our opposition from the Bill once those go into print. So thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else? No other elite witnesses? I think in opposition. Anyone else want to speak in opposition of the Bill, please come to the mic. Okay. Seeing none, I think we will move to our Member who's on the dais. Thank you so much. So, thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Would you like to close Senator Caballero?

Thank you.

Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll.

For file item six. The motion is due. Passed the Committee on the Judiciary. Smallwood-Cuevas? Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Wilk? Cortese? Cortese, aye. Durazo? Laird?

This Bill is on call with a vote of two to zero. Thank you. We'll take it up later when the other Members are here. Thank you.

Okay. Have everyone's attention. I don't know why-- A little bit of noise coming through the door there. I've been asked to preside. And we will now proceed with Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. File item 10, SB 1089. Please proceed whenever you're ready, Senator.

Let's see. Can you hear me?

Okay? Great. Good morning. Thank you so much, Acting Chair and Member. I'm pleased to present our wonderful Bill, SB 1089. This is an important bill that is coming forward. Sponsored by UFCW in partnership with the California Legislative Black Caucus. This is a priority reparations bill package, and I really want to thank our sponsors for working so hard on this bill. In 2020, the Legislature passed AB 3121 to authorize a reparations task force to study the ongoing effects of slavery on African Americans.

And after years of study, the task force offered a slate of hundreds of recommendations and actions for the Legislature to take in order to address the ongoing inequalities in wealth and housing and health. Specifically, the task force report called upon the Legislature to require grocery stores and pharmacies to provide advance notification to their communities and employees when they decide to close. The longstanding history of redlining and disinvestment in African Americans communities have left many neighborhoods with diminished access to grocery stores and pharmacies.

The numbers speak for themselves. One in five black people face food insecurity, with white neighborhoods on average having four times as many supermarkets as predominantly African American neighborhoods. In South Los Angeles, the community I represent and live, we see real health effects of food deserts on our most vulnerable communities, who have easier access to liquor stores and fast food than fresh fruits and vegetables in grocery stores.

This has contributed to South Los Angeles having the highest rates of illnesses like heart disease and diabetes in all of the county. And in our Crenshaw corridor, which is a predominantly black community in Los Angeles, once home to three unionized grocery stores on this, you know, historic and large and long boulevard, there are now all but one store. And that further exacerbates the health disparities, but also the wealth building, as these jobs are lost in black and brown communities.

Similarly, the food deserts, decreased access to pharmacies have also turned some black communities into pharmacy deserts. And that is tremendously tough, as we have communities that are dealing with preventable diseases like diabetes and hypertension and don't have access to the medications that they need. And this is a basic right for so many. Abrupt closures of grocery stores and pharmacies can have impacts that are left and felt most accurately by our lower income and low wage working communities.

And when pharmacies close and prescriptions are sold--so when you close a pharmacy, they sell those prescriptions to other pharmacies, oftentimes far out of the reach of access for our communities that rely on them. Similarly, grocery store closures can be particularly harmful to black communities who are more likely to rely on food benefit programs such as CalFresh and WIC and may not find comparable services in these grocery stores should they be closed and moved outside of the community.

And we know that in that instance, when lower income communities and black communities do shop in other neighborhoods, they often face discrimination and maltreatment. And so this exacerbates the deeper problem that we're trying to fix through our reparations package. Earlier this year, community activists and organizers fought to keep open the only Safeway store in San Francisco's Western Addition, which served the large and only remaining large black population in that city.

And there was tremendous uprising from churches and neighborhood groups to fight to keep that store open. SB 1089 would ensure that in these situations, communities have advance notice and access to the information they need as a result of job loss, prescription transfer, or decreased access to food and medication. SB 1089 requires a 90-day notification before the closures take effect to the employees and to the community most impacted.

It also requires that the Employment Development Department, the Department of Social Services, and Local Workforce and Human Services Department be notified, and would also require pharmacies to inform patients of the name and contact of the pharmacy where any prescriptions will be transferred. Finally, the bill would also require that counties provide the closing establishment with information about safety net programs like Unemployment Insurance, CalWORKS, Medi-Cal, to ensure workers know the resources they have access to and community members have access to.

This is the first of many bills that we will hear in the Legislature as part of the Black Caucus's effort to restore Black California for all California. And to do this, we must protect our most basic necessities: food and medicine. And with me today, I have Sarah Goldbaum of the Grocery Store Workers Union, UFCW Local 135, and Christopher Sanchez with The Western Center on Law and Poverty. And Jassy Grewal is here with us for any technical questions with UCFW, if you should have them.

All right, thank you, Senator, and you may proceed in whatever order you choose. You have a couple minutes each, is that correct in this Committee? Two and a half minutes each? Two. Thank you.

Perfect. Can you hear me? We're all good? Thank you for allowing me to speak. So. My name is Sarah Maya-Goldbaum. I'm a former grocery worker for 13 years, and now I work for UFCW Local 135 in San Diego. I am here testifying in support of SB 1089. This bill is close to my heart. My coworkers and I have personally faced the repercussions of store closures. In 2015, the Vons grocery store where I worked at underwent a transition to Haggen.

Initially reinsured that Haggen was a stable, family-oriented company, we soon found ourselves blindsided by the store's sudden closure after only eight months. Many coworkers who had been with the company for a long time making top wages had a difficult time finding work, and many of us stayed until the store closed. Forced to rely on unemployment benefits, I found myself struggling to make ends meet, relying on credit cards to cover basic expenses.

After four months of trying to find a new job, I was rehired at Vons. But I lost my full-time status, experienced a reduction in hours wages and benefits. If we were given 90 day notice, many of us could have had more time to find a good union job or plan to prepare financially, since many of our grocery workers live paycheck to paycheck. Even after nine years, many of my coworkers still grapple with the aftermath of Haggen.

From lost positions to ongoing debt, the impact of store closures extend far beyond professional setbacks, affecting lives in profound ways that often go unnoticed. If SB 1089 had been in law in 2015, and my coworkers and I had received information on safety net programs and local workforce training services, maybe the outcome for my coworkers and I would have been different. So I'm here asking to please support SB 1089 for all grocery and pharmacy store workers who rely on the essential goods and services. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here providing testimony on behalf of the Western Center on Law and Poverty, who is in strong support of SB 1089, and on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, who is also in strong support. Briefly, I would like to highlight several important impacts. We know historically, when grocery stores have been closed, they've closed in black and brown communities, regardless of the income of that community and the wealth of that community.

We know that the impacts go far beyond creating the inability for communities to access healthy and nutritious food. It impacts the overall quality of life, the value of the homes in that community, and employment as previously mentioned. SB 1089 allows for communities to ensure that they're well aware of these closures and so they could have a voice in the process and make the best decisions that is in their own interest. Thank you Members. And we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in the Committee room who wishes to express a support position? If so, please come forward.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Coalition for Worker Power, in support.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Ella Baker Center for Human Rights, in support.

Taneicia Herring, on behalf of the California Hawaii NAACP, in strong support.

George Parampathu, on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Maegan Ortiz, IDEPSCA, also a constituent in support.

All right, seeing no other support witnesses come forward, do we have a key opposition witness or lead opposition witness, I should say. Mr. Brown and-- Hi. And again, you'll have a couple minutes each, and please proceed when ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair. Members of the Committee, Louie Brown here today on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition to the bill. Let me first state that we take this issue of food deserts very seriously. But this bill's not going to address that issue. We are already required by the federal and state law to provide warrant act notices. That's two notices that we're required to provide to our employees, local government, the local workforce board, and EDD. This will provide a third notice.

It will not stop store closures. The problem with this third notice is that it has ambiguities and vagueness. It also comes with a private right of action. So we have stores that provide a notice that talk about comparable services. If someone doesn't agree with that because it's not defined, we now find ourselves potentially facing litigation.

This bill also allows us, or tells us to rely on providing information from the local government to our employees about safety net, but gives us no defense if in fact the local government doesn't give us that information in a timely fashion, therefore putting us in the lines of litigation. So from our perspective, and if you look at the history of California, under the WARN Act, very few grocery stores are actually identified. We don't close grocery stores on a normal basis. It's not our business.

Our business is to open grocery stores. And so if this Legislature wants to really sit down and talk about addressing issues with food deserts, let's talk about it. The issue with Haggen was they came in with all the right intent and purposes. They're a Washington-based company that after they bought over 100 stores, quickly learned that their business model in Washington did not fit with California. They did not know how to operate here. They could not do so profitably, so they left the market.

When they left the market, they complied with the federal and state warrant acts. So again, we're at work, and the California Groceries Association is sponsoring SB 1419 by Senator Rubio to look at the issues of food deserts. We spend $300 million a year to help the film industry produce films in the State of California. We do nothing to address the issue of food deserts. So, again, if the sponsors and the author want to address food deserts, we'll be at the table.

We think it's a serious issue that needs serious attention. This bill doesn't do it. We're going to ask for a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi. Good morning. Jennifer Snyder with Capitol Advocacy on behalf of the California Retailers Association and also the Community Pharmacy Coalition of California. I want to echo the comments of the previous speaker just to the extent that we definitely agree that it's important to provide closure notifications. We agree with the intent of the bill, and we also have really strong concerns about making sure that pharmacies in particular are open and that patients have access to their prescriptions.

I think what's concerning is, as the previous speaker mentioned, is that the clarity of what's included in the bill is troublesome. It's also concerning more specifically for pharmacies. Because pharmacies are regulated and licensed by the Board of Pharmacy, they have certain requirements relative to how they handle dangerous drugs.

When they close, what they do with those drugs that are currently in the store, they're required to notice the Board of Pharmacy prior to the store closure and go through a process of making sure that those drugs go to a safe place and that the board has supervision over how that works. In addition, they adhere to HIPAA and different requirements related to patient privacy.

So we want to make sure that when we are creating notice requirements or creating situations where pharmacies need to provide notice, that they're not disclosing any important patient information, which they must adhere to that even if the store closes during closing or after closing. So we're hoping that the author might look at ways that, at the very least, that we look at the WARN Act options. It's a much shorter process relative to a 60-day warning requirement as opposed to 90-day.

There's a lot of concern about having that lengthy notice requirement, and two, to make sure that this dovetails with the board of pharmacy requirements and those things that are unique to pharmacy, to make sure that we make sure that they are adherent to their rules and requirements under their license. So at this point, we still must oppose SB 1089 and appreciate time here. Thank you.

Are there others in the Committee room who wish to express an opposed position?

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California--

Stay here in case there's questions, if you don't mind. Thank you. Yes?

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.

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

All right. I think that concludes support and opposition testimony. We'll come back to the Committee. Senator Laird, any questions or comments?

I have a comment, which is I take some of the concerns seriously, but the ones on whether or not there's a private right of action or any appropriate thing are appropriate for the Judiciary Committee, which I sit on. And I think that with what's in front of us, it is worth moving on and giving the author a chance to work on it.

But the Judiciary Committee will look at that other part within its jurisdiction provided it moves on to that. And for that purpose, since once again, I think I'm the only one able, I will move the bill.

All right. Thank you, Senator. Just a question for the opposition witnesses. I did appreciate the second witness talking about desires or amends, as we would call them, changes in the bill that you might want to see. I'm not sure how much you have engaged. I know Senator Smallwood-Cuevas is very good about trying to engage opposition and work through bills like this. And to Senator Laird's point, you know, that should continue for both sides.

I think sometimes when we talk about first Committee and keeping bills moving, people say, you shouldn't do that if it's a flawed bill or something like that. But it does require both sides to contribute to any kind of amends process, amendments process. So could you just comment on, is there anything, all I'm really looking for is not intent to help out or try to amend, but anything else that you're looking for in terms of amendments, whether or not the author agrees with them.

I'm just curious, as a member of the Committee, as to what things you'd be looking for, aside from PAGA, we heard that and we heard this 90-day to 60 days. Is there anything else?

Yeah, I appreciate that. And did have a conversation yesterday and kind of our first engagement with the sponsors. So we understand that there can be more discussion as we move forward. So appreciate that and know that, you know, this could be possibly in some cases a work in progress. I think the WARN Act would be important.

We would ideally love to see that the Board of Pharmacy be more involved and that the notification requirements involve the Board of Pharmacy, and to assure that they're not providing notice to entities that may not be as relevant for a pharmacy environment as opposed to others. So I'm kind of talking through kind of how we may be involved, the Board of Pharmacy, and less so maybe some of the other elements of the bill, notification requirements of the bill.

And I know that for the grocers and for the retailers, I think it's important to make sure that every, every notice requirement is much more clear in the bill. Again, back to the liability provisions. It really opens up a lot of concern. Even if one retail environment makes one small mistake relative to the notice requirements, it opens them up to liability, which is the most troublesome.

Mr. Chair, Louie Brown, on behalf of the California Grocers Association, I concur in those comments. If there are issues with the existing WARN Act, then we are interested in addressing those. We believe that clarity is important. And so if we need to look at potentially notifying more entities within the community, more entities within the county, so that people are better informed, we're open to those conversations.

It's really the ambiguities in the bill and then, you know, some of the other elements of an additional notice that provide us the greatest heartburn.

I appreciate it--

I agree with you on continuing to work with the Senator and the proponents of the bill and trying to improve the bill.

I appreciate that. I appreciate your candor in laying that out. That doesn't always happen in the process, and especially this early in the process. Folks are clear about what they're looking for in terms of modifications. And as I said, I don't even need to ask the author whether or not she'll continue to try to work with opposition because I know she does that diligently. And I would just say, you know, I'm supportive of the bill.

I think the idea about 90 days, I would be, we have legislation in other areas that's trying to move notifications these days to a little lengthier period than 60 days because of community impact and what we're seeing, regardless of which area that is, even though sometimes those are worker sponsored bills, we see that the impact to the general community is getting upon local governments and safety net services so quickly that there's not much of an opportunity to process it.

It may not be happening with the bulk of your clients, probably isn't, but when it happens, it feels a lot more abrupt than how 60 days looks on paper. It just seems, I can say that as a former county supervisor who would receive those warrant notices on my desk and then just have to even though we would meet every week, have to rapidly figure out how to pivot, how to get on a agenda and start dealing with the impact if we could.

So, you know, obviously there's arguments on both sides is what I'm saying. But I'm glad to hear everybody's communicating. And, Senator, you're welcome to respond or close or both.

Sure. Thank you so much for that question. And, of course, absolutely, I'm open to working around the issues that were raised. You know, I just agree with what you shared, Senator Cortese. When we talk about community, WARN Act does not notify communities directly. And this is really about those disadvantaged, vulnerable communities that are in food deserts, that rely on these facilities for food and for medical needs through pharmacies.

You know, we also talk about communities that will need to figure out transportation, they may need to figure out child care, just depending, depending on how far they will have to travel to get to whatever the new service provider grocery store is. And, you know, we think that communities, particularly black communities and vulnerable communities, need that amount of time. New York, New Jersey and Maine have already extended their notices from 60 to 90 days, and we think California should do the same.

We also recognize that WARN notices only really apply for stores with 75 or more workers and at an establishment. And we think that we need to make sure that in these places where communities are relying on these services, that there is certainly more information provided, particularly when we have to deal with not just the community, but also with the workers.

So, you know, I also wanted to ask, because you did ask some pretty technical questions, I wanted to see if we could bring up our witness, Jassy Grewal, to just maybe answer more in detail and address some of the things that were raised by the opposition. So, Jassy?

Ms. Grewal, please understand that we are supportive here on the Committee. You don't have too much persuasion to do.

No, I know. And the Senator really spoke and addressed the questions around WARN, but just wanted to really flag that that is an undercount of closures that do happen. And the data cited around the two grocery stores that have closed in the past few years does not capture the full picture of closures that are happening throughout the state.

Thank you.

Great. So with that, this is an important bill. It's one of the California task force reparation recommendations. And we know that this is going to greatly impact not just the workers in these stores that need to be notified, but certainly the communities that need that notification. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you again. Senator Laird, do we have a motion, or did you make a motion already? All right. Thank you. Motion from Senator Laird. I'll ask the roll to be called at this time.

For file item 10. The motion is due passed to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll call]

Okay, the vote is 4-0. We'll keep the bill on call. And Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, if you'd like to move to file item 11, SB 1446. We're happy to hear that bill whenever you're ready.

Okay, thank you so much, Senator Cortese and Member. I am pleased to present SB 1446, the Retail Theft Prevention and Safe Staffing Act. This act will protect workers and the public by ensuring safe staffing levels at grocery and retail stores and regulating self-checkout machines. This bill will also require retail employers that adopt new technologies to erect guardrails to prevent harm to workers and worker displacement.

In recent years, automation in our retail, grocery and drug stores have drastically cut, contributing to the chronic understaffing at our stores. So I just want to repeat that the automation in our retail, grocery and drug stores have drastically cut staff, contributing to chronic understaffing in our stores. While it is crucial to adapt to new technologies, protecting jobs and worker safety must be prioritized in the process.

As self-checkout has become more commonplace, loan workers have become easy targets for theft and violence as they are forced to stock merchandise, operate checkout stations, and cater to customers. While all trying to monitor their stores for retail theft. As retailers are replacing many of their workers with these machines, the data makes it clear. Self-checkout machines cause 16 times more loss than checkout via a cashier, with an estimated $10 billion in losses attributed to to these checkout stands annually.

When worker safety is at risk and people lose their jobs, we in the state Legislature must act and we must act now. And while some of our largest retailers have already recognized these problems and begun to limit or eliminate self-checkout altogether from their stores, many have not. We must create a consistent and uniform approach that ensures that both workers and their communities remain safe.

SB 1446 does this by ensuring that one full-service cashier lane, be open before allowing a self-checkout machine to open. Staffing ratios are set at one employee per two checkout machines and stores are required to create workplace violence prevention plans to determine if self-checkout machines are considered hazards at their stores. Stores are required to also conduct worker and consumer impact assessments to evaluate potential job losses before implementing new technologies that impact workers' jobs.

As the conversation around retail theft has been largely focused on harsher criminal penalties, it is crucial that we look at some of the root causes and look at our marketplaces, and we need to acknowledge that the root causes of crime too often is economic disparity and poverty and homelessness and unemployment. All of these conditions drive and fuel retail theft. This is a common sense bill that looks at ways to fix the problem by ensuring that we're bringing on adequate staff.

We're protecting the staff that's there and consumers, and we're also addressing the shrinkage of merchandise. We must recognize that the changing landscape in which retail is taking place as we see AI coming on. Of course, we've had self-checkout for years, but now is the time for us to really look at the impacts.

As we see more and more AI coming before us in the state Legislature, we've got to look back to see what are the impacts of AI and automation on our communities and our workers in our rearview mirror and how we can make and address them and make changes. More stores need good workers and more of them, and we need good retailers to prioritize public safety. Joining me today are Megan Stanzak, thank you, with UFCW local five and Glenn Backus on behalf of the Prosecutors Alliance of California. And again, Jassy Grohal will be with us if we have technical questions on this.

Thank you, Senator. Witnesses may proceed when ready. You have a couple minutes each.

Good morning. My name is Megan Stanzak, a former grocery store worker for 16 years and I work for UFCW local five in the Bay Area. I'm here to testify in support of SB 1446. As a grocery worker, my coworkers and I have witnessed firsthand the reduction in staffing due to self-checkout and increase of workplace violence as a result of retail theft. Grocery workers have been surrounding the alarm for over a decade about the negative impact automating our jobs as work on workers and our customers.

The push to expand self checkout from four to up to sometimes 10 machines has created chronic understaffing in grocery stores. Fewer workers in the store, especially at the front of the store, leaves us vulnerable to becoming targets of retail theft, workplace violence and leaving us unprepared to respond to incidents when they do occur. It is not uncommon for a worker to be responsible for overseeing four to eight self-checkout machines, manning the cashier line and trying to assist customers with questions.

It is difficult to keep an eye on all the customers using the eight self-checkout machines and worry about, maybe you might miss a customer who needs help or worse, get yelled at while you're helping one customer while the other one has to wait.

In addition, as a lone front-line checkers, we are also responsible for watching for shoplifters, dealing with disruptive individuals, issues with self-checkout machines, and understaffing increased customer irritation and put myself and my coworkers at risk of verbal and physical assault by frustrated customers. We are told to also use checkout stands to help bring up customers if the lines get too long, leaving self-checkout unattended. When the area is unattended, we watch customers not properly scan products and walk out the front door with stolen goods.

The protections of SB 1446 ensure that we have appropriate staffing in the front of the store to detur theft and appropriately assist customers checking out and responding to incidents when they do happen. Additionally, the bill assures that our employers are assessing the risk to workers and customers when they introduce new technology. By identifying these risks, we can minimize the harm that technology can cause workers and customers.

This is our opportunity to learn from the failed social experiment of self-checkout machines and ensure greater accountability for our employers when it comes to automating our jobs, and I urge you to support 1446.

Thank you. Next.

Good morning. Glenn Backes for the Prosecutors Alliance of California, a co-sponsor of SB 1446. The Prosecutors Alliance is a membership organization of more than 4000 prosecutors, victims advocates and allies committed to reforming California's criminal justice system with safe, smart, and modern solutions that advance public safety, human dignity, and community well-being. Our Advisory Committee consists of the elected district attorneys of Los Angeles, Contra Costa, and Alameda County as a law enforcement organization, an organization of law enforcement officials and other experts.

We recommend the policies in this bill as a crime prevention strategy that also has the benefit of creating jobs. And we know that employment itself is a good anti-poverty and anti-crime measure. SB 1446 will protect workers and reduce property crime by promoting safer staffing levels at grocery and pharmacy outlets and by better regulating self-checkout machines. The economic losses of shoplifting through self-checkout lines is estimated to be in the billions of years, sorry, billions of dollars per year.

More staff means more eyes on the aisle. Deterring theft, proactively deterring people from committing retail theft is smarter and more effective than law enforcement responding after the fact, after the property and the person who took it are long gone. There are retail leaders in this policy already, including Lowe's, Costco and Best Buy. Their leadership has attributed higher staffing levels to helping deter theft.

Lowe's CEO Marvin Ellison said, quote, having spent my entire life in retail at every level, the one thing I understand clearly is that the greatest deterrent for any type of theft activity is effective customer service, end quote. The National Institute of Justice and other research leaders concur that the fear of getting caught is a much greater deterrent than the threat of long sentences. Having staff at checkout, working the aisles, and security at entrances and exits would deter theft and keep staff safe from harm.

We respectfully urge your aye vote, thank you.

All right. Thank you. Others in the Committee room who wish to come forward and express a support position.

Danica Rodarmel Proud to register strong support on behalf of Vera Institute of Justice, Smart Justice California, Californians for Safety and Justice, and Initiate Justice Action. Thanks.

Christopher Sanchez with the Mesa Verde Group here on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in strong support.

Daniel Jefferson on behalf of the California Coalition for Worker Power in strong support.

George Parampthew on behalf of the California Labor Federation, proud co sponsors and supporters of this bill. Thank you.

All right, we'll take opposition witnesses. I know we have a lead witness or witnesses on this one on the opposition side, please come forward. You'll have a couple minutes each. I'll let you self identify and begin when ready.

Thank you Mr. Chair and Members. Margaret Gladstein with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Retailers Association. We oppose SB 1466, which would place unnecessary restrictions on retailers use of self-checkout and our ability to utilize new technology. The safety and well-being of our retail employees and our customers is our top priority. Our members are continuously assessing what practices and technologies will help deter theft and make the workplace safer. SB 1446 will make it more challenging to make the changes we need.

As the author and the analysis recognizes, a number of retailers are already altering their self-checkout practice. The marketplace is addressing this issue, but rather than allowing individual companies to make decisions that are better for employees, customers, and their business overall, SB 1466 implements a statutory, one-size-fits-all limitation on self-checkout technologies. There's no rationale for restricting the number of items that can be sold using self-checkout, and there's no reason to prohibit the sale of items subject to special anti-theft deterrent measures.

The measures these measures will only serve to frustrate consumers with no evidence they will reduce theft or provide additional protection to employees. The bill's mandate to complete a worker and consumer impact assessment for every new technology that has a significant impact on job functions is an overreach. Every day, our members consider the potential effect of new technologies on employees and consumers, but the statutory requirements in SB 1446 are overly burdensome and limit our ability to adapt and change as necessary.

Finally, SB 1446 requires self-checkout to be included in retailer's analysis of potential work hazards. While we disagree with the premise if self-checkout stations are potential hazards, they're already arguably covered by existing law in the passage of SB 553 last year. CRA is working with the Legislature to address retail theft issues in California. We do not believe the measures in SB 1446 will address that problem or create a safer working or shopping environment. For these reasons, we asked for a no vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Mr. Chair, Members of the Committee, Louis Brown. On behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition. I agree with my colleague on all of the points that were made. The California Grocers Association is very active, along with the retailers and others, on retail theft issues this year. As we analyze retail theft, the elements of this bill do not rise to the level of the changes that are being prescribed by this bill.

There are a number of other issues that can and should be addressed, and, frankly, are being addressed in other bills that will get to the issue of retail theft without the prescriptive mandates that, frankly, aren't going to have an impact on retail theft, and more than anything, just create inconvenience for our customers. We also have significant concern with the element of the workplace technology and the worker and consumer impact assessment. Like was stated, we're looking at new technology all the time.

We can now have technology in our stores that recognize refrigerant leaks before an employee or a professional could have actually notified them. We have technology that reduces energy consumption. All of that, as we read this bill, would now have to go under this type of assessment, which we think actually works against a lot of the goals and policy statements that this Legislature, this state, have moved forward when it comes to reducing emissions, environmental protections, etcetera.

So it's the breadth of that part of the bill that really creates the issues. The unnecessary part of the element with the self-checkout is why we're in opposition and would ask for a no vote.

Okay, thank you. Others in opposition, please come forward.

Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

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

Okay, we'll bring it back to the Committee at this time. Senator Laird, anything?

I was going to ask the author if you would just respond to the concerns that were expressed by the opposition.

Thank you, and I appreciate the comments, and we'll continue to discuss this with the opposition as we work through this. I'll start with SB 533. So, SB 533 does, in fact, require employers to put forward a workplace violence plan.

However, in this bill, what we are saying in our bill is that we want to ensure that the checkout stalls are considered a workplace hazard and that we want to make sure that there is an evaluation of that hazard and an actual way to correct the hazard. So that's the difference between the requirements that the opposition is speaking of in 553 and what we're calling for.

We want a very particular focus on a plan that looks at how these checkout counters are a hazard and what is going to be done to correct that hazard in terms of, you know, it is true, many, many companies are already deciding that these are hazards and that we need to shut and have decided to shut them down and remove them altogether. What we're saying is we just need to make sure that we have worker ratios as we look at self-checkout.

We need to make sure that we're not putting workers and consumers in danger. And we are looking at ways to really combat retail theft. When I worked retail as a young woman, I was told, you know, you being on the floor is going to prevent us from seeing things walk out of the store. That's what my bosses told me when I got one of my first jobs at Target.

So, you know, to say now that that golden rule is no longer applied, I think is a disservice to the workers who are in the store and to the customers who want to see workers in the store, one for safety reasons, but also just for consumer service. You know, I think this is a common-sense bill. We are dealing with a tremendous amount of retail theft, and I have seen, you know, where we have upwards of eight to ten checkout, self-checkout stalls.

I have seen some of the tension and stress arising, and not just in the worker, but in the customers who are frustrated and the worker trying to, you know, ensure someone isn't walking out of the store with stolen items while also trying to help folks look up an item.

It is a very dangerous situation to have workers in a situation where they are confronting someone that might be in the act of a crime and then also trying to help other customers and keep them safe in the process. So I think this is an important bill. I think we have. The evidence is showing that it is a hazard that we need to pay attention to in the Legislature.

And I think we need to let the bill out and continue to work on it so that it does the intended work that we want it to do, and that is to protect workers and at the same time, address retail theft in a common-sense way and also get at some of the root causes, which is, how do we create more jobs for communities so that we don't have issues of poverty and economic despair fueling these property crimes? And so with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. There's a motion by Senator Durazo. I just. I didn't take my opportunity to comment. But for whatever it's worth, I'm supporting the bill. And I appreciate the continued work on it, because having worked on 553, I know the effort might take much of the session to try to work out the details with opposition, and to some degree, opposition came off that bill that was originally very much opposed.

I just want to anecdotally talk about something, if I can, almost a point of privilege more than anything. But as a young, as a boy, I started working as a farm worker, and part of the, you know, the human part of that work, which was hard, hot, you know, picking prunes and apricots in 100-degree heat, was coworkers.

And the human activity that occurred that helped sort of not only pass the day, but, you know, help in many other ways, including me learning a little bit of Spanish when I was out there. But, you know, I went, my next job was working as a UFCW retail clerk.

And one of the greatest parts about that job when you got to come out of the back room was, you know, to work at the checkstand and engage in these great conversations with people that you got to know that were neighbors that seemed to come back over and over again and basically not just shop, but check-in.

A retail worker told me the other day when I said, your job may not be around longer because of AI, said, no, I'm not worried about that, because people will demand this kind of activity, these kinds of conversations. Eventually, the public will rebel against retail establishments that aren't providing that kind of just general ambience. We expect that when we go to a restaurant, for example.

So who knows where this is headed, but it seems to be headed, for the time being, in the direction of more automation, not less, and ensure the marketplace will sort this out. Perhaps like that worker was telling me, you know, people will demand what they will demand, and the market will, will want to address what customers really want.

But in the meanwhile, I do think there should be some statutory protections on the complete displacement of employees, while, if you will, water seeking its own level here, while we're figuring out how people transition in and out and what the retail of the future looks like. And so obviously, a protection of workers is a large part of, if not most of this, if not all of this Committee's jurisdiction. So I'm glad you're working on the bill.

I think we appreciate hearing from everyone today on all sides of the issue, and we'll call for the roll call vote on Senator Durazo's motion. And I'm sorry, I'm acting like the real Chair here, but it's a habit. It's a habit.

I absolutely appreciate your comment. And, you know, our state, as we look at our deficit, you know, we're so reliant on our income tax and our sales tax, and when we remove workers, we're also removing that revenue. And so it's very important that we look closely at this and what's the impact on the worker as these technologies come on board. So I just wanted to say absolutely agree with you, you, Senator, and I'll respectfully ask for your aye vote again on this.

Thank you.

On file item 11, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

The bill, it's a 4-0 vote, will remain on call for absent member votes. One of them, I guess, or two. I'm going to hand the gavel back to the actual Chair at this time. Senator Durazzo, I believe, is up next. And I'm. Madam Chair. I'm just. I'm going to present a bill in education, and I will return. That would be great.

We're going to lift call, since we have a number of Members before we proceed. Assistant please call the roll.

On File Item One: SB 962, the motion is 'do pass to the Senate Floor.' [Roll Call].

That's four/zero. The bill is on call.

On File Item Number Two: SB 1058, it's 'do pass as amended to the Senate Floor.' [Roll Call].

Four/zero. That bill is on call.

On File Item Number Three: SB 1157, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

That bill is on call; four to zero.

On the consent calendar, which has File Item Number Four on it, SB 1189, [Roll Call].

That bill is on call; four to zero.

On File Item Number Six: SB 1303, the motion is 'do pass to the Judiciary Committee.' [Roll Call].

That bill is on call; four to zero.

On SB 1316, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

That bill is on call; four to zero.

On File Item Number Eight: SB 1162, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Rules.' [Roll Call].

That bill is also on call; four to zero. With that being said, we will continue with File Item--what number is that--Number Nine: SB 1350. Senator Durazo, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This bill requires the Department of Industrial Relations to make recommendations to the Legislature on policies the state may adopt to protect domestic workers from work-related injuries and illnesses. Despite caring for what we hold most dear, our families in our homes, domestic workers remain without any health and safety protections.

A year into the pandemic, domestic workers were three times more likely to have contracted Covid-19 than the general population. Additionally, climate-accelerated disasters magnify the dangers that domestic workers and day laborers face on a daily basis. During the wildfires, domestic workers and other household workers were asked to stay behind to fight fires, guard homes or pets, work in smoky conditions, and clean up toxic ash. Workers were further put at risk when employers failed to tell them that the homes they were in were under mandatory evacuation.

These extreme dangers--beyond this, domestic workers also face the risk of injury and illness in their day-to-day work, related to lifting, chemical handling, and repetitive strain. Since the Governor's veto last year of my prior legislation removing the exclusion of private pay household domestic service employees from California's Health and Safety Act requirements, I have been in conversation with his office regarding the health and safety of domestic workers.

I am hopeful that those conversations will result in the next meaningful step forward in addressing the legitimate and important health and safety risks associated with domestic work. With me here today to testify in support is Megan Whelan, Acting Director of the California Domestic Workers Coalition, and Andrea Lopez, house cleaner and member of IDEPSCA.

[Testimony in Spanish].

'Good morning. My name is Andrea Lopez. I live in Los Angeles, California, and I have been cleaning houses for ten years. I've been part of Women In Action of IDEPSCA and the California Domestic Workers Coalition for more than two years.'

[Testimony in Spanish].

'As domestic workers, we face many risks and we do not have any protection. We get sick and injured every day, and our employers have no responsibility for our safety. During the pandemic, my employer didn't even tell me that they had Covid while I cleaned their house. We suffer from slips and falls, and we are asked to use very strong chemical products that affect our throat, irritate our skin, and burn our eyes.'

[Testimony in Spanish].

'The worst thing that ever happened to me was when my employer asked me to carry a really heavy bucket. I told her I was pregnant. I was about a month into my pregnancy and she told me, oh, nothing's wrong, that she couldn't even tell I was pregnant, and out of fear of losing my job, out of fear that they wouldn't call me again, I did what she asked me to do and I picked it up.'

[Testimony in Spanish].

'I still remember that pull I felt in my abdomen that Saturday afternoon. I will never forget it. The next day, Sunday, 10:00 a.m., I was already in the hospital because I had pain and bleeding that I won't forget. I lost my baby.'

[Testimony in Spanish].

'I hope this message and that of all of my fellow workers touches the hearts of you and of Governor Newsom.'

[Testimony in Spanish].

'At the end of this month, on April 28, for Workers' Memorial Day, we will honor all workers who have been injured or who have lost their lives due to unsafe working conditions. Today, let's say no more deaths. In the name of my baby, I ask you, representatives of this Committee, domestic workers are essential, not sacrificial.'

Thank you. Gracias.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Megan Whelan. I am the Deputy Director of the California Domestic Workers Coalition. Our coalition is the leading voice for the more than 300,000 house cleaners, nannies, and home care workers in the state. We are now in our fifth year advocating to end the exclusion of domestic workers from occupational health and safety rights. During this time, we have seen Virginia, New Jersey, and Washington, D.C. extend health and safety protections to this essential workplace.

We believe California can and must find a solution. With every year the exclusion continues, more people in our communities become sick or injured while working in isolation behind the closed doors of private homes, the vast majority of whom are women of color and immigrant women. Just in the last few years, domestic workers have been asked to work on the front lines through climate disasters, wildfires, flooding, and the devastating global pandemic, all without basic protections.

The reality is that while household employment is unique, domestic employers are already responsible for complying with other state labor laws such as minimum wage, overtime protections, and paid sick leave, and most relevant, most employers are already liable when the people they employ get injured on the job. We've seen in our coalition's workshops for domestic employers how they pay attention and how much more compelling it is when we say this is the law.

With the SB 321 Advisory Committee recommendations and voluntary industry guidelines published last year, we already have a blueprint for how we can create healthy and safe home workplaces. Today, we ask that you support SB 1350 in order to ensure our state's progress to reach a solution to protect the health, safety, and dignity of this essential workforce, and by extension, to support the well-being of all the California families that rely on them as well. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I want to ask all of the folks who want to speak in support of the bill to please step forward and state your name, your affiliation, and position on the bill.

Daniel Jefferson, Pilipino Workers Center, very strong support.

Mi nombre es Marcel Escamilla. [Testimony in Spanish].

Hello, everyone. My name is Guillermina Castellanos. I work with a domestic worker collective and day labor program, and I come from California Domestic Worker, and I support 1350. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

[Testimony in Spanish].

Thank you.

Good morning. Maegan Ortiz, Executive Director of IDEPSCA in Los Angeles, in strong support.

Thank you. Is there any witnesses speaking in opposition to this bill? No. Anyone who wants to oppose this bill that wants to give comment? Seeing none, we will turn this over to the dais, and I just want to start by saying thank you so much for sharing your story and your pain with us.

We send you much love and healing and resilience, and we know how much courage it takes for you to come here today and to share that experience with us, speaking not just for yourself, but so many other workers. So I just want to say thank you so much for your courage. Any other Members who would like to comment?

Yes, I would. [Spanish]. I want to thank her for her powerful comments, and I also want to thank the author for her perseverance, and I would happily move the bill.

Thank you. Well, we have a motion, and we'll hold this bill on call for other Members, but I want to give the great Senator an opportunity to speak and to thank her so much for bringing this forward and for your vigilance five years. So thank you so much, Senator Durazo.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. It's going to mean a lot as we continue our conversations with the Governor's Office. Thank you.

So we can call the roll--that's right, because there's more than one of us here--so, Assistant, please call the roll.

On File Item Nine, the motion is 'do pass to the Committee on Appropriations.' [Roll Call].

Hold on. The Bill is on call. Vote three to zero, and we'll take it up and the other Members come. Thank you so much. All right. Senator Newman's in the house. Much awaited file item number five. We are at SB 1202.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair. I've been cheering the education Committee. I have a Member of the Committee who looks strikingly like you on that Committee. It's been an interesting day, Madam Chair. And Members, thank you for the opportunity to present SB 1202. Two, which would require the labor and Workforce Development Agency to issue a quarterly report on workplace assaults.

Before I begin, I'd like to make clear that I am accepting the Committee amendments, which will be taken in Senate judiciary, and thank the Committee's consultant, Emma Bruce, for her work on this Bill. These amendments better align the Bill with its original intent and ensure that it is not duplicative of existing law by moving the specified report to the more appropriate agency of CaLHR and by indicating that this. This report only applies to public employees is and will only be reported to the Legislature.

According to the Department of Justice, public employees experience workplace violence incidents at rates three times higher than private employees. SB 1202 endeavors to ensure greater oversight of these incidents by requiring CaLHR to report such incidents annually to the Legislature.

The impetus for this Bill was actually a horrific incident which occurred at a California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facility where, after an employee was brutally assaulted, their union representatives were unable, over an extended period of time, to access any statistical data about these incidents that would help inform their advocacy and prevent future similar events.

SB 553, authored by Senator Cortese and passed last year, will also help remedy this issue by mandating workplace violence provision plans and the maintenance of records related to violent incidents so that union representatives may access and utilize this data. SB 1202 seeks to further advance the intent of SB 553 by requiring an annual report of workplace assaults on public sector employees to the Legislature. I am respectfully asking for your. I vote today.

Thank you. Senator Newman, do you have any witnesses?

I do not.

Okay. I don't. Well, okay. I don't see any folks in our audience here. So we will just turn it over.

The sergeants are folks, but they're not likely going to testify, just for the record.

So is that a motion?

On TV. It looks like we have a multitude with great.

So why don't we assist and call the roll than.

Does he want to close?

You should close. That's right.

I should close. Quickly, please. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out with a vote of four to one. It on file item SB 1202, with a vote of four to zero. That Bill is out. Okay, that concludes our agenda, everyone, 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.