Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly labor and Employment Committee hearing. Sergeant, please call absent Members. Seeing one of our authors here, we're. Going to go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee. Assembly Member Luz Rivas. We will start with. You have two bills before us today. So we will start with AB 2364.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I want to start by thanking Erin for her work and thoughtful analysis on this Bill. AB 2364 is a first-in-the-nation bill that would limit workloads in the janitorial industry and strengthen protections against sexual violence faced by the largely female workforce as they labor alone in empty buildings at night. Specifically, this Bill creates a square footage cap on how much space a janitor can be assigned to clean per hour.

It also increases fees for sexual violence and harassment prevention training, allowing qualified organizations to expand their training capacity and frequency. Members, janitors are essential workers. They are at the front lines protecting us from diseases, working around the clock to keep our grocery stores, office buildings, and public spaces clean and sanitized for us to use. Unfortunately, our janitors are exposed to frequent injuries, violence, and disrespect in the workplace.

In 2022, a study by the California Department of Industrial Relations highlighted the brutal conditions that janitors face on the job, including the fact that roughly one-third of janitors in California were injured on the job last year. The study also found that one-third of janitors say they are hesitant to report injuries out of fear of retaliation. Most of these workers are hardworking immigrant women.

Our mothers, our grandmothers, sisters deserve safe working environments so that they can stay healthy and continue to support their families every day. Today I have with me to provide testimony David Huerta, President of the SEIU State Council, and Nora Morales, janitor from Silicon Valley. Also here to translate for Nora is my staff, Jose Medina.

Thank you. Just to remind our witnesses, you have two minutes each.

[Spanish]

Jose Medina here to translate for Nora Morales. Good afternoon, Chair Ortega and Members. Thank you for this opportunity to speak on behalf of this Bill. My name is Nora Morales. I have been working in the janitorial industry for over 15 years in the Silicon Valley. This country and this state has been my home for over 37 years, ever since I came here from my native country, Nicaragua. I am a mother of five, and I am the main sustainer and provider of my household.

Janitor workers like myself are always facing low wages. We always receive the negative impacts of the tech companies that we work for. The employers themselves utilize these tactics to continue lowering our wages, to lower our hours of work, and keep on putting us under these unfair conditions in which our bodies are put to work with unfair hours and put us through chronic pain.

That's why I am here for you all and asking you all to support AB 2364 to put an end to this exploitation and abuse of these janitors. Day in and day out, we see that our fellow colleagues' hours are being reduced, their wages are being reduced. They can't even afford their medical expenses that they have to have whenever they're dealing with their chronic pain. They're taking painkillers every day just to alleviate the pain that they go through.

One in three janitors have been going through a lot of pain at their work, have experienced a workplace injury. Six out of 10 janitors need medication in order to alleviate the pain. Us janitors deserve the right to be working and to have respect. We are the main force of this economy. We deserve to be respected and we deserve our rights to be honored. That is why I am here before you all and asking to support AB 2364. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. My name is David Huerta. I am President of SEIU California, as well as President of SEIU USWW, and we represent nearly 50,000 essential workers in California, with over 20,000 of those as being janitors. Every night, in thousands of buildings across California, a janitor is starting their night shift. Oftentimes alone, janitors are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment, assault, and workplace injuries on the job.

To address these issues, we have passed legislation to require mandatory sexual harassment and violence prevention training program provided by qualified peer trainers, or as we call them, promotoras. As we have moved towards full, as we move to full implementation of the program, we can see more work needs to be done to ensure training can be delivered efficiently to all janitors in California.

AB 2364 also addresses very serious workplace safety issues created by constantly increasing workloads, which lead to workplace injuries, anxiety, depression, and take a toll on an aging immigrant workforce. And we are not surprised. On average, every night a janitor will clean the equivalent of one-and-a-half times the size of the White House. The wealthy opponents of AB 2364 stated the Bill overlooks the nuances of janitorial work and risks increasing costs for business without a clear return on investment.

This is the same type of treatment janitors have been getting for years, working alone in dangerous conditions. Invisible, working in the shadows, overlooked because they are women, overlooked because they are immigrants, overlooked because they are Black and brown. Well, I can tell you without a doubt that this Bill has a very clear return on investment, the return is safer working conditions. The return is fewer workplace injuries.

The return is a healthier state of mind for janitors and less reliance on pain medications to get through the night. Profit margins can no longer be balanced in the sore backs of janitors on ruptured rotor cuffs and meniscus tears. The wealthy will no longer work our abuelitos and abuelitas to the bone. We say enough. We say abasta. And I also want to leap in with the exploitation of immigrant workers because right now these same janitors are at the bargaining table, 20,000 of them.

Yesterday we received the first economic proposal from the employers, $0.25 an hour in Los Angeles, $0.10 an hour in Orange County, and $0.05 an hour in San Diego. San Diego being one of the largest biotech centers in the country. And we have yet to receive even an economic offer in Northern California, where the center in the wealth of California and the world is in Silicon Valley. It's not enough that they're exploiting them with their labor, but they also want to exploit them in poverty.

And so, we really hope that you approve AB 2364. Thank you.

Thank you. Now we will have any additional witnesses and support. A reminder, you just state your name and affiliation and position on the Bill.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Hello, my name is Pilar Herrera, and I was hoping get your guys' support for AB 2364 because I support that law. Thank you.

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

[Spanish]

Luis Fuentes. AB 2364.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation in support.

Thank you. I want to take a moment to establish quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Quorum is established. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Oh, one more support. Okay, go ahead.

[Spanish]

Thank you.

Hi, Evan Minton with Voices for Progress. We have a priority support on this important Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we are now closing support and moving to opposition. Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee. Skyler Wonnacott here with the California Business Properties Association on behalf of our Members BOMA California and NAOP California and over 10,000 Members in respectful opposition to AB 2364. We understand the intentions behind AB 2364 but must oppose it due to its potential negative impacts on all Californians. The Bill imposes a 2000 square foot per hour limit on janitorial cleaning which fails to account for the diversity of facilities and types of work involved.

For instance, a million-square-foot building would require 16 additional employees. Escalating operation costs by about $100,000 monthly. This one-size-fits-all approach overlooks the practicalities and efficiencies of janitorial work. These unrealistic quotas will significantly inflate building maintenance costs, forcing businesses to reduce cleaning services, pass costs onto consumers, or downsize, exacerbating California's already high office vacancy rates, decreasing property values, and reducing property tax revenue. AB 2364 imposes excessive training costs on employers, particularly small businesses.

It mandates more costly harassment training programs disproportionate to its potential benefits. The current $65 per employee charge under Labor Code 1420 adequately covers sexual violence and harassment prevention training. California faces some of the highest office vacancy rates in the nation. And AB 2364 would only worsen this situation, leading to more blighted properties and economic decline. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for your no vote on AB 2364.

Thank you. Are there additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Kelly Hitt with Platinum Advisors on behalf of ABM, in opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no other opposition, I will pass it over to the Members. See if you have any questions.

I am just curious on this. Thank you, Madam Chair, where did the 2.000 square foot number come from? What was the. How did we get to that number?

Yeah. So that number is the number that we have, we got from the industry standards that we've been investigating and pulling out. Right? Remember, the 2,000 is what would be a route over an eight-hour period. Right?

So, it's 2,000 square feet per hour for a route on a janitorial cleaner that does not include also what is restrooms, lobbies and other conditions. But this is for the janitorial route specifically to a cleaner.

Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions? Member, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. AB 2364 would establish a reasonable production rate for janitors and prohibit employers from forcing workers like Nora that's with us here today to shoulder these dangerous workloads. These workers are primarily immigrants and immigrant women, and they are making all of us richer and we need to protect them and make sure that they're protected from these abusive workloads. So, I strongly urge and ask for an aye vote from all of you. Thank you.

May I get a motion and a second? We have a motion in a second. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll call] The Bill is out.

That Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Assembly Member Luz Rivas, would you like to continue with AB 3043?

Yes.

Whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, I'd like to thank your committee staff for working with my team on this bill. Second, I want to acknowledge all of the work that my staff, committee staff, my sponsor, Doctor Jane Fazio from La County Olive View Medical Center, medical professionals and stakeholders for their work and engagement on this bill over the last nine months.

As you may know, silicosis is a type of pulmonary fibrosis, a lung disease resulting from breathing in tiny bits of silica, a common mineral found in quartz, sand and many other rock types. However, artificial stone is dangerous due to its high silica concentration and harmful polymer resins, dyes and other binding materials that are used to form a slab.

Workers who cut, grind, polish and drill artificial stone are at the highest risk of contracting silicosis due to the overexposure and high levels of silica used to make products like artificial stone countertops. Workers who breathe in the silica particles can develop silicosis. Silicosis is an incurable, progressive disease that causes severe and fatal health effects, with over 60% reported cases in the San Fernando Valley.

The California Department of Public Health has identified approximately 95 countertop workers with silicosis between 2019 and 2022, 52 artificial stone workers were diagnosed with silicosis, 51 of whom were immigrants from Mexico and Central America. The median age of diagnosis is 45. However, I have constituents who are diagnosed with silicosis as young as 27 and like I mentioned earlier, this is a fatal disease. There is no cure. Some patients have been put on oxygen and lose the ability to work and provide for their families.

In severe cases, a lung transplant may be an option for some patients. Doctor Jane Fazio, a pulmonary physician at Olivie Medical center who diagnosed the majority of these workers with silicosis in California, stated, most of the silicosis patients at Olive View were uninsured when they were diagnosed. A lung transplant can cost over $1 million. Additionally, patients on the lung transplant list rarely live long enough to receive a lung transplant.

If a person does receive a lung transplant, it prolongs a person's life for an average of 10 years. There is no cure for silicosis. My sponsor, the state Building and Construction Trades Council, whom you will hear from today, has been sounding alarms of silicosis with CalOSHA far before it became public knowledge. Unfortunately, silicosis cases in California have increased significantly under the watchful eye of state regulators. My district is the center of this global epidemic. Latino workers are not dispensable.

A silicosis diagnosis is a death sentence. We appreciate state regulators issuing emergency temporary standards in December. However, labor, medical experts and industry stakeholders do not believe that they have gone far enough to protect workers. The emergency temporary standards lack data on legal fabrication shops, licensure, structure of fabrication shops, training for workers, and ongoing funding enforcement mechanisms to protect workers. As a result of that conversation, over the last nine months, AB 3043 is a culmination of stakeholders.

This bill establishes a system for tracking artificial stone to ensure fabrication shops implement the state temporary standards and encourage state enforcement. Additionally, this bill will codify the prohibition of dry cutting of artificial stones, create a licensure program for fabrication shops, require all workers to undergo a training program, and require the Department of Industry Relations and Cal OSHA to report on the effectiveness of the emergency temporary standards and future adopted standards. My team sponsor and I have been in conversations with the opposition of this bill.

Because of those conversations, I have taken a number of author amendments to address several of their concerns. This global academic was created within this industry and. Sorry. Okay. Okay. First, I took author amendments to address their primary concern by removing the skilled and trained provision from the bill. So today I have two witnesses in support. I have Keith Dunn, representing the State Building and Construction Trades Council, and Doctor Robert Blink of the Western Occupational and Environmental Medical Association.

Just a reminder, two minutes each for our witnesses.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing us to speak today. Western Occupational Environmental Medicine Association supports this bill strongly. I'm Doctor Robert Blink. I'm an occupational and environmental medicine specialist, and we're an organization of 44 or 500 physicians with that specialty in California and neighboring states. I previously served on the Cal OSHA standards board for some years as well, so I'm familiar with that process and want to talk today about why this Bill is needed in addition to the Cal OSHA action.

So, first of all, what's it like to see a patient with pulmonary fibrosis? They're sitting in your office. They look gray or even dusky kind of blue. They're coughing, they're struggling to breathe. Often they have an oxygen tank with them. When you're dealing with somebody who is 27 years old or 35 or 40 or really any age, this is a daunting thing, especially knowing that the disease that they have is incurable, and they're almost certainly going to die of it, a bad situation.

And as the member noted, the engineered stone has much greater silica content, up to 90%, compared to other stone products, which may have 10 or 20 or 30%. So that's why it needs to be tracked. What CalOSHA cannot do, whether it's temporary or permanent standard, is to actually track the material. And we're familiar with this from asbestos. So we already have regulations in place for asbestos, which is another pulmonary toxin. And we know that you can't work with asbestos unless you got a permit for it.

You can't transport the stuff. I mean, it's illegal. And I get, you know, the legislature could ban the material tomorrow if they wanted to, as they already have done in Australia. But even if that were to happen, we'd have increasing rates of silicosis going up for the next five or 10 years at least. So we need to control this now.

And one of the ways to do that is what the members' bill has done to permit the material itself in the retail side, permit the shops that do the work, and make sure that the workers are trained and protected when they do the work.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, I just have some quick points to make. Number one, silicosis is fatal. Number two, it's 100% preventable. A lot of things we do here sometimes don't seem that important at times. This is actually a bill that's very important. It is going to provide the ability to provide safety measures for workers, training for workers, and an opportunity to save lives.

So I won't spend a lot of time on discussing the need, but just remember that 100% fatal, 100% preventable. And we're going to be working, as the author had mentioned, with the industry to make sure that we develop a training program that is sufficient to cover the safety needs of workers, those that are out in the field performing this work, so they understand the protections that they're going to need to continue to work in this field.

So there's nobody better training workers than the building trades collectively. And we're looking forward to working with them in partnership to make sure that they are trained and have the ability to perform these jobs safely if they're to proceed in doing them. And again, 100% preventable, 100% fatal. We ask for your. I vote thank you for.

Thank you. We will now move to additional witnesses and support. State your name. Affiliation.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Kirk Kimmelshue on behalf of the Engineered Stone Manufacturers Association, ASTA Worldwide, we're in a support, if amended, position. Just want to thank the author and the sponsors for their work on this bill. Looking forward to it moving forward.

Jeff Sievers, on behalf of the Cosentino Group, I also want to thank the author and her staff for working so hard on this. We are supportive, if amended, to remove the prevailing wait provision, and we appreciate the ongoing conversations.

Thank you.

Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Steve Cruz, representing the Silica Safety Coalition, a coalition of stone manufacturers, distributors, and fabricators. I want to make sure and emphasize from the outset that our coalition strongly supports prioritization of both statutory and regulatory oversight and enforcement of existing occupational safety and health requirements that protect employees from exposure to silica. Preventing silicosis for workers in the industry is of grave concern and interest to our coalition.

And we firmly believe it is entirely preventable when utilizing safe and effective workplace practices, which is why we actively engaged and supported, not just engaged, but supported, the Cal OSHA regulations. In fact, they specifically asked for the ban on dry cutting, the use of effective wet methods, and air monitoring systems. All of these regulations we actually advocated for because we understand that we need to address the bad actors in the industry.

Our members, including the fabricators with me today, utilize safe practices, and we know it's important for everyone to do that. And so the bill took it a step further by making the regulations permanent and then by also including a license, which is something that Kellogg couldn't do. We strongly supported that. We strongly supported a mechanism to pay for licensing, and as mentioned by the support witness, the licensing will also allow for tracking to make sure that fabricators who are not licensed don't get into their hands. So all of these things we supported. Our only concern coming to the committee was the skilled and trained and prevailing wage provisions because of the already strained workforce and how that would impact us. We understand that those provisions are going to come out, and based upon the removal of those two, we would actually move to a support.

And the only comments that we've made outside of that is the training programs to have a better understanding of what the training programs will look like. I know one of them is a community college option, which we think is great, but how that might work, the duration of the training cost, make sure it's not cost prohibitive. And so, with me here today is Nate Kolenski to provide you a little bit more background on his operations and some comments on the training.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Nate Kolenski. I'm part of the Silica Safety Coalition and also owner of two fabrication shops. The author's staff has been to my shop and some of the committee members have. We've been working actively on silicosis with CDPH and Cal OSHA since 2019, and we strongly support the need for licensing because we were involved in the ETS, and we all know that enforcement is very, very tough.

So it was our idea to try to make the supply chain more difficult for the bad actors because this is entirely preventable. It shouldn't be going on, but it's difficult to control these shops that pop up. They move down, they get a little sticker on them from OSHA, and then they're out of business, right, and they pop up somewhere else. Licensing is very, very important, but we're also in an industry that is already highly regulated, and very, very difficult to remain profitable in California.

So we want to make sure that we're able to comply. And I think any regulation or any licensing has to have a part of it that encourages voluntary compliance. Because if we just make it too difficult to comply, we're just going to lose employees to the guys that are already bad actors. And it doesn't help the silicosis at all. The ones you've seen on CB's TV are really, really dangerous shops. We've had our - we've been air testing for more than four years.

We went and just had medical testing on all of our guys. Some have been with us for 25 years, some six months, and everybody was absolutely clear. So, we've worked with Bob Harrison at UCSF. We've worked with all LA County folks. And this is a preventable disease. It doesn't have to happen. The licensing is a very good step, but it has to be something that we can all work with and still stay in business. Was that two minutes?

Yes, it was. Assemblymember Rivas, would you like to respond to the opposition or you have any comments?

Sure. Thank you, Madam Chair. As you heard, the opposition had concerns about the prevailing wage and the worker training. You know, we've already had removed skilled and trained and are planning to also do with prevailing wage to pull that.

You know, my sponsors and I have been having conversations about the training programs, and the opposition is seeking amendments to the training program requirements similar to those in utilized nationwide by organizations like the Natural Stone Institute. But I've included training language in the bill, but it will be approved through Cal OSHA in consultation with apprenticeship programs, and, you know, we will continue to be working together on this. Like as they said, this is a fatal disease.

I know that the industry understands that and knows that very well. And I think what unites us is that we want to save lives.

Thank you, member. I will now open it to additional opposition. Do we have others in opposition? Seeing none, I will bring it back to the members. Do we have any questions?

Just want to thank the author for introducing this measure, as I've come to learn a little bit more through your effort here today. It really underscores how important it is that this is addressed.

Also learning about the best practices that we realize should be going when we're looking at fabrication efforts, that a wet method is far superior and definitely the standard that maybe the best standard that we should have here in our state for our workers and would very be very supportive of the need to be able to provide commiserate training and programming so that safety is foremost in everyone's mind.

I didn't know if you had anything further that you wanted to add as well about the connection to your district or workers that you're aware of and why this is so important to you.

Yeah. Thank you. Assemblymember Ward. You know, the majority of the workers that have been diagnosed with silicosis are from my district in the east, San Fernando Valley. They're immigrants, majority men that are young. They're young men with young families, and there is no way to get diagnosed early, right, for some type of treatment. So we couldn't, you know, people have asked me, could we do screenings, you know, to make sure we catch this early, like other diseases. And that's not the case with silicosis.

Once they have it, they know, we all know that they're going to die. And, no, you know, I love my countertops, right? I, you know, they're in my home. I know. We all do. We all watch HGTV and want brand-new kitchens, and these are beautiful in your home. But now, when I look at my countertops, I think, did someone die cutting these? It's not worth it. It's not worth it.

But I believe that we can get to a point in the state where we are protecting these workers in these workplaces. And so that's why I'm doing this bill.

Thank you for authoring this. I'm happy to move the item.

So I'll say thank you to the author. This is something that is obviously very serious. And I just want to say thank you for working with the industry on this. And there's a lot of times that we have good ideas in this building, and sometimes they fall short on, actually, practicality and working through that. Right. And so the industry, we toured the facility. We see the pictures and the videos of what the conditions some of these men and women are working under. Mostly men.

Like you said, it is remarkable that we still do this. Right. And then you go to a facility like yours, and it's wet cutting, and it's just completely different. And so for the industry to step up and deal with this, obviously, I just want to encourage you to continue work at that prevailing wage situation out if you can. I mean, we should.

But I will support the bill today because I do think it is incredibly important to just please continue to work with the opposition on that particular piece. So thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. And you know, I have been engaging with the industry since day one of when I got started months ago.

I love when we have bipartisan support for saving lives. Thank you to the author. Let's go ahead. And we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

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

That measure is out. Thank you.

Thank you.

All right, Assembly Member Quirk-Silva, would you like to present your bill? AB 2439. We are going in file order, but we don't see Assemblymember Haney here, so.

I beat him to it. Good afternoon, Madam Chair, and members. First, I want to thank the committee consultant for working with our office, and I do accept the committee amendments. Second, before I make my remarks, I would acknowledge it is an interesting scenario for me to be in the labor committee with some opposition from housing, as it's usually the opposite for me and all my housing friends are usually I'm there cheering along with them. But I have taken the committee amendments and we will continue to work on this bill.

I'm sorry, I don't think we had any. Did we have amendments? Okay. Prior. Got it. Understood. Okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you.

All right. So AB 2439 ensures the protection of taxpayer funds and protections of workers on public works projects. Transparency and accountability are essential pillars for every public works project financed by taxpayer dollars, this bill would require developers who have received public funding to complete a public works project to comply with records requests related to the project. Records include, but are not limited to, bid documents, list of all contractors and subcontractors, as well as inspection and work logs.

Additionally, the bill will clarify the responsibility of contractors to provide access to certified payroll records on these projects, as they are already required to do under existing law by granting access to essential records for projects such as certified payroll documents, contractor lists, project contracts and inspection logs. AB 2439 ensures that the public can effectively oversee taxpayer funds, verify compliance with labor laws, and guarantee fair compensation for workers.

The sponsors in my office have been working diligently with those who are concerned with the bill in order to address any issues, and we will continue to work on any outstanding issues as this bill moves forward. With me today in support of AB 2439 is Mike Pickens, district representative of International Union of Engineers Local three, and Michelle Pickens, Executive Director with the Construction Industry Force Account Council.

Madam Chairperson, and members of the committee, thank you very much for the opportunity to speak today. Just wanted to touch base on where we are looking at with this bill and AB 2439 would ensure help us establish transparency on these projects.

There are numerous projects throughout California that are overseen by private owners and developers that are covered in a prevailing wage law, and it makes it very difficult for compliance agencies and our sister partners that agencies that oversee these projects and try to ensure a level playing field. Personally, I have dealt with this myself several times in my labor compliance days.

A project I dealt with that had over $40 million of public funding in it, and we were unable to ensure those workers were actually paid correctly on that project. Out-of-state workers, local telecommunications workers. It was very frustrating to not be able to obtain these documents. We are excited about this bill. We are very gracious of the author for supporting the bill and carrying it. We have worked diligently with the organizations in opposition to this bill.

We've made several amendments and changes on that and we would welcome meeting with them again. I believe we have a meeting on Thursday or tomorrow with them. Also. There is another bill out there like this that we would welcome communication with on that bill if the dommittee deems necessary.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and assembly members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak on AB 2439. So, my name is, again, my name is Michelle Pickens. I'm the Executive Director of CFAC. So, my organization is a coalition of construction industry associations, contractors and labor unions, and we monitor state and local agencies' compliance with competitive bidding laws. These laws ensures that the taxpayer funds are used in a transparent and responsible manner and that the public gets the best project for the best value.

AB 2439 would amend the labor code to ensure that private owners, developers and their agents who receive public funding to perform these projects are held to the same standards of transparency and fiscal responsibility that is required currently of public agencies on public works projects. So we have. My organization has had numerous encounters with private entities that receive a substantial amount of public funds who have used their private status to circumvent providing uS documentation pursuant to the California Public Records Act.

And this is not just affordable housing. There has been some affordable housing projects, land conservation projects, fiber network projects. There was a $200 million zoo project. There's all kinds. It's a myriad of projects. I would like to also point out that there's already provisions in the labor code that classifies private entities that receive public funds as de facto public agencies. And so this measure will close that loophole that allows the private entities to withhold information that should be publicly available.

So with your support today, safeguards could be put in place that lets the public know that these funds are being used for its intended purposes and that state laws have been followed. So in closing, we respectfully request your support, and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you so much.

Thank you. You are right on the dot, comments in support.

Madam Chairman, members. Mike West, on behalf of the state building trades, proud co sponsor of this measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Matt Kremens, here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, proud sponsors of the bill and strong support.

Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the Construction Industry Force Account Council, another sponsor of the bill.

Madam Chair Members. James Thuerwatcher of the California State Council of Laborers, also in support.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you. We will now move to opposition. Do you have any witnesses? In opposition.

Good afternoon, members. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. And I want to start off by acknowledging that Miss Quirk-Silva is indeed one of our housing champions, and we, and we very much appreciate her responsiveness to the concerns that we have expressed. And we also share with her very much the fact that on affordable housing developments, where the owners are subject to prevailing wage requirements, they absolutely should be paying prevailing wages. And if they are not, there should be very strict consequences. In our view.

We do provide that information currently to the Department of Industrial Relations. Our developers that we work with, they submit payroll records and whatnot to demonstrate compliance to the Department of Industrial Relations. Those are available to members of the public through the Public Records Act. And so what we do not understand about this Bill is how the documents that would be required to be made available relate to compliance with prevailing wage laws.

So the bid solicitation, all the bids that came in, including those that were not selected, the various contracts don't really have anything to do with whether or not we paid, our developers paid prevailing wages or not. So we're just trying to understand what the public purpose is of providing these documents. On the other hand, you know, developers have small staffs.

I know when I ran a state agency, we had a full-time person dealing with public information requests, and we also had an attorney who had to review all those and redact all the records. So there's quite a bit of workload that is put onto developers by this bill. And again, we're not quite sure what the public benefit is that it achieves. So thank you very much. So anyway, we are in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. I am normally more comfortable being on the assemblywoman's side and testifying in full support, and unfortunately, we can't be there right now. But do appreciate all of the work that her staff and the assemblywoman and her sponsors have been basically dedicating to this bill, trying to make sure that they address the concerns of the affordable housing community. So really appreciate that. Just want to echo my colleagues' points.

We stand ready to try to figure out a compromise and some type of collaboration that makes sure that both of our interests are addressed. Thank you so much, and I'm so sorry we have to be in opposition today.

Any additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Michelle Rubalcava, on behalf of the Associated Builders and Contractors of California, also in opposition. Unfortunately, after careful analysis, we do think that

We just need your name position. Thanks.

Good afternoon. Richard Markuson, for the Plumbing Heating Cooling Contractors of California and the Western Electrical Contractors. In opposition.

Catherine Charles, on behalf of Housing California, in opposition.

Karen Stout, on behalf of Habitat for Humanity California and regretful opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, do we have any members who would like to ask questions or comments, and also to the author if he would like to respond to the opposition as well?

Maybe we'll start right there, because, like you, we think very critically about what we're trying to do to be supportive of the ecosystem that we have that's, that's producing our affordable housing. And I'm maybe walking back a little bit with, you know, what this bill will do in the form of disclosures that we don't already have today because they're asserting that much of this is already available through reports submitted to DIR.

But there's, you're certainly alleging or observing that there is more information that's not available, or at least not available through Public Records Act requests. So what are we trying to achieve here?

Okay. Thank you very much for your question. So my response to that is that some of the information, some of the proprietary information is not what we're necessarily looking for. We understand that there's some private information that would absolutely be redacted. So that's one part of it.

The other part of it is that the private entities that receive public funds should be providing that information to the DIR, but they're not always providing that. As a matter of fact, quite often they're not providing that information and, or they are providing inaccurate information, for example, in the PWC 100 system.

But we have, we have mechanisms in place. If that's not followed right, they should be followed. Please.

Thank you. If I may. So, from the complaint, from a labor compliance standpoint, if you were going to file a complaint, wage complaint with the DIR, there is certain documentation the DIR would like you to have presented to them with your complaint before it gets taken as a legit, serious complaint. As you can imagine with the staff the DIR has, they are struggling to just keep their heads above water. Let's be honest. They have a huge caseload.

It's hard to hire and retain employees in that department because of the grind it is. When you submit a complaint, you need contract documents that show that there's a contract in place, because under 1720, it's work paid for in whole or partially out of public funds done under contract. So having the contract, having the copy of the payment and performance bonds, the surety bond, all that necessary documentation, you would need to have that.

Currently, we cannot request it from the owner or developer because they simply send a letter back saying, we are not a political subdivision of the state, we're not subject to government Public Records Act request.

Right. Why would you need information about bond? Sorry, their financials that were issued, you're trying to ensure compliance with. With wage laws.

Right. So if the state, the DIR, determines if there is underpayment of prevailing wages, they would go. If the contractor refused to pay, they would go after their bonds. The state would go after their bonds, their performance bond, their payment bond, their surety bond to ensure that they work, those workers are recovered from their monies.

But that happens. Certainly our Attorney General is already able to dig into that if the evidence is there or if enough evidence is sufficient to open up an investigation.

In my 26 years of doing this, I've never seen the AG's office outside of maybe the large case in Southern California that was like an $800 million case for underpayment or not. It was $130 million. I think it was. That was underpayment of prevailing wages. That's the only time I think I've seen the AG's office involved in a public works case.

Let me flip it on its head for our opposition. You know, in the interest of disclosures, where is there something here that is so onerous that it's going to impede the work that you need to do.

I would say the volume of documents that the bill requires, solicitations, all the bids that come in, all the contracts or contractors and various subcontractors. And then it has to all be redacted, too for the proprietary information that they mentioned for payroll records, social security numbers, et cetera, et cetera. So that is, in our view, a fairly high workload. What I'm hearing is, I think maybe we can have further conversations.

If there are items that DIR would need to completed an investigation, we can probably, probably work with them on something like that. But that's a little bit different than just members of the public. These labor entities can request directly from the developer in all cases, even when there's not an investigation pending.

Right. You could get hit with an onslaught of just iterative requests and really bog you down with administrative burden, I guess is another way to restate what you said.

Okay. Thank you, Miss Quirk-Silva. We're always trying to balance, you know, the need for transparency and adherence to our laws and ultimately to make sure that the workers are getting their due, especially where our public dollars are invested. And I, you know, want to be sensitive to, of course, the needs for as you are as well to those that are helping to develop our affordable housing needs in our state and being thoughtful about the requirements.

Correct.

We're touching a lot of legislation this year around other mandates that other costs that kind of go on to development and in this form, time spent. And so is there an additional benefit that we're achieving here versus what the requirement that is providing for this direction is balance that we're trying to reconcile?

Well, I think the attempt on this again, is to bring clarity to the public of how are these taxpayer dollars being used, number one, but to also have the records and background. But I do acknowledge that we've stepped into a space here that could go too far, and as you've heard me on housing many times saying, we're either not doing enough or going too far, meaning agreeing with our housing partners that this could delay, it could slow down.

It could, in essence, the workload that would be required to attain these records could take a huge amount of staff time. On the other hand, knowing there are obviously many, many good actors in this space of housing development, but there's also some bad actors and making sure that at the least they know that they are responsible for these type of records.

So even if there wasn't a public records request, that they know at the least what type of records they should be keeping what kind of information? If it was requested, they'd have it on hand. But I do agree we still have work to do on it. And it is an interesting space for me to have stepped into, as I believe it's the first time I've been to the Labor Committee in all of my tenure. But I think there is a small, narrow space here if this bill gets through that we can continue to work to not make it so onerous on the housing partner side, but also bring some clarity to the labor side.

Well, if I may, on behalf of the chair, you know, welcome, and you're welcome back anytime. We have a lot of work to do in this space. And I would say, you know, I trust very strongly that, you know, you care very much to make sure that we are doing more, certainly far more benefit than harm here, right. And that we're not creating anything that is either redundant or unnecessary. But no doubt that records exist. Right.

And to what extent, like, you know, is that helpful in a coordinated way to be able to disseminate information upon public request? These are details that hopefully can continue through conversation. I'd like to see where they go. So I'll offer a vote and support a vote today, but, you know, we'll be watching this to make sure it's something that can work in practice. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, I would like to make a comment. Welcome to labor. I'm glad you waited until I got here and I can see why you are here and, you know, appreciate you being a housing champion. And today you're being a champion for transparency and accountability of our taxpayer dollars, which is why I'm supporting your bill. Would like. Can we get a. Do we have a motion and a second? Would you like to close?

Respectfully asked for your aye vote.

aye vote on the promise we will continue to work with my friends here.

I also would like to know to the author that we do have two identical bills, yours, Member, and AB 3186, Petrie Norris. So I'm hoping you guys can figure work that out. But. Secretary, can you please call the roll? [Roll Call] That measure is on call. Thank you. Thank you.

So we do see our birthday boy here. Happy birthday to Assembly Member, Haney. Now as a birthday gift, you get to come up and present your bills. We have Bill number 5 and 6, AB 2751. zero, I'm sorry. oh , it's up to you. It's up to you. Okay, sure. Assembly Member Lowenthal, would you like to come up?

I'm giving lots of gifts away for my birthday. Only because.

Members would also like to know Assembly Member Rendon was waiting, so. It's okay. He's in the backs. So maybe we'll go ahead and move forward with Lowenthal and then.

Madam Chair, we will go as expeditiously as possible. I want to please present AB 3143, which prevents an employer from prohibiting or implementing a policy to prohibit employee of a restaurant from receiving a gratuity that is paid, given to, or left for an employee by a patron. Tipping has become a commonplace, has become commonplace throughout much of the food service industry. But there are still some restaurants that maintain policies to prevent their employees from accepting gratuities.

Tips are an important source of supplemental income for food service employees, especially for employees earning minimum wage, and policies to prevent tipping are excluding these employees from earning this valuable supplemental income. Food prep and service workers are most likely to earn minimum wage. Nationally, nearly 9% of hourly food preparation and service workers make the minimum wage or less the highest of any occupation type.

By allowing for tipping in all restaurants, AB 3143 allows food service employees to turn supplemental income and takes an important step towards closing the wage gap experienced by underserved and marginalized communities who are disproportionately represented in these low-wage jobs in the food service industry. This is a common sense measure, long overdue in order to create parity for all food service workers in the restaurant industry.

Thank you. Do you have additional witnesses?

No witnesses.

Okay. Do we have anyone in support? Anyone in opposition? Say none. Any questions or comments from the members? Okay. Secretary, can you please call the roll? Oh, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

Measures on call.

Thank you. Good to see you. Good to see you, everyone. This will be easy, unanimous, and bipartisan. Thank you, Chair. Yeah, yeah, no pressure. Good. Thank you, Chair and committee members. AB 2754 will provide greater employment protection to truck drivers across the state by ensuring companies that contract with motor carriers to ship container rights freight are held liable for any violations of a labor law.

This bill would also hold these contracting companies liable for knowingly entering into contracts that do not pay enough for certain motor carriers to comply with state labor laws. Making these cargo owners responsible for labor law violations will incentivize them to contract only with companies that follow the law and properly classify their employees. Furthermore, this bill will push these companies to ensure that their contracts can satisfy all of their legal obligations to their workers.

Here to speak in support of the bill are Gerardo Dominguez, a former driver, and Bill Perrott of A-One group of trucking companies.

[Foregin Language]

Thank you so much for that. Next witness, please.

I'm going to be translating for Mister Dominguez. This is Mister Dominguez from San Diego. He said, thank you guys for letting him share his experience. He wanted to start off by saying that he always says, thank God for my wife because my wife is correctly classified as an employee and has insurance. This came into play because imagine after seven years you're working for a trucking company.

And then you hurt your shoulder, you have kidney issues, and you get COVID and get stuck in the hospital. And you go to the company that, at that point, was STG. And all they say to you is, "Sorry, you're not our employee. Go find your own doctor. And if you're able to get yourself better, maybe you can come back and work." Has had his license since 2001 and has worked as a truck driver since then. He has his license.

And he says that what's hurt workers the most is being misclassified. Because this means that they don't have access to programs like workers comp to unemployment benefits or even access to medical insurance, and it also means that it's really hard for them to even pay their bills. And when he gets hurt like he did if it hadn't been for his wife. That would have been very detrimental to him and his family. He's. Over his seven years he spent working for various different companies.

And the misclassification persists that all these companies that he's looked at. He actually had to leave the industry. Because he just couldn't keep working anymore. Even though he still has his license. And he just says it's shocking to him that this misclassification continues when state agencies have continually found that these drivers are employed.

Thank you very much. Next witness, please. Two minutes.

Yep. Good afternoon. Thank you to the committee to allow me to speak on behalf of AB 2754.

As an employer and an owner of a trucking organization. I'm here in support of AB 2754 for the primary reason to level the playing field. So, as an employer and a good state actor, providing a living wage, insurance benefits and work comp for our employees, we are often tasked to operate and compete against trucking companies that are bad state actors. So, I'm here to ask for your support in essentially leveling the playing field. Thank you very much for that.

Any other witnesses in support of AB 2754?

Mister Chairman, members of the committee: Shane Gusman. On behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. We are the sponsors of the bill and just want to appreciate the work of the committee. We've been working with the Trucking Association, and I think we're getting very close to a deal here.

Thank you very much. Name and organization, please.

Yes. Eric Tate, Principal Officer of Teamsters Local 848, here in support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 2754? Come on up. Two minutes per witness, please.

So, good afternoon, Mister Chair and members. Chris Shimoda with the California Trucking Association. I'm joined here today by Angelina Mambretti, an independent trucker, and we'll be deferring the balance of my time to her. But first wanted to thank the author and sponsors for meeting with us. We are opposed to the bill in print.

But are confident that we are going to come to an agreement on a standard that will target the bad actors Mister Perrott discussed while protecting the rights of independent truckers like Angelina who have made significant changes to comply with AB 5 to continue operating their businesses. So with that, I'll hand it to Angelina. Thank you to the committee for your time. Happy to answer any questions.

Good afternoon, Chair. My name is Angelina Mambretti. I'm the sole owner of Foo Dog Logistics, LLC. I am a former company driver of 21 years. I've been driving truck, and it's always been my dream to own my own business, and I took the steps financially that's responsible to buy the proper insurance. I have my own authority. I do not have employees running under me because of - you have to follow the rules and get workman's comp, and classify them properly.

And I don't feel the way the bill's written as it sits right now. It's unfairly targeting individuals like myself who are complying with the law, who are following the rules, like maybe a little bit different wording to go because it's, it's making people not want to do business with me because they're just saying, "Well, we only want to do business with big companies because the smaller guys aren't following the rules." And that's not true with all of us smaller companies.

A lot of us are following the rules and have made changes to our business to comply with AB 5 law. With little state guidance or a layout of how we should be following the rules, we've had to find out on our own by trial and error to make sure that we're legally proper.

And I just, on behalf of myself and other drivers who are doing it properly, we just, I oppose any bill that would discourage companies from doing business with me, and I've traveled all the way from LA to express my concerns here in Sacramento to request a no vote for as the bill the way the bill's written at this point. Thank you for your time.

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Name, entity, and position.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman at the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition and appreciate the sponsors and author's office working with us. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ryan Allain, I'm with the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Mandy Isaac Lee, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, respectful opposition.

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

Good afternoon. Lizzie Cootsona here on behalf of the California Moving and Storage Association, respectful opposition. Thank you.

Lawrence Gayden, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Nick Chiappe here as a proxy for the Associated California Loggers, the California League of Food Producers, the Harbor Trucking Association, and the National Industrial Transportation League. Thank you.

Do we have any questions from members? We need a motion. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

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

The Bill is on call. Thank you.

Thank you, members.

Assemblymember Haney, item 3, 5 and 6.

All right. Where would you like me to start?

Wherever you like. It's your birthday.

That's right. Thank you. This is exactly how I was hoping to spend my birthday. Why don't I do, I'll do the-- Well, all three are fun, but I'll do AB 2751 the right to disconnect. Thank you, Madam Chair, and appreciate the conversations that we've had about this. And as I said, I share the view that this is a serious challenge that we are trying to address, but also one that I would very much like the opportunity to continue to work on and to engage on.

AB 2751 will enact a first in the nation Right to Disconnect policy in California. The right to disconnect is a policy, pioneered in Europe that gives employees the right to not engage in work-related electronic communications, like emails and text messages, during non-working hours. It is legislation that is modeled after the European right to disconnect policies and require that all employers enact a company wide policy and that they have employer and employer contracts outlining it.

Let me be clear what this bill is allowing for and what it is not. It recognizes that employees are entitled to downtime with their families and should not be contacted during work hours, except for scheduling emergencies or other times outlined within a policy. It states that an employee should not be retaliated against for choosing to disconnect from work when they are off.

It requires that public and private employers establish a workplace policy that they have both agreed to that will provide employees the right to disconnect from communications from the employer during non-working hours. Simply put, this bill requires an employer to have a policy. It can be as flexible as an employer and employee wants it to be and fit the nature of the job. We are simply asking that one is established and that everyone agrees to it. That's it.

What it does not do is it does not prevent an employer from sending out an email or work-related communication after hours. It provides protection from employees from being retaliated against if they choose not to engage in work during those hours where they can disconnect. This bill does not prevent an employee from working after hours if they choose to.

It is giving an employee the right to disconnect from work, which I think is common sense and common decency, that all of us have some time protected to do that. There was a survey done just yesterday by Clarify Capital, a business lending firm, that asked 1000 employees about this bill, and it revealed that both employees and business executives support the right to disconnect at a rate of 83% and 75%, respectively.

It also showed that 58% of employees felt obligated to respond to work related communications outside of work, and that three in five employees feel obligated to work to do work when contacted. These survey results are compelling and they demonstrate what we know to be true, that 24/7 availability does not correlate to high productivity.

And if employees and companies in other countries are able to follow this law, there's no reason we can't too. The US is ranked currently 53rd in work-life balance, and technology has completely changed the workforce. With our phones making workers available at all hours of the day and night, workers are experiencing a hard time disconnecting. There are over a dozen countries that already have this.

It is a consequence of the nature of how communication happens in the workplace currently that we simply need employers and employees to have the conversation, to establish a policy, and to make sure that there's clarity on when, if at all, and hopefully common decency and common sense would dictate, there is time for people to have to themselves, to rest, to recuperate, and to be with their families. Finally, I want to say I am committed.

I've spoken to, I think, every member of this Committee about questions and concerns, and I am committed to working with opposition when they're here and with everyone who has thoughts on how to get this right. Californians, just like people in France and Portugal and Italy and Spain and the Philippines and Canada, deserve some time that's protected for themselves and to know when that is.

With me today I have Jennifer Bernstein, a home care worker, who will be sharing her story, and also Mariko Yoshihara from the California Employment Lawyers who will be speaking in support.

Hi. I work for a company that employs people to deliver in home care to adults with disabilities. My job is really rewarding, but it's also physically and emotionally taxing. The shifts are long and require me to be alert and attentive the entire time. Some of the clients require a lot of hands on support and all benefit from emotional companionship.

There are too many aspects of the job to list in a short amount of time, but the profession is well known to carry a high risk of burnout and compassion fatigue. We prevent these issues by taking the time to rest and take care of ourselves between our shifts, but the technology we have today has allowed our employers to become reliant on 24/7 access to us, to the detriment of our well being, and to the support delivered to our clients.

The non-urgent, off-the-clock communications have become so normalized that I can expect to receive up to 50 messages in one day from supervisors using group text messages for company and client updates. Ignoring the messages is not an option because it can mean missing an actual emergency relating to a client. It has been noticed also that those who don't respond promptly will be passed up for better schedules or promotions and will have time off requests declined.

The pressure to always be available to my employer leaves me feeling anxious whenever I hear my phone or anxious whenever I'm away from my phone for too long. I feel emotionally and physically drained and withdrawn from my personal life. I suffer from migraines and insomnia as I struggle to maintain a work-life balance. Without an incentive to come up with a better system that is more respectful of our time, we'll continue to see high rates of burnout, high staff turnover and caregiver shortages.

Without the ability to fully disconnect and recharge before our next shift, my coworkers and I will continue to feel morally injured as we become depleted of the energy and patients required to deliver the high quality care that our clients deserve.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Mariko Yoshihara with the California Employment Lawyers Association. I'll just add that this is an issue that our attorneys have said they're seeing more and more of in their practice.

Not to mention, this is also a very big issue at law firms as well. But they often hear from clients, from workers like Jenny, who are dealing with severe mental stress, mental health issues, or not being paid for all hours worked because of the constant and unrelenting demands of the job. And of course, having a demanding job is nothing new.

But technology now and all the different forms of technology means that workers can be constantly accessible, which has created this expectation then that workers should be constantly available to their employers at all hours of the day. So the boundaries around our work lives have been completely blurred. And this is especially an issue for women and family caregivers who may have a harder time trying to draw those boundaries. For example, women are often viewed more poorly if they're assertive at work.

So they're more likely to be penalized if they say no to after hours requests. Or, or on the other hand, they feel more pressure to be constantly accessible and responsive because they don't wanna feed into these negative stereotypes that mothers, for example, are less reliable or less committed to their jobs. This is the assertiveness bind that women often find themselves in.

So we absolutely believe that workers should be able to be with their families and give their full attention to their families and enjoy their personal time while they're during non-working hours. We think this is a very real problem that deserves attention, and I just want to thank Assemblymember Haney for bringing attention to this problem and starting this conversation and trying to find a real policy solution. So for all these reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional comments in support?

Good afternoon. Samantha Gordon with TechEquity, in strong support. Thank you.

Jassy Grewal, UFCW Western States Council, in support.

Do we have any opposition?

Chairwoman Ortega, Vice Chair Flora and distinguished Committee Members, thank you for the opportunity to represent SHRM, it's State Council CalSHRM, and its 30,000 California SHRM members. While we support positive work life integration for California workers, SHRM and CalSHRM strongly oppose AB 2751 for its overly broad attempt to address a workplace challenge. Our core concern is the bill's one size fits all approach will have negative consequences and put California workers at a competitive disadvantage. Maintaining flexibility is critical in today's global economy.

Businesses need to respond quickly to operational demands, and this sometimes requires after hours communications, which are compensated. Eliminating this common business practice could jeopardize the competitiveness of California businesses. AB 2751 also raises significant enforceability concerns and creates new administrative burdens on employers. The bill grants employees the right to disregard after hours communications except in emergencies or for scheduling matters. However, the bill lacks clear definitions for these key terms. This ambiguity could lead to confusion for everyone, potentially leading to increased legal challenges and increased employee stress.

We also do not believe this legislation adequately recognizes the vastly different realities that various industries and roles face. For example, what constitutes an emergency varies greatly between tech startups and healthcare providers. California is a global leader in preserving the ability to communicate across time zones is vital. AB 2751 would put California companies at disadvantage in markets without such restrictions, eventually impacting the jobs of California workers.

SHRM and CalSHRM instead recommend the Assembly pursue targeted solutions, such as flexible work arrangements and compensation reflecting total hours performed--total work performed. These approaches can improve work life integration for employees without stifling innovation and productivity. SHRM and CalSHRM welcomed the opportunity to work with policymakers to find solutions promoting workplace flexibility while preserving economic prosperity. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. In California, we have two groups of employees. We have non-exempt employees and exempt employees. And as written, this bill would apply to both. From our perspective, California has extremely strict laws that apply to non-exempt employees, the strictest in the country, that actually already exists to deter this conduct. In addition to strict overtime rules, we also have requirements such as reporting time pay.

Courts have significantly broadened the scope of that to mean that anytime an employee, for example, is expected to be on call, to even just call into work to see if they're needed that day, et cetera, they are already compensated for that. So we feel California has very strict laws, and from my experience, employers therefore really crack down on overtime and issues of people having to be on call. A lot of the examples provided really sound like they're aimed at exempt employees.

And actually, as the analysis acknowledges, from our point of view, that is a fundamentally very different scenario in which we have strict requirements about how much that worker must be paid and what kind of job duties they must be doing in order to get that flexibility that comes with being an exempt worker. And then, finally, I really wanna emphasize California has very strict rules when it comes to workplace conduct. But the courts have noted always that this is not, frankly, a civility code.

Anytime you disagree with a coworker or a boss about what contact is warranted or not, you know, it's not a civility code. So you cannot then, you know, go file a lawsuit over that. And as much as maybe some of us in the past would have loved to file lawsuits when we disagree with a coworker, right. The courts have emphasized that if that's what the law did, we'd be all be drowning in litigation all the time.

And unfortunately, we feel like 2751 is kind of knocking on the door of that issue and feel that it's a very problematic law. Thank you.

Do we have additional opposition?

Jaime Orendac, business owner, MyOHR, in opposition,

Dana Mayhew, Professor, UCLA Extension and Claremont Graduate University, and owner and principal of TDC Consults and HR Consulting Firm, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Susie Couture, Senior HR Director, Marborg Industries, CalSHRM member and SHRM member, oppose.

Good afternoon. My name is Brooke, and as an HR professional in the healthcare industry on behalf of SHRM and CalSHRM, I oppose AB 2751. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sherry Shavit, Assistant General Counsel for Securitas Security Services, USA, Inc. On behalf of Securitas, I oppose AB 2751. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Ranier Nestorake, business owner. I'm in opposition to AB 2751.

Madam Chair, Chris McKaley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. But I do want to wish the author a happy birthday.

Lisa Rodriguez with the Gualco Group, on behalf of the California Association of Wine Grape Growers, in opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the California State Association of Counties, Urban Counties of California and the League of California Cities. Thank you.

Good afternoon Chair, Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully in opposition.

Good afternoon. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Melanie Perron, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, in opposition.

Good afternoon. Emily Udell with the California Credit Union League, in opposition.

Madam Chair and Members, Annalee Augustine, on behalf of the Family Business Association of California, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Seeing no other opposition, bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comments? Assemblymember Lee.

I want to thank Assembly Haney for bringing this bill forward. I think it's important to highlight the real changing circumstance of the workplace and the work-life balance. I think too often that, in America especially, people now live to work instead of work to live. And it's very true, especially with the communication, instant pressure.

I think it's something that's really important to highlight and I appreciate you bringing this effort out, even though you have a lot of opposition now to this concept that has been embraced by many other nation peers and their economies have not collapsed yet, but I think it's still proof of testament that it works out.

And you know, especially as members and I know you've highlighted in some media interviews that we try to practice what we preach as well, but it's hard for us sometimes, even our as members to disconnect. You know, certainly I'm sure you share this, is that I get tired after hours of my staff telling me what to do anymore. I'm kidding. But I think it is important that we try to practice what we preach as well in this aspect.

And I think this is a really common sense step forward. And if you'll have me as a co-author, Assemblymember Haney, I'd love to be added as co-author and I'll move the bill too.

Thank you, Mr. Haney. Are you okay this morning? Do you want to talk about it?

What's that?

The beat down the Kings gave the Warriors last night. Too soon?

Out of order.

On my birthday. Yes. Cut his mic. Cut the mic.

That's all I had to say.

Vice Chair.

Yes. I disconnect from those comments.

Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. I appreciate very much you raising this issue, because it's one that we, I think, recognize and probably pay close attention to in our daily lives. Just the need to be able to have really strong work-life balance, but also recognizing as well in the- from maybe getting work done perspective, whether it's public or private sectors that, you know, things are happening.

I know there's a carve out here for emergencies arising or scheduling kind of questions, but/and to legislate in this area, I think, is getting, you know, could get a little tricky. And I know you're committed to continue to work on this issue, you know, if and as this bill moves forward.

I know that what you're trying to do is just to, through this bill, direct that there be a policy established, which can be a good thing, certainly when somebody is hired on, or if there is a new policy, that everybody is clear about what the expectations are from the employer side.

I'm nervous about-- The other issue, too, is that for somebody who is after work hours, has a means of communication that if a message comes through, whether it's to your phone or to an email, and it was ignored, again, like, I wouldn't want, I wouldn't want two things to happen. I wouldn't want the employee to be punished because they didn't respond timely when it could have waited until the next morning during working hours.

Yes. But I also wouldn't want the employer punished for sending out the message in the first place. Maybe they're just getting something off their mind that they don't want to forget about and they want responded to in the next day. And so there, I think--

And, you know, the idea that this could open up, I think, a lot of complaints that would be filed by the Labor Commissioner for things that are just, you know, meant to be innocent lines of communication are the kinds of areas that I think, think through. If you have any response to those--

Yeah, no, absolutely. And appreciate the dialogue and understand, as I've said, that there is more conversation.

This is a serious issue that I think that our laws don't fully address in an adequate way currently. And so I'm fully committed to continuing to work with folks and have more dialogue with the opposition around it. Employers would not and are not punished for sending the communication. It's actually the problem is expecting there to be work that's done and expecting a response, expecting work to be performed as a result of that communication.

So they can still send a text message, they can still send an email. And in terms of the enforcement aspect of it, it's only if there's a real pattern of a violation of a policy where the Labor Commissioner would be involved in any way. It's not sort of a one-off thing, and it's not the communication. It's not the text or the email itself.

It's if outside of your working hours, I'm constantly asking-- if you and I have agreed that your working hours are going to be as such, and that's what is in my contract, that's my job with you, and you're constantly asking me to perform work outside of it, then that's what could trigger some sort of response from the Labor Commissioner. This is, you know, we looked at over a dozen countries that have this.

What we have in front of you is actually probably among, if not the most flexible and sort of least punitive of what exists out there. And it's very much not a one size fits all.

It's very much designing a policy that then has affirmation between an employer and employee, because otherwise, what sometimes ends up is you're just on the clock all the time, particularly as an exempt employee, and establishing some sort of sense of when are, when's my time or what are the sort of the pattern of work that's expected as a way to develop some time that I think common sense would dictate folks to have to disconnect.

As somebody who's on the clock all the time, I know, but I signed up for that.

Yes. And people will. And your policy could be a lot of on-call time with your employee or with your set of employees. That can be the policy if that's what the job dictates.

Right. And, but circumstances arise. Let's say you own a law firm, you're running a law firm, and, you know, somebody had a life event, and no longer-- And now, you know, for the next couple of days, you're heading to trial, you've got a lot of important work to do, and somebody that's overseeing that responsibility needs to call in extra resources.

I hope that, like, you know, if we're thinking about the nature of policy-making and the potential violations of that, that as we're entering into a new space, which is wonderful that you are, that we're doing so carefully and with flexibility in mind and sort of to be able to see how things go. So, yeah, happy to support this here today.

And I'd love to see kind of how this invokes more conversation about trying to get this issue right, that doesn't have the unintended consequences that are raised today.

And some of the things that were raised as potential areas where that they would like to see us go with this, I'm looking forward to talking about those perhaps within the context of what we have in front of us. I think it's an important conversation and really appreciate the opportunity to continue it.

Absolutely. Thank you.

Seeing all their comments, I'll just say, you know, thank you to the author for bringing this forward. I appreciate the specific focus on mental health and workers, especially coming out of COVID And, you know, did consider some of the opposition's concerns. We had a conversation about it. You know, obviously we still have some work to do. I will be supporting today because I do think it's an important conversation to continue having. With that, I will take a motion and a second.

Secretary, can you please call the roll? Actually, sorry. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Go Warriors. We'll be back. And we'll be cheering for the Kings on Friday. Good luck.

I don't think that's gonna get your vote on this one.

Nice try.

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call].

That measure is on call.

All right.

All right, we're going to go forward. I'll be back.

Which bill is this? Sorry.

Thank you, Madam Chair, we are going to present for Assemblymember Haney, AB 3190.

Okay, thank you.

And I am going to truncate his talking points here a little bit. Alright, thank you, Chair. AB 3190 will assure that every construction worker on affordable housing projects is being paid a fair wage while also advancing our state's housing goals. It addresses significant loopholes with existing public works law that has prevented construction workers on affordable housing projects from receiving prevailing wage.

Under current law, affordable housing projects funded through the state low income housing tax credit and state and local below market rates loans are exempt from prevailing wage requirements. This is problematic because tax credit programs have grown to provide nearly $500 million per year to affordable housing projects, and below market rate loans contribute to an additional $700 million a year in funding for affordable housing. And with that, I will turn it over to our witnesses in support.

Hello, Chair Ortega, members of the Committee. My name is Scott Littlehale and I am Executive Research Analyst for the Nor Cal Carpenters Union. California carpenters unions are champions of state, regional, and local policies and funds that increase the supply and the affordability of housing in California. But housing affordability will always be a challenge that requires two solutions, reducing housing costs and increasing California's incomes. The vast majority of housing construction workers in California are people of color or Hispanic.

Many were born outside of the US, and we know that these fellow Californians receive discriminatorily low pay. So it's just not surprising that the housing construction workforce is much more likely than any than other working Californians to be housing costs burdened, to live in overcrowded housing, to qualify for subsidized affordable housing, and to be either uninsured for healthcare or depend on Medi-Cal.

California's residential construction workers have for decades not just been getting a raw deal in terms of low pay and often non-existent retirement or health security benefits, they're often plagued by wage theft and contractor schemes to fraudulently underpay for workers comp insurance, Social Security, Medicare, unemployment Insurance, and state disability insurance. In fact, on one of California's larger multifamily developments underway currently, our investigators have uncovered credible evidence of immigrant workers trapped in by human trafficking-related debt peonage.

California needs hundreds of thousands of additional housing construction workers to build the housing the state needs. And let's be honest with ourselves. Would we want our own sons and daughters to choose a career in housing construction under present conditions? California public funds should contribute to the changes for current and future housing construction workers that we would want to see for our children were they building housing.

Assemblymember Haney's Affordable Housing Fair Pay Act will make an important contribution toward making that change and will positively impact thousands of California housing construction workers. We are proud to sponsor. And I will be happy to take any questions you may have.

God dang, that was perfect. Danny Curtin with the California Conference of Carpenters. And will miracles never cease? Thank you so much. This has been the law of the land, prevailing wages, when the government steps into the market, as a market participant, it has more than one policy in mind, and one of them is taking care of the workforce. That happened 90 years ago in a national level.

Just 20 years ago, we expanded the definition of public funds to include anything of value, monetary value, and expanded the coverage of prevailing wage public works. So this is not out of line with that. And, in fact, at that time, there was an exception for low income housing tax credits because the treasurer at the time, who was a friend and supporter, asked that we do not disrupt a process that had federal funding, state funding until the projects that were in play at the time.

So it was delayed, I think, for three years. But then, as you well know here, things don't stay static, and everybody got busy. And just recently, we're taking a hard look at it because low income housing tax credits have increased dramatically. I want to make a point about prevailing wages. They are much more than wages. They improve, of course, the living standards of the workforce. That's low wage. Scott went into some of that. There's about $5 billion lost to government because of that low wage workforce.

If we could simply transfer that $5 billion into the housing programs that we worked so hard, and Chairman Ward sitting there, I saw that this morning. That's a cost shift, and it's on the backs of the workers. Higher wages drive innovation in the industry. If a contractor has to pay more wages, higher wages, by law, they're going to do more innovation. They're going to put more technology out there, better tools, more training.

It opens the door for unionized construction because we can compete when there's a prevailing wage in a low wage housing industry where we cannot compete now, not even put in a bid. It levels the playing field for us. But also it will encourage this body, right here and this Committee and Chairman Ward's Committee, to come up with the answers to bring the cost down of affordable housing. We've been talking with some of the people in the, of course, the affordable housing world. We've got some ideas.

We really hope you'll support this. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional comments in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, in support.

Thank you Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers, in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the Wall And Ceiling Alliance, in support.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. James Thuerwachter, with the California State Council of Laborers, in support.

Good afternoon. Vince Sugrue with Sheet Metal Workers, Local 104. In support.

Matt Lege with SEIU California, in support.

Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, in support.

Tim Reyff, Carpenters Local 22, in support.

Matthew Beeston, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, in support.

Jesse Peralez, representing Contra Costa. Good afternoon. In support.

April Atkins, Local 22 Carpenters Union, in support.

Rod Finley, Drywall Lathers 9109, in support.

Jonathan Drescher, Carpenters Local 152, in support.

Aaron Hadzess, Carpenters Local 751, Santa Rosa, in support.

Chris Siever, Local 34, in support.

Dan McKellar, Nor Cal Carpenters Union, in support.

Daniel Gregg, Carpenters Local 2236 in Oakland, in support.

Joseph Perez, with Local 46. And I am support.

Madam Chair, Members. My name is Ron Rowlett. I am the Political Director for the Nor Cal Carpenters. We represent over 38,000 members. We all want to get up here in support. Thank you so much for all you do. Thank you.

Mike Greenlee, Painters and Allied Trades District Council 16. We're in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Graciela Castillo-Krings and I am here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium in regrettable opposition. CHC is a nonprofit organization that advocates for the production and preservation of housing affordable to low and moderate income families.

Over the last few years, CHC has stood side by side with the supporters of this bill, and together we have successfully passed legislation that will make it easier to build affordable housing and ensure that construction workers earn a living wage and have healthcare coverage. We do not want to fight our friends. And it's unfortunate that we have to be here today in opposition of this bill. But at the end of the day, it could not come at a worse time.

The Governor is proposing to cut 1.2 billion in general fund investment for housing. He's also eliminating the 500 million in tax credits. We also do not have any guarantee that we're going to have additional funding, either through a bond or general fund in the upcoming years. Right now, when we don't know how we're going to continue to fund affordable housing, additional cost pressures is not the right time. However, we are committed.

We believe that there has to be a living wage that we can use this opportunity to improve lives for people that are working here in California and also for people that are producing affordable housing. So we are hoping that this is an opportunity to begin longer conversations on how we are going to be able to accomplish that together.

Good afternoon. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. And due to the late gut and amend, our board hasn't taken official position, but we anticipate opposition, and I will share our concerns today. We do see the benefits of prevailing wages, both to society and to the workers. However, it comes at a cost. A UC Berkeley study of affordable housing developments found that prevailing wages added 14% to total development costs. By my back of the envelope calculation, that means we will probably--

This bill would probably reduce affordable housing production by another 6% if passed. And that's on top of declining production already. As state and local housing bonds dried up last year, affordable housing production went from 23 to 14,000 units, a drop of 9000 units per year. As Graciela mentioned, we are now having all the general fund expenditures for affordable housing removed. So it's very hard to figure out how we can continue to build affordable housing at any kind of significant level, as with reduced revenues and increased costs.

We are really looking for a way for a win-win here, where if we can work with our partners and the carpenters and others to increase funding for affordable housing and then be able to pay the prevailing wages. And so we're just hoping that we can count on your support to get us to a win-win as opposed to this bill, which really just means, not just a less affordable housing, but actually fewer construction jobs overall. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any additional comments in opposition?

Melanie Perron, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, in opposition.

Chris Martin, on behalf of Housing California. Respectful opposition.

Okay. Seeing no other witnesses. Assemblymember Ward.

On behalf of the author, I want to thank you for presenting his bill. It's important that we are having this discussion, and I've got, you know, certainly some reservations. Two things are true at the same time. One, I've always been adamant that as we are thinking about providing public benefits in the form of the resources, be they direct programs or in this case now, tax credits, that there should be-- sorry if we're offering public resources, that there should be a public benefit.

And that comes in many forms, right. We're trying to promote affordability for our community. That's a form of public benefit that comes in the form of better compensation for our workers and standards that we should be aspiring to here in California. And we've done that consistently across various programs as well, tying our prevailing wage requirements, for example, to that.

So I do like making sure that we're consistent with, in this case, a tax credit program, which I see as a public give, that we want to make sure that we're also consistent with what we are trying to do in the totality of community benefits. At the same time, the other truth is that things have gotten inappropriately too expensive to be able to build the affordable housing that we also desperately need. And that might result in either--

Well, I think what that's going to result is in less units being constructed. If something is going to have to give on the balance sheet, yes, it's important that we have very strong wages. And so when your total pie is the same, that's maybe not necessarily going to result in a project not happening, just fewer units able to happen on that project, which means less benefit in that form of a community benefit as well.

So I appreciate the willingness and the overtures that I hear from both sides that we have to get to the same place and we have to find shared agreements on how we are producing more affordable housing at more affordable levels.

And that's where I'd like to be able to see this conversation continue following this Committee vote here today, because absent that, you know, we're unfortunately pitting the workers compensation, the workers rights that we desperately stand up for and need here in California versus making up the deficit of affordable housing that we also so desperately need. These two should not be competing.

We've got to find solutions in our state inside us as well, to be facilitators of those decisions and those ideas that we're going to achieve both. And so that's what I'm looking forward, and I want to watch this closely as it moves forward out of Committee here today to make sure that we're not, in a sense, robbing Peter to pay Paul. Thank you. And I'll be happy to move the bill.

Would you like to close?

Just respectfully ask for aye vote.

Secretary, can you please call the roll?

The motion is due pass to Appropriations. [Roll call]

That measure is out. Thank you, Vice Chair Flora.

Are you doing the other?

Let's keep it rolling.

Yes. So Vice Chair Flora will be presenting AB 2182 for assemblymember Haney.

Yes, sir.

Thank you. You may open.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Presenting AB 2182. For Assembly Member Haney. AB 2182 is critical legislation that will ensure equitable pay for construction workers across California by addressing several shortcomings of current prevailing wage law and enforcement. First, AB 2182 ensures that workers receive current prevailing wages on projects regardless of when a project was announced for bid.

Right now, workers are forced to take prevailing wage for when the project was first announced, even if it's years before the project actually breaks ground or if there was a lower wage in place. This adjustment is essential for maintaining equity within the industry and ensuring workers receive adequate wages. And with that, I will turn it over. Representing the trades, Mister Keith Dunn.

Thank you for pinch hitting. Appreciate that I'm here today to ask for your support for 2182. I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over it as we're losing Members and short on time. I will just say that this is an effort to make sure that the current wage is paid when a job is undertaken. Contractors do this routinely in estimating materials costs, can do that with labor costs as well. It also provides for labor management access to projects, labor management or partners.

I know that there's been some concern about that access, and we don't want any type of injuries to occur. And I know that we can work with our management partners to make sure that there's safe access and reasonable access to the job sites to make sure that there's compliance with these requirements.

So with that, you know, we think that there's no reason that you can't estimate just like you do for materials and make adjustments as you go into this job and make sure that the workers are receiving the wage that they're owed. This is not an increase in wages, this is a wage that they're owed. So with that, I'm happy to answer questions as we move forward and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses and support?

Yes, Madam Chair. Eddie Bernacchi on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the California Legislative Conference of the plumbing, heating and piping industry in support. Thank you.

Matt Cremins, operating engineers strong support.

Elmer Lizardi on behalf of the California Labor Federation, in support.

Connie Chan on behalf of California State Treasurer Fiona Ma in strong support.

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

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters in support.

Any witnesses in opposition.

Madam Chair Members Scott Govenar on behalf of the Construction Employers Association. They're many of the largest union signatory builders in the state. As you know, General contractors are responsible for maintaining the safety and security of job sites. One of the provisions in this Bill allows JLMCC's unfettered access to those sites. They already have access to the records. We are concerned for the safety of our employees and those of our subcontractors about having these groups roam the site and interrupt the work schedule could be detrimental.

The other thing I'd like to point out is, as was discussed with assemblymember Cork Silva's Bill and a host of other bills included by Miss Chavo, by yourself, Dir is under attack. People continue to say how overworked they are and how they are performing, yet this Bill charges Dir with doing more. This doesn't work. It doesn't work for workers and it certainly doesn't work for employers. So we need to think about additional obligations on Dir. So thank you very much.

Good afternoon, chair Members. Melanie Perron on behalf of the associate at General contractors, in opposition to this Bill, echoing my the comments of the colleagues sitting next to me, I also just want to point out that many of our contractors already hold master labor agreements on projects on, excuse me, master labor agreements. Irrespective of projects, these joint labor management committees.

This is a way to get access into job sites where unions may want to see if they have union affiliated jobs or not, which could be a way to disrupt what is happening on the job site. So we certainly have concerns there also, as the sponsor talked about regarding the prevailing wage requirements, we appreciate the comments about about being able to do those estimates. We want to ensure that the awarding entity will be responsible for bearing those costs. The Bill does not state that.

So that is something that's really important to us to ensure that we're not chilling the environment for contractors wanting to engage in public works, but wanting to go and increase a more diverse pool for people to want to bid on these projects. Thank you.

Any additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I don't have any questions or comments. So, back to the author.

I sure hope you can second it.

It's already been moved and seconded.

Even better. Respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Madam Chair, can you please, I mean, secretary, can you please call the roll?

The motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll call].

Thank you.

Gipson. Okay. Assemblymember Gipson, would you like to come up. Item number 10. AB 2975.

I'm waiting for my witnesses. I think they're outside. Hopefully someone will get them. Madam Chair and Vice Chair, thank you very much, the Committee Members, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2975 which seeks to improve hospital safeties by requiring metal detectors with appropriate staffing at selected entrances. However, I mean, excuse me. Healthcare workers are on the front line of these patient cares and often face patients and their families in crisis.

According to the United States Bureau of Labor and Statistics, healthcare workers are five times more likely to suffer a workplace violent injury than workers overall. And the violence in these particular facilities are certainly trending up. The issue of workplace violence add to healthcare workers stress and also burnout. Assembly Bill 2975 proposed to enhance the requirement safety measures for hospitals by requiring common sense.

I wanted to underscore common sense measures, such as properly staffing metal detectors at selected entrances to ensure that hospitals remain a safe place of healing and not violence. Here with me to provide supporting testimony is Matt, representing SEIU one to one RNs.

Matt Lege with SEIU State Council. I'm just here for technical questions in case we get any. But we have our two wonderful workers who are nurses on the front line to give testimony. So, Jesse, if you like to go first. Thank you.

Thank you, everybody. Hi, my name is Jesse Dill. I'm going to read my statement here to you guys. So I'm a registered nurse in the Emergency Department, Encino Hospital Medical Center. I want to thank you guys for giving me a chance to speak here today about this. Assembly Bill 2975 to secure all hospitals. This Bill aims to reduce the threat of violence directed at healthcare workers. This passage will make hospitals safer for nurses, our patients families, and the entire hospital.

Workplace violence in hospitals, including violence and weapons, is on the rise. For me, this threat became all too real in June 2022. The patient arrived to the emergency room in distress. Of course we helped him. We admitted him, checked him in, physically checked him, addressed his other needs. Over the next few hours, he became very agitated, something that's not unusual. We're seeing a lot of it out in the community right now with substance abuse and other things. Unfortunately, one of my colleagues was stabbed.

I didn't know at the time. I heard a loud noise in the room. I went in to help, and I was stabbed as well. Our ER was evacuated, and the details that follow are still kind of, like, hard to recall. Our ER, you know, there was a standoff of the police, chaos everywhere. Unfortunately, the ER doctor I worked with for 20 years is no longer able to work anymore because of this incident.

I was able to come here today to speak to you guys, to give my testimony because I feel like it's very important. This needs to get passed because we're there to help our communities. I've worked in this hospital for 20 years to serve the community, their families. During COVID we work very long hours, unsafe conditions to help everybody, and we should be able to do our job safely, and that's very important. I'll finish.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Brittany Brandon. I'm a registered nurse at Southern California Hospital Hollywood, where I've worked for the last two years in the psych unit. Previously, I've worked at the Veteran Affairs Hospital on psych hospice and long term care. Today, I'm here to urge you to support Bill AB 2975 the secure hospitals for all Bill, because it will make our hospitals safer.

As a nurse, I've taken an oath before God in my Assembly of peers to provide safe care and compassionate care to all patients. It is often difficult to provide compassionate care because we are always on the mental health units and units across America on high alert. Reason being is because we are personally responsible as nurses to check patients belongings in front of them, in fact. The hardest part about this is that oftentimes we recover scraps and metal that are often formed into weapons and also materials that can be used to form weapons. as well.

As many of you may or may not know, a lot of our units are locked, which means that it's one way in and one way out that could be a catastrophe for a person like me and mental health because that is the only route of exit that I have when I need to get out of a dangerous situation. Another reason why you should support AB 2975 is because it requires that trained security officers, and not us, are the ones to check patients belongings.

Many times when we have outside patients, they are from transient lifestyles, from homeless substance abuse populations, and don't have stable lifestyles, which means that they bring a lot of belongings with them because of patient understaffing of nurses. We don't have the manpower we need to properly check each bags, which makes AB 2975 and the metal detector check very important. Last year, around six months ago, we had a co worker who was assaulted by a patient. Had we not have reached the nurse in time, we don't know what might have happened because his bed had a bunch of belong - had a bunch of weapons. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses in support?

... on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.

Hi. Martine Thomas, Kindred Ontario Hospital. I've been a nurse for 40 years and I support AB 2975.

Elizabeth Losova of Riverside Community Hospital. I've been an RN for 20 years and I'm in support of AB 7925.

Hi, my name is Dalton Castro. I'm a registered nurse at Monterey Park Hospital in Los Angeles County, and I support AB 2975.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members Christy Weiss with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Hospital Hospital Association here today in an opposed, unless amended position. And first of all, we'd like to really thank and acknowledge Assemblymember Gipson for, you know, sharing the concerns that our hospitals have about the safety of our patients and our workers. We are in total agreement about that. And it is so disheartening to hear the stories of the workers who are here.

And as I think many of you have heard in our conversations before, the increased threat of violence of workers and patients in hospitals is of great concern. Hospitals are intended to be a place of healing. Unfortunately, we're in an opposed and less amended position here today because what the Bill does is it takes away kind of the flexibility of individual hospitals to figure out what is the right way to manage these situations.

Where are the right locations within the hospital to put metal detectors, how best to deal with materials that may be confiscated from patients? You know, we have some hospitals where it might be a small, four bed critical access hospital where this model proposed in the Bill might not make sense. And we hope we can get to a place by working with the author and the sponsor that we can come up with some amendments that certainly achieve the goal that Assemblymember Gipson has.

But, you know, gives the hospitals the flexibility they need to make this work. I know I just experienced this myself. I was carrying my daughter into the emergency room and carrying a, you know, large child through a metal detector. The security guard was very generous and kind of helped me make it work, and it definitely made sense for it to be in that hospital where it was. I think what we're looking to get to is a place where we can work with the author and the sponsor on some amendments to remove our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare Districts here, respectfully opposed unless amended to the Bill today. Want to echo my comments by my colleague from the California Hospital Association, really support the intent behind the Bill and want to reiterate that our workers and our patient safety is our number one concern. However, today our concern with the Bill as currently in print is twofold.

First, the state's small and rural hospitals have a significant cost of the insulation of these metal detectors, particularly for one district public critical access hospital in the state. They spend $700,000 annually to install and maintain metal detectors. While that may seem insignificant, these hospitals rely on every dollar to maintain access to care and provide services to their communities. Second, hospitals are federally required to provide access to care for all patients seeking medical and emergency services in hospitals.

There are no federal or state statutes currently that allow us to reject a patient because they bring something that may constitute as a weapon into the Emergency Department. At this time, AB 2975 fails to account for the potential risks and liabilities that this increases, particularly for public facilities. And that's where our main concerns lie.

Hospitals, especially public district hospitals, are pillars of their communities, providing life saving care. Without addressing some of the fundamental challenges in the Bill, including that it does not actually require an individual to go through the metal detector to enter the hospital, creates additional risk and liability for our public providers, and that really underlies our concerns today. District hospitals are ready to roll up their sleeves and find meaningful solutions to workplace violence for healthcare providers and their patients. We are committed to finding solutions in the Bill with the author and sponsors. However, at this time, we remain respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it to our Members. Any questions or comments? Have a motion. Move a second. Seeing no comments, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much. And I appreciate the opposition and their respectfulness in terms of opposing unless amendment, and certainly there's room for us to have conversation, but I do want to bring out a point. One, I know one of the witnesses indicated about $750,000 for a district hospital. In terms of expense, what would be the expense to replace a life of some medical professional losing their life at work due to weapons coming to the hospitals?

And I would simply surmise that we're living in different times now. And what I mean by that. People coming into hospitals, people coming into hospitals with weapons. I heard one story and I failed to put into my notes one hospital actually taking about 300 weapons. Now, weapons have been undefined in terms of what that actually means, whether it's knives or whatever. We have also heard time and time again nurses becoming security officers, nurses and healthcare professionals in the hospitals.

Primary responsibility should be patient care, providing comfort to those patients, making sure those patients are comfortable in the setting and also providing that kind of care for them. They should not be used and utilized as security officers. That's not what they went to school for. That's not what they were being trained for. But yet, and still, we're finding ourselves in California where these healthcare professionals are being used outside, I might add, of their profession. And so we must do something about this.

We think this is a thoughtful step in the right direction. Placing metal detectors to making sure that one, not only people going to the hospital feel safe to get the care, but also the healthcare providers, the healthcare workers in a space that is conducive to safety, these individuals who want to go home at the end of the day, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, secretary. Please call the roll.

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

That measure is out. Thank you and welcome back, Members. Okay, item number 11. Assemblymember Gallagher, AB 356, 3056.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members. Appreciate the opportunity to present AB 3056. You know, I think oftentimes I'm, you know, one of a few legislators, I think, that is able to kind of bring a perspective from agriculture. And to me, you know, this is something that's very close to me as, you know, a farmer and. And growing up in agriculture.

Knowing this, you know, knowing it very well, I oftentimes try to figure out, hey, how do we find a way to make our policies work better, you know, for agriculture, for rural people? And I think that I also am able to bring a perspective of not just a farm owner, but also of farmworkers. I have grown up with farmworkers. I've worked with farmworkers. I know their families. I know their children.

And so when I'm approaching this issue, and I think when this Bill passed several years ago, those that maybe some of those that were still here remember what my real approach to this was, was that, hey, we need to make sure this works for everybody. And at that time, I didn't feel like it really did, It didn't recognize the nature, the unique nature of, of farm work and the job that we do.

And I think, you know, really, maybe something that I think needs to be corrected is, I think in today's California, the relationship between, you know, farm owners and farm workers is not a contentious one. It's actually a very connected one. It's a very synergistic one, and I think has been for quite some time. And so when we look at this policy. And what I'm trying to do here is to honestly actually open up a conversation.

And I talked to you about, I talked to you, Madam Chair, about this a couple days ago. I want to open up a conversation because I don't think that the current law is actually working for farm owners or for farm workers. And I think that's something we have to consider is how do we maybe, how do we come up with a better policy that will accomplish both of those things. And so in talking about this, my proposal is to sort of pause this kind of midstream.

But it's really just laying down a marker of saying, hey, how can we compromise? How can we find something that might work? So I sort of pause the overtime phase in at 50 hours. Well, actually, I've just amended at 48 hours in a week and 9 hours in a day that overtime would kick in. I'm not saying that's the best policy. I'm actually not. I'm here to say that, hey, I think we need to find something that works better.

And in doing that, I'm just kind of finding that middle ground in terms of 1066, because 1066 phase it in to eight to 48. In talking about this just really quickly, I want to kind of focus in on the data, because I think the data is what is really important here. And, you know, there was a recent study that came out of UC Berkeley done by Doctor Alexandra Hill that really has confirmed that this is a problem for farm workers.

And it is showing that there's been a, since the policy has been in place, it's actually decreased workers hours and wages. And the study estimates that agricultural workers lost a total of 15,000 to 45,000 work hours. And that equates to some real dollars, six to $9 million in wages within the first two years of the implementation of 1066. This is real data, and it adjusts for inflation. It takes into a lot of count of.

It uses the National Agricultural Workers Survey when it's looking at that data, a nationally and regionally representative survey that undergoes substantial preparation and validation prior to that release. So it's a pretty good study and gives us a pretty good snapshot of where we are. And I'll certainly say, look, from the farmer's standpoint, it is also difficult to meet overtime hours. What I think the policy really misses that look, we have our busiest times during planning and harvest.

There are two parts of the season, and that's when, like you, you have to get the crop in during planting and you have to get the crop out. It requires very long hours, longer than nor, than what's the norm. But in the off seasons, we're not really, we may not even be hitting, you know, the 40 hours, you know, of a work week. Right? And so, like, that's why this kind of is different than the normal eight to five work week of many other industries.

It is, in fact different. But I think farmers in adjusting to. Okay, well, I have to figure out how I'm going to meet this with increasing costs not just for labor, but increasing costs for all of your input costs. Inflation has hit farmers very hard as well. And the fact that they can't actually adjust for price. So unlike, say, like fast food industry, they can't just say, hey, we're going to charge more for the product. In fact, farmers are price takers.

And we're in a time right now where there's been actually a very severe downturn of commodity prices worldwide, which means less money coming in, substantially less revenue coming in at a time when we have all time costs. So, like, I mean, from both sides of this equation, yeah, it is difficult. And now I know there's also the UC Merced study that is cited in the Committee analysis. And that's, I think, something to look at, too.

I think what both studies would probably say is that we need a little bit more time to look at data. But the one thing is the American community survey data used by, the American Community survey data used by Merced does not account for the minimum wage increase for one, which has gone since that time from about $10 to 16 now. And it doesn't appear to adjust for inflation. And I think that's important when we're talking about apples to apples comparison of just the overtime issue.

In light of this data, AB 3056 aims to try and strike the balance by maintaining the overtime requirements the stricter than what it was previously, you know, at the 9 hours and 48 hours in a week, but also providing some flexibility, you know, to prevent the reductions in hours and the increased costs in what are really pretty tough times for California farmers. You know, my goal here is really to try and find that balance. And so, I mean, to open up that conversation.

The data does show that we do have a problem we're going to have to address for it because farm workers are, I think the facts show they are getting less hours and less money. And add that to the fact that what every worker is experiencing right now, which is increased cost of inflation, which is eating up those paychecks even more, so we probably can't solve that inflation problem here today.

But I think certainly we can say, hey, is there some way to better address the needs of, of the all aspects of the agricultural industry as we move forward? So with that, I would ask for your aye vote and your support on this. But I also do have with me to testify and support Ranjit Davit, a farmer in the Sacramento Valley, and also Karen stout with the California State Beekeepers Association.

Go ahead. Two minutes each.

Thank you very much. Again, my name is Ranjit Davit. I'm a farmer out of Yuba City, Live Oak area. And Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for hearing me. I support AB 3056 for not just employees, but employees. I've employed employees for 36 years. We've gone through a lot of changes over that time. Pricing, input costs, but one of the biggest ones is our labor. I cannot afford, I'm not what you'd call, a big scale grower.

I cannot afford to continue over time. So I have to hire additional labor to get work done in a proper amount of time. Our window is very short, especially during harvest. We contend with frost, rains, heat, that affects us dramatically. We also compete with worldwide products coming into our estate. So I believe the employees are the backbone of our industry. I support them wholly. But again, I need to assure them that I cannot pay them any much more that overtime because we can't afford it.

Our pricing. We get paid once, 3-4 times a year. We don't get our money at one time, and it's very difficult for us. So I urge you to please support AB 3056 and I echo Assemblymember Gallagher's comments. Thank you. Thank you.

Hello, Chair and Members. Karen Stout here. On behalf of the California State Beekeepers Association, I'd like to read some testimony from our President, Philip Russell. Permission to read? Thank you. Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Philip Russell. I am the President of the California State Beekeepers Association. As a Californian and a small business owner, I believe that AB 3056 is a proper compromise between the old labor laws and the current ones provided by AB 1066.

I apologize for not being able to testify in person today, but in fact, I am unable to attend because I am unable to pay for the overtime and additional hours that would be required for my employee and I to testify. I understand that we may not get back to the 10 hour days and 50 hour work weeks of overtime, despite the fact that our company and our employees have preferred it and mutually prospered under those regulations.

However, the current forum is hurting both the employer and the employee. As an employer, I have been increasingly unable to provide my workers with the hours that they have previously worked, which has forced me to cut hours for more experienced beekeepers and higher on more inexperienced beekeepers. This results in more bee deaths overall and less pollinators for the crops and plants that feed our country.

It has also led to workers needing to leave their families and disrupt their lives for longer periods, as our beekeepers can no longer allow our employees to take overtime to drive long distances back and forth to manage hives, and they also must stay overnight out of the state more regularly. In addition to those concerns, my existing workers, who relied on the previous system, are seeing less hours and lower overall wages, consistent with the UC Berkeley study.

As a small business owner, I care deeply about my employees and their well being and that has been impacted by these new regulations. As one example, I wanted to share an interaction I had with one of my seasonal beekeepers, who helps out each year with our cream production and maintaining the beehives in operation. Each year, at the beginning of the season, he asked me what the pay will be that year and what duties that includes.

This year, he asked if I could pay him more because for three years he had not seen a raise. In response, I had showed him that in those past three years of employment, his pay had increased by $1.50 an hour each year. What my employee was looking at was the overall total, which has remained the same because he has not been allowed to work the same overall hours. Although this is just one example, the same issues holds true. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Brian Little for California Farm Bureau, Agricultural Council of California, Association of California Egg Farmers, California Agricultural Aircraft Association, California Avocados, California Bean Shippers Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, California Fresh Fruit Association and California Pear Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Members or Mister Chair, Madam Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf today of the California Chamber of Commerce, Strawberry Commission, Wheat Growers Association, Grower-Shipper Association of both Central California and Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties, Pacific Egg and Poultry Association, Ventura County Ag Association, Western Ag Processors, Western Grow Association and The Wine Institute.

Lisa Rodriguez with the Gualco Group on behalf of California Association of Wine Grape Growers in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, I believe we have witnesses in opposition here. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. My name is Nancy Oropeza and today I'll be translating for our member Lourdes Cardenas.

[Speaking in Spanish].

Lourdes Cardenas, on behalf of the United Farm Workers in opposition. I have been a farm worker for 21 years, working in different fruits depending on the seasons. Other Americans won overtime pay 78 years before farm workers in California did.

[Speaking in Spanish].

Any proposal to increase the number of hours per day or increase the number of hours per week to earn overtime pay will wipe out the progress we have made and reduce annual earnings for farm workers.

[Speaking in Spanish].

Last month, UC Merced found that after full implementation of the farm worker overtime law in California, farm workers who work over 40 hours per week had an average annual earnings of $32,417 per year, more than one third higher earnings than the year of 2018 average of 23,000.

[Speaking in Spanish].

Stopping our progress is bad. Pushing us backward is worse and will erase all of our work, including my own. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else in opposition.

Jazzy Greywal with UFCW in opposition.

... on behalf of the California Labor Federation.

Beth Spitler on behalf of the California Food and Farming Network, Pesticide Action Network, Central California Environmental Justice Network, Centro Binacional del Desarrollo and Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Californians for Pesticide Reform and Latino Coalition for Healthy California in opposition.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters in opposition.

[Speaking in Spanish].

[Speaking in Spanish].

[Speaking in Spanish].

Thank you. Seeing no other opposition, I will turn it over to our Members for any questions or comments. Assemblymember Carrillo.

Thank you. Madam Chair. [Speaking in Spanish]. Assemblymember, you and I have had the opportunity to connect on various issues related to your district very different than my own. I do share some of the concerns related to the future of work and future of business as it relates to the State of California.

I think sometimes I will tell you, being a Member from Los Angeles, I would hope that some of the organizations, like some of the Ag or Beekeepers Association, would also, would also talk to us. You know, I don't come from a big ag district, so sometimes I feel like I really don't know what your issues are in terms of business. Right. And how hard it is to do business in the State of California. So I would encourage that conversation and I look forward to having it.

We have made a lot of progress to ensure that there is equity and scale when it comes to some of our various different sectors of work in the State of California. Farmworkers continue to be some of the lowest paid arduous work across the state. I've seen images and I don't recall - if you recall, during pandemic, we had wildfires, we had a global pandemic, and farmworkers who are here today were still at work and were still risking their lives not only amid a pandemic, but also through raging wildfires in the State of California. Their wages don't equate for the level of work that they do and the scale of impact that it also has on their bodies. So I share that in that, unfortunately, I won't be supporting your Bill.

I do believe that some of the policies that we have moved forward that create equity within the workplace are needed and necessary. But I do want to say that I, as a Member that does not come from ag counties across the state, would really like to learn more and know more about some of the challenges that you face. Thank you.

May I respond?

No. I have another Member who has a question.

Well, thank you. I do appreciate and understand there are a lot of differences from the traditional office work schedule than the agricultural industry. And for farmers and farm workers, even in my district, I do have, I actually do have some farmers, small scale farmers and ranchers, and I do appreciate the differences. And it is very hard for those small scale operations to scale this modern economy. I understand that.

But at the same time, I want to second my comments from my colleague from Los Angeles, is that we are trying to have a more equitable society. And the fact that there are farmworkers out there earning basically $30,000 at best right now to survive in a state like California is not enough. And it's a real struggle. And I'm sure that if you were in a better position, you'd want to give them as much compensation as possible. Because they are the backbone of your industry, really.

They are the people out there planting, harvesting and doing all that great work. So I still believe in our vision of making sure that over time and compensation is fair and equitable for people because they need to survive in this very state. That's why, unfortunately, I won't be able to support this Bill today. But I do encourage, just like my colleague from Los Angeles said, to engage us more. My district is quite urban and suburban, though we have a great agricultural history. It used to be The Valley of Heart's Delight before it became tech Silicon Valley, and definitely have more dialogue with us, I think is important, too. But I won't be supporting this Bill today. Thanks.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. And I, too, come from a family of ag. You know, we farm in Stanislaus County, Kern County, and one of the bigger issues that we have. And I appreciate my colleagues, like, recognizing that you do come from an urban setting. Right. And us in the rural communities, we just, things are just different for us. And the author brought up a very good point that I think needs to be said. Ag doesn't have the ability just to raise rates to compensate for minimum wage or whatever it may be.

We are absolutely beholden to an economy, especially on, you know, whether it's a commodity that depends on export, you know, and if those commodities go down, we're in big trouble. And, you know, my family's in ag manufacturing right now. And I'll tell you right now, it is not pretty. It is not a pretty place to be in, in the State of California, trying to maintain a workforce, trying to farm with commodity prices where they're at.

And so it is a huge challenge for us to, to deal with some of this, and it has nothing to do. And we have see two generations of workers. I mean, I grew up with migrant workers in the fields of Kern County. Right. And we've got a couple generations working for our family and have been. And it's not that we don't want to pay them as much as we possibly can, but if the growers, the farmers aren't surviving, then everybody's out.

And I think that's the balance that the leader is trying to get to, is we have to find this balance and right now we don't have it. And it's, farmers are nothing without their employees, period. End of story. Right. Cannot do their jobs. So it is in their best interest to compensate them at a rate that keeps them around, makes them happy, brings them back to work.

So I appreciate the acknowledgement, quite frankly, because it's the first time that I've heard it and a lot of times, like even our issues, we say it all the time. They're not partisan. They're not. They're regional. And I think the more that we kind of spend time educating all of you on some of this, I really do look forward to that. And we'll take you up on that. And you were going to make a comment, and I would love to hear that comment. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I appreciate both of you. You know, we are very understanding of, you know, the urban districts. We're having a site visit in the summer. We'd love to have you come out and see our commercial bee yards and see our employees perspectives. Thank you.

Coming out of an urban area, I urge you to come up our way and actually see what we do. And I want to echo the Committee Members comments. We love our employees. He's right. They are the backbone of our industry. And there's, you know, agriculture wouldn't be anywhere without them. But he's also right where we cannot. We don't control our pricing. It's, it's the competition among the world. It's today. I'll give you a prime example. My walnuts. I got.

I got a check in the mail. It was 0.33 cents a pound. One third of a penny. How embarrassing is that? One third of a penny. That's what they paid us. Per pound. Now you go to the supermarket, it's $8 a pound. I don't know how they do the math, but that's where it's at. But I can also assure you that I cannot afford to continue any type of overtime for my employees. It's better for me to hire another person to get the job done. It's just not there. So in other words, these employees are losing. Thank you.

Yeah, I just want to say the Assembly woman has been up into the Sacramento valley and appreciate the times that she's come to visit particularly. She came up to Paradise and saw what we were going through up there. So really that's what this is about, is I want to open up this conversation, and it is a two way street.

And I think what the assignment was saying is, hey, reaching out to them, you know, as well, like, reaching out to them, they're, you know, coming to learn about us and what's going on in agriculture. But I think that my concern here is what the data is showing that it's not good for, you know, either farm workers or farmers right now. I think we can find a better path forward and, you know, maybe, maybe it's like a Select Committee, maybe it's a group working together.

I've certainly reached out to the United Farm Workers because I think maybe with some stakeholders coming together, we could find a better path forward. And it is an issue to Mister David's point. This is a frustration I think common in California farmers is like, hey, we're meeting all these standards. We're top of the top in the world in terms of health and safety and worker safety and all these things.

And we meet all these standards, and yet we'll import stuff from Chile or, you know, other parts of the world that don't do any of those things, right. And we get undercut and it's frustrating, you know, and so is there a way to maybe, you know, try and address some of those, those issues that will be good for both workers and for, you know, farmers in the long term. But the situation right now is it's not good.

And I think the data shows that we've got to do something and get creative. Let's find a creative way to address this. But we can't ignore it. And so that's really why I wanted to kind of bring this forward today. You could take that as my close. You could take that as my close. Madam Chair.

I'll keep it brief. Obviously, my colleagues have made a great point. They're from urban areas. My colleague, both of you, we have a lot of farmer friends, rancher friends who have come to us and they care about their workers. They're basically family. They come generational. But I have constituents coming to me who are the workers who are saying they're no longer getting the pay they used to get because bills that we've passed up here that we think are going to help them are not helping them.

Another thing we need to think about is a lot of these farms can go automated, but it's cheaper for them to not go that route to where now it's getting to the point to where they're going to be automated and then we're going to get people out of jobs, is what I fear. So obviously, it's a fine balance.

I think it's a great idea that, yes, a lot of our, as everyone knows in the Assembly, majority of the votes come from Los Angeles and from Bay Area. And maybe we do need to educate them more and bring them more to the ag area and let them know, hey, this is what we're needing your help with. And see that it's a different world. We work in seasons. You know, we don't work eight to five. And I'm sorry I missed most of your presentation. I might be covering something you already said, but obviously, I have a good grasp on this for my area. So thank you for being here for this, and thank you guys as well. And I will obviously be supporting this.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, I would respectfully request an aye vote.

So thank you. You know, you and I did talk briefly, and, you know, I appreciate your perspective. You know, I come from a rural community. However, I do come from a family of farmworkers. In fact, my aunt and uncle worked for many years in Marysville picking peaches and walnuts. And every summer we would come. So I have a different perspective over time. And when it comes to data. You mentioned data several times.

You know, it's hard for me to think about through this because for over 78 years, farm workers did not have access to overtime. So now to say we have two years, maybe three years worth of data, and say, that's apples to apples, I just, you know, I respectfully disagree.

I think if we want data and we want to compare it, I mean, I'm not asking for another 78 years, but I do want to put that into context, that for 78 years, farmworkers did not have access to overtime. And to say that in two years is not working, it's just not an equal comparison, which is why I cannot support your Bill today. And we did have a motion and a second. Secretary, can you please call the roll.

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

That measure fails.

I'll take that uh.

No. No.

Yeah, no, you can't. I'll take that as an eye to continuing the conversation. Right. And I do appreciate what we were able to discuss and like I said, I'll certainly be talking more about this with folks and appreciate the opportunity.

Thank you. Did you ask for.

Reconsideration.

Are they.

Gallagher? Do you want reconsideration? You good?

Yes. Respectfully.

Seeing no objections, reconsideration is granted. Okay. Assembly Member Schiavo, would you like to come up? Item number 12, AB 3106, whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I am honored to present AB 3106 today because teachers and educators should not be punished for being sick. But unfortunately, that's exactly what happens sometimes. AB 3106 is a straightforward solution that simply aligns school COVID policies with the California Department of Public Health guidelines without punishing teachers for recovering from an illness.

AB 3106 allows sick leave to stay current with the most up to date guidance developed by CDPH. As of January 9, 2024 the California Department of Public Health guidelines state that COVID positive workers should stay home until any fever has abated and symptoms are mild. Symptoms are mild and improving. And so today we have Mitch Steiger, our Bill co sponsor from California Federation of Teachers, here to testify and speak on this measure.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Mitch Steiger with CFT, proud to sponsor this Bill. The fact remains that COVID is still a very serious issue. As much as we may wish, we've moved on by now, it still kills roughly 119 Californians every week. And one in 10 of us who have had COVID now have long COVID, which means either long lasting or potentially lifelong struggles with remembering things, with breathing problems, with a drastically increased risk of heart attack or stroke.

So it's a very serious issue, and it's especially serious in schools. As the excellent analysis points out, most of the cases, there's evidence that indicates most of the cases originate with children. There's also evidence that schools are the single largest sources of outbreaks. But the reality is that the current laws and protections don't align with that.

And we're in a situation right now where when a teacher feels like they may have COVID, they're in a very difficult position where they can either take a test, find out that they have COVID, tell their employer, and then get sent home, or they can hope that it's not COVID, roll the dice and go to work. Because what happened was when we had exclusion pay and supplemental paid sick leave in law, we then let them expire. But we kept the exclusion part.

So when an employer finds out that a worker has COVID, they're required by law to send them home, which puts workers in this impossible place. And so what we're doing is just bringing back a very scaled down version of what used to be in law where workers got exclusion pay for the entire time that they were out, when they were testing positive.

All this Bill does is mirror what's in the current CDPH guidance, where they get that pay as long as they're, until their fever has abated and their symptoms are mild and improving. We are not aware of any evidence that employers suffered any kind of undue harm, that the economy suffered any kind of undue harm when that was the case.

In fact, we think clearly it prevented countless infections and outbreaks, and it just as likely saved employers money when it was the case and to the point raised by opposition that there was an issue with. If there's a conflict between putting something specific in statute and then the ever changing nature of the virus, we would just say that while the virus has changed, what's in this Bill hasn't. Fever is still a very common symptom.

And the only other specific in the Bill is that it refers to symptoms. So as symptoms may change, the Bill can adapt to that. And for those reasons, we urge your support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Seth Bramble, speaking on behalf of 300,000 plus educators in the state, the Members of the California Teachers Association, CTA does believe that communicable diseases present very serious health risks for students and school personnel.

I would just say in classroom settings, children and teachers, if you've worked with kids in close contact, you know, when infections and viruses are introduced, they spread really quickly throughout the class and throughout the school community. So we urge your support.

Thank you. Do we have any additional witnesses and support?

Good afternoon, Members. Madam Chair. Members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Madam Chair. And Members Michelle Terran Wolfwork with the California Commission on the Status Women and Girls in strong support. Thank you to the author.

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

Daniel Pearl on behalf of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in strong support.

Elmer Lizardi, on behalf of the California Labor Federation in support.

Seeing no other witnesses. Is there any witnesses in opposition?

Hello. Thank you. While I screwed up here. Yeah.

Do you want to move over the microphone? Just push it over.

Thank you. Isabella Arquette with the Health Officers Association of California. We have an opposed unless amended position on the Bill, so we totally appreciate the author's intent behind this Bill.

We absolutely want to support school employees in their ability to stay home when sick, knowing that their job is protected and that they're preventing the spread of illness in the workplace. That's very important. Just in the spirit of best protecting school employees, we do have some concerns around setting specific employee exclusive exclusion criteria in statute. So it could be now that employees should only return to work 24 hours after the fall of a fever. But that could change, right?

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

What we saw during the pandemic was that the conditions changed and science developed rapidly and guidance needed to reflect that. So we would just oppose putting any specific criteria in statute, knowing that we can either put criteria in statute or follow the latest guidance, the latest science, excuse me, and guidance. Should the Legislature wish to require school employees to follow specified guidance, we would just ask that EB 3106 defer to CDPH guidance without setting specific criteria in statute. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Betsy Armstrong, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association, also regretfully and opposed unless amended. I'll align my comments with my colleague from the health Officers Association. Thank and appreciate working with the author's office and hope our concerns can be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, any questions or comments from the Members? Seeing none we had about motion and a second secretary, please call. zero, actually, sorry. Would you like to close? Respectfully? Ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. That measure is out. Thank you. Thank you. We will move to our consent calendar. We need a motion in a second secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right, thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I am presenting AB 2444. This Bill will ensure that basic labor law information is provided to licensed manicurists because the industry will be subject to the AB 5 employer-employee determination process starting January 1, 2025. When AB 5 became law in 2019, manicurists were exempted temporarily until January 2022. The sunset date was later moved to 2025 with this change coming to nail salons. The Bill seeks to provide information to manicurists and nail salon business owners.

The notification will be sent by the Department of Industrial Relations so the content will be correct going forward. Manicurists would be provided information through the Board of Barbary and Cosmetology as part of their license and renewal process. This is a common sense notice Bill so that people working in nail salons know that laws around the industry are changing. With me today in support are Kathryn Porter, a senior policy consultant with the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative, and Joanne Nguyen, manicurist.

Oh, and an interpreter for Joanne as well. So yes.

[Speaking in Vietnamese]