Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, everyone, and welcome to Senate Labor Committee on public employment and retirement. We have, let's see, 11 items on our agenda today. So, a packed agenda, and we know a lot of our Members are going to be running to present bills. So we are going to start by establishing a quorum and then move to consent calendar. So. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Madam Chair. I would move item number eight, the entire consent agenda.

Thank you for the motion. Assistant, please call the roll on the consent calendar. [Roll Call] Okay. With a vote of four to zero, the consent calendar is on call. We'll take it up later on this afternoon. All right, seeing Senator Wahab, we are going to move to file item number one, SB 984. Senator, you may begin. Thank you. All right.

Chair and colleagues and members of the public, project labor agreements provide proper compensation, benefits, and opportunities to hard-working Californians, including women veterans, BIPOC community members, and justice involved individuals in our workforce. SB 984 requires the Department of Toxic Substance Control, Department of General Services, and the California State University and the California courts to identify three major construction projects to be governed by a PLA beginning in 2029.

SB 984 will also require these agencies to report progress of community benefit goals, apprenticeships, and project labor agreements on their projects. SB 984 ensures the state's investments in public infrastructure are protected from costly delays and promote high quality jobs. I want to be very clear that these are tax dollars that we're putting to work. And specifically, I'm very much interested in putting Americans to work, especially on our infrastructure projects. So I have two witnesses with me.

One is Jeremy Smith of State Building and Construction Trades Council. And is it going to be yours, Elmer from the California Labor Federation. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith here. On behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, the sponsors of this important piece of legislation. Good morning. Good morning to everybody. Looking around the dais, I know that most of you up there know what a project labor agreement is. I'm not going to dive deep into the definition of those, but to say that they're basically prehire collective bargaining agreements specific to one project that lays out essentially the rules of the road for a project.

Not only that, the prevailing wage will be paid with the commensurate benefits, but how we're going to deal with issues on the job as they arise. It makes it very clear that for contractors, when they do their bids, what they're going to be bidding at in terms of wages and benefits. So they're on a level playing field with other contractors that maybe are low road and don't want to follow the rules.

They also provide workplace protections and labor law enforcement in this time of few inspectors at Cal OSHA and DLSE. This is very important to workers on job sites. And additionally, as I'll point out in a second, on a specific project labor agreement, they are able to be crafted to the needs of an individual community. I have seen project labor agreements that require targeted hiring down to the zip code level.

In San Diego, there's a project labor agreement with the county water authority that I'll go through in a second that goes even further. It's important to note that any qualified contractor can bid for work under a PLA. Many agreements in the public sector contain special accommodations to make it easier for contractors that do not ordinarily work under collective bargaining agreements to participate in the project. For example, some agreements permit contractors to bring some of their own core workers onto the project.

Furthermore, this Bill is putting into statute right under public Contract Code Section 2500. There are rules about what is required in a public PLA which is germane to this Bill. And one of the things in a public plaque must be clear is that prohibiting discrimination based on representation in a labor organization on both the contractor side and the worker side. I just want to quickly run through a few plas in the private sector that exist.

If the private sector can do plas and it's good enough for the profit motive, should be good enough for the State of California. The Sacramento Kings arena, the Golden State Warriors Arena, Anaheim hockey team. Anything a visitor sees at Disneyland is under a project labor agreement. The LA Ram Stadium, the Clipper Stadium, the Lucas Museum, several of the major movie studios, and we also have a PLA now down in the Imperial Valley on lithium extraction, which is very important in our discussions on greenhouse gas emissions.

The following public PLA's exist. There's one on the high speed rail Authority project, the Sacramento County Airport, LA Community College District, LAUSD, the City of LA, the County of LA, LA the Metropolitan Water District, the Trans-based center down in San Francisco, which in the first phase will provide 5.7 million work hours. BART has a PLA. You see, they work for public agencies, and they work for the private sector, too. Finally, I just wanted to finish with that San Diego County Water Authority PLA this PLA has the following definition of targeted workers.

The types of workers required to be on projects carried out by the authority a targeted worker I'm reading directly from the PLA, is a worker who is a veteran, an apprentice with less than 15% of the work hours required for completion, has no high school diploma or GED, is homeless is a former foster youth, is a custodial single parent, has a documented income at or below 100% of the federal poverty level, is formerly incarcerated and I think I mentioned is a custodial single parent.

So we can craft PLA's that specific. So we targeted hire in areas of community individuals we want to get into apprenticeship programs and started on their construction career. This is what a PLA can mean to a community. We think it's important for the state to take this step. We urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Just in time. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members Elmer Lizardi here with the California Labor Federation. Two years ago, President Biden enacted his Executive order requiring plas for any major state construction project would cost greater than $35 million, and SB 984 builds on this federal bottle by extending these same requirements to state agencies for a minimum of three state funded projects. Like the Senator mentioned, California should continue building on these existing labor models whenever possible, especially when they can help create quality jobs in key industries.

PLAs are an incredibly effective and proven tool that help deliver completed projects on time and on budget, thereby protecting taxpayers by eliminating costly delays. PLAs also offer invaluable opportunities for people with traditional barriers of employment because they often include local hiring, apprenticeship pre apprenticeship program goals, as mentioned, that create meaningful access to life sustaining careers in the construction industry.

As California continues to spend these billions of dollars on major construction projects, it should look to maximize those dollars by building projects with a skilled workforce that has paid good wages and benefits both families and communities alike. Briefly, SB 984 helps accomplish these goals by increasing PLA use in California and ensuring that more of the state's construction projects are completed efficiently while creating greater opportunities for good union jobs and a path to the middle class. Thank you, and for these reasons, we support SB 94.

Thank you. So now we have folks who are coming speaking in support of the Bill.

Madam Chair Member Scott Wetch on behalf of the 125,000 members of the State Association of Electrical Workers, 55,000 members of the California Coalition of Utility Employees, the 30,000 members of the California State Pipe Trades Council, the 30,000 members of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the Elevator Constructors Unit, since we didn't fill all of our time. Just one fact that I think is important for the Committee.

Project labor agreements were upheld as constitutional by the US Supreme Court in 1986. That was a Reagan Bush court. The same year it was upheld by the California Supreme Court. That was a Pete Wilson. George Duke, major Court. Thank you.

Thank you. Just name -

Madam Chair and Members, Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. 300 contractors statewide in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry and the National Electrical Contractors Association, representing over 3000 union signatory, electrical, mechanical, and plumbing contractors statewide in support. Thank you.

Vin Segrew on behalf of Smart Sheet Metal Workers Local 104, in support.

Madam Chair and Members. Louie Costa, in support. On behalf of Smart Transportation Division, in support.

Shane Gussman. On behalf of the Teamsters, in support.

Okay. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of this Bill? Okay. We will move to opposition witness. Is there opposition witness speaking. You have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members of the Committee. My name is Felipe Fuentes and I'm here today on behalf of the associated General Contractors of California. We are an Association that's over 100 years old with almost 1000 General contractors building California's infrastructure, heavy civil projects like roads and highways, underground utilities, treatment plants, commercial and residential vertical construction. We're here today in opposition to SB 984, which would mandate project labor agreements on specified state public works.

While the measure has been negotiated to be a pilot for a few projects, it still sets a very bad precedent. And that's because PLA mandates would pick winners and losers in two very distinct instances. The first, know that AGC contractors are about two-thirds union and one-third open Shop Non-Union contractors. But we all have to comply with a skilled and trained workforce, which is to say that we procure our workforce from skilled and from apprenticeship programs that are dir certified.

So in this case, our San Diego AGC chapter that runs a DIR-certificated apprenticeship program, their workforce, their graduate, would be compromised and disadvantaged if they go and work for a non-union employer. So that is a problem. But I think more importantly, our biggest challenge here is that mandating PLA's supersedes master labor agreements that our contractors already enjoy with our labor partners.

Every three years, we negotiate in good faith at the collective bargaining table with the laborers, operating engineers, cement masons, teamsters, iron workers and carpenters. PLA's will supersede that agreement. And so what happens here is that we then have to, as contractors, union contractors, set aside our workforce with which we have a long relationship that's been pre bid or pre project, and set that aside for whatever it is that the state decides to negotiate with the state building trades. I'll give you a great example.

The DGS building renovation here on 9th street that's taken place is an excellent project that makes the goals of this Bill real, but it's done through master labor agreements, and we're able to do that effectively. So having contractors wait into jurisdictional disputes because of a PLA overlay with an MLA

You have 20 seconds.

Thank you for that, madam. Doing that overlay puts contractors in a position to have to pick one group of labor over another. And for those reasons, we ask that you keep this billing Committee. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Danny Curtin, California Conference of Carpenters. I want to start by saying everybody on that side who's elected official, we recognize is fully supportive workers and workers rights. There are some little disagreements now and then, but I think we owe you an explanation as to why the carpenters are not supporting this Bill and actually opposing it.

The major issue is this turns project labor agreements from a mutually agreed upon may due to a shall due, which changes the dynamics of those who are at the table. It is incumbent now on a public agency to have a project labor agreement, although it's been narrowed quite a bit. That means that the other party to that project labor agreement actually has veto power over that project. That's a mistake for a public agency. Some can do these in areas where they do them.

Los Angeles is a good example. They are mutually agreed upon. So the question is, who negotiates the agreement? The carpenters are not Members of the building trades for almost three decades, maybe more. Now, for the same reasons we're having this conversation. Who negotiates the agreement? We're not at the table, so we don't get to be a part of the negotiations of who does what work. I'm going to go through this quickly because I know you've got an eye on that. Public works only project labor agreements.

They don't need project labor agreements. Its prevailing wages, the highest wage standard in the industry. Nobody pays higher than prevailing wages. So that's not an issue here. It's a question of really who is doing what work. And that was mentioned a minute ago. What prevailing wages does is level the playing field for all contractors to sharpen their pencils. They got to run the job properly. They got to innovate and buy more equipment if they want to bring their costs down. You're hurting the public, agencies, jurisdictions.

Well, let me go back a second, if I can, if I got time. In the housing debates we had over the last two years, we came up with prevailing wages, not project labor agreements.

20 seconds, 10 seconds.

Oh, stop now. Okay. Jurisdictions are the major problem here. They're not going to be resolved by this. They will be made worse. And there is no management. I mean, no enforcement. DiR is 40% under enforced. They have nobody out there. We need self-enforcement. We need agreements. And it can be basically done by agreement, not by forced agreement. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to this Bill, please just state your name, organization, and position. We have, I think, a few speakers, so we want to get through it.

Good morning, Senators. I'm Richard Markuson and I will respect the Committee's 2 and 2 rule. I represent 18,000 journey workers, apprentices and contractors who represent the Plumbing, Heating, Cooling Contractors of California, the Western Electrical Contractors Association, the California Chapters of the American Fire Sprinkler Association, and the Independent Roofing Contractors of California. All in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition for the reasons stated by AGC. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Tracy Stevens, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, also respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Michelle Cava on behalf of the 80,000 men and women who work for Associated Building Contractors, employers also in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Senators. Matthew Estepona with the Associated Builders and Contractors in Northern California chapter and whose Member companies have submitted letters in opposition in the Committee analysis. Thank you. We are opposed.

It looks like that's it for those speaking in opposition, the Bill. So we will move to the Members. Any comments? Questions? So I just want to say to the Senator, I appreciate you bringing this Bill forward. We talked about it in Geo yesterday. You know, PLAs are important for a number of factors because you can build in all kinds of great community benefits that help us accomplish a triple bottom line and a win win victory.

I know that this Bill requires DGS to report on PLA's and to look at what our future goals can look like for uplifting our communities. But I'm wondering how you, you're thinking about enforcement and compliance on this, and what are the ways that we ensure that, as we talked about the targeted hiring, as we talked about making sure we're bringing communities into this work, that there are tools to enforce that at the agency level. And this is really about contractors complying with the requirements.

Definitely. I heard you loud and clear, and I know that this is an issue that we both care about. I'm going to let Jeremy get into the weeds of it, but I do want to highlight that we can narrow it down and get as deep as particular zip codes if there are certain projects or let's say it's a region and we're trying to target and recruit from those specific zip codes.

Obviously, we're not allowed to have quotas, but we are genuinely allowed to be able to recruit and ensure that we're having the right people work on these projects. That's first and foremost. Number two is that I think that there have been examples in Southern California, more in particular that they have dashboards. And I know you and I had a conversation, well, barely, regarding real time. Right. I know that was one of your concerns.

And I believe with technology and being able to start projects and so forth, and, you know, a lot of the contractors have the technology to say, okay, how many days are they delayed? How much is this going to impact me? And they can also apply that type of technology to some of the recruitment efforts we have. And, Jeremy, if you would like to answer in a little more through you, chair.

Thank you. Through the Chair. I think Senator Wahab spoke on this eloquently. There's, at the Bureau of Contract Administration at the City of Los Angeles, there is a dashboard, and you can search, you can put filters on there for where are people getting hired from? Who are they? What's their age? What's their level of education? All that. We are absolutely supportive of that dashboard.

I think President Hannon of the state building trades, when he was the head of the LAOC Building Trades Council, had a very firm hand in creating that dashboard. And so as the Bill moves forward, we'd be happy to talk to you and to Senator Wahab, of course, about making that more clear about how we track outcomes. We're 100% supportive.

Appreciate that answer. And always happy to work with the good Senator on this work, I think, without any other comments. Would you like to close Senator?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I know that this is incredibly important to every single one of us to put people to work. I do want to highlight, again, these are tax dollars. And I also want to highlight the beating drum of labor for decades has prioritized and highlighted PLA's at a local level and abroad is incredibly important.

And now in the last year or two, we have groups that are walking away from that. And the reality is, again, this particular Bill is a foot in the door to highlight three particular projects that these agencies can identify to say, we're going to try this, we're going to see if it works. We're going to see if we can absorb data and share it, and by 2029, a report is supposed to come out to see what are the benefits, what are the pros and cons.

So I do just want to highlight that. And you and I both know that if it's not written on paper, we can't 100% rely on the good faith of those in power to, you know, actually help community out across the board, regardless of which industry. Thank you.

Thank you for that. And do I have a motion? Thank you. Senator Durazo, we have a motion. Assistant, please call the roll.

On file, item one. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, this Bill has a vote of four to zero, and it's on call. Thank you. Okay, we have another one, right? Two. First, Senator Wahab, SB 1321, are you ready to proceed? Whenever you're ready. Thank you. Let me just find it. There we go.

All right, Chair, colleagues and members of the public, I'd like to begin by accepting the Committee's amendments, and I really want to thank the Committee staff for really working with us on potential language and so forth. This is incredibly important. Bill SB 1321 will ensure training opportunities funded through the employment training panel provide high-quality training opportunities for workers, which is something we always talk about. How can we ensure that we're upskilling workers?

Manufacturing, construction, clean energy and other industries need trained workers to build the economy of tomorrow. But these skills are not necessarily readily available in local programs and so forth. The employment training program funds projects that. The projects that create high wage, high skill career pipelines for these workers in these industries. This Bill promotes a healthy labor market and helps businesses increase their competitiveness to secure federal, private sector and other non state funds.

SB 1321 ensures ETP is investing in quality training programs and prioritizing recruitment of disadvantaged workers. I'd like to introduce my witness, Vince Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 and Sarah Flocks of the California Labor Federation. Thank you. You may proceed. You both have two minutes.

Thank you. Honorable Members of the Senate Labor Committee, my name is Vince Sugrue, State Legislative Director with Sheet Metal Workers local union number 104 in Northern California. We represent over 10,000 hard-working members and their families, and I am before you today to advocate strongly in support of SB 1321 and to thank Senator Wahab for bringing this forward. This legislation is about bolstering support for California employers that have a high-road employment model and training programs that lead to careers for our residents.

SB 1321 seeks to correct a current issue we're seeing on the application side of the process to bring additional transparency measures to employers who are seeking this funding. Several of these measures include the one SB 1321 aims to disclose employer contributions to fringe benefits like health care and retirement, addressing a current lack of transparency. Two, in recent years, contractors who have received civil wage and penalty assessments from the DLSC, who have broken the law have applied and received funding from the ETP.

We want to make sure, if there is a penalty that is unabated or unsatisfied, that they are unable to pursue an application at that given time. Three, in addition to asking how the employer engages veterans, as the application currently does, we believe it's important to include a section on employers practices regarding the hiring, training and advancement of disadvantaged, marginalized and underrepresented workers in order to achieve equity goals.

And four, unlike sister agencies with a 30 day window, the current seven day release window for the application review limits public analysis and feedback, and this Bill aims to extend that window to match other agencies. By supporting SB 1321, you'll be helping maximize limited funding, providing stronger guardrails that are needed at the ATP to prioritize the highest quality programs. We would ask for your support of this important legislation to invest in the future of high road training programs in the state. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Sara Flocks California Labor Federation, a proud co-sponsor of the Bill and Madam Chair, you, Senator Durazo, many other Members of the Senate have worked very hard on SB 150 and other bills to make sure that we have labor and equity standards on Federal and State Dollars, to make sure that we create good jobs in the new economy, in infrastructure, in manufacturing, in climate jobs. This Bill is a compliment to that. We really see it as the flip side.

If we're creating all of these opportunities, we want to make sure we have the trained workforce who has access to these jobs. And so this Bill is trying to take the model of labor standards and equity standards and put it into the training program.

It basically modernizes the standards that ETP already has, adds in some new language make sure that taxpayer dollars are used efficiently and are not duplicating existing programs in a region, and puts in language that there should be efforts to make sure that workers from disadvantaged and marginalized communities have access to the training programs. So then they are prepared to have access to the good jobs that are created.

So we feel like this is a Bill that updates a program that's doing good work to meet the challenge that the state is facing and that you all have been making sure that the federal money going out and the state money going out is creating good jobs. So we are elongating the path, making sure that the path to the middle class is open. I also want to be clear before the opposition comes up, this Bill does not prevent any program from applying.

It basically says for this program we need to update some of the standards that are in place. We need to make sure that the employers and training programs that are getting these public dollars don't have any violations, that we are really looking at them. So just want to say thank you. Thank you to the author. We urge support.

Thank you. These are folks in support. Your name, organization and your position.

Thank you, Madam Chair Jeremy Smith on behalf of the Estate Building and Construction Trades Council also in support.

Madam Chair, Members of Committee Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Sheet, Metal, Air Conditioning Contractors, in support.

Madam Chair Members Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry and the National Electrical Contractors Association, also in support.

Tiffany Mok, on behalf of CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, in support. Thank you so much.

Madam Chair and Members Martin Vindiola. On behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Tom Hinsey, on behalf of UAW region six, in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division, in support.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with Blue Green Alliance and California Environmental Voters in support for both of those organizations. Thank you.

Okay, next, anyone else want to speak in support of the Bill? Okay, opposition witnesses, please step forward. You have two minutes each.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members Chris Bollinger, on behalf of the California Asian Chamber of Commerce, we represent small and diverse owned businesses throughout the State of California. 600,000 to be exact. I want to thank the author for bringing attention to the employment training panel. We feel very, very strongly that this is the preeminent workforce development program in the State of California. That said, the Bill is drafted is far too broad.

We feel that it weeds out a lot of the small, medium and diverse owned businesses throughout the state from applying. These are the same businesses that pay into the employment training tax and actually Fund the program itself. So you have a situation where companies are paying the tax and then they are either rendered ineligible or they are hugely, hugely disincentivized from participating.

We don't think that that was the intent of the program and we think that the program, like I said, is the preeminent workforce development program in the state and is hugely successful as is. Also want to thank the Senator for bringing attention to this issue because as part of this year's budget, $100 million was diverted from the employment training panel Reserve and given toward UI debt paydown, which is another huge, huge problem because ETP is so oversubscribed.

There are great applicants up and down the state that are trying to upskill and train their workforce. We think that there should be more funding with this program. We agree with the intent that we need to weed out bad actors, but we don't think that this is the approach. We look forward to continued conversations with the author and sponsors. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Good morning Senator Wahab, Members of the Committee my name is Philip Herrera. I am the managing partner of Herrera Company. We specialize in securing employment training panel funding and other GoBIZ incentives for employers in California's life sciences and semiconductor industries. Since my early days as an EDD tax Auditor and an ETP analyst in San Mateo and through the founding of my firm in the nineties, I have been deeply involved with ETP.

I'm here today to express my opposition to Senate Bill 1321, which would narrow criteria for ETP funding by severely limiting awards to applicants who do not have apprenticeship programs and or training in occupations approved by Das. While the intent of the Bill, the channel funds to highly skilled jobs, is commendable, I urge you to consider its broader consequences. Although I recognize and partially agree with the bill's objectives, the current non competitive ETP application process does sometimes result in weaker applications being approved.

These often benefit employers, offering lower wages in sectors that might otherwise be better served through California's impressive joint apprenticeship training councils. The problem is worth addressing, but SB 1321 goes too far by devaluating industries and businesses that pay the employment training tax and are creating good California jobs. The strength of the employment training panel from its inception over 40 years ago is that it is a real labor business-government partnership that only rewards job training that results in workers being paid more for hides skills.

Do not risk this model of cooperation by passing a law that undermines the ability to contribute to the workers and the economy of California. There are better, more effective ways to address the issues with TTP's application process. You have my word that I will work with staff to fix those. Please do not pass SB 1321 in this form. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else in the room speaking in opposition to the Bill, please step forward.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, the California Chamber of Commerce and opposition, but want to echo the thank you to the author's office and the sponsors for meeting with us. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition to the Bill? Seeing them. We'll come back to the dais Members. Okay, wonderful. We have a motion. Thank you, Senator Durazo. Senator Wahab, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

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

On file item two. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, this Bill has a vote of three to zero, and it's on call. Thank you. Okay, we're going to take to you Senator Portantino. I don't see Senator Padilla, so we're going to skip file order and move to items. Are you presenting on 4 and 5?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, so we'll start with item number four, SB 1100.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Committee Members. SB 1100 will make it unlawful. And make it an unlawful employment practice for an employer to include a statement in employment materials that an applicant must have a driver's license unless the employer reasonably expects the duties of the position to require driving. Makes sense. If you're a delivery person, you should have a driver's license, but if you're not, you don't necessarily need one.

The Bill would include the lack of a driver's license or car ownership as a protected characteristic in housing discrimination as well. Makes sense. If you don't have a car and you don't have a driver's license, you should still be able to get an apartment. The practice requiring driver's license poses significant barriers for many segments of the population, including young adults, elderly individuals with disabilities, and those who choose not to drive due to environmental concerns.

Furthermore, the practice disproportionately affects Low income individuals and communities of color who may have less access to personal transportation. This practice contradicts the state's goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by encouraging alternative transportation modes. The initiative aligns with California's broader commitments to social justice, equity, environmental stewardship. With me today to testify, I have mark Vucevich from streets for all, and obviously, when appropriate, would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Witness, you have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Committee. Yeah, our Bill is pretty simple and just as Senator Portantino described. So I'll just lay out a few data points and a few facts and a short anecdote. So 80% of jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, don't involve driving in any capacity whatsoever. And yet we still see many job listings require a driver's license. Examples that we found include a public attorney, a city planner, and a bookkeeper requiring driver's license.

One of the most kind of personally, I guess, egregious examples we found is La Metro required a job. And for context, this job is placed at the union Station in Los Angeles. And if you've never been to Union Station, it has a daily capacity, about one third of lax in terms of the actual passenger volume at La Metro. And that's where their big headquarters are. You have buses, you have trains, you have other forms of transportation.

Not saying that anyone has to take those, but the point is that it's accessible by other forms of transportation. And yet they still are asking for an accounting job, to have a driver's license at La Metro, a job that would not require driving whatsoever. And so what our Bill does is it tries to bring that equity component in, that if you don't have a driver's license, you can still be eligible for employment.

This is specifically an issue with people with epilepsy and other disabilities, including levels of blindness, who physically can't have driver's licenses because of their disabilities that affect them. And so, in short, that's my touch.

In short, very good. Thank you. Do you have another witness? Okay, well, thank you so much. So I will call anyone else who wants to speak in support of this Bill to please step to the podium, state your name, affiliation and position. Anyone in support. Okay, so we will take, then, opposition witnesses. Any witnesses speaking in opposition to the Bill. Okay. Anyone? Any individual wishing to speak in opposition to the Bill? Well, we will move to the dais. Members, we have a motion from Senator Laird.

Thank you. Senator Portantino.

The other Italian?

The other Italian. That's it.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Wonderful. assistant, you want to call the roll?

On file item number four the motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, this Bill has a vote of two to zero. We're going to put it on call. Senator, thank you. We're going to move to file item number five, and that is 1116.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to be back here presenting SB 1116, which would allow workers involved in a trade dispute to be eligible for unemployment benefits after two weeks of being on strike. No one goes on strike because they want to. No one goes on strike as a first resort. It's typically a last resort. Sometimes people think there's this romantic vision of being on strike. It's not romantic. It's a hardship.

And it is generally done because there's no other option to respecting the workers and negotiating fair contracts and better benefits. And so, as I mentioned earlier this morning at a press conference, I still remember my mother in law, 40 years after my father in law went on strike, talking about how the family, the toll it took on the family and never fully recovering from it.

And so to offer unemployment benefits for those on strike for two weeks seems like a humane, dignified, appropriate thing to do to allow people to put food on their table, pay their rent, and have a modicum of subsistence. Unemployment Insurance is not full wages. It's just something to tide people over and people pay into the program. It's not. What we're doing is we're lifting a prohibition on it, a benefit that other workers get when they're out of work.

And so we think it's appropriate other states have done it. And guess what? The sky didn't fall in mayhem, didn't happen. It works in other states. And so we're back again this year with this appropriate measure to help our working families. And so with me, I have Victor Valenciano from UFCW Local 1428 and Megan Subers with the Writers Guild of American west.

And Daniella Urban, a legal expert is also here to help with any technical questions on the benefits itself and the program, so that when appropriate, we're respectfully asked for an I vote.

Thank you, Senator. We'll now hear from your witnesses. Please step forward. You have two minutes.

Yes, ma'am. Good morning. My name is Victor Valenciano, and I have been a grocery store worker for 44 years with vons. I'm a proud local UFCW 1428 Member. I'm here to testify today in support of SB 1116. I was on strike for 141 days in 2003 and 2004, 1 of the largest strikes in history. I witnessed firsthand the financial hardships of going on strike on myself, my coworkers and community. While this happened 20 years ago, I remember like it was yesterday.

At the time of this strike, I was battling cancer and in the middle of receiving treatments. At the time I went on strike, I didn't know whether I would be able to afford the COBRA insurance payments. If I would have to be able to afford my Doctor's payments, my treatments, my rent, car payment, food, or other bills. It was a very stressful and mentally exhausting time.

I would often stay awake at night to see and pray that I wouldn't have to stop treatment, find a new Doctor, or restart my treatment. It was an anguishing time, and it was about the future, because this future for me was about life or death. And I was one of the lucky ones. I was able to have a friend assist me financially to cover the cost of COBRA and my treatments, but I still struggled to meet my basic needs. Many of my coworkers weren't so lucky.

If we had the protection from this Bill back in 2003 and 2004, our futures today would be a lot different. We would be able to sleep at night knowing that we could cover our basic needs for our families. Some of our coworkers wouldn't have lost their homes or cars and could have been more financially secure than they have been the last 20 years. Our employees extended the strike. Our employees extended the strike so they can wear us down and force us to cut our. Force us to give.

Sir, you have 10 seconds.

Slashing our benefits and putting our lives at risk. So I'm here to ask for support on SB 1116. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you, Madam Chair Megan Subers on behalf of the Writers Guild of America west, representing a little over 13,000 Members in California who write TV shows, movies, news programs, documentaries, and online programming. As we all know, in recent years, workers have gone on strike in record numbers to fight for better working conditions, wages and job security. Writers Guild Members were on strike for 148 days in 2023.

The right to strike to improve working conditions, wages, and address other issues in collective bargaining is a fundamental worker right that is codified in law, and the decision to go on strike is not one that union Members take lightly. During their strike, writers had to rely on strike loans, mutual aid, philanthropy, and second and third jobs to pay for food, gas, and rent. Corporations rely on the expectation that striking workers will lack the resources to hold out for better wages, fair compensation, and job security.

And their strategy is often to wait workers out until they have no choice. In fact, during the gills negotiations with entertainment industry employers, those employers made it clear that they were willing to exploit workers financial distress to avoid giving workers a fair deal. One studio Executive was quoted saying, the employer strategy was to allow things to drag on until union Members start losing their opponent apartments and losing their houses. That was a quote.

This measure will help ensure good faith negotiations at the bargaining table by taking that weapon away. Access to Unemployment Insurance, like the author said, is something that's already afforded in New York and New Jersey. And we think it is time for California to take this good step for workers, and we ask for your support today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in the room speaking in support of the Bill, please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Hi, good morning. My name is Yvonne Melton, representing communication workers of America district nine. We represent 60,000 Members in California. We're proud to support and co sponsor SB 1116, and I urge a yes vote.

Good morning. My name is Cleo Cabral. I'm with communication workers of America for Fresno, Madera County, Tulare County, and I am supporting the Bill.

Good morning. Ryan Castro. I'm with communication Workers of America Local 9416 out of Bakersfield, California, and I am in support of the Bill.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Tarina Woodson Lindo. I'm with communication Workers of America Local 9400, and we represent Members from. Well, I represent Members from Southern California to Northern California up in the Eureka area. I stand in strong support of this Bill. Thank you.

Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates, representing the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW, and the Orange County Employees Association, in strong support. Thank you.

Jazzy Grewell with UFCW Western States Council, proud co sponsor in support the Bill. Thank you.

Elmer Lazarda, on behalf of the California Labor Federation. Proud co sponsors in support. Thank you.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in strong support. Thank you.

Daniel Pearl, on behalf of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees and strong support. Thank you.

Tom Hinsey, on behalf of UAW region six and strong support.

Madam Chair. Louis Costa with Smart Transportation division in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jeremy Smith here, on behalf of the state building trade is also in support.

Good morning. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, the amalgamated Transit union, SAG AFTRA unite here, and the utility Workers Union of America in support.

Annie Chao with the California Teachers Association in support.

Vince Segrew, Smart sheet Metal Workers local union number 104, in support.

Neil Sweeney, co President of UAW 40811 academic workers at the University of California, in support.

Thank you.

Justin Garcia with the California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW, in support.

Tiffany Mock, on behalf of COT and support. Thank you.

Brian Hou on behalf of California Faculty Association. We're in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, anyone else speaking in support of the Bill? Okay, we will move to opposition witnesses stepping forward. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. And I will be solo, but I will do my best to respect the two minutes. Robert Munchy for the California Chamber of Commerce. We are opposed to SB 1116 as a job killer. We've spoken on this before in this Committee, so I'll skip some of the pieces I can.

Fundamentally, we view this Bill as doing something new in California, which is putting the state and via that, the UI Fund on one side of labor disputes in a way which is very new to us and different than the federal policy policy around the National Labor Relations act, which was focused on not keeping government neutral in these disputes. I want to be clear, we do not disagree with the federal right to strike.

Striking is a negotiating tactic, and of course, it is an incredibly difficult one, and it's hard on all parties involved. I would not dispute that at all. But we view it as fundamentally different than being unemployed. Someone who's unemployed really has no idea where that is coming from, whereas someone on strike is using a very difficult tactic as a temporary measure to gain leverage. Difficult, but it is different than unemployment to us and we believe legally.

Second, I want to flag the issue of the UI Fund debt. We've all heard this many times that we're now $20 billion in debt, and we have concerns about adding those costs and taxes to employers. Third, I want to flag a federal law issue that came up briefly last year and wasn't thoroughly addressed. Federal law requires that an employee be able to work, looking for work and unemployed through no fault of their own, E. G. Fired, to qualify for benefits. We raised this last year.

There was a response about a New York case dealing with upholding holding this kind of UI program. Wasn't raised here, but I was no flag for the legal point. That case is actually distinguishable because it dealt with prior law and it's not applicable anymore. And fourth, I want to touch on EDD cost and feasibility. Obviously, we're in a difficult budget year. EDD also continues to struggle with their revamp on EDD next, and we have concerns about the time on their inability to do that. And I'll wrap there for time. For those reasons, we are opposed to SB 1116 as a job killer. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, there's not another witness. So is anyone else individually in the room who wants to speak in opposition to the Bill, please step forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Los Angeles area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business, in opposition. Thank you.

Nico Molina. On behalf of the California Forestry Association, in opposition, thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Chris Walker, on behalf of the California sheet metal air conditioning contractors. Union contractors, in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you. Hi. Natalie Boust on behalf of the California Business Roundtable, in opposition.

Lawrence Gaydon. On behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Nick Chappie. On behalf of the California Trucking Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Dean Graffield with capital advocacy, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair Carlos Guterres, on behalf of the California Grocery Association, California Fresh Food Association, and a number of other agricultural commodities, in opposition.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart. On behalf of the California attractions and Parks Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau and respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Michael Miller, California Association of Wine grape growers. We are opposed. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Marcus Detwiler here to express opposition on behalf of a number of organizations, including the California Special Districts Association, the League of California Cities, the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, the Rural County Representatives of California, and the California Association and Recreation and park districts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Devin Anderson with political solutions on behalf of both the family winemakers of California and Western Car Wash Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Amelia Zimani with the California Travel Association, respectful opposition.

Good morning. Katie Davey with the Dairy Institute of California and Opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Elaine. On behalf of the California Retailers Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jackie Onis, on behalf of the California Fuels and Convenience alliance, respectfully opposed.

Ethan Naegler, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamonga, opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Morning. Senators. Richard Marcus for the Western Electrical Contractors Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else want to speak in opposition to the Bill? Okay. We will move to the Members. The Member, we don't have any. So we will hold the Bill until we get a motion because at this point we don't have one.

If I may close?

Please.

So as evidenced by the number of speakers, this is a Bill that stimulates the economy and creates more work for people because I think every lobbyist in the building was here billing a client just because of this Bill. So I would submit that this Bill is good for the economy because it helps people survive. And again, the benefit only extends after you've been on strike for two weeks. The number of strikes that last that long is very small.

The number of sheer number of people that this will impact is not a significant portion of those folks who go on strike, but it's a portion of people who need this at that time in their life to survive. And so I respectfully ask for an aye vote when you have enough Members here to do it. So, thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, we're going to go back to File Item number 3. The good Senator Steve Padilla is here. SB 1070, whenever you're ready, Senator.

Good morning, Madam Chair. And to the perspective of other Members who may be joining, I'm happy to present SB 1070. And I want to begin by accepting Committee amendments and thanking the Committee staff for working with my office. I share the Committee's commitment to the state civil service and believe that this Bill clarifies existing law while ensuring that program complements do not compete with the civil service system.

Access to intellectual talent, especially in emerging sciences and technology fields, is crucial for California's government and the economic growth of the state. California has taken important strides to keep our technology workforce competitive, but there continues to be challenges. By one recent count, 60% of new PhD graduates specializing in AI chose to work in industry. About a quarter entered academia and only less than 2% decided to work in government.

In 2023, nearly 8 in 10 state chief information officers said they lacked the workforce necessary to meet their current needs. In short, technical and technological expertise is concentrated in our universities and in the private sector, not in our government. SB 1070 would address this expertise gap by leveraging an existing model of talent exchanges between government and higher ed institutions to provide state agencies with access to the deep wells of expertise housed in California's world class universities and community colleges.

The Bill clarifies that both public universities and non profit private institutions of higher education are eligible for participation in the talent exchanges. SB 1070 would leave other aspects of existing law untouched. I understand that the Committee analysis has expressed concerns, some concerns, but many are geared towards a program that has already developed a regulatory scheme designed to address issues around constitutionality, the merit principle, and federal preemption.

The statute and regulations are clear that these talent exchanges are meant to fill an urgent and non-recurring program or departmental need and that those needs cannot be met through the organizational structure. The selection process also includes tests and other selection procedures designed to objectively and fairly evaluate and compare each employee's qualifications to be successful in the assignment. The Bill is simply trying to make sure that the private university talent pool is included as originally intended when the program was created.

The talented people at staff, our agencies and government programs are a critical part of our success as a state. Talent exchanges like this mean that public benefit directly from the work, these brightest minds we have in the state. With me today, I have Christine Tsang, Executive Director of Stanford RegLab, and Doctor Sara Cody, Public Health Department Director and Health Officer for the County of Santa Clara.

Thank you, Senator. Witness, you have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Christine Tsang. I'm the Executive Director of Stanford RegLab, which partners with agencies to use data science and AI to strengthen government. We serve as a bridge between the cutting edge advances being developed in our universities and the public sector. For example, we work with the US Department of Labor to pilot new AI use cases to help improve benefits administration like workers' comp and unemployment insurance.

This work is possible through the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, or IPA, which creates a mechanism for talent exchange at the federal level. California has a similar mechanism for interjurisdictional employee exchanges. However, ambiguity in the statute has resulted in private universities being left out of the regulations. SB 1070 would clarify the existing statute, complement rather than compete with the civil service system, and enable our faculty and researchers to share their deep expertise for the benefit of California at no cost to the state.

I ask for your support of this Bill and yield my remaining time to Doctor Sara Cody. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Sara Cody. I'm the Health Officer and Public Health Director from the County of Santa Clara. I've worked for the county for over 25 years and have served as a health officer for over a decade. I'm here to support SB 1070 to facilitate partnerships between state and local governments and expert academic researchers from public and private universities. As we remember, the COVID-19 pandemic was a historic public health crisis.

Based on my own experience responding to the pandemic, I know that facilitating such partnerships is critical to rapidly assisting state and local governments tackle some of our toughest challenges. We didn't have the many specific types of expertise in house that we needed to quickly address the deluge of strategic policy and operational decisions. Like many others, we were building the plane as we flew it. To support our efforts, we needed a level of specific expertise that is often concentrated in our universities, and time was of essence.

In our case, we were lucky to have existing professional networks that allowed us to put together a volunteer kitchen cabinet of academic advisors from Stanford, UCSF and UC Berkeley to support our pandemic response. As a result, we could model our local healthcare system capacity and had the confidence to issue a shelter-in-place, order, early decisive action that saved lives.

Later, these same academic partnerships enabled us to measure the impact of our policy on mobility and travel patterns, to track the virus through wastewater surveillance, to improve contact tracing and to better match scarce COVID test supply with people in vulnerable communities who needed them most. But not every agency has these professional networks and relationships with academic colleagues.

You have to wrap up your time is all.

Even for agencies like ours that did, we encountered challenges that wasted precious time. Governmental, public health, and academic disciplines are complimentary.

Your time is up. The way this works is each witness gets two. It doesn't combine to four. I'm sorry.

My apologies. Stand in support. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much for that. Anyone else in the room want to testify in support of the Bill, please step forward.

Madam Chair and Members, Nick Romo on behalf of the Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of Southern California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill? Okay, are there opposition witnesses? Anyone speaking in opposition of the Bill? Any individual want to speak in opposition of the Bill? Seeing none, we will move to the dais.

Madam Chair. I would move to Bill.

Thank you so much, Senator Laird. Let's see, before we get to close, I just wanted to say thank you for accepting the amendments. We appreciate the cooperation of your staff. This issue is important to me in terms of the disclosures. Disclosures are important in terms of ethics, making sure that we are mindful of who's coming into our public sector space and what role they're going to play in that space, in terms of building the capacity of our government.

I came out of the university system, and there's all kinds of funding sources that fund people coming out of the University, and that funding has a certain level of expertise. And sometimes there's certainly a lot of bias in some of those funding streams. And I'm always concerned when some of that may come into, and in some cases, infiltrate our government, which is working for all the people. So for me, that was a personal concern.

I think, in terms of the Committee's work and staff, you know, we look forward to seeing this Bill move forward. I want to support this Bill today. I also think it's wonderful that we are modernizing how we're doing our public sector workforce development and building. It's long overdue. And at the same time, we don't want this to be exclusively something that elite workers get to do, workers with advanced degrees.

We think all workers should have an opportunity to bring their skill sets and bring them into our public sector and serve. So I wish you luck with this and hope that we can have a partnership around how we build the future of the public sector workforce together.

Thank you.

With that, I'd like you to close.

I thank you would respectfully ask for an aye vote. And just note, thank the Chair. And we've had some good interrogatories with your staff back and forth to address this whole myriad of issues, and we're happy to provide additional information in response. But we totally agree that any assignees in the program should be subject to the existing rigorous disclosure regulations.

And there were a host of other issues that were raised in the analysis, and we're going to continue to make sure that we're clarifying that and working that forward.

Thank you for that. And we have a motion from Senator Laird, assistant please call the roll.

On File Item 3, the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, this Bill has a vote of 2 to 0, and we put it on call.

Madam Chair?

Yes?

Before we go to the next author, you never had a motion on the second, Portantino. Then for the purposes of putting that on, I would move item number five, SB 11.

Thank you so much. Thank you. Senator Padilla, assistant call the roll.

On file item number five, SB 1116. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, this Bill has a vote of two to zero, and we will place it on call. Okay, file item number six. I see. Senator Grove, are you ready? Please, please sit to the mic. Ready whenever you are. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for working with me on these amendments. I do appreciate it very much, and I thank the Members for working with me as well to address this particular situation that this SB 1264 tends to address. Existing law, which took effect January 1 of this year, prohibits employers from making certain hiring and employment decisions relative to off duty, prior cannabis use or prior cannabis use.

I want to thank the Committee and the chair for their feedback on this Bill, and I'll accept the Committee's amendments detailed in the analysis, that remove non non sworn officers or non sworn employees from the exemption and narrow the sworn law enforcement categories to which the exemption applies. Additionally, the amendments that narrow the nature of the exemption.

As amended, SB 1264 would provide limited exception for law enforcement agencies from the statute governing employment practices of off duty cannabis use, allowing employees to be tested for cannabis use. This Bill narrowly is drawn to provide targeted exemption for just those sworn law enforcement applicants and employees who are or would be undertaking duties directly related to law enforcement. This narrower exemption, this is a narrow exemption.

More than the building and construction trades that they currently have in statute, the work from both the professions is important for implications for the public safety and responsibility. The work that both law enforcement and the trades do is is beneficial to the public safety of our community. Peace officers are expected to overcome intense physical challenges and make split second decisions in life and death situations, and those responsibilities are generally incompatible with the effects of cannabis use.

SB 1264 will ensure that the departments retain the ability to test employees for cannabis use and ensure the highest professional standards when it comes to our law enforcement. I know we have a difference of opinion on some things, but I just really, truly believe that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard, specifically those that engage the community. High speed chases, carrying a gun, those kinds of things. I think that that is different than the grocery store worker like.

My Bill is not to roll back anything that would affect individuals that wouldn't be held to this higher standard similar to the trades today. Here with me I have Cory Salzillo from the California State Sheriffs Association and Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association to testify. Thank you, Senator. Witness, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriffs Association, pleased to be here as a cosponsor of SB 1264. We really appreciate the authors work here, as well as that of the Committee and the chair and the Members, to get this Bill into a shape that we hope will pass muster in this Committee.

I don't want to duplicate anything that the author said, but I will just note that the existing law, as it was going through the process, the Bill by Miss Quirk-Silva, we believed we were exempt under the language of that Bill, and since its passage and implementation and some more refined legal analysis, there is a little bit less clarity than we initially had. We think this is a very targeted exemption.

Again, with the work of the Committee in narrowing the Bill as reflected in the amendments that are listed in the analysis. We are happy to accept those amendments to move this effort forward. We agreed to amendments in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We have agreed to further amendments, as the author noted, that narrow even further to just certain assignments and work functions of some sworn officers. So we think a very narrow and targeted exemption. Happy to answer any questions, but we very much thank you for your work and appreciate your aye vote thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jonathan Feldman, California Police Chiefs Association. I won't duplicate anything that was already said. Echo the comments of the author and my colleague. Ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Anyone else in the room speaking in support of this Bill? Seeing none. Are there opposition witnesses speaking in opposition to the Bill? Good morning. You have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council original supporters co-sponsors of AB 2188 which afforded additional protections for most workers in California with the exception of the building trades.

We have major concerns with this Bill, even in its amended condition, because we feel that what this does is carve out a huge group of workers, that next year we're going to be fighting another group of workers, and the following year we could be following and carving out another group of workers, further weakening AB 2188. And we really look at this, and two facts remain, and that is that in California, you cannot show up to work high.

You cannot be under the influence of cannabis and go to work. Nothing in current law allows that. Additionally, you have the right to test your workers. Now you have the ability, law enforcement and others have the ability to test their workers. Use a swab test. Just to recap, AB 2188 allowed workers to have a cheek swab instead of a urine test. I can tell you this is not anecdotal.

I spent 13 years inside of a labor union, and I've watched multiple workers harassed, discriminated against, or threatened to be or threatened with a cannabis test. And so what we're asking, respectfully, is a no vote on this. Unfortunately, also, we have found, and in my time in a labor union, our black and brown brothers and sisters are disproportionately impacted by this because they are subject to higher rates of testing. So we respectfully ask for no vote. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members Beth Malinowski with SEIU California represent around 700,000 workers across our state in both private and public sector settings. We've been particularly concerned with this Bill since introduction and have had opportunity to have dialogue with both the author's office and with the Committee. We've appreciated that dialogue. You know, certainly recognize the deep amendments that are being taken today, but similar to our colleagues at UCW, do remain concerned with this Bill and remain in opposition.

You know, one of the things that we think about when we look at this Bill is whether or not we are creating kind of tensions within our bargaining unions and our job settings.

And so even with an exemption that removes our non-sworn from the Bill, we still will have an environment where our sworn members and SDA does have some sworn members across county and local jurisdictions will be working under a policy environment that is different than those peers that they have, that they're working in the same work settings with, you know, want to acknowledge the dialogue we've been having around how do we define on the job versus off the job, and how in law enforcement, certainly a call can come in and someone might have to begin engaging in their work day, even if maybe that was a day there, otherwise out and about with their family or in the community.

The reality is that actually happened for some other workers as well, including other workers represented by SEIU. I think about our healthcare workers in particular, where it's not uncommon, where a healthcare worker might be off the job situation evolves. Maybe they're called into that hospital, into that job setting to begin working.

We, of course, one first and foremost hope that our members are going to make a decision immediately to know whether or not it is right for them to begin work that day, depending on the environment of what their activities have been that day. And as noted, as soon as a worker walks through that door, be it walks through the door of an ER, picks up that gun, and engages in some activities in the community based on a need that they are on the job.

And at that point, their employer could choose to test them using the testing allowances that still exist in law as a result of the quirk effort from last session. I'll stop my comments there. Always appreciate the dialogue and conversation, and again, ask for your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here speaking in opposition to the Bill, please step forward. State your name, position and affiliation.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Daniel Pearl, on behalf of the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees. Just wanted to echo the comments of SEIU as well, and respectful opposition.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in respectful opposition.

Jared Kiloh, on behalf of the United Cannabis Business Association, the Coachella Valley Cannabis Alliance, Long Beach Collective Association, San Francisco Retailers Alliance, Angels Emerald and Social Equity LA. In opposition.

Jeanette Saripatin, on behalf of Drug Policy Alliance in respectful opposition.

Talia D'Amato, on behalf of California Normal Original co-sponsors of AB 2188 Clerk, as well as Supernova women, both in respectful opposition.

Rich Miller, on behalf of the American Alliance for Medical Cannabis, where patients are directly affected, asking for your opposition and a no vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in opposition of the Bill? Okay, we will move to the Members.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and I really appreciate the testimony on both sides, and I take the author's word about this being at a higher standard, and I think it's tough. I always have a tough time with the slippery slope argument because this seems like the right thing to do for this.

And there was, I don't know, the diplomatic were, there were very animated discussions between the Committee and the author, and I think both gave on things that they didn't want to give on to get to the point of having amendments that, that the Committee was comfortable with. And so I would hope that there would continue to be discussions if there's any place to go.

But I think that what's in front of us with the amendments that were asked for by the Committee is a good path to take out of this Committee. So with that in mind, I would move the Bill as amended.

Thank you for the motion, Senator Laird. Anyone else want to speak? Senator Durazo?

Yes. I also appreciate the amendments that were made. But what, the best part of having public comment is when people who are living this particular situation of what we're talking about in a proposed Bill, they remind us what it's like in that real world and not just what we're debating here amongst ourselves.

And I really appreciate, because a lot has been, you know, I heard a lot that I would not have thought on my own from the people who have testified here against. So I find it much more difficult to support, even with all the amendments because of the impact that it's still going to continue to have out there in the real world. So, unfortunately, I will not be able to, to support the Bill.

So with me being the last to speak on this, we had many conversations about this, and I appreciate the work that's been done with the Committee, and I appreciate the position of the Members and certainly the testimony today. I absolutely agree. The voters voted for Prop 64, and it is now part of our society. And we've got to figure out the ways in which we integrate cannabis into our workplaces.

And I want to respect the opposition for having the conversations with me and educating me on, you know, the advancements that have been made in terms of testing and educating me on how this is not going to be the last Bill that we have to do to make things right and to protect workers, because this is about protecting workers in the workplace. We have to protect workers, particularly when we're talking about an activity that is now legal.

And at some point, we're going to have to bring employers and unions and community together to figure this, this piece out, out, the modern test, the swabbing. I just learned about these new advances, and we just want to make sure people are not high at work but we don't want to know what they did last week or the weekend or, you know, the night before. This is about testing and dealing with the issue on the job.

And we think that sponsors should and must require those tests and not use the arcane blood and hair sample testing, which does not protect workers and has really been invalidated because of all of the innovation. I'm uncomfortable about allowing any employer to do testing that brings in what happens off the job, and I want to make that very clear. But in this instance, I believe that we have to hold police who are armed accountable. And with that, I'm going to let the Bill move forward today. And so I invite you to close

Again, I just want to reiterate my comments about working with the chair, including our face time this morning when I was trying to get ready. And I only say that because it was kind of humorous and not what, the discussion was very serious, but the situation itself. And I was very gracious to the fact that you, at least you took the time to FaceTime me this morning to really have a thoughtful discussion on this. And I appreciate that.

I appreciate the conversation. The amendments that we took in judiciary, and again, when we introduced the Bill, it was not my intent to wrap up anybody who was not a sworn officer. I realized that there are issues of a slippery slope. I just really do believe from the depths of my soul that law enforcement should be held to a higher standard as, because of the duties that they perform.

And we already have issues out there with law enforcement, and we don't want to make those things worse. You and I have both discussed those things, and so I just appreciate the chair's support of the Bill working with me on the amendments, and I thank you for your aye vote.

We have a motion from Senator Laird, assistant. Please call the roll.

On file item six. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

[Roll Call]

Morning. Madam Chair and Members, today I'm presenting SB 1379 to temporarily waive the 960 hour limit for any retired annuit working for Solano County Sheriff to address a critical staffing need in the City of Vallejo. I would like to start by accepting the Committee amendments and thank the Chair and Committee staff for working with me on this measure. Really appreciate it very, very much.

With these amendments, this would allow any retired annuitant working for its Solano County Sheriff to be exempt from the 960 hours work limit. This would apply to deputy sheriffs, evidence technicians or communication operators with a three year sunset. The Vallejo City Council declared a state of emergency last year due to a major police officer staffing shortage. Despite being authorized for 132 officers, Vallejo PD currently only has 32 officers, four detectives and no traffic officers.

As a result, the Solano County Sheriff is tasked with responding to emergency calls in Vallejo and this Bill is essential to assist them responding to these calls. The Bill would also prohibit any officer being hired as a retired annuitant if they are under investigation by post or on a post decertification list. Additionally, any position must be advertised for a full time position officer six months prior to being filled by a retired annuitant.

There's precedent for waiving the hour limit in unique circumstances in times of emergencies like this. Last year, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-1-23 in response to winter storms, allowing for any retired annuitant working in California state agency, in a recovery role to be waived, the 960 hours work limit. Given the staffing shortage in the City of Vallejo and the public safety problems it presents, and I'm saying severe public safety problems it presents, the city can't afford to wait for more officers to be trained.

Without this immediate assistance, the Solano County Sheriff won't be able to respond to the needs in Vallejo. The Bill is sponsored by the Solano County Sheriff and is supported by California State Sheriff's Association. With me today is Undersheriff Brad DeWall and sheriff's executive officer John Robertson.

Thank you, Senator. And sir, you have two minutes.

Thank you, ma'am. So, my name is Brad DeWall, I'm the Solano County Undersheriff. First of all, thank you so much for allowing me this opportunity to speak. So we're talking about a community in need. We're talking about the City of Vallejo, which is the largest Solano County City with a little over 120,000 people in the city, which is about 25% or so of the population in the county. So a brief history and timeline, 2008, the city declares bankruptcy.

At that point, the Police Department had about 160 sworn officers to respond to the emergencies. As the Senator said, they have about 132 positions, although there's only about 70 filled. But that includes the chief in leadership on down. Where the rubber meets the road, when it all boils down, you have 32 officers that are responding on a daily basis to the emergencies and then four detectives. They basically eliminated all other assignments. To add to that you're talking about. It's not uncommon.

Two to three officers are on patrol at any given time in that city just because of leaves, injuries or mandated training that they have to attend. So a very small amount. It's not uncommon for of Vallejo Police Department to have 60 priority calls backed up or pending, which means a very extended response time or none at all. In many cases we're talking about violent crimes to include shootings, domestic violence, robberies, assaults. And that's not even to mention.

I'd be remiss if I didn't say if you walked around or drove around in the City of Vallejo, you'd see the young ladies out there that are probably being victimized by human trafficking and prostitution. That's being unchecked because there's no accountability. Our sheriff dispatch center routinely receives calls from Vallejo residents pleading for help from the sheriff's office because of the lack of response they received from the Vallejo Police Department in July of last year.

In 2023, the City Council declared an emergency because of their inability to respond to calls and attract and hire qualified police officers. Nothing's changed from that point. They continue to struggle with that. The city tells us that when they get to 56 sworn officers that they're going to have to revisit how they respond to calls and reprioritize what they're not going to go to. The city is formally requested.

Your time is up. Sorry about that. Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll move to next witness. You have two minutes. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Committee, John Robertson, executive officer for Sheriff Tom Ferrara. This emergency legislation is a key component to us assisting in serving the City of Vallejo. This legislation assists us by allowing us to increase our staffing levels rapidly and retain currently trained and vetted police officers by giving them the ability to continue serving their community past to their date of retirement.

Thank you.

This emergency staffing proposal will assist us in responding to requests for emergency assistance from Vallejo police officers and dispatch, respond to critical calls for service from the community, stabilize crime scenes and protect life, and conduct community engagement and crime suppression efforts in a targeted area. Everyone deserves a safe community and your support of Senate Bill 1379 will assist us in accomplishing this endeavor. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone here also speaking in support of the Bill, please step forward.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Cory Salzillo, on behalf of the California State Sheriff's Association, in support.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Solano County Board of Supervisors, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in support of the Bill? Okay, we will move to opposition. Any opposition witness speaking against the Bill, any individual who wishes to speak against the Bill, please step forward. Okay, we will move to Members. Senator Laird, thank you.

I have to say, as a native of Vallejo, this is a very hard debate to listen to. And I think that what we have here in terms of the policy in front of the Committee is a collision of two things. And one is just basic public safety when it's at risk and it is truly an emergency. And the other is the integrity of our pension system and the integrity of our retirement system.

And how do we make sure that this is not the first of many, many that come and run at this? Because one of the issues we always have is public confidence in the. In the pension system, which at times is stressed. And I appreciate the amendments because I know this Bill was set earlier and wasn't considered ready to go. The amendments address some very key issues, such as making sure that somebody that is potentially being decertified is not considered for this, that there is a sunset.

So this isn't going on for a lengthy period of time. And I think that the question that we're going to have that may be unrelated to this Bill directly is how are we going to deal with this if we have multiple ones that start to come at us? And I, sort of too late for this discussion, gave some thought to it. And it seems to me that if there's a time that.

That you have less than 30% of the sworn officer positions filled, that having a benchmark like that is something that should trigger something like this with the sunset, so that we don't have lots of people coming in that do not have cases that are as acute as this one.

And if you did some time limit on it or filling a certain number of positions, is the reason that you would move out of that status, I think that gives some comfort to those of us that know, and there are some cities that are at 60% and consider it an emergency. And so we would have trouble unless we set it really Low doing that.

But I think as this moves along, I have no doubt that the Senator is going to have to have a lot of tough conversations with committees to come, and just having some alternatives in your back pocket as ways to address this is something that might be helpful. So taking that all into account, and I appreciate the testimony, I believe the best alternative is this Bill that's in front of us with the amendments that the Committee has asked for.

And so I would move the Bill as amended.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Durazo?

A question. I had some serious problems with it, and I thank all of you, Madam Chair, and the author, for working on it. I guess my basic question is, what makes you think this is going to work to solve the issue of the shortage?

Well, it just creates a bigger pool of applicants. Right now the pool of applicants is, and I think the Sheriff's Department can talk to the specifics of that, but there's so much competition in the marketplace for officers that they just can't possibly hire quick enough to make any reasonable dent in the public safety dilemma that is brought forward. I appreciate the Chair and Staff cutting this from a five year to a three year, because I do understand the concerns that were brought forward.

They believe that there is a retirement pool there also. There was retirement pool, frankly, from the City of Vallejo that candidly was not as desirous under all the circumstances that have happened there. But if that's not good enough for you, we do have.

Yeah, I think a little bit goes to Senator Laird, which is what's going to work here, so that we're not facing the situation over and over and over again. And if we put guardrails, if we, we have a plan in place, we go through these on other issues, is how are you going to make this work other than we hope to have a bigger pool? That's one thought. But is that really going to make it work for you?

Obviously, this is unprecedented. Thank you for the question. We are reaching out. We're looking for solutions to provide a measure of safety to a community. It hasn't been tried before. What we're looking at is potentially bringing back retirees, but also people at the Solano County Sheriff's office that are thinking about retiring. They are of retirement age, basically allowing them to retire and then continue in roles like in our courts as bailiffs or transportation or hospital watches and things like that.

While we continue to do recruiting for full time police officers and we are allowed the time to train them and things like that, it takes almost 18 months to 24 months to get somebody out on the street just through the background process, through training and through vetting that person through our processes. So I'm not positive that this is going to work. We're trying anything we can to help this community. They are in desperate need of law enforcement.

Okay. Well, I will be supporting the Bill and your efforts, but I think it's going to take much more thought as far as really solving the issue and wish you good luck.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, could I ask a follow up question?

Sure. Please do.

And you might need. Because it seemed to me in the original iteration of the Bill, we were talking primarily about the Vallejo Police Department and allowing people to come there. And this iteration seems a little more to be allowing people to come to the Sheriff's Department so that they can cover while Vallejo recruits. Is that what the case is? Did I misunderstand that?

It is my understanding after talking with the chief of Vallejo that they do have a recruitment process and it's continuing. Ours is as well. It has been, obviously, in the State of California and across our country, it's getting more difficult to find people that want to fill that role of a peace officer. So we're all struggling to do that. But it does take the 18 to 24 months to get them trained and out on the streets vetted, obviously, is super important. I can appreciate the.

We require a lot more of our people, as we saw in the previous Senate Bill. We are in favor of.

The thing about it is, and I'm sorry to interrupt you, the thing about it is, is either way, this is to buy time to make sure there's coverage while the Vallejo Police Department tries to recruit and fill positions.

It's just that this was thought to be a little better than the original iteration of how it was done.

Yes, sir.

Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. I really appreciate that exchange.

So thank you for the conversation and for the deeper dive on the issue. And I want to thank the sponsor and the Senator for working through the amendments and glad to hear about the partnership between Solano County Sheriffs and the Vallejo Police Department. My concern, two things as judiciary responsibility around pensions. Once we start the double dipping, it gets really challenging. And I really think that you accepting those amendments helps us to understand, really, the unique situation that your district is in.

And we want to address and support that. I am very concerned about the way that we are engaging with law enforcement and the changes the law, because, let's be honest, every Department across our state is struggling to recruit people. And it's more of a narrative shift. It's more of a grieve communities. It's more of relationship healing and building that needs to take place to sort of address the needs. This is a band aid. This is not going to solve the shortage.

This is about temporary, sort of look at how we deal with this urgent issue. But I do think that bringing back retired law enforcement for a short period of time may be helpful and making sure that we're bringing them back in a way that doesn't collapse the system because of the higher wages and the high pensions coming out and extracting from the funds all at the same time. So I'm going to support the Bill today, and I thank you for your work.

Hopefully, this will be resolved before the next three years. So, thank you. And I think we have a motion from Senator Laird. Oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Please close, Senator Dodd.

Just once again appreciate the Chair and Staff for helping us through this and getting these amendments forward, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Assistant close. Call the roll, please.

All right. On file item number seven. The motion is do pass, as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Thank you, Members.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we will hear file item number nine, SB 1375.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. SB 1375 reserves 2% of federal infrastructure money to create the Equity Climate Resilience and Quality Jobs Fund. This poverty reducing approach will support sector-based workforce development through high road training, partnerships, high road construction, careers, and other programs that reach communities with the highest barriers to employment and economic equity.

1375 will also assist state agencies with applying workforce standards consistently across programs to maximize equity outcomes, while also making the approach fit specific programs and needs. This is especially important in clean tech industries, where existing standards do not apply. Just as an example, in Pennsylvania, Governor Shapiro created the Commonwealth Workforce Transformation Program by reserving 3% of all funding it receives from the IIJA and the IRA.

Their program is the first of its kind in the nation, investing as much as $400 million over the next five years in workforce training to create 10,000 new high quality jobs. Oregon and Maryland passed legislation that allocates half of one of 1% of federal formula dollars to support childcare and convene industry or sector partnerships. Oregon's law creates a partnership between their Civil Rights Department and the Bureau of Labor and Industry to increase diversity in highway construction workforce. California is making historic investments of our own.

We are positioned to be a national leader, but the problem is not jobs, the problem is access to high paid jobs. We have standards in construction and federal investments include prevailing wage and project labor agreement incentives, but it leaves us with a gap for manufacturing,, operations, maintenance and services, an opportunity to build on what we know works. I'm proud that our current work with my colleague on SB 150 is moving forward.

It's time to implement strong recommendations for stakeholders so that all projects funded by these federal investments will prioritize high paid jobs equity and make California competitive to get even more federal funding. With me today, Tom Hintze from the UAW and Teresa Markham from CEO. They're here to testify in support.

Thank you, Senator. As witnesses, you have two minutes each.

Thank you Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Teresa Markham and I am here testifying in support of Center for Employment Opportunities on Senate Bill SB 1375. CEO is an employment social enterprise operating in nine offices throughout the State of California. We provide immediate employment to individuals returning from incarceration throughout the state, focusing on people who have faced some of the most significant barriers to re-entering the workforce.

I came to CEO as a program participant and am now an advocacy fellow in our Emerging Leaders Apprenticeship program, pursuing a career in workforce development. As CEO, we partner with the Caltrans Maintenance Division, which allows people in our program to work immediately when they enroll. This was the first job I had with CEO and it helped me earn income right away and access other workforce development opportunities to advance my career.

Some of my coworkers choose to pursue their commercial driver's license or heavy equipment operator certification and are now working full time at Caltrans. This work experience, combined with access to advanced training opportunities, helps propel CEO participants in high paying, in demand jobs. Justice-impacted people need more access to this kind of training to complete for in demand jobs. These programs provide an opportunity to give themselves and their families the life they deserve.

In my current role as an advocacy fellow, I get to grow as a person and I get to share my passion in making a difference for justice-impacted individuals. Having myself participated in CEO's program, my life has changed for the better. I'm doing things I never thought were possible. SB 1375 will help ensure that other justice-impacted individuals have access to opportunities to pursue their career dreams, especially in industries that we have historically been left out of. In closing, I hope you all will support this bill.

Thank you very much and thank you for your service.

Thank you.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. My name is Tom Hintze. I'm an international rep with United Auto Workers Region 6 representing over 100,000 active and retired workers. Thanks also to the author for bringing this important bill forward. I'm glad to be here speaking today in support of SB 1375. UAW members are fighting for a just transition to ensure that changes in the US automotive industry result in high quality jobs that benefit workers and communities.

UAW members know that the transition to zero emission vehicles presents an opportunity to preserve and grow high quality jobs in the EV supply chain, including in battery manufacturing. Workers in California and all over the country are leading the fight against climate change, but they cannot afford to sacrifice good union jobs for low road jobs in the green economy.

SB 1375 provides a pathway for the state to create meaningful job quality standards for federal investments to ensure that workers who are leading the fight against climate change have access to good jobs. In order to make the transition to the green economy truly just, California also must ensure that workers have the skills they need to succeed.

SB 1375 addresses this critical need by creating the Equity Climate Resilience and Job Quality Fund to fund the development of high road standards and high road partnerships, including those for manufacturing workers. With proposed budget cuts to California's high road training partnership grants this year, creating a reserve of funds for high road workforce training is essential to ensuring that California can continue to foster high road partnerships between employers and unions like the one that UAW has with our employer partner SPARKZ, to manufacture batteries.

UAW is proud to join a chorus of other organizations in demanding that California stand with workers, not millionaires and billionaires, in fighting for a just transition and a green future. SB 1375 takes an important step by ensuring that there is a pathway for the state to create high road workforce standards and foster high road partnerships for all federal investments. So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. For anyone else wishing to speak in support of the bill, please step forward.

Madam Chair, Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation, in strong support.

Thank you.

Fatima Iqbal-Zubair with California Environmental Voters, in support. And also with Transformative Wealth Management wanted me to do a me-too, also. Thank you.

Savannah Jorgensen, on behalf of the Lutheran Office of Public Policy California, in strong support.

Good evening. Good afternoon, sorry. Azariah Smith, CEO intern and representing the Center for Employment Opportunities. And definitely in strong support.

Thank you.

Amit Sedar from CEO, Sacramento. And also in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses testifying in opposition of the bill want to step forward? Seeing none. Any individual wanting to speak in opposition of the bill, please step forward. Okay, we will move to the dais. Members?

Madam Chair, I think this is a great bill. I would move the bill.

Thank you. I also agree this is a great bill. I thank the good Senator for being a partner in building a bright future for all of California. Really important bill and looking forward to supporting it. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator-- Oh, would you like to close?

Thank you. Ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll

On file item nine, the motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]

[Roll Call]

Okay, this bill has a vote of three to one, and we'll put it on call. Senator Durazo. Do you want to move to file item 10? Okay. SB 1460.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. SB 1460 will help establish standards and access to high paid jobs and safe working conditions in our broadband build out.

This bill supports agreements between state agencies to advance the creation or retention of high quality jobs in the communications sector and equitable access through the training. High quality training. California has the highest supplemental poverty rate of all 50 states. The Biden Administration has been clear that federal investments that we receive are meant to impact jobs, the economy and poverty. They expect states to include strong labor standards and equity when using federal funds. They have issued guidance on community benefits agreements and PLAs.

They've hosted webinars on engaging communities, advancing diversity, equity and inclusion. When California rolled out billions of taxpayer funded middle mile projects, labor standard requirements were not included in the statutory language. The agencies involved in the middle mile did not include standards that support quality job creation and access to those jobs. Instead, they referenced the basic labor laws that are generally applicable to these types of projects.

These workers that I'm talking about are the ones who run the fiber optic lines, who splice the lines and connect the broadband network to homes, and this too often gets overlooked. A major part of this need is for workers who can maintain and repair the fiber optic lines and network once there is connectivity.

Colleagues, if we do not take steps now to get people into this workforce, we run the risk of the network not being built out on the front end or not having enough workers to keep it running and repaired. In the long run and without strong labor standards, we may end up with a network that is incomplete or cannot be kept running, and the workers who are available may come through contractors who are not providing the best health and safety and the technical training that is broadband.

Specific experiences in other states show us that these contractors, often from out of state, being workers from out of state, without the adequate training that threatens the safety and the quality of the broadband network itself.

And there is nothing in place to require local hires or to pull from high unemployment areas or diverse demographic to not only build out broadband, but to build out the middle class with this Madam Chair, I have Ryan Castro from CWA Local 9416 and Ignacio Hernandez here in support of SB 1460.

Thank you, Senator. And as witnesses, you have two minutes each.

Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I'm Ryan Castro, proudly representing CWA Local 9416 out of Bakersfield, California, and a dedicated member of CWA district nine's broadband brigade. From today, I stand before you in firm support of SB 1460. CWA, alongside its workforce, stands at the forefront to bridge the digital divide and strive to ensure broadband access for all communities.

We are actively engaging in shaping policy at both national and state levels while simultaneously spearheading broadband specific initiatives, from network construction and maintenance to long term customer service. We are deeply involved at every aspect of broadband. However, our experience reveals a troubling trend in other states where network expansion has occurred without adequate consideration for worker health and safety. Outsourcing inexperienced out of state workers has resulted in subpar networks and exploited workers.

Regrettably, California's current legislation lapsed lacks specific standards for broadband workers, leaving each project to navigate labor standards on its own. Despite the substantial investments made by this legislator in broadband infrastructure, these lack only basic, generalized labor standards, falling short of what is truly necessary to advance for broadband workers and expansion of our workforce. The time has come for California to exhibit its commitment to broadband workers and enacting comprehensive labor standards, setting the bar for California and the nation.

On behalf of CWA and its dedicated workforce, I urge your support for SB 1460. And thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District Nine, which covers California, Nevada and Hawaii, let me just add, because I think it was good testimony by both the author and the witness, let me just add that as we move forward with our broadband investments and development here in California for fiber optic lines, for repair, for maintenance, we probably need upwards between 6 and 9000 workers in the workforce.

And currently apprenticeship programs that exist now are probably in the hundreds. So we need a lot of work to be done and we need a lot of workers in this space. CWA right now has a referral website for broadband projects. So if an employer wants to find workers, you can go to this website and connect with, literally connect with workers who have worked in this space. But we're also trying to expand out apprenticeship programs right now specifically for broadband work.

It is something that it's not really been focused on. And we have the need now. We're going to have the need for years to come, because if we don't develop this workforce and we don't do it the right way, we're not going to have access that we really need here in California for broadband. So this bill goes a long way towards that and asks for support.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here wanting to speak in support of the bill? Please step to the podium. Name, affiliation and position.

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

Yvonne Melton, CWA District 9, in support.

Hi. Cleo Cabral, CWA Fresno, Madera County, Tulare County, in support.

Good morning. Tarrina Woodson, CWA Local 9400. I stand in strong support.

Thank you. Okay. Anyone else in support? Moving to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here? Seeing none.

Is there anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the bill? Okay, we will bring it to the dais.

I would move the bill.

Okay. And just one question for you, Senator Durazo. Did you mention accepting the amendments from Energy Commission? They said that energy. Sorry. The energy committee is saying that we are going to take the amendments here today. Okay. Okay. Yes. Thank you. Thank you so much. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Would you like to close? Please give me your vote. Assistant, please call the roll.

On file item number 10. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

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

We are now going to move to the final item on today's agenda, item 11, Senate Bill 1340 from the Chair. Whenever you're ready, please present and welcome to your own Committee.

Thank you for the warm welcome. So, I don't know, is this still morning? Yes. Good morning. I would like to start by thanking my Committee staff for all of your amendments, which I have accepted, and I look forward to our continued working together on this. I am really thrilled to present SB 1340.

This bill will support the implementation of last year's SB 150, which helps to guide the state's use of incoming federal funding, such as the Infrastructure Investment Act and Jobs Act, excuse me, the Inflation Reduction Act, and the Chips and Science Act for workforce development, good jobs and community benefits with equity plans for the green infrastructure investments. President Biden's guidelines call for California to be competitive, to ensure that these jobs with real labor standards and ensuring underrepresented populations have access to opportunity.

That is what will make California competitive, and in order for us to do that, we have to address existing barriers. SB 1340 authorizes the Civil Rights Department to partner with local agencies to investigate and enforce cases of employment discrimination. According to CRD's most recent annual reports, in 2020 they received over 23,000 employment discrimination complaints. In 2021, that number was over 24,000. The high volume of these complaints, in addition to the department's responsibilities, leave CRD overburdened and understaffed.

The Los Angeles Civil Rights Department in my district is trained, staffed, and ready to address these claims, but existing laws preempts them from investigating the large majority of the claims they receive and requires that they forward them to the State Department, which only serves to increase backlog and challenges in protecting workers.

With billions of IIJA dollars and other federal funding sources coming to California to create millions of new jobs, CRD will need local partnerships to ensure that the workers are able to have their cases seen, reviewed, and addressed in a timely manner. This bill would additionally require contractors to report demographic data to the California Civil Rights Department, which will be tracked and reported on publicly.

Lastly, SB 1340 would establish a public infrastructure task force made up of a community and labor and workforce experts to act as intermediaries between the state, contractors and labor to make recommendations to strengthen recruitment, retention, and protections of our most vulnerable workers and to ensure that we meet our goals of having a green and strong economy, an equitable workforce, and workers and jobs that bring our economies together.

Tens of billions of dollars are coming to California to create good jobs and new opportunities for millions of Californians. SB 1340 ensures these dollars and those jobs reach our most historically disadvantaged communities. And with that, I have witnesses with me today. I don't see them written here on my sheet, but I know this gentleman. We have Miguel Cabral, who is one of the early architects of the construction careers implementation at one of the largest transit districts, Los Angeles Metro Transportation Authority.

And I'm glad to have him with us today.

And I've been watching you patiently wait for the last bill during the whole hearing. So thank you for doing that. Is this your only principal witness?

It is not. I see my other.

Okay then. Each of you have up to two minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. And good morning, Senators. My name is Miguel Cabral. I'm the former Senior Executive Officer of Diversity and Economic Opportunity at LA Metro. We're the region builder, developer, contractor for our transportation system in Los Angeles County. With that being said, I wanted to tell you a little bit about how we did it at LA Metro and how this kind of ties in to what Madam Chair has proposed in this legislation. Metro approved a project labor agreement and construction careers policy in 2012.

Had the pleasure of being over that in addition to other duties since its inception. It was the first project labor agreement with targeted hiring goals approved by the US Department of Transportation at the time. So we had a big audience viewing us to make sure that we did it right. And our pilot project happened to be a $2 billion Crenshaw advanced utilities project, so we couldn't afford to get it wrong.

So one of the most important things that we did is create a system to track demographic data and to track the commitments from contractors to the targeted hiring goals which were included in the project labor agreement. So think about any possible demographic data that anyone would ask for. Race, ethnicity, gender, zip code, economically disadvantaged zip code barriers, historical barriers to employment. That's the system that we needed to create. And we created that rather quickly.

And the reason that was important is because we were able to drill down. And the drilling down was very important because we had just passed a sales tax measure. Our voters had just passed a sales tax measure, and we made a lot of promises with that sales tax measure. And as you know, in California, it takes two-thirds of the voters to pass a sales tax measure. Part of our promises were jobs and equitable distribution of those jobs.

Before this, to be completely frank, we weren't tracking where our investment dollars were going. After this, we were able to drill down and track exactly where our dollars were going. As an example of that, over 2000 distinct apprentices have worked on our projects, over 17 million hour performed by workers from economically disadvantaged zip codes. Think about that number, 17 million hours, and how you can present that number.

And approximately 11% of workers by of our work hours have been performed by workers with historical barriers to employment. So think about single parents, high school dropouts, folks with a history with.

And if you could just begin to wrap up.

Of course, of course. It's my understanding that this legislation will do the same. It's important to track this data, and it can only help you with your efforts and the promises that you made your constituents when it comes to infrastructure investments. Thank you.

Thank you very much. We appreciate your comments. And to the next principal witness. You have up to two minutes. Welcome to the Committee.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Elda Solomon. I'm the Policy Manager for the Southern California Black Worker Hub. We are sponsor of this bill, a proud sponsor. I wanted to talk more about the need for this bill for SB 1340 and discrimination protections for workers with CRD, the civil rights department's partnership with local agencies. We understand it to give workers a fighting chance against discrimination by empowering workers to file complaints with local agencies and departments in their own communities.

For low-wage workers who compose a growing number of California's workforce, finding justice for their discrimination claims is costly and inefficient, particularly when you have to rely on litigation or hiring an attorney. We cannot rely on the current system to currently adequately address worker complaints without the power and reach of local enforcement. By powering with local state agencies to share enforcing workplace discrimination laws, SB 1340 would increase enforcement of the state's anti-discrimination protections, a far more effective strategy in protecting workers from civil rights violations.

Not only will we experience greater enforcement to protect workers from discrimination, but the expanded capacity can also be devoted to better tracking and reporting outcomes. The need for strong enforcement in addressing workplace discrimination is not only a matter of more enforcement, but a matter of the kind of enforcement that local governments can provide. Local governments are equipped to understand their workers, the conditions their workers are facing local employers, and local economies.

There are newly formed civil rights offices in many Californian cities, including the LA Human and Civil Rights Office, the San Francisco Human Rights Commission, and other local agencies. Enforcement at the local level will create more opportunities for workers to file complaints, but also plays a critical role in the enforcement landscape by preventing discrimination from happening in the first place.

The Los Angeles Black Workers Center and the SoCal Hub have been fighting for this work for years because we see the real-world impacts of discrimination on our workers and the prevalence of discrimination in the experiences of black and other vulnerable workers. The Southern California Black Worker Hub is proud to sponsor this bill. Thank you.

Oh, exactly two minutes. Good work. And I noticed how rapidly you were speaking, so you got it in. Thank you for your comments. This would be the opportunity for me toos, your name, your organization, and that you support the bill.

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

Thank you very much.

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

Thank you very much.

Tom Hintze, on behalf of UAW, region six, in support.

Thank you. By process of elimination, unless the sergeants want to oppose the bill, there's nobody left here in the hearing to do it. But I will ask, does anybody wish to oppose the bill? Seeing no one, we are bringing the matter back before the Committee for questions, discussion, or action. Motioned by Senator Durazzo. Any further comments from the Committee? Then, Madam Chair, you could close.

Well, I just want to thank the witnesses who gave testimony and my colleagues for supporting this bill as it goes through different committees. This is about building California's green future and making sure everyone has a piece of it. And we won't know that if we don't track and monitor and evaluate our progress in real-time. Nothing worse than a worker being discriminated against and having to wait until the project is over to try to get made whole.

Why can't we address it so the worker stays working? We improve and create inclusionary work sites and ensure that our economies are coming together with good jobs and vulnerable populations being lifted up. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Would you please call the roll on item SB 1340?

The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

That bill has four votes, and we will put it on call. And thank you very much.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote of four to zero, and that Bill is out. All right. Okay. Well, that concludes our agenda for today. If you have, I'm sorry. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments in writing to the Committee. Thank everyone. The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement is adjourned.