Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, everyone. The Senate labor, public and Employment and retirement Committee will come to order. We do have 15 items on our agenda today. We are hoping to establish a quorum momentarily. And if so, we are. We can establish a quorum. It looks like to ask the assistant to call the roll.

[Roll Call]

All right. Let's address the consent calendar. There are five items up for consent today. Those would be file items 491112 and 15. Do we have a motion on those items? Senator Laird moves the consent calendar. We'll ask the assistant to take a roll call vote, please.

[Roll Call]

All right, 3-0, and we'll leave it on call for the absent Members. Thank you, Members who were present temporarily. We're going to go ahead and start with and go in file order, hopefully all the way through. We'll see how that goes. But the first presenter is Assembly Member Haney AB 1976. In fact, the Assembly Member has two bills, item 1 and 2. So we'll ask him to start with number one and begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister chair and Members. I will be accepting the Committee amendments today. And thank you and your staff for working with me on this Bill. AB 1976 ensures widespread access to naloxone in California by requiring it be in all locations that are required to have a workplace first aid kit.

Drug overdoses in California are deadlier than car accidents and homicides combined. In 2022, over 7000 deaths were caused by an opioid overdose with a growing number of those deaths being youth. And the difference between life and death when someone overdoses is often how quickly naloxone can be accessed.

For naloxone to be effective and save a life, it requires someone near the person overdosing to have access to the medication because opioid users who are in the midst of an overdose cannot self administer the medication. The opioid crisis is hurting and killing people all over our state. It is happening in every city and every community.

It is happening to people who are addicted to drugs. And it's also happening to people who are accidentally ingesting or being poisoned, just like a fire extinguisher or a defibrillator. We hope that we never have to use naloxone, but the risk is great enough that it should be there in the rare place that we do.

We recently saw the Biden Administration release a statement encouraging leaders to have naloxone and first aid kits, recognizing that easy access to naloxone is key to saving lives.

This Bill has received broad bipartisan support even as we work in all different ways to attack the opioid epidemic and overdose crisis, there has been agreement that access to naloxone is something that we all should get behind, and this is the most accessible way to do it.

With me today in support of the Bill is Meredith Holder in emergency room nurse, speaking on behalf of the Emergency Nurses Association and Trent Murphy from California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives.

All right, thank you so many Member. We'll ask the witnesses to speak from the podium and you'll have a couple minutes each.

Perfect. Thank you chair and Members, for allowing me to speak today. My name is Meredith Holder and I am an emergency Department nurse from San Francisco, a city that has been renowned for its beauty and spirit, but is also facing the harsh reality. The opioid crisis has now has only gotten worse now that fentanyl is everywhere.

San Francisco is not the only community in the state facing these issues. As Assemblymember Haney said, there are staggering statistics right now surrounding opioid deaths, in that in 2022, over 7300 deaths were caused by an opioid overdose, with an increasing number of those deaths being youth.

I'm here today speaking on behalf of over 5000 nurses of the California Emergency Nurses Association in support of Assembly Bill 1976. This Bill is a proactive solution that acknowledges the opioid epidemic by ensuring widespread access to naloxone, also known as narcan in California, by requiring it to be in all locations that have a first aid kit.

Naloxone is a medication that can reverse the effects of an opioid overdose within minutes and is a critical medication. In my line of work, this is a life saving drug. Overdoses can happen anytime, anywhere. By ensuring naloxone is readily available in workplace first aid kits, we're being proactive to prevent tragedies.

Placing naloxone in first aid kits equips ordinary citizens with the ability to save lives, much like use of a fire extinguisher or an automatic external defibrillator. Opioid users in the midst of an overdose cannot self administer naloxone once they become unconscious. The drug must be readily accessible and administered by someone near the person.

As a nurse, my job first and foremost is to ensure patient safety and to act as a patient advocate.

Today, I advocate for those who I will care for in the future, while thinking of those who could have been saved by naloxone administered by a bystander in the past, please support creating more equitable access to naloxone to prevent opioid overdose deaths. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next witness.

Good morning, chair Members. My name is Trent Murphy. I'm a policy analyst representing the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives, also known as CADP. We're a professional Association which represents the backbone of the state's publicly funded and community based substance use disorder treatment network, and we're proud supporters of this Bill. Every moment matters.

In the event of an overdose, overdoses can result in death, severe brain damage, and other health complications, all of which can be prevented with the Quick Administration of an opioid antagonist.

Opioid antagonists rapidly block the effects of opioids in the brain, which can potentially restore normal breathing within two to three minutes, and they pose no risk to those who are experiencing a medical emergency that is unrelated to an overdose, which makes it safe for a bystander to administer the opioid antagonist to an unconscious person, even if they have little to no training.

The most recent statistics we have on workplace overdoses are from 2022. And in that year, overdoses accounted for more than 100 workplace deaths in California, representing about 22% of the workplace fatalities in the state.

Now, this is a very significant statistic worthy of being addressed all on its own, but this also, bills do encapsulate that this Bill would also save lives of anyone in or near a workplace, including customers and bystanders who are experiencing an overdose as well.

Bottom line is that this is a crucial measure that will save lives, and it builds upon the recent work California has done to increase access to opioid antagonists and combat the opioid epidemic. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there others in the Committee room who would like to step forward and express a support position? Name, affiliation and support, please?

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair and Members. Obed Franco, on behalf of the California Fire Chiefs Association and the Fire District Association of California, in support.

Good morning, chair and Members. Bryant Miramantes in support.

Thank you. Do we have an opposition witness? Seeing none. Is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to step forward and express an opposition position? If so, do so now. I see none. We'll come back to the Committee. Senator Laird, I'm sorry. We do have an opposition comment.

Richard Marcuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We certainly recognize the importance of this in treatment of drug overdose. However, for the construction industry, there are issues associated with the safe storage and the distribution of naloxone, and we hope that that will be addressed. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll count that as a lead opposition witness. Thank you. Back to Senator Laird.

Actually, that was the question I was going to ask because I think this is a good bill and we'll vote to move it along. But how do you intend to address the storage issue, since this would be stored at such decentralized places that aren't temperature controlled, and according to the criticism, it needs to be stored between 68 and 77 fahrenheit to maintain proper efficacy? How would you address that issue in this Bill?

So we've reviewed the research on this. First of all, these need to be everywhere, clearly, because the risk is everywhere. In fact, on construction sites, construction workers experience a higher rate of overdose deaths. There was an estimate that 15% of all. CDC said that construction workers experience 15% of all workplace overdose deaths, despite representing.

I'm not arguing that it doesn't need to be everywhere. I'm just saying when it is everywhere, how do you make sure, for those people, it's safe, maintaining its efficacy?

Sure. So construction first aid kits are currently highly regulated by Cal OSHA. And so as part of this, we instruct CalOSHA to create the standards related to naloxone and first aid kit so they would be developing how to address this issue within construction sites.

The research that we've seen here does say that it's supposed to be kept between 68 and 77 degrees, but short exposures to more extreme temperatures, whether much lower or much higher, should not affect the efficacy or shelf life of narcan. There's also research that they're able to withstand more extreme temperatures and allowing the appropriate use.

So there is definitely an appropriate level in terms of the temperature. It can withstand more extreme temperatures for its use. But I think this is something that instructing the Cal OSHA as an authority to determine how best to keep these in construction sites, I think is the best step for us to figure out. .

So does the Bill instruct Cal OSHA to do that? And does it say that it can't be stored unless they actually have a regulation that guarantees its safety and efficacy?

Senator, there's. Senator, if I could just jump. Sure. There's a Committee amendment that addresses the issue. In fact, I should have asked the author if he's going to take that amendment.

Why don't you ask him if he's going to take it and have somebody explain what it is.

Sure. I started out saying I accepted the Committee amendment. So absolutely, the amendment, I think, does clarify that that particular issue needs to be addressed as part of the creation of the standards. That's my understanding.

It says it provides guidance, and I'm just trying to make sure that it, that in fact it's going to get addressed and how this is happening.

My understanding is based on the analysis and the amendments that were recommended by the Committee to address this issue. That was the amendments that we're accepting. I don't have the amendments directly in front of me, but.

Okay, well, then let me just ask this. I'm obviously going to vote to move this along and it's going to keep moving. But I would like you to assess whether it actually addresses this issue, because I think that's important. As somebody that spends his entire lifetime holding prescription bottles up to find out the date and try to figure it out, that's when this is a life and death thing. We can't afford to have it out there and not be able to work.

So I would just ask that you determine that these amendments actually address the issue as the Bill moves forward. Mister chair, I would move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. And thank you. I didn't hear you say that you were taking the amendments early on. Appreciate you clarifying that. And perhaps just some clarification. I know it's a rulemaking request and the Bill requires formal rulemaking, but maybe just some clarification either through the Committee staff or the author himself.

Ultimately, in terms of making sure OSHA intends to include that, whatever they want to call it, specific guidance, basically in terms of how to store in the rulemaking itself, because I think then there's probably about as binding as it can get. That would be my suggestion for all concerned. That said, you have an opportunity to close.

I appreciate that and I appreciate this issue. Obviously, we want the naloxone to be there. We also want it to be, to actually work. And so making sure that as prescriptive or intentional as the guidance that OSHA provides around these standards and how it should be stored as possible, we want to make sure we have that language.

So I'll review the amendments, and if there are ways to strengthen it within what we can do for OSHA's rulemaking process, we will do that. And you have my commitment. Thank you. With that. Thank you. And respect respectfully at the right time, ask for your aye vote. I think it's the right time.

Sorry, I didn't, there might not be. Enough votes here, but there will be.

So we do have a motion and we can, we established a quorum earlier so we can take a roll call vote of those present. And I'll ask the assistance to do that, please.

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

All right, 2-0. We'll keep the bill on call for the absent Members. That's a good start, I think. And we'll move to item two, which is AB 2182. And you're welcome to present on that bill.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Members. AB 2182 is crucial legislation that will ensure equitable pay for construction workers across California by addressing several shortcomings of current prevailing wage law and enforcement. First, AB 2182 ensures that workers receive the current prevailing wages on projects regardless of when a project was announced for bid.

Right now, workers are forced to take the prevailing wage for when the project was first announced, even if it is years before the project actually breaks ground or if there is a lower wage in place. This adjustment is essential to maintain equity within the industry and ensure workers are receiving adequate wages.

Second, the bill will strengthen the ability of the state to enforce prevailing wage law, including granting representatives from the Joint Labor Management Committees reasonable access, to active public work job sites, and provide statutory enforcement authority for the Labor Commissioner to request certified payroll information so the state can hold contractors accountable for paying fair wages.

Lastly, this bill will update annualization payments to align California law with federal regulations so that workers are properly compensated for the work. I want to also let the Committee know that I've been working with the opposition to see if there are any amendments we can take on the Floor to address their concerns.

We do have an inactive conversation that's happening around some of the concerns that have been raised, and I am hopeful that we're going to make progress on that. With me here to testify today is Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Trades, and he is also able to answer technical questions.

Thank you, Senators. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades as Mr. Haney has indicated. We are working with the opposition. I will tell you that we have got amendments prepared to address their concerns with regards to liability of providing access to the LMCC's to the job sites.

I think that you'll hear from folks that we're mostly there. We haven't got 100% agreement, but I think we've addressed a number of their concerns.

I would say the majority of their concerns. And we're committed to continue to work with them to make sure that there is protection for the LMCC employees who are out on the job site and that liability isn't shifted to the owner or the contractor, principally.

I would just like to say that with regards to some of the prevailing wage issues for some contractors, I think it's high time that we stopped providing low-interest, no-interest loans to public works on the backs of non-represented workers.

I think this bill goes a long way to make sure that individuals are paid the wages and benefits that they're owed. It's like, you know, none of us would want to get a wage increase, and then told you're going to get it in six months, but you got to keep working here.

I understand the concerns over increased costs of construction. It's something that faces all of us here in California who work in the infrastructure field, but we have cost increases on materials and other things that impact jobs, and it's something that we have to take into account for.

With regards to concerns over alternative delivery, I've been involved in those projects for over a decade, and almost every single piece of legislation that's authorized that.

And I can tell you that, just because you're delivering a project with a different type of mechanism to procure, doesn't change the realities of the market, which means you will have cost increases, especially on projects that take years to complete.

So, those are things that we can work through, but we should not be doing it on the backs of workers. With that, I ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. We will now ask if there's anyone in the committee room who wishes to step forward and offer support for the bill.

Thank you, Chairman and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We're in strong support. Thank you.

Good morning Chairman and Members, Martin Vindiola, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Greg Lewis, UA Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 761, in support.

Good morning. My name is John Hershey with UA Local 447 Plumbers and Pipefitters here in Sacramento, in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Andres Posada, on behalf of the Labor Management Compliance Council, in full support. Thank you.

All right, we will turn to opposition. Is there an opposition witness? Please identify yourself. You'll have a couple minutes.

Good morning, Chair, Members. Melanie Perron, on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. We're the largest statewide organization representing general contractors, both large and small. First, I want to express our appreciation to the author and sponsor about the willingness to take a look at the liability issue on the work sites for labor-management committees.

I look forward to continuing to working with them to solve that concern. However, what I really do want to focus on is this bill and the requirements about expanding requirements in public works and other bills that are also expanding the definition of public works.

We're really getting to a point that we're starting to have contractors that are unwilling to bid on public works projects. Some of our larger contractors, that may not be an issue, but when we're talking about smaller contractors and opening up opportunity and accessibility to benefiting from public dollars on these types of projects, there's an unwillingness.

They're starting to feel more and more the pinch of the ability for them to be able to bid and to perform with the requirements.

And as we look at like when we talk about the 10-day turnaround, which I appreciate that it is in rulemaking, smaller contractors are going to have to make decisions about am I going to be on a work site today or am I going to have to go and quickly fulfill a Records Act request by the Labor Commissioner?

Further, the component about the appeals process, the written mandate with the Labor Commissioner. Again, our larger contractors maybe not so much an issue, but you talk about bonding requirements. A lot of our smaller contractors are not going to be able to meet those bonding requirements to file a writ of mandate.

We want to make this an even playing field. We want to go and open the door for these smaller contractors, and we're struggling about how this is now closing the door, actually.

So, look forward to continuing to work with this Committee, with this author and the Legislature, and how do we find additional paths forward to make sure that our smaller contractors can benefit from public works projects? Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Steve Cruz on behalf of the California Building Industry Association. We are an oppose unless amended position primarily around Section Two in the Joint Labor Management Committee. We did meet recently with the Assembly Member and with the sponsors.

And as indicated by Mister Dunn, our concerns on the property owner side are relative to liability and access, and we think we work through some of those amendments. So, we look forward to continuing to work with the author. But as of now, we are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

All right, we're open for me toos now.

Good morning. Anthony Tannehill, California Special Districts Association. We are at concerns those.

You're allowed now to say that you're opposed if you're opposed, and your name and affiliation, that's it. We're beyond the lead witnesses at this point.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you. Thank you for being here.

Good morning. Associated Builders and Contractors of California. In opposition.

Richard Markuson for Western Electrical Contractors Association in opposition.

Mister Chair and Members, Scott Govenar on behalf of the Construction Employers Association. We are removing opposition. So, we are a tweener. We appreciate the efforts of the author and the proponents and look forward to continuing to work together. Thank you.

ll right, that concludes witness testimony and me toos. We will come back to the Committee for any discussion. And seeing none, we'll give the author an opportunity to close.

Thank you. You know, we're going to continue to work in particular on this issue around the liability and access to the job sites. And I think we've had a lot of progress on those conversations, so hopefully we'll continue to work those issues out.

And this is a very important bill for fairness and equity and ensuring that we have workers that we need for these critical public jobs. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

All right, thank you. And again, we appreciate everyone's testimony. Is there a motion on this item?

So moved.

Senator Laird moves a motion and I'll ask the assistant to restate it and call the roll.

On file item two. The motion is do passed to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll call]

All right, so we're at two to zero and we'll leave it on call for the absent Members. Thank you. Thank you all for being here today. Next item is file item three. AB 1997. Assembly Member McKinnor, you may come forward and present when ready.

Good morning, chair and Members. AB 1997 simplifies CalSTRS reporting requirements for school districts across the state to reduce reporting errors, address findings, update benefit changes, and correct overpayments that may have occurred at CalSTRS. This Bill has bipartisan support and no votes in the Assembly, and it does not have opposition.

No, no votes in the Assembly and it does not have any opposition today. I'd like to bring up witnesses. Joycelyn Martinez Wade, Director of governmental relations at the California State Teachers Retirement System, and Derek Lenitz, senior Director of governmental relation and legal affairs at the California County Superintendents Associations, are here to testify in support. Thank you.

Thank you. You may begin your testimony and you'll have two minutes each for all lead witnesses. Thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning, Mister chair. I'm happy to be here. Joycelynn Martinez Wade with the California State Teachers Retirement System, the sponsors of AB 1997.

This has been a consensus based approach with our Member and employer partners, and I'm really happy with the work we've done over more than a year to simplify, to find language that simplifies our credible compensation and credible service statutes. This will avoid reporting errors, audit findings, benefit overpayments and penalties and interest for our employers.

And so we are focusing on positions subject to membership, redefining credible compensation to make sure that there's alignment between our PEPRA and prevent PREPRA folks specifying annualized pay rate, having more Member contributions count toward the defined benefit supplement benefit, and allowing supplemental pay to create service credit while not adjusting final compensation.

So this Bill also helps avoid manipulation that could happen under current law. So for all those reasons, we thank the author very much for putting this forward and we ask for an aye vote. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Chair and Members Derick Lennox on behalf of the California County Superintendents representing the 58 county superintendents of schools, we're pleased to support the Assembly Members AB 1997 and I want to start by crediting the assemblymember and CalSTRS for the consensus based approach that was just mentioned.

The provisions of this law, technical and nuanced as they are, are the result of deep inquiry from employer associations, employee associations, retiree associations, all working together with CalSTRS. For our part, the county superintendents report the compensation and service credit of employees for the vast majority of local educational agencies across the state to CalSTRS.

It funnels through the county offices. So the folks that I work with have first hand knowledge of the ways that the process works well and also where these employer reporting errors are occurring, often in spite of the good work to try and correct and avoid those errors.

Two years ago, AB 1667 was enacted to ensure that employers could receive timely, accurate and consistent reporting advice from CalSTRS and importantly, to provide relief to retired Members impacted by overpayments due to reporting errors.

So while that Bill addressed the impacts of the the reporting errors, this Bill now addresses their root cause by simplifying several important provisions within the teachers retirement law that commonly contribute to reporting errors. So with that said, I'm happy to answer any questions and please just support the Bill.

Thank you for your testimony. We can now accept further testimony from folks who would like to express a support position, name and affiliation only. Thank you.

Good morning. Martha Zaragoza-Diaz and I'm representing the Delta Kappa Gamma California and we support the Bill for all the reasons that have been given before by the previous speakers. Thank you.

Good morning, Mister chair staff. Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. Pamela Gibbs, representing the Los Angeles County Office of Education in Support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Association of School Business Officials, representing over 30,000 school business leaders statewide in support.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of AXA, the Association of California School Administrators, please to support this Bill.

Leticia Garcia, on behalf of Riverside County superintendents of schools, in support.

Anna Matthews, on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges in strong support. Thank you.

Seeing no further support, witnesses stepping forward. Do we have an opposition witness? Seeing no one step forward, is there anyone in the Committee room who wishes to express an opposition position with their name and affiliation? Please step forward. If so, seeing none. We will bring it back to the Committee.

But obviously we are not in a position to entertain a motion right now, given the chair is the only one present. Substitute chair at that.

But if you would like to make any closing remarks assmeblyember, you're welcome to do that, and then we will take up the Bill as soon as we have Members absent Members back.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. Thank you. We appreciate everyone being here. We are. I'm not clear if we have another Assembly Member here, another author, it looks like not. We would like to continue in file order if we can get Assembly Members Schiavo here.

We will pause for a moment, take an informal recess while we are awaiting an author, which means it's okay to move around a little bit while you have a chance. But we, we are going to call it right back to order as soon as we have an author. Thank you.

Good morning Assemblymember. We are on your item. It's follow item five, AB 2135. And you're welcome. You're welcome to come forward through the gate to this podium to testify. And we'll take, I'm sorry, not testify, but to present. We'll take your presentation whenever you're ready. They are going to testify from the podium out here. Thank you for asking.

It's been a year, I don't remember how it works over here. Good to see you. Good morning, Mister Speaker and Members. Wage theft affects tens of thousands of workers every year in nearly every field. For families living paycheck to paycheck, wage theft makes balancing budgets impossible. Unfortunately, those same individuals often don't have the capacity to seek justice without additional support. Bad actors also create a disadvantage for honest contractors living up to the high standards we hold in California for public works.

The statute of limitation for public works project labor violation investigations is creating situations where not only are workers complaints closed prematurely, but bad actors can continue to operate. AB 2135 provides additional time for the labor Commissioner to conduct investigations and ensure justice is served. Amendments that will take effect should AB 2135 pass this Committee aims to respond to concerns that it would have allowed for investigations to continue without a limit. Instead, the amendments allow the labor Commissioner to make a one time extension for a showing of good cause.

We all want to make sure that the contractor ecosystem benefits both from good actors and workers, and providing the labor Commissioner more time to investigate cases will help. To do that, I'm joined today by Greg Lewis, Business Manager for Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 761, and Andres Posada, Director of Labor Management Compliance Council, as witnesses.

All right, thank you very much, gentlemen. You may testify here from the podium. You'll have a couple minutes each. Okay.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Greg Lewis. I'm the Business Manager of the Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 761, representing over 1000 members in LA County. I came here today to ask you to stand with working families and vote yes on AB 2135. This Bill is about whether Californians working on public works projects are paid appropriately under the current prevailing wage laws. One example of how the statute of limitations has impacted workers is a public works project in my hometown of Santa Clarita, it was a senior center.

Prevailing wage violations were found on several contractors on that job, including not submitting the required forms, not hiring apprentices, incorrect journeyman to apprentice ratio, misclassifying workers, and most importantly, failure to pay prevailing wages. Cases against these contractors were opened with the DLSE in 2020 and were under investigation until they reached the statute of limitations in 2023 and were just simply closed.

So the people on the job getting dirty, digging ditches, installing pipe, fire sprinklers, air conditioning, toilets and everything else, were not appropriately paid for their work on that job, and the contractors simply got away with it. And unfortunately, this happens all too often, affecting Union and Non Union workers alike. With today's cost of living, the last thing we can accept is workers being ripped off. This is not a victimless crime. These are Californians struggling to keep a roof over their heads. And when workers get ripped off, people lose their homes, families break up, and we all pay a price for that.

This is a common sense Bill that will help ensure that workers get paid the money they've earned, that awarding agencies and taxpayers get what they paid for, and it'll hold bad contractors accountable. That's why I'm asking for your support on AB 2135. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good morning, Committee Members. My name is Andres Posada and I'm the Executive Director of the Labor Management Compliance Council. We're a joint labor management cooperation Committee that monitors compliance with the prevailing wage requirements that are applicable to public works projects. I have been working in this field for over 15 years, and during the last six we have been partnering actively with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE.

We're continuously co hosting educational and outreach events and we are sending to them complaints about labor compliance violations. However, for the last four years, my agency, as well as many others within the state, have seen on average that 25% of our complaints that have been sent to the state with ample time have reached their statute of limitations. And it is important here to say that these complaints have been sent, in some cases with more than two years before that statute of limitations kicks in.

Now, since the DLSE is the last line of defense when it comes to protecting workers rights on public works projects, the closure of these cases arguably has detrimental effects on workers who have experienced exploitation or unfair treatment. This also perpetuates the cycle of injustice, allowing unscrupulous employers to escape accountability for their actions. And furthermore, the closure of these cases because of the statute of limitations has been reached, may undermine public confidence in the enforcement of labor laws.

By now, we are all aware that the extensive case backlog that the labor Commissioner office, and by extension the DLSE, is experiencing due to being short staffed and even though it is actively trying to recruit people and improve their enforcing mechanisms, this process will take time, most likely years, and we cannot allow it anymore.

To negatively affect the lives of many employees and their respective families that have been victims of exploitation and wage theft. That is why I am here in front of you today providing my full support for AB 2135 as it will ensure enough time to provide justice for all employees who participate in public works projects. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the Committee room who wish to step forward and express name, affiliation and support?

Good morning, Mister Chair and Members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the City of Los Angeles, in support. Thank you.

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

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

John Hershey, Plumbers & Pipefitters Local 447 here in Sacramento, in support. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We'll move to opposition. I know there was some registered opposition on the Bill. Do we have a lead opposition witness?

Mister Chair and Members. Scott Govenar, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association. We're the largest union signatory builders in the state. We have a vested interest in ensuring workers are paid. The problem with this Bill is we're not identifying what the actual impediments are. If DLSE isn't doing it in 18 months, they're not going to do it in 24 months, they're not going to do it in 42 months. It doesn't change the underlying problem. Is DLSE going after the controlling employer? I don't know. What is the data from DLSE and how can we actually fix it?

Because extending the time is simply going to delay how long it takes to get workers paid. And frankly for our large members they can hold on to this. The extra time doesn't make a big difference. But if you are a small contractor or subcontractor, carrying that extra liability is going to preclude you from bidding. So as we talk about diversifying the subcontractors and workers on our job sites, you're simply making it more difficult to do so. So for these reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next witness.

Good morning, Mister Chairman and Members. Richard Marcuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We agree with the previous witness. Our members certainly do not countenance short pay, denial of benefits and not taking care of their employees. However, making these aggrieved employees wait longer for compensation is not the answer. Something needs to happen at DLSE to provide them the adequate staff and the ability to investigate these cases and resolve them and get the aggrieved employees paid. Not waiting longer. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else who wishes to indicate opposition? Name and affiliation, please.

Thank you. Good morning. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the American Association of California Subcontractors. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes testimony. Senator Durazo, any comments or concerns before we go back to the author?

Yeah, just thank you very much. I was very impressed with the witnesses who spoke. The key witnesses who spoke, I think they're right on. I'm just wondering, and you don't have to answer now, if the issues raised by the opposition who appeared to be on the unionized side of employers, if the issue they raised could somehow be addressed, because I know that's not your intention to hurt small, especially unionized contractors. So if there is, great. Because obviously that would be the ideal.

Yeah, I mean, I think what they're speaking to is that if you have a charge against you, then it can mean that you can't bid on future contracts. So I think we hope that people don't have charges of wage theft against them, and this is a way for us to ensure that we're holding bad actors accountable. We have already worked with the opposition. Unfortunately, it's not enough to bring them to not oppose. But we've made some amendments to address their concerns and think it goes a long way to addressing concerns.

There was a concern that it would be open ended and you could extend cases forever and ever. We're making that amendment today to make sure that that's clear and have limited it to 24 months. The reality is that DLSE is not completing all of these investigations, and people who have experienced wage theft and struggling to make ends meet are getting no resolution because of no fault of their own right. They've moved the cases forward.

We've heard from someone who does this every day, and we know that if in good faith people are moving cases forward, that they should not have it closed just because they reached the deadline. They should have an opportunity to push a little bit harder and get a little extra time to be able to make sure their case is resolved. We're always happy to hear, you know, language, suggestions from opposition. We haven't heard one specifically to address this issue and happy to consider it if it comes up.

Well, thank you very much for bringing this forward and all of the support is. It still boggles the mind that in a state like California with so much wealth that so many workers would have their wages stolen or deprived of them. So I'd be happy to move the Bill.

Thank you. Yeah, I think it's probably less about amendment language that could solve the issue and more about this, you know, underlying issue of, which has come up in many hearings, including informational hearings of late, about our enforcement mechanisms and agencies staffing up and moving much more quickly than they are. And I think people are working hard at that, concurrently in sort of a parallel effort through audits and other things that are trying to close that gap.

But I think in the meantime, this is a good Bill in the sense that if you view it as going hand in hand with the reforms and the hiring and things that we're trying to do to complement it, then it's okay. And you can't do all that with one Bill anyway. So, of course, I'm supporting the Bill as well. And Senator Durazo has offered a motion, so we'll let you close and we'll get the votes that we can on the Bill right now.

Thank you. Thank you. Appreciate the questions and comments today. And, you know, certainly, like you said, we can't do everything in one Bill. We are on a separate track also reaching out to DLSE just to see, to get to kind of the root of the issue and see if there are ways that things can be triaged in the interim while they are working on staffing up more.

Because I think from our perspective, we don't want this to go any slower either. Right. People need money in their pockets if they've experienced wage theft as quickly as possible. And so we hope that there can be other creative solutions to address this as well. But we think that, like you said, in the interim, this is an important step forward to make sure that workers are protected. So appreciate an aye vote when you all have an opportunity to do that.

All right, well, we do have a motion, and we can go ahead and call the roll of those present.

On file item number five. The motion is due passed as amended, to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call].

All right, that is two to zero. We'll leave it on call for the absent Members. And thank you for being here, and we appreciate the witnesses who testified and the excellent points they made on both sides. Thank you. We, yeah, we are going to pause for just a moment before we invite the next author up. While Senator Durazo is here, everybody's moving around to Budget Committees and other places. Take this opportunity to lift the call on the consent calendar and then the additional bills as appropriate. Thank you.

On the consent calendar, [Roll Call].

Can we, can we get Senator Durazo, can we lift the call on those bills Senator Durazo was not present for earlier?

On file item one, AB 1976, Haney. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, that 3-0, on call.

On file item two, AB 2182 by Assembly Member Haney. The motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call]

Also 3-0, on call. I'm reminded that we were unable to get a motion on file item three earlier, as only the Chair was present. Senator Durazo? All right, Senator Durazo moves file item three, AB 1997, and we'll go ahead and call the roll on that.

On AB 1997, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, 2-0, on call. All right, so we will continue now with presentations. It looks like Assembly Member Ortega is here and prepared. You may come forward and present, if you're ready, on file item 10, AB 2705. Welcome.

Good morning, Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB 2705, which will ensure that the Labor Commissioner has time to recover unpaid wages for workers who are subject to wage theft on public works projects. As we just heard, we know that wage theft in the different industries is a significant problem, especially in the construction area.

Under existing law, when the Labor Commissioner finds a violation of prevailing wage requirements on a project, the Labor Commissioner has 18 months to determine the amount of fines and penalties to be assessed, but only six months to sue the company that bonded the project.

This inconsistency in the statute of limitations means that the Labor Commissioner could be in the middle of an assessment and run out of time to recover the wages owed to the workers from the bonding company. Workers should not suffer a potential significant loss in wages due to unintentional inconsistency in the law. When appropriate, I would like to request an aye vote, and I do not have any witnesses today.

All right, thank you. No support witnesses. Is there anyone in the room who wishes to express support? Name and affiliation only.

Mr. Chair and Members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next.

Thank you, Chair and Members. Matt Cremins, here on behalf of the California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, strong support.

Thank you.

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

Thank you. All right, that concludes all support witnesses. We'll go to opposition now. I'm not clear that we have a lead opposition witness or--

I'll start.

You can do that. All right. You'll have a couple--

Mr. Chair and Members, Scott Govenar, on behalf of Construction Employers' Association. As with the prior bill, this raises kind of two questions. How often is DLSE going after payment bonds, and more importantly, why on earth are they doing that? You have a controlling employer on public works jobs, get paid exponentially quicker than suing a bonding company.

Again, we have to know what's going on at DLSE because that doesn't benefit workers, it slows down the process, and this is a band-aid that really doesn't help anyone. So for these reasons, we are opposed. Thank you.

Thank you. We can have one more two-minute witness.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair. Richard Markuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We've had mixed responses from our sureties about the availability of the bond for this extended period of time.

The other thing that we're obviously concerned about is for smaller employees, their ability to purchase a bond that will now be extended for three times the initial period of time is going to make it a challenge, I think, for many small contractors who are trying to break into the public works field, and they will be unable to compete, and for those reasons, we have very strong concerns and opposition to the bill. Thank you.

All right, thank you. We're now open for name, affiliation, and oppose if you'd like to do that.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron, on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California, respectfully opposed.

All right, thank you. Anyone else? Seeing none, we'll come back to the committee, and Senator Durazo, any comments? All right, we'll go back to the author for an opportunity to close, and then we'll entertain a motion.

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Thank you, Assembly Member, and Senator Durazo, are you willing to make the motion? Motion by Durazo, and we'll call the roll.

On File Item Ten, the motion is: do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call].

Two/zero. We'll leave it on call for absent members, and thank you for being here, and again, thank you to witnesses for testifying. We are in need of an author. We're gonna take a five-minute recess, and we will resume, all right? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Classified school employees are the people who keep our schools running smoothly, from serving meals to cleaning classrooms. Unfortunately, many schools are facing staffing shortages, which makes it harder to support students and maintain a healthy environment. Currently, there are no clear guidelines on how many staff members schools actually need.

The Covid-19 pandemic has made these issues even more important. AB 2971 will help us have better conversations about how many staff members schools need to keep students safe and supported. It's an important step towards creating a stronger and more resilient educational system. With me here to testify and support is Tristan Brown, the Legislative Director of CFT, a Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Thank you, and I respectfully request an aye vote.

Okay, thank you and welcome. And you'll have a couple minutes to testify.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, Tristan Brown, CFT, Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. As the Assembly Member points out, this bill comes from our classified school employees who, their chief job is making sure that all of our school facilities' health and safety is number one for our students, not just in transportation and food service, but also custodial and other services.

This bill is adding representation for community college classified to an existing workgroup that was passed by this committee last year to create a workgroup that would examine what work ratios should be in a perfect world. This was born out of the Covid-19 pandemic when, as education stakeholders were coming together to try to find out how we should reopen schools again for students' health and safety as priority number one, talks about how custodians could wipe down high touch frequency areas like doorknobs and banisters were part of the discussion.

Quickly, the joke about painting the Golden Gate Bridge where as soon as you're done, you have to turn around and start all over again, was made. And we realized we weren't quite sure what the right ratio of custodians to square feet and facilities would be to maintain a high level of safety for students.

Thus, the workgroup was born. We, unfortunately, left out the community college side of things, and they have unique circumstances with their populations and their facilities. They deserve a seat at this table to make sure that students' in community colleges health and safety is number one.

I'd also like to add this does not in any way have any force of law as to the actual hiring practices of a district. That is still left up to budgets, bargaining, and best intentions. So these are good guidelines that we hope will exist in the world and provide a north star for us to aim to make sure all students are safe in their facilities. And we would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to express a support position? We can take name, affiliation and support.

Matt Broad here on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Others?

Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California in support.

All right, thank you. Seeing no others, we will move to opposition. Is there a lead opposition witness here? Seeing none. Is there anyone who wishes to express opposition, name, and affiliation? If so, please come forward. Seeing no one come forward, we ordinarily come back to the committee at this point. That would be the Chair only at this point. Assembly Member, if you'd like to make any closing remarks, you may. And then we will, I assure you, take the bill up as soon as we can get a motion on the floor.

Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chair, and respectfully request an aye vote.

You for being here. And again, thank you to the witnesses. All right, so we will continue to try to get the word out that we need authors in Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement, here in the Committee Room 2200. We have four bills left that require a hearing presentation that haven't already been acted upon on consent or otherwise heard.

We would like to see those authors here in the committee room now. All four preferably. All right, we're just going to turn the microphones off here and informally recess. I'm going to ask the Assistant to just time that for two minutes, and if we have to recess longer than that, I'll gavel us down and let everybody know. But let's just take a two minute informal break. Thank you.

Yeah, just for the sake of allowing people to move around and for the audio system, I'm going to go ahead and... Oh, saved by the bell. No problem. Senator Gonzalez, We're going to go back and lift the call while we're waiting for authors, and that'll help all of us, I think, to at least get on the record as much as we can here while we're waiting for someone to present. So I'll ask the Assistant to do that now, starting with the consent calendar and moving through whatever bills are appropriate.

On the consent calendar, the current vote is 4-0. [Roll Call]

All right, 5-0, we'll keep it on call. It is out. I'm sorry. Thank you. Thinking about a different committee with more Members on it. Sorry about that. 5-0, the consent calendar is out. Thank you. Please continue.

Starting at the top of the file order. Item one's motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. That's AB 1976, Haney, with the Chair voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that is now at 4-0. We'll leave it on call.

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

That is also 4-0, and we'll keep it on call.

Item number three, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call]

All right, that's at 3-0, and we'll leave it on call.

On item number five, The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call]

That is now at 3-0, and we'll leave it on call.

Jumping to file item number 10. That's AB 2705 by Assembly Member Ortega. The motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call]

That is now at 3-0, and we'll leave it on call.

All right, on file item 13. We did not have enough Members present for a motion. File item 13, the author is Maienschein. We just heard that bill. Senator Gonzalez, would you be willing to make a motion on that?

Yes.

All right, motion by Senator Gonzalez. So we'll call the roll, please.

On file item number 13, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

All right, that bill's at 2-0, and we will leave it on call. And I see that Assembly Member Valencia is present. Please come forward, Assembly Member, on AB 3025, our file item 14. And you may present when ready. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good morning to the Members. AB 3025 establishes a process to ensure that county employees receive their negotiated retirement benefits, even if certain compensation is disallowed. Disallowed compensation undermines the promise of a secure retirement and jeopardizes the integrity of our county retirement systems.

Currently, county employees and retirees bear the brunt of these readjustments, having to pay back retirement systems for overpayments. Despite the employer and employee representatives negotiating a pensionable compensation, only employees and retirees are financially responsible for for the repayment procedures in disallowed compensation cases.

By implementing a 20 percent penalty on employers in cases of disallowed compensation, the burden of the readjustment to benefits is more balanced between employer and employee. These penalties reflect retirement system standards found in CalPERS and CalSTRS. And with me to provide testimony on this bill is Doug Subers, the Director of Governmental Affairs for the California Professional Firefighters and Jennifer Roe, advocate on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, Orange County.

Please, Mr. Subers, please come forward and you'll have a couple minutes. Start whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senator. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. CPF is pleased to co-sponsor AB 3025, and like to thank the author for bringing this important measure forward. As noted by the author, this measure will create a clear process to address disallowed compensation in county employee retirement systems identified on or after January 1st, 2024. The structure of this measure is similar to policies enacted by the Legislature to address disallowed compensation in CalPERS and CalSTRS.

Disallowed compensation is when a pay item is included and an employee's pensionable compensation is subsequently determined to be non-pensionable through no fault of the employee. For active members, the retirement system will notify the employer to stop reporting on the item and oftentimes the recognized employee representative and the employer can go back to the table to bargain and sort the difference and either correct the pay item or identify a new opportunity to make the employees whole.

However, for a retiree, when disallowed compensation is identified, the retiree gets a notice that they may owe thousands or tens of thousands of dollars in overpayment and have their retirement allowance permanently reduced. For a firefighter living on a fixed income, they notice they may owe that amount of money and it will be--owe money back to the system and that that allowance will be reduced in perpetuity can be devastating.

Particularly given the physical nature of firefighting profession, it's unlikely that that firefighter will be able to go back to work after retirement. AB 3025 establishes a clear process to provide a modest mitigation on the impact by requiring the employer to cover the overpayment and the retiree to receive an actuarially estimated payment to reduce the impact of the reduced allowance.

This does not keep the retiree whole, but it is a necessary proposal to ensure that retirees do not hold 100 percent of the obligation when disallowed compensation occurs. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Do we have another support witness?

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Chair and Members. Jennifer Roe, on behalf of the California Fraternal Order of Police. Also want to thank the author for bringing this measure forward. We're pleased to be a co-sponsor of AB 3025 to help what we believe rights a significant wrong when it comes to our retirees.

Our members who worked their careers in high profile units such as homicide, bomb squad, officer-involved shootings, canines, and other specialized units within the Sheriff's Department and the district attorney's offices gave up valuable family time during evenings, holidays, and weekends in order to remain available to immediately respond when called upon.

These men and women did their job as they were required and requested, and in return they were promised a guaranteed wage and a guaranteed income in retirement. To now be told by their retirement system there is a mistake in their calculation, and this mistake is to be borne by them by no fault of their own, is simply an injustice. The employees are basically being told now that they worked for a discount. The employer ultimately gets the benefit of this bargain.

Hundreds, if not thousands of retirees are losing thousands of dollars in retirement as stated by Mr. Subers, not only from clawbacks, but on the go forward. It's simply not right, and for these reasons, we ask for your aye vote on AB 3025. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for your testimony. We can now take support positions. Name and affiliation. Thank you.

Mr. Chair and Members, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

Mr. Chair and Members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association and the Retired Public Employees Association, in support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you all for being here. Is there an opposition witness? Seeing no one come forward, is there anyone who wishes to express opposition having heard the presentation on the bill? You may come forward.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Stanicia Boatner, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, California Special Districts Association, the Urban Counties of California, and the Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else in opposition wishing to come forward? We will then come back to the committee. Senator Gonzalez, any comments or questions on the bill? All right, Senator Gonzalez has offered to move the recommendation on the bill, and before we take a roll call, I want to give the author an opportunity to close.

Thank you. It's a two-party process, right, and I think if there is an administrative error, a financial miscalculation, that there needs to be--that that responsibility needs to be shared as well. So thank you, and I respectfully ask for a yes vote.

Okay, well, thank you. And we will ask the assistant to take roll call vote at this time on the motion by Senator Gonzalez, and restate the motion, please.

On File Item 14: AB 3025, the motion is: do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call].

All right, we're at two/zero, but we'll leave the bill on call for the absent members. Thank you very much. I saw another author come in, Assembly Member Rivas, Luz Rivas. You have two file items, Item Seven and Item Eight: AB 2364 and AB 2738. You may come forward and present if ready, and I assume you'll start with File Item Seven. That is 2364, property service. Order?

Yeah. AB 2364 will be first.

364. 2364. Thank you for clarifying that. Please begin whenever you're ready. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Good morning, Mister Chair. I want to start by thanking Alma for her work and thoughtful analysis on this Bill. AB 2364 would limit dangerously high workloads in the janitorial industry faced by the aging workforce. Specifically, this Bill creates a seven person Advisory Committee to develop proposed regulations establishing standards in the janitorial industry.

Janitors are essential workers. They are at the front lines protecting us from diseases, working around the clock to keep our grocery stores, office buildings and public spaces clean and sanitized for us to use. Unfortunately, our janitors are exposed to frequent injuries, violence and disrespect in the workplace.

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

Most of these workers are hardworking immigrant women. Our mothers, grandmothers and sisters deserve safe working environments so that they can stay healthy and continue to support their families every day. Today I have with me to provide testimony. Maria Trujillo, janitor from Oakland, and Kevin Ru, researcher at the UC Berkeley Center for Occupational and Environmental Health. Here to translate for Maria is my staff, Jose Medina.

Thank you. Go ahead and have the witnesses come forward. It looks like the witness that's going to take advantage of the translation will be first. And good to see you again. I think we met recently. Thank you. Please proceed. You'll have four minutes total, so you have a couple minutes to speak, and then we'll have a couple minutes for translation.

Buenas tardes, señor presidente y senadores. Gracias por esta oportunidad de dirigirme a usted. Mi nombre es María Trujillo y he trabajado durante 24 años en la industria de la limpieza en Oakland. Emigré a este país hace casi 40 años cuando mi esposo obtuvo la residencia con la amnistía de los años ochenta.

Hoy soy una orgullosa madre de cuatro hijos y abuela de siete maravillosos nietos. Como inmigrante en este país, he enfrentado muchos desafíos, pero siempre he sido tenaz y he trabajado duro para mejorar la vida de mi familia.

Como muchas otras madres trabajadoras, los conserjes en una industria de bajos salarios como yo sufrimos de primera mano los impactos negativos de la codicia de las empresas de tecnología. Los empleadores están utilizando el pretexto de las oficinas vacantes para justificar la reducción de horas y el aumento de la carga de trabajo a niveles peligrosos, dejando a los trabajadores migrantes con lesiones y dolores crónicos en el cuerpo.

Seis de cada 10 conserjes necesitan tomar medicamentos para aliviar el dolor. Muchos de mis compañeros están en edad de jubilarse, como yo, pero no pueden dejar de trabajar. Nuestra salud se está deteriorando y necesitamos mejores seguros médicos y acceso a los medicamentos necesarios. Los trabajadores de la limpieza merecen respeto. Somos la fuerza laboral inmigrante esencial para que la economía siga avanzando.

You'll have to wrap up. You'll have to stop now. You're at two minutes.

Good afternoon, Mister Chair and Senators. Thank you for this opportunity to address you. My name is Maria Trujillo and I have worked for 24 years in the cleaning industry in Oakland. I immigrated to this country almost 40 years ago when my husband obtained residency with the amnesty of the eighties.

Today I am a proud mother of four children and grandmother of seven wonderful grandchildren. As an immigrant to this country, I have faced many challenges, but I have always been tenacious and worked hard to improve the lives of my family.

Like many other working mothers, janitors in a Low wage industry like me suffer firsthand the negative impacts of tech companies greed. Employers are using the pretext of office vacancies to justify reducing hours and increasing workloads to dangerous levels, leaving migrant workers with injuries and chronic pain on their bodies.

That's why we need you to support AB 2364 to end the exploitation and abuse of janitors. Day after day we see how my fellow janitors have their hours reduced or are fired from their jobs, leaving them adrift, without salary or health insurance.

As cuts continue, workers who remain are forced to clean more floors or the same number of offices. But with fewer staff and resources, we can no longer handle dangerously high workloads. One in three janitors have been injured in their workplace. More than half of us cleaning workers suffer from severe pain.

Six out of 10 janitors need to take medication to relieve pain. Many of my colleagues are of retirement age, like me, but they cannot stop working. Our health is deteriorating and we need better health insurance and access to necessary medications. Cleaning workers deserve respect. We are the essential immigrant workforce to keep the economy moving forward.

We have always been there to improve the economy. With our contributions, today we come to ask the state government protect our dignity. Thank you. And I ask for you to support AB 2364.

All right, thank you. Did we have another lead witness? Yes, please proceed. You'll have a couple minutes.

Thank you. Mister chair and Committee Members, my name is Kevin Ru and I'm a researcher with UC Berkeley Center for Occupational Environmental Health on the Janitor Workload California Janitor Workload study, which was supported by the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers compensation.

I'm here today to advocate for AB 2364 because I believe to comprehend and provide solutions to the full extent of the challenges janitors face, it's essential to listen to them directly. Our study, which surveyed over 700 janitors, has highlighted the severe physical and mental health consequences of high workload burdens.

Higher workload exposure increased the risk of these reported adverse health outcomes, suggesting an exposure response relationship. And just to name one example, workers exposed to high workloads were associated with twice the odds of having anxiety or depression compared to those exposed to low workload, with similar associations found for others, such as work-related injuries and regularly missing work due to pain and as well as regularly taking pain medications.

In addition, janitorial work has been classified in other literature as precarious, characterized by characteristics such as lack of control, bullying and harassment, all of which has seemed to really amplify these negative health impacts.

These results of our study corroborated those of similar studies conducted by Washington state and Minnesota, which also found high physical burden of among their janitors and together these really emphasize that the work related exposures of janitor require mitigation and AB 2364 would be critical step in achieving that.

It recognizes the importance of those performing the work and shaping their working conditions effectively addressing the complex issues faced by janitors really requires continuous input from the workers themselves, as employers who do not experience the daily realities of the job are not necessarily equipped to set effective steps standards alone.

The establishment of a structured process to ensure ongoing worker input is vital, and AB 2364 aims to achieve that. This Bill ensures that the standards for workers are practical and genuinely beneficial.

After all, nearly 55% of janitors surveyed are over the age of 50 and older individuals are particularly vulnerable to injuries and chronic health issues rising from their tasks and jobs.

Ultimately, by fostering collaboration and developing solutions to ensure worker protection in a healthy workplace for environments, AB 2364 marks an important step in that and I urge you to support this Bill. Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony and to the previous witness. Thank you as well. The two minute limit we have to establish at the beginning for all support and opposition. In order to be fair and under the United States Constitution, it's important for us to keep the time limits the same.

But we got everybody's point loud and clear, and now we'll open it up to support witnesses who wish to identify by name and affiliation. Thank you.

As well as President of SEIU USWW. Thank you.

Support. Yes, thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

Thank you.

My name is Dora Silva. I am janitor here in Sacramento. I support.

Good morning. My name is Araseli Castellanos. I am janitor. I'm support.

Mi nombre es Teresa Cardoza, y soy janitor y yo apoyo.

My name is Alicia Morales. I'm a janitor, and I support. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Araceli Quezada, I'm support.

Hi, my name is Carolina Rocha. I'm janitor here, and I'm support.

My name is Irene Velasco. I'm janitor, I support.

Nombre Silvia Villalobos. Soy janitor, yo apoyo.

My name is Andres Perez. I'm a son of a union member, and I'm here in support.

Mi nombre es Teresa Guillen. Soy janitor y apoyo.

My name is Christina Alvarez, here with the janitors union. I support.

Rene Bayardo for SEIU California, and me too-ing for Voices for Progress.

Christian Ramirez with USWW in support.

Araceli Reda with the USWW in support.

Okay, thank you all. Is there a lead opposition witness? Please come forward. You have a couple minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chair And Members. Skyler Wonnacott here with the California Business Properties Association and our members Boma California and NAIOP California and over 10,000 members in respectful opposition to AB 2364 as amended. AB 2364 proposes setting up a council to regulate the janitorial industry, which we fear could create a regulatory environment similar to the problematic Fast Food Council. This could result in enforcement actions primarily against non-union employers, leading to more claims and lawsuits without improving worker conditions.

This bill's criteria for defining a reasonable workload are overly simplistic and fail to capture the complexities of janitorial work. Additionally, the proposed council composition reduces management representation, potentially increasing costs and reducing operational flexibility for employers. AB 2364 imposes excessive training costs on employers, particularly small businesses. It mandates more costly harassment training programs disproportionate to the potential benefits.

The current dollar 65 per employee charge under labor code 1420 adequately covers sexual violence and harassment prevention training. This bill could lead to job losses, as businesses may turn to automation to offset increased costs. It will also drive up costs for cleaning state owned buildings, including schools. Recent SEIU agreements already address workload disputes, making this bill unnecessary.

The proposed committee's labor heavy composition lacks balance representation and the involvement of the Labor Commissioner's office is redundant, given Cal/OSHA's rule. California faces some of the highest office vacancy rates in the nation, and AB 2364 would only worsen this situation, leading to more blighted properties and economic decline. Thank you for your consideration. I respectfully ask for a no vote on AB 2364.

Thank you for your testimony. Please come forward.

Good morning. Kelly Hitt on behalf of ABM in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else wishing to express opposition?

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

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

All right, thank you. Seeing no one else come forward in opposition, I will bring it back to the committee. Senator Gonzalez, any comments or a motion? All right, Senator Gonzalez has offered a motion. We will come back to the author for an opportunity to close.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Senators. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We'll ask the Assistant to restate the motion and call the roll call, please.

For file item number seven, AB 2364, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we're at 2-0, but we'll leave that bill on call for the absent Members. Again, we thank everyone who appeared here to testify, and we appreciate all the testimony on both sides of the issue. We'll move to file item eight now, also Assembly Member Rivas, AB 2738, and you may begin with that bill whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Mister Chair and Senators. AB 2738 increases enforcement of existing labor laws in several ways. First, it makes small changes to a Bill from last year that granted local public prosecutors, like city attorneys and county counsel, the authority to enforce state labor law.

Second, it allows those local public prosecutors to also enforce the live event worker safety law authored by Assemblymember Ward by expanding their authority to that section of the labor code.

Lastly, it increases the enforcement of the live event worker safety law by increasing the transparency of contract agreements between entertainment vendors and public venues to ensure that stage crews being hired are properly trained. Stage production workers who set up, operate and tear down live events face serious work hazards.

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

In 2022, AB 1775 set an industry wide safety standard for staging and live events production by requiring entertainment vendors that produce events, such as concerts at state owned or operated facilities to certify that all entertainment workers have adequate and appropriate safety training.

However, AB 1775 put the onus on entertainment vendors to certify that workers met the safety requirements. The temporary nature of setting up live events like concerts make law enforcement challenging for statewide enforcement agencies with thousands of workplaces to inspect.

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

Today I have our sponsor Sarah Fox representing the California Labor Federation as a witness in support.

Thank you, Miss Flocks, please come forward and you'll have a couple minutes.

Thank you, Mister Chair Members. Sarah Flocks, California Labor Federation. And this is a Bill to address the labor law enforcement crisis in California. We've heard about the backlogs, about chronic under staffing both at the labor Commissioner's office and at Cal OSHA.

And this has caused a lack of enforcement across the board of critical safety, of health and safety laws and of wage and hour laws.

So what this Bill does is it takes the model of AB 594 from last year, which gave more tools to public prosecutors, to those city attorneys, district attorneys, county councils who know their local economy. It gave them more tools to enforce labor law.

What this Bill does is takes that great model and expands it so that they can now enforce the set safety, the live event set safety law. At the same time, it also ensures that these offices that are springing up in cities across the state have a sustainable funding source that does not require state funding.

So in 594, it was not mandatory that these public prosecutors offices were awarded attorneys fees and costs when they were the prevailing parties. This Bill changes that.

It says that they shall get attorneys fees and costs when they're the prevailing party so that they have an incentive and a funding source to be able to keep bringing these cases. And this is, I'm just going to emphasize this again. This is for public prosecutors like your city attorney, your District Attorney.

This is not for private law firms. And it is a simple way that we're not, we don't need to use state funding and yet we can increase labor law enforcement, also taking the burden off of the labor Commissioner. And now Cal OSHA, thanks to this Bill. So we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Next witness.

Mister Chair Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of the Teamsters CSEA unite here ATU in support. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Anyone else who wishes to express a support position, name and affiliation? See none. Do we have an opposition witness? Welcome. You'll have a couple minutes.

Good morning, Mister Chair and Senator. My name is Sabrina Lockhart. I'm the Executive Director of the California Attractions and Parks Association. We represent California theme parks, water parks, family entertainment centers, as well as the businesses that provide professional services and equipment to our industry. Our Members are employers of all sizes.

We have multi generational family owned businesses and nonprofits. As Members, we're in opposition to just the provision in this Bill that requires courts to award attorneys fees and cases rather than giving them the discretion. Last year we voiced concerns that public entities will likely contract out with private law firms for this litigation.

And last year's measure, AB 594 only took effect in January of this year. The author took amendments last year to remove mandatory court awards, and this Bill reverses those amendments taken last year. AB 2738 instead forces courts to award fees, creating a financial incentive for private attorneys to file claims against businesses regardless of merit.

The current system, where courts decide who gets reimbursed, ensures that justice is served for legitimate grievances not exploited for financial gain. For these reasons, we oppose. AB 2738. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Are you a second lead witness coming up? All right, thank you then. Name, affiliation and position, please. Thank you.

Thank you Mister Chair, Members of the Committee, Brian Little, California Farm Bureau in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Mister Chair, Members of the Committee, Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Thank you. That concludes support and opposition testimony. We'll come back to the Committee. Any comments or questions? We have an offer by Senator Gonzalez to move the recommendation on the Bill.

Let me just say to, with reference to all the testimony, opposition testimony, I understand the concern, having practiced law and also having served in the local government where some of this enforcement will take place, I understand why folks would speak up about that.

But I think the issue is that larger cities and counties will be doing this in house. They have a lot of reasons to do that at a number of levels.

And I think when you look at the unlevel playing field of perhaps a large defendant against a much smaller entity somewhere in California, not one of our large cities of 250,000 or more, for example, they would be at a severe disadvantage if they couldn't bring in counsel and at least have to take the gamble that they're going to succeed and be able to recoup attorney's fees.

So I think it's fair. Obviously, all this kind of legislation is a matter of road testing. At some point we find out how it works, how it doesn't work. But I thought it was important that the support witness emphasize that this is not a paga situation or plaintiff private plaintiff council situation.

Here it is trying to empower public sector prosecutors as I'm understanding the Bill and therefore I'll be supporting the Bill. So I'll come back to the author for any opportunity you would like to close.

Thank you, Mister Chair. Thank you for your comments and for supporting. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I'll ask the assistant to restate the motion and call the roll, please.

On file item number eight, AB 2738. The motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right, we're at 2 to 0. We'll keep the Bill on call and we expect to have some Members, Committee Members back here soon. Thank you very much. Thank you everyone for your testimony.

Great. We do have Assembly Member Cervantes here on File Item Six: AB 2167, which I believe will be our last presentation today, and maybe we can get some help to start trying to get members back here for a few minutes to lift the call. Thank you very much, and you can proceed.

Thank you, Chair and Senators, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2167, a bill that will make Paid Family Leave benefits more accessible to and eligible for Californians. I want to begin by stating that I am asking this committee to adopt the author's amendments described on page three of the committee analysis, and I do want to thank the staff for all their assistance on this bill.

As amended, AB 2167 will make applying for both Paid Family Leave and State Disability Insurance benefits more accessible to eligible Californians. Both of these programs provide wage replacements during leave from work after the birth or adoption of a child. Birthing people commonly use a combination of both PFL and SDI programs for this purpose.

State Disability Insurance is available for birthing people up to six weeks after a vaginal birth and up to eight weeks after birth by cesarean. Birthing people can then access up to eight weeks of Paid Family Leave program once they have exhausted their SDI eligibility.

Meanwhile, eligible non-birthing partners can access up to eight weeks of PFL benefits after birth or adoption for bonding time with a new child. However, applying for PFL and STI benefits can be complicated and time-consuming. The final months of pregnancy or welcoming a newborn or a newly adopted child are transformational events.

Many Paid Family Leave benefits more--we need to make them more accessible to help with lowering stress among birthing people and their partners during pregnancy, especially any worries of--over financial security. The existing PFL and State Disability programs only provide a 41-day window to apply for benefits, and this window to apply only opens on the worker's first day of leave.

Workers cannot apply before their leave begins. The restrictive and limited nature of this application window is not reflective of real life. My bill seeks to foster a more accessible and supportive application process by allowing eligible workers to have more time to apply for Paid Family Leave benefits.

This bill would accomplish this by permitting early application for PFL and SDI up to 60 days before a worker's first day of leave. The bill would also adjust the timeline for an appeal of a denial of PFL and SDI benefits, extending the window for workers to appeal from 30 days to 60 days.

This will give families and individuals more opportunities to apply for these benefits while navigating the life changes associated with welcoming a new family member. We know that many members of the Legislature had done an immense amount of work in recent years to augment PFL and SDI benefits here in California.

This bill is a follow-up to those efforts and a response to the issues that many Californians have faced in accessing these benefits by making the application process for Paid Family Leave more accessible to eligible Californians. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much. And no, no lead support witnesses on this one? That's fine. Is there anyone in the committee room who wishes to walk up and express a support position?

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB/GYNs, District Nine, in support.

Thank you for that. Anyone else on the support side? Seeing no one come forward, is there an opposition witness? Seeing no witnesses come forward in opposition, is there anyone who wishes to express an opposition position in the committee room? Seeing no one come forward, we'll come back to the committee. We could take comments or questions or entertain a motion. Senator Durazo?

I move the bill and I also ask the author, we have very similar bills moving forward right now, so I'll do everything I can to help you, maybe co-author, but for today, move the bill.

Thank you, Senator Durazo. With that, you may close, Assembly Member, if you like.

Yes, I do recognize we do have similarities between our two bills and certainly look forward to collaborating together on these efforts, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

All right, we'll ask the assistant to restate the motion--we do have a motion, do we not? Senator Durazo, that's right--to restate the motion and call the roll, please.

Yes. On File Item Number Six: AB 2167, the motion is: do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right. Five/zero. The bill is out. Thank you. We are going to lift the call at this point. I'll ask the assistant to proceed.

Starting at the top of the file order, File Item One: the motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

Five/zero. The bill's out.

File Item Number Two: AB 2182 by Assembly Member Haney: the motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

Four to zero, with one not voting. The bill is out.

Thank you. On File Item Number Three: AB 1997 with Assembly Member McKinnor, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

All right, five/zero. The bill is out.

Thank you. On File Item Number Five, the motion is: do pass as amended to the Committee on the Judiciary. This is AB 2135. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

All right, that's four/zero, with one not voting. The bill is out.

We'll move now to File Item Number Seven: AB 2364 by Assembly Member Luz Rivas. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations, and the Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

All right. That's four/one. The bill is out.

On File Item Number Eight: AB 2738 by Assembly Member Luz Rivas, the motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call].

That is four to one. The bill is out.

On File Item Number Ten: AB 2705 by Assembly Member Ortega, the motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

Five/zero. The bill is out.

On File Item Number 13: AB 2971 by Assembly Member Maienschein, the motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. The Chair is voting aye. [Roll Call].

Four to one. The bill is out.

And finally, on File Item Number 14: AB 3025 by Assembly Member Valencia, the motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call].

Five/zero. The bill is out. Picked up everyone on consent already, right?

Yes. The consent calendar is out. That's it.

All right. Well, that concludes, that concludes our hearing today, and we've completed our agenda. Thank you, everyone, for moving around efficiently and helping us to keep the agenda moving today, and I want to especially thank the committee staff.

I obviously was substitute chair today because Senator Smallwood-Cuevas was out, but I very much appreciate the support of the committee staff today. If there's anyone who was unable to testify for any reason today, I thought we allowed ample opportunity, but you're welcome to submit your comments in writing to the committee, and that can be done through the online system. Again, thank you, everyone, and thanks to the committee staff. We are adjourned.

And thanks to you.