Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate Committee on labor, public employment and retirement will come to order. Happy Juneteenth, everyone. Good morning. We are prepared for our first presenter, who I see in the room. Assemblywoman Aguiar Curry. Do you want to come forward? We are going to begin as a Subcommitee this morning as we wait for our Members to get us to a quorum. And we appreciate that.

Another day in paradise. No, it's fine. Good morning, Senators. Educators cannot currently earn paid pregnancy leave. Only after they have used all their sick leave are educators able to receive differential pay when they cannot work due to pregnancy related disabilities. Differential pay is a fancy way of saying you get to pay for your substitute.

Other types of leave cited by the opposition as perfectly acceptable alternatives are unpaid. Educators, they say, can schedule their pregnancies based on their school calendar or just for go pay.

For any of you who are parents, I'm sure you know well, scheduling pregnancies doesn't work in real life, as we are trying to join the rest of the world in providing employees rights to care for their families. Why are educators treated the worst?

Since this legislation was last proposed, data from CalSTRS shows that women will receive almost $100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts. In a profession where over 70% are women, this is shocking and unacceptable. It is a systemic sexism, and it's about time we all try to fix this.

Meanwhile, we are struggling with critical shortages in the very professions we are trying to help with this Bill. California Department of Education data shows that there were more than 10,000 vacancies in California public schools by the end of 2022, and we have not recovered.

Fixing this inequity is a crucial step towards addressing these staffing and retirement issues as we do our best to invest in our youth and their education and try to encourage people to join the most important profession. Speaking in support with me today will be is Seth Bramble, on behalf of the California Teachers Association. And we are expecting State Superintendent Tony Thurmond as well.

Before we begin with your testimony, I would like to get our quorum pulled together. Just give us a moment. Assistant, will you call the roll?

All right. Smolud Cuevas. Here. Smalled cuevas. Here. Wilk. Wilk. Present. Cortese Gonzalez. Laird. Laird here. We have a quorum.

Thank you very much. And I see our special guest has arrived. Welcome, Superintendent. Would you like to say a few words before we move to the first witness?

Thank you, Madam Chair Members. Tony Thurmond, State Superintendent of Public Instruction, honored to be a sponsor. And here today, in support of AB 2901. I would like to thank the majority leader for your leadership and bringing this measure forward. This is an important measure in support supporting our workforce retention and equity.

Because the current practice requires women educators to deplete their sick leave time, they also find themselves losing retirement credits when it comes time to retire as compared to their male counterparts.

This is the opportunity for us to do the right thing by our educators, to give them paid sick leave for paid pregnancy leave for up to 14 weeks, and to correct an inequity that exists in our system and to allow us to do better on retention as we struggle to work through a teacher shortage.

This would do great things for classroom teachers, classified staff and those in higher ed. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2901 thank you.

Very much Mister Superintendent, and thank you for joining us. Please proceed.

Seth Bramble, speaking this morning on behalf of the California Teachers Association, proud to sponsor this Bill alongside our Superintendent and the state treasurer and the California Federation of Teachers. As the analysis points out, a study by the International Labor Organization of the United Nations found there's been a gradual shift across the globe towards pregnancy leave periods that meet or exceed a minimum standard of 14 weeks.

When leaves too short, mothers may not feel ready to return to work and may drop out of the workforce, the study points out of the 167 countries study, 97% do provide this paid leave for women. Only four of the 167 countries did not. Lesotho, Papua New Guinea, Swaziland and the United States.

In California, the fifth largest economy worldwide, one of the largest and predominantly female workforces in the state are excluded from pregnancy leave, a fundamental standard for reproductive rights in most countries across the globe. As of 2020, Ireland provided workers with six and a half months of pay leave. Italy provided five months of pay leave.

England provided nearly 10 months of pay of paid leave. California is far behind the world in this area and as we embrace diversity and family friendly policies in our state, California has an opportunity to bring more equity to retirement income.

The proposed new pregnancy leave for educators will not be deducted from sick leave and improves working conditions to help attract and retain talented educators. As the author mentioned, more than three quarters of educators are female, making this proposed policy especially impactful for those who choose public education for their career. We thank the majority leader for her leadership and urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you Madam Chair Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals also in sport or proud to co-sponsor urge your support.

Good morning. Kim Lewis, representing Children Now. Pleased to be in support.

Good morning. Kathy McBride, on behalf of the San Francisco Unified School District, in support.

Martin Radosevich, on behalf of the California Work and Family Coalition and Reproductive Freedom for All California in support.

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

Madam Chair Member Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation, in support.

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

John Meredith.. on behalf of the California State Teachers Retirement System, in support.

Anyone else? Okay. Anyone wishing to speak in opposition to the Bill? Are there opposition? Witnesses, please. Is there a lead witness for opposition? Okay. Sure.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Association of School of Business Officials in respectful opposition to AB 2901. So we want to acknowledge the intent of the author for granting employee leave for the purposes, for these purposes.

And our concern really stems from the fiscal impact that it will have on local educational agencies and the complexity, complexity it would add to the already complicated set of state and federal employee leave programs.

AB 2901 would increase the financial pressures on schools without a corresponding budget appropriation to cover the new benefit and must acknowledge that this does create an unfunded mandate with an estimated cost of tens to hundreds of millions of dollars.

The interplay between these various leave related statutory provisions has become increasingly complex, and we must consider the impact on our ability to fully staff classrooms and educational programs that are already experiencing a teacher shortage. We believe further decisions regarding leave policies for school employees are best resolved through the collective bargaining process at the local level. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Dorothy Johnson, with ASCA, the Association of California School Administrators would like to line the majority of my comments with my colleague from CASBO, but definitely want to double down on that. We do not oppose the concept of giving leave for these critical needs, whether it's family care, personal care, and so forth.

What we do, of course, deeply worry about is the immense cost pressure for funds that are already dedicated to students, classrooms and teacher and classified staff salary and benefit. So, and we also appreciate the concerns about the staff shortages.

We think this is one piece of a much broader puzzle and must be discussed in that context and not taken alone, given again the immense cost pressures and the vacancies that will be left for remaining staff to bear the burden and carry on to make sure that students and other student services are not left behind.

Thank you so much.

Anyone else wishing to speak in opposition, please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you. Madam Chair, Nick Romley here on behalf of the Small School Districts Association and also in the School Employers Association of California, want to align our comments with CASBO and ASCA, in particular the concerns around continuity of instruction as we look at substitutes rotating in and out of the classroom.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME, we are actually in support. Forgive us for being out of order. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, seeing no further opposition Members. Sure, Senator.

Thank you, Senator, sure .I support the General direction of this and we'll vote to move it. But we have a chart in our analysis that compares FMLA, pregnancy, disability leave, paid family leave, and the California Civil Rights act to this, the provisions in those acts. To this Bill.

For example, it says employee eligibility, and for a couple of them it says worked 1250 hours in the prior 12 months. And for this Bill it says unspecified. And for continued health coverage, most of them say yes. In this Bill it says unspecified in the length of leave. It generally says 12 months or up to four months.

But this is more open ended and determined by employee and physician. And some of them are unpaid. Actually, majority are unpaid. And then the other's partial wage, this is full pay. So this hasn't tied down some of the things that the other bills tied down. Do you intend to do that as this process moves forward?

Well, obviously that, I don't know how I could have missed that, but I'll be more than happy to look into it and continue to work on the Bill.

Well, it's, I appreciate that, but I would hope for a little more of a commitment that you will actually specify places where it's unspecified so that we have a way that this will align with the other laws that we have.

I think the chart was very instructive and very clear, as is described in the chart. And as the author mentioned, the other leaves that are available are unpaid. In General, educators don't have access to state disability insurance. I know there was a mention in the analysis that Los Angeles unified does.

Just to be clear, they have a lot of bargaining units in Los Angeles unified. The Members of United Teachers Los Angeles do not have the 30,000 or so educators that we have represent, do not have access to state disability insurance.

But the intent here in terms of employee eligibility is that any certificate or classified staff could take this leave if they were essentially pregnant going through the conditions of pregnancy. So there's not a prior amount of hours. That's required in terms of continued health coverage in General, if you're on paid.

Leave, that mean that if somebody has worked for 2 hours, they immediately are eligible. The same is actually true for sick leave. So when you start as a teacher and sick leave day one, you have 10 days that you can use if you get sick. The same is intended for this leave that if you got pregnant.

Totally appreciate it. It's just that 10 days is totally different than the length of this, which is much, much longer after somebody's working for two days.

It depends. It's between the Doctor and the patient. But certainly it could be up to a period of 14 weeks of paid leave. But in terms of your second question, continued health coverage generally, if you're on a paid leave, you do have access to continued health coverage.

But as the author mentioned, if there's a need to clarify that, I think that's okay.

I'm just looking for. I don't guess I'll see this again until it's on the floor. But I'm just looking for all these issues to be resolved. But by the time it gets there, you got it. Okay. Thank you very much.

Yeah, and I'll come visit you one on one and make sure we have it clarified.

And, you know, maybe in the chart you need to add a column on whether or not people are covered with disability or not. So it puts into context whether or not it's specified or unspecified. But that's neither here nor there. I don't have to tell you how to best advocate for your Bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Senator Laird. Anyone else? Do we have a. We do have a motion from Senator Laird. A simply woman. Would you like to close?

Hello, colleagues. Let's face it, we're losing teachers faster than we can educate them. It's time to stop charging women $100,000 to care for their child. While we await their return to care for hours. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And assistant, will you call the roll.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of three to zero, this Bill will be on call. Thank you so much,

Madam Chair. While the next person's coming up, I would move item number five, which is the entire consent agenda.

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

[Roll Call]

With a vote of three to zero, the consent calendar is on call.

All right, I see Assembly Member Kalra in the room. We're going to go back to file order, and that is file order number one, AB 2288. Hello. Welcome, Assemblymember. You may proceed.

Senators, there it is. AB 2288 would allow courts to order injunctive relief in a PAGA claim. Since 2004, PAGA has served as a critical enforcement tool of California's labor laws.

Recognizing the reality that states labor enforcement agencies often lack the resources to investigate and take action against every violation, PAGA cases are most often filed to address serious labor code violations and enforce fundamental labor rights such as overtime, minimum wage, and sick leave. Unfortunately, California is in a labor enforcement crisis.

A February 2024 report by the UCLA Labor center highlighted nearly 600,000 workers in California experienced a wage violation totaling almost $2 billion in losses annually. Only 2% of those lost wages are recovered by the labor Commissioner's wage claim process.

Limited public enforcement resources enforced arbitration of severely limited workers options to seek recourse making remedies like injunctive relief needed to strengthen PAGA's effectiveness. In the context of PAGA, injunctive relief would enable courts to order employees to make meaningful changes in the workplace.

For example, if an employer fails to provide workers with paid sick days, the court could order an injunction requiring the employer to establish a lawful paid sick day policy.

PAGA remains one of the only tools workers have to remedy violations of their rights, and AB 2288 is about ensuring they seek comprehensive, meaningful relief from unlawful workplace practices. Here to testify and support is Sara Flocks on behalf of the California Labor Federation.

Thank you, may proceed.

Madam Chair and Senators, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. Our goal with any changes to PAGA is to create incentives employers to come into compliance and to follow the law. The goal really is about making sure that employers are able to follow the law and workers have that redress. Injunctive relief is an incredibly important part of this.

It means that if an employer had been misclassifying workers, that then rather than just paying a settlement, they would actually reclassify those workers so they would have all of the protections of the labor code. This is a very important part of any changes that are moving forward on PAGA, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Is there any other witnesses? Okay, so me too. Those in support, please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, the Consumer Attorneys of California and the California Coalition for Worker Power, in support.

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

Madam Chair Senators Louie Costa, SMART Transportation Division, State Legislative Board, in support.

Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California, in support.

Thank you. Anyone here testifying? In opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. As the Governor announced yesterday, there will be a Bill going into print that does have comprehensive pogger reform, which will include a piece related to injunctive relief.

So from our perspective, I think having this conversation in isolation about injunctive relief is really no longer relevant as that Bill will go into print. So respectfully request a no vote. Thank you.

Chair Senators. Dean Grafilo with Capitol Advocacy here, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, in opposition.

Good morning, chair Members. Marlon Lara, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Sarah Pollo Moo with California Retailers Association, respectfully opposed.

Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. Also, my colleague Ben Ebig asked me to express the opposition of the California League of Food Processors. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sabrina Lockhart with the California Attractions and Parks Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Darby Kernan, on behalf of REDF in respectful opposition and hopeful that the PAGA deal will address a lot of the concerns and really solve the problem. Thank you.

I would just say very euphemistically, I'm confident that this Bill will harmonize itself with current events. And I move the Bill.

Ditto. We have a motion on the floor. Well, we are ready to call the roll. Thank you so much. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And yes, to Senator Laird's point and comments from Chamber of Commerce, obviously, I think we've seen that there was a deal struck. It's very fresh and new. And I think at this point, having this Bill move forward until those details are finalized is very important. I am very hopeful and as are the sponsors, that larger deal will resolve the issues in this legislation.

But until the ink is dry, so to speak, we want to make sure that there's some very important relief continues to move forward, but hopeful for a very positive resolution ultimately, and respectfully ask for your aye vote to allow the conversations to continue.

Well, thank you very much for your hard work on this, for everyone's hard work on this, for bringing California to this very important moment. And with that, I will ask the Assistant to call the roll

[Roll Call]

This Bill has a vote of three to zero. We'll put it on call. Thank you. And we'll move to your next item. AB 265. Thank you.

AB 2602 would require performers informed consent and proper representation when executing a contract for any transfer of rights to that individual's likeness or voice. Amidst the rise of the digital age, performers across the entertainment industry have inadvertently been signing away the rights to their digital selves through clauses that can look like standard copyright language.

Specifically, individuals are unknowingly authorizing studios to use their voice and likeness in all media by all current and future technologies in perpetuity and with no additional compensation. AB 2602 strikes the balance between industry progress and protecting a performer's right to their digital self and livelihood.

This Bill does not outright prohibit the use of digital replicas, but rather ensures that if performers agree to license out their digital self, that they're fully aware of the extent of and the intentions for that use.

I would like to thank the Motion Pictures Association and Recording Industry Association of America for working with my office on amendments that address their concerns. This Bill has received bipartisan support, and here to testify and support is Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG AFTRA and Sara Flocks with the California Labor Federation.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA and our 160,000 Members that are performers in a variety of aspects of the entertainment industry, they are very, very concerned about this particular technology that is growing exponentially fast and is getting better and cheaper to use.

I think a lot of your colleagues are talking about AI and similar technologies and not wanting to get in a place where you're blocking the development of helpful technology, but at least putting some guardrails around the potential harms that could happen. And that's exactly what this Bill does. It just defines what informed consent is.

It follows along our collective bargaining agreement, the language there, and we, too, would like to thank the MPA and the recording industry for negotiating with us and getting to a place where everybody's good with this Bill. So with that, ask for your aye vote.

Next witness.

Chair Members Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. We're also a co sponsor of this legislation. It's part of a Bill package we have of five bills to put worker center guardrails on the use of AI and technology in the workplace.

This Bill is a great model because it ensures that workers have representation when they are entering into these contracts on the most personal and essential asset that they have, which is their likeness. And so this is really very important to move forward. It's a great model. And we thank the author for all their work, for his work on this Bill. Ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward. Any opposition to the Bill in the room? Okay. Seeing none, we'll move to the dais. Members.

Well, I want to just thank you for bringing this Bill forward, for the hard work that SAG AFTRA and MPA have done, the writers Guild, on this issue. As we're integrating this technology into our work sites, we have to make sure we do it protecting human assets.

And I think this is one of the examples of that that we all need to pay attention to. And I want to thank you and the negotiations that went into this. Did you want to. You will move the Bill? Thank you so much, Senator Laird, thank you. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With a vote of three to zero, this Bill is on call. Thank you, Assembly Member Garcia, for your patience. We'll now hear your Bill. Please step forward. This is item number seven. AB 2873.

Good morning, Madam Chair, colleagues. Thank you so much for your attention. The analysis outlines quite well what AB 2873 does. So I will defer to our witnesses. Isis Orellana, policy analyst for California Workforce Association. Jennifer Kerr, an English language instructor at the Goodwill of San Francisco Bay.

In essence, we're bringing back a Bill from 2017 to be more intentional with our efforts to ensure that individuals with barriers to employment have an opportunity to access these workforce dollars and achieve their goals of employment. And so I'll defer to our witnesses to talk a little more about the Bill and the impacts of this Bill.

Thank you, chair and Members of the Committee, thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to speak about this important measure today. My name is Isis Medina Orellana with the California Workforce Association, and I'm here to discuss AB 2873 by Assemblymember Garcia.

AB 2873 seeks to make small but impactful changes to enhance the effectiveness of the breaking barriers to employment initiative at a very high level. Breaking Barriers establishes a grant program that partners local community based organizations with their local workforce development board to provide services to targeted populations who historically have difficulties in obtaining and retaining employment.

In the seven years since the program's inception, breaking barriers has been instrumental in connecting thousands of California's most vulnerable populations to meaningful employment, education, and training for self sufficiency and economic mobility. The breaking Barriers program has demonstrated significant success and demand. Program enrollment is soon to exceed 8000 individuals served through 68 grants.

The program has overwhelming interest, evidenced by 193 prospective grantees seeking a total of $97 million in funding, a staggering $58.8 million more than what was made available. The high level of interest in the program has had the unintended consequences of creating a burden on both local workforce boards and cbos.

While these partnerships between local workforce boards and cbos remain a critical piece to the Breaking Barriers program, we must acknowledge that in some instances, the popularity paired with timelines created by the grant have created bottlenecks, especially for smaller cbos attempting to formalize these partnerships.

The amendments to the Breaking Barriers to employment initiative program make the program more equitable, flexible, and accessible, all while maintaining the program's intended goals. We appreciate the opportunity to contribute to this important discussion and urge the Committee to vote aye on AB 2873. Thank you. .

Good afternoon, I'm Jennifer Kerr and I represent Goodwill of the SFB, where I work as an English language instructor. I'm here to share an example of the success of this program. Goodwill of the SFB is a mission driven, community based organization that helps those with barriers to employment to secure meaningful work.

Our organization applied for and received funding from the Breaking Barriers to employment initiative to create a program that increases English language proficiency and improved job opportunities for those within our immigrant communities who have been historically excluded from quality jobs.

Last year, we enrolled a woman named Annie, who was referred to us by another CBO after arriving to the USA. It took Annie many years for her right to work documents to arrive, and while waiting, she became an important part of her new community through volunteer work at the YMCA, her church, and the Chinese for affirmative Action group.

In 2023, she received her work authorization, but she was worried that her level of English competency would be a barrier. She was really nervous to speak English at job interviews, so she enrolled in Goodwill's job coaching for English language learners course, where I taught her how to create a strong resume, search for jobs, and succeed in an interview.

And in just a few weeks, Annie secured a position as a childcare assistant with Chi Ming, a nonprofit, community based agency. Her story exemplifies the ways in which the breaking barriers initiative allows us to empower learners to break down the barriers that have barred them from economic prosperity. But this program is not solely about employment.

It is also about restoring dignity and providing opportunities to build stronger communities. Annie is just one of the stories I could share. We have enrolled 275 people like Annie into our program. Thank you for the opportunity to share this story. Thank you very much.

Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill, please come forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Hi, Kristin Gorey. On behalf of the California Association of Local Conservation Corps, in support.

Darby Kernan. On behalf of REDF, in support.

Wishing to speak in opposition of the Bill, please step forward. Opposition witnesses. Okay. Anyone speaking just in opposition to the Bill? Seeing none, move to the dais membership. Thank you so much. We have a motion from Senator Laird, assistant. Please call the roll. oh, sorry. He does get to close. I'm so excited about making sure we move the breaking barriers Bill forward. Thank you. Appreciate that. With the close, please call the roll.

On file item number seven, AB 2873. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Wilk. Cortese. Cortese. I. Gonzalez. Laird. Laird. I.

Thank you.

We have a vote, three to zero. This Bill is on call.

All right. Seeing Assemblymember Gipson in the house, we are going to move to AB 2696 and you are presenting for Assemblymember Rendon. Thank you very much. You may proceed.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present this Bill on behalf of Speaker Emeritus Anthony Rendon. Assembly Bill 2696 closes a loophole that allows General contractors to avoid wage law enforcement when they complete projects with their own personnel rather than subcontracting.

Current law allows for federally certified Joint Labor Management Committee or the LMC, to have direct enforcement authority for subcontractors wage violations. Despite this, the LMCs loses their enforcement capabilities when a General contractor use their own workforce contracts or constructions workers instead of subcontracting it out a being.

2696 closes the loophole in extending law by extending Labor Management Committee Enforcement Authority to include direct enforcement on self performing General contractors. Here with me to provide supporting testimonies, any technical questions. It can be addressed by Danny Kurt, Director, and also Patty McCorrin. McCarran. McCarran. McCarran, Director of operations for the California Conference of Carpenters.

Okay. Thanks so much, Assemblyman, and thank you for presenting. Appreciate it. Madam Chair, Members. I just want to go over this quickly. I know you got a lot going on, not just here, but across the board. This is a work in progress, as most of the things we do here are never quite good at all.

People find ways to get around what you've done. Actually, Superintendent Thurmond was the author of the first iteration of this Bill, which is 1701, which made joint liability for subcontractor contractor relationships, but it only included wages, so there was no penalties associated. It wasn't very effective. Senator Leyva came back a couple years later with SDB 727.

I'm quite sure Senator Cortese remembers that, and I'm pretty sure you remember the other stuff, which added penalties and fines as a way way to actually get them to do it. Now we're finding, and the joint liability was there. Now we're finding that General contractors are avoiding that joint liability by self performing in jobs that they wouldn't normally self perform.

The other element that was new at the time and absolutely critical, and you heard more about it today, was it also included our standing as joint labor management committees, which is the contractors and the unions together have standing in court to enforce the laws. You're hearing more about that now.

And it was mentioned, I think, a couple of times here today because the audit showed that the Department of Industrial Relations is just completely swamped. Construction is one of the four industries that, according to the Department of Industrial Relations, underground economy, wage theft is rampant.

So the addition of this ability to do self enforcement is going to be more and more critical. And we are just really testing the wheels on this over the last four years. And what we're finding is that some of these contractors are finding another way to get out from that joint liability.

Your odds of being investigated by the Department of Industrial Relations are once in every 300 years. So there's. Let's roll the dice and see what happens. They might catch us in 250 years. So thank you so much. Patty McCarran is the Director of operations for our Enforcement Arm in Southern California. If there's any questions, she can answer, the actual technical stuff. But I ask your aye vote. So thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else wishing to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position. Is she a technical question? 0 I. Please. She's your technical witness. Please. Okay. I wasn't sure if she was just answering the technical questions, but please proceed, and if you have your statement, you have two minutes.

Okay. Thank you. Yes, my name is Patty McCarron. I am the Director of operations for the Carpenters Contractors Cooperation Committee. We're a joint labor management Committee that investigates wage theft. And we go on these private projects.

We have highly skilled representatives that go in and talk to workers and make sure that they're being paid the proper wages and check the safety violations and whatnot. What we've been finding is that recently, more and more, there are General contractors who. Who are not abiding by, or they're not paying their workers wages.

And we have no standing to help remedy this because the Bill does not include self performing General contractors. And basically, that's it. Essentially it. If you. Yeah. So I'm in support of this Bill, obviously.

Thank you.

Yeah. And do you have any questions?

Thank you for your comments, and we will come to the dais after we ask who else is in the audience speaking in support of the Bill. Thank you,. Okay. Seeing no one speaking in support. Anyone here to speak in opposition to the Bill? Okay, seeing none. We'll bring it to the dais. Senator? Senator Laird.

I was just going to say I had to present a Bill for former speaker Rendon, judiciary, and I had no notice. So clearly you had some notice here, and I would move the Bill.

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

Yes. Just again, wanted to say thank you very much and thank you to my witness and on behalf of speaker emeritus Anthony Rendon. We thank you as respectfully for an I vote.

Thank you for that. And good to see you, Mister Curtin. And good to see women here from the union. Okay.

[Roll Call]

At a vote of three to zero, this Bill is on call. We'll take it up later. Thank you. Okay, we are going to take a five minute recess for the Senate Committee on Labor Public Employment, and we'll be back shortly.

Okay, Labor Committee is back in session. We will now move to file item number three, AB 2374. Assemblymember Haney, begin when ready.

Is that on? Yep. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, AB 2374 will strengthen California's display janitors Opportunity act by expanding protections for laid off janitors. In 2002, California passed the displaced Janitors Opportunity act to prevent mass layoffs of janitors when there is a change in the staffing agency at the same facility if a janitorial services contract is terminated. The act currently allows the laid off janitors to continue working in the same position under the new janitorial staffing agency for 60 days.

However, that is no longer adequate time for laid off workers to transition between jobs. Additionally, the recent mass layoffs across all industries have exposed other shortcomings in the existing act. For example, on December 5, 2022 X, formerly known as Twitter, ended its 12 year contract with a janitorial agency.

This decision left those janitors without a job overnight, right before the holidays. X was able to exploit the loopholes in the current law to not provide the adequate transitional employment period to the laid off janitors. To update the Janitors Opportunity act and ensure our janitors are not being exploited, this Bill will require a newly hired janitorial staffing agency to retain laid off janitors for 90 days. Closed loopholes in the act by removing the exemption for janitorial staffing.

Agencies with less than 25 employees require companies to relay information about their newly hired janitorial staffing agency to the terminated agency. We worked closely with the opposition and have amended the Bill to address nearly all of their concerns. And with me to testify in support of the Bill, I have Jane Bruner on behalf of SEIU Local 87.

Good morning. Thank you. I'm Jane Bruner. I'm the attorney for the janitors in San Francisco with SEIU Local 87. I'm not going to try to repeat much, but what happened is right before Christmas in 2022, the janitors from a union contractor were terminated and Elon Musk brought in a new contractor, but did not follow state law. They did not tell the janitors the name of the new company, so the janitors could not apply.

He tried to get around the state law by keeping that janitor company in for 60 days, terminated them, and hired a new contract that also was not union and did not tell the janitors again who the new contractor was, so the janitors could not apply.

These are janitors who had been working in that industry for about 12 years in the same building with Twitter before Elton Musk took over. Because they had a union, we were able to sue, but we have learned a lot in that suit about how Musk had gone around the state law and what was happening.

And that's when we started working with Matt to try to get the Bill changed so that we can protect some of these janitors in the future. One of the biggest changes is that the Labor Commission will be monitoring this now. It's really hard for an individual janitor or five janitors to sue.

They could do it if they have a union, but if they don't have a union, they cannot sue. So that's one of the big changes. It covers all janitor contractors. It's not just people with 25 employees, because that was another thing.

He got the first janitor company that didn't have 25 employees to get around the Bill, and it adds more significant penalties. We worked really closely with the Chamber. We've made a lot of changes. Working with the Chamber, I believe we have only one issue open, and that is notice.

We agreed with the Chamber that instead of giving the notice to all the janitors individually at their address, they can post it in a building. But if the janitors are not in the building anymore because they've been laid off, and that's what happened in our situation right before Christmas, they were laid off and they were not in the building, then . They will give the janitor's union notice so the janitors know who to apply for a job.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here to speak in support of the Bill? Please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair Members. Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation. In support.

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

Thank you. Anyone here to speak in opposition to the Bill, please step forward.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, the Cal Chamber we are just in an oppose unless amended, position, as the sponsor indicated. Just one tiny issue that we are trying to see if maybe we can work on. I just can't thank the author and the sponsor enough for all the conversations we've had about this Bill and all the amendments.

So really appreciate your cooperation on this. So we will continue working to see if that oneissue, if there's something on our end we can propose. So thank you.

Chair, Senators Dean Grafilo, with Capitol Advocacy here, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, respectfully opposed to AB 2374. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed, unless amended. And for Ben Ebbing's client, California League of Food Producers, also respectfully opposed, unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Marlon Lara, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, echo the comments of the Cal Chamber. Thank you. And respectful opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Skyler Wonnacott with California Business Properties Association in BOMA, California, in NAEP California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Okay, seeing no one else at the mic, we'll move to the dais. Senator Laird?

Yeah. I just had one question, which is? I like the direction. I like the fact that everybody says you're working and you're close. You said there was one issue left, unless my notes showed a different issue. So I was going to ask about it, which is the issue of, and I don't know, maybe the author is taking.

The issue is that when the liability goes to the owner of the building and the owner of the building has subcontracted out to somebody else, they might not be aware of the operations in the district, in the building, but they're assuming the liability. I had heard that that was an outstanding issue. Has that issue been resolved in some way?

I'm not sure I'm following you. So you're saying the manager, the awarding authority manager, or the contractor who may be successor contractor.

I'm not using either term. I'm using the term that the owner of the building gets liability. The owner of the building subcontracts to a service and is not aware of the operations that are done by the subcontractor. But the owner accepts the lie, gets the liability.

I don't believe the owner gets. It's whoever was in the contract with the janitor's contractor. It's not.

So if the owner wasn't in the contract, there is no liability.

No, we had that situation because we had an owner that was very cooperative and wanted to work out with us. But they were not in the contract with the janitor's contractor.

So another way of saying it is what I said isn't an issue.

It's not an issue.

Thank you. I'll move the Bill.

Thank you, Senator Cortese. Wonderful. So we have a motion from Senator Laird. And you know, I just wanted to say thank you to the author for this Bill. We know when workers are terminated due to a displacement issue, it can result in homelessness and complete destabilization of families.

And so a 90 day safety net is certainly one that I'm really excited to see in this Bill. So that that disruption doesn't happen and families have stability through these kinds of contract changes. So I want to really recognize the work that's been done and the continued work sounds like with the opposition on this. So we have a motion, but would you like to close, Mister Haney?

Yes, thank you for that. And thank you to the opposition for working with us as well. That early on this was on the job killer list because of the liability issue and we worked hard with them to address it and was taken off.

And as has been said, there's a lot of progress and we addressed those concerns as we went forward. And we're going to continue to talk with folks about the issue of notice. But this is an important Bill to protect people who have done nothing wrong but are in risk of being displaced from their jobs.

Some of which have they've been for a long time. And with that, respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of three to zero and this Bill is on call. We will take a five minute recess and reconvene when our presenter is here.

Senate Committee on Labor and Public Employment and Retirement has reconvened and I see we have presenter. Assemblymember Jackson, please step forward. We will be covering agenda item number four, AB 2448. And assemblymember, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Committee Members. First I'd like to thank you, Madam Chair, in the Committee working with my staff and accepting the suggested amendments as well. So we will be accepting those. In brief, AB 2448 would create an electric vehicle economic opportunity zone in Riverside County.

To be managed by the labor and Workforce and Development Agency to create programs to make electric vehicle manufacturing jobs and education more accessible to lower income communities. We anticipate continuing to spend billions of dollars on continuing to build out the EV infrastructure and EV manufacturing.

And we must make sure that all communities, particularly Low income communities, have an opportunity to benefit from the economic engine that these expenditures are making. We've worked with this Committee. So this Bill will now direct the agency to collaborate with the county. To assist in determining the geographical boundaries of the program.

The idea is, if we can use this as a model, then this is a model we can take throughout the state, particularly Low income communities. Again, a lot of our innovation and manufacturing and EV's are really located in select and usually higher income communities throughout the state.

How do we make sure that people are able to do this? How can we get people trained to be welders, to be able to be in those factories? How can we make sure that people can come from our community colleges with a training certification.

And go into those things where they can actually purchase an income that they can actually purchase their own homes with? Right. All of those things are so important. And we've got to be able to create the framework for these things to be taken statewide. And so with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have a witness with you here today? Okay. Anyone here want to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward.

Thank you, ma'am. David Quintana, on behalf of Karma Automotive, an EV manufacturer with a brand new facility in Marina Valley. And we are in strong support of this.

Okay. Anyone else in support? Anyone in opposition to the Bill? Opposition? Witnesses seeing none. We'll move to the dais. Members, move the Bill. Thank you. Senator Gonzalez has moved the Bill. We have a motion. Miss assistant, please. Oh, you must close. You must close.

No problem. This Bill has enjoyed unanimous and bipartisan support throughout the process. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Gonzalez. Assistant.

[Roll Call]

Vote of three to zero. The Bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you. And we are going to lift the calls. And we're going to start with the consent file. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Vote of four to zero. Consent calendar is still on call. Let's move to file item number one. AB 2288.

[Roll Call]

Okay, four to zero. That Bill is still on call. We'll now move to file item number two. AB 2602.

[Roll Call]

That's a vote of four to zero. That Bill is still on call. Moving in file item number three. AB 2374.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that is a vote of four to zero. The Bill is on call. We will now move to file items number six. AB 2696.

[Roll Call]

And that is a vote of four to zero. That Bill is on call. We will move to file item number seven. AB 2873.

[Roll Call]

Vote of four to zero. That Bill is still on call. Let's move to file item number eight. AB 2901.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we'll move to file item number four. That is above 2448. Assistant, please call the roll on item number four.

[Roll Call]

A vote of four to zero. That Bill is on call. zero, right. Well, we are just going to reopen the roll now and start from our consent calendar. Assistant, please call.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero, that Bill is out.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of five to zero. That Bill is out. So that ends and concludes our agenda for the day. Thank you so much. If you would like to give any comment on any item that came before us, feel free to put it in writing to the Committee. Thank you, everyone, for your time. We are adjourned.