Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will begin, and we are going to start as a Subcommittee today. I see some of the Members are here and we will start out of file order with item number 13. AB 2975 Assemblymember Gipson, please come forward. Proceed when ready.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And Members, first of all, I want to say thank you very much for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2975. I want to start off

by accepting the Committee amendments, I want to thank the chair and the staff for working with us to strengthening Assembly Bill 2975 I believe this Bill is a very common-sense Bill about protecting our hospital, making sure that our frontline workers as well as our patients who's going to these hospitals have a safe environment.

And so this Bill seeks to improve the hospital safety by requiring weapons detecting screenings at selected hospital entrances conducted by trained personnel. According to the United States Bureau of Labor Statistics, Healthcare workers are five times more likely to suffer workplace injuries or violence than workers overall.

And violence is trending upward our health care facilities this Bill, Assembly Bill 2975 proposed to enhance the requirement of safety measures for hospitals by requiring common sense measures such as weapon detection, screenings at selective entrances to ensure hospitals remain safe and place healing and not violence.

At the forefront with me to provide supporting testimony is Michelle Hum, a Kaiser worker, and also Fiona, who's a nurse at the Los Angeles County Medical Center. A county hospital will also self introduce who are my lead witnesses?

We'll have the witnesses at the podium and you have two minutes. All right, thank you.

My name is Michelle Horne. I've been a registered nurse in the packy unit at Kaiser Permanente Marina Valley Hospital for 10 years. I also have seven years of experience as an ER nurse at other hospitals. So I have a deep understanding of the many workplace hazards that nurses face on the job at any hospital.

Of the long list of dangers that nurses and other healthcare workers face daily, the possibility of encountering an emotionally charged patient or visitor wielding a dangerous weapon is the most terrifying.

It is a very real threat to our safety, but it is also one of the easiest to prevent a currently, there's no single statewide policy or standard to address this threat. Instead, we have a patchwork of different policies developed by individual hospitals at their own discretion.

That is no way to deal with such a pervasive and life-threatening problem. In 2022, two nurses and a doctor were stabbed at Encino Medical center in Los Angeles by a patient who entered the hospital with a concealed knife. It may be the most notorious example of hospital violence in our area, but it could have happened anywhere.

We are urging you to pass AB 2975 so that it never happens again. By requiring metal detectors, trained metal detectors staffed by trained security officers at every hospital, we can protect patients and provide them with care without fearing for our own safety.

Fear is what I felt when a patient's intoxicated husband got in my face and threatened me while his wife was experiencing a miscarriage. We were working to ensure that she didn't suffer additional complications. But he was increasingly erratic and irrational, blaming the hospital staff and everyone else for his loss.

I knew he could lash out in the state he was in, but our hospital did not have a palsy to keep him from bringing in a weapon and that scared me the most. That was the first time I asked security officers to escort me to my car after my shift, but not the last.

All healthcare workers should be able to focus on providing care, not locating the nearest exit or what they could use to defend themselves in case they're attacked or to protect our patients. AB 2975 will make our hospital safer, which means our patients will get better care. I urge you to support it. Thank you. Thank you.

Are there any other witnesses speaking in support of the Bill? Please step.

Good afternoon. Hi, my name is Fiona Hinan. I am a registered nurse at La County Medical center. We've just changed our name to La General. So I've been there for 25 years.

Right before I started, there were three doctors that were shot in our emergency room because a patient wanted pain medication and thought the wait was too long. So I feel comfortable going to work every day knowing that. Now, our hospital used common sense and it does have metal detection system there where we just walk through the doors.

It doesn't slow everything down because you just walk right through. So, we feel safe going to work. A lot of times you do have patients with mental health issues, you have just general people with mental health issues. We're in an area where you have gangs, you don't know what type of weapons come in.

They retrieve some weapons through the ER, but they don't get everything. This is a way to ensure that everyone's going to be safe again. Patient safety is our number one. Staff safety is our number one.

We shouldn't have to fear going to work to take care of other people, saving lives, knowing that our lives could be in jeopardy. So, I am definitely in support of AB 2975. I think they should be installed at all hospitals. I'm saddened to see that the previous nurse doesn't have any coming into this building.

We went through metal detection. I went through the airport. We go through metal detection. Everywhere you go, you have it. Even basic concerts, you can't. You have to carry see through bags. We don't have any of that. So that's another fail safe step for everyone to feel safe coming into our buildings.

And I think it needs to be in every single hospital. Thank you for taking the time to listen to me. Thank you.

Okay, now we'll have witnesses. Not witnesses, but folks who want to speak in support of this Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in support.

Okay. Seeing no other witnesses, we will move to opposition. Is there witness? Okay, witnesses, you each have two minutes.

Appreciate it. Chair, Senators, Committee staff, I'll be brief. My name is Dean Grofila with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Hospital Association. We remain in respectful opposition to AB 2975. Patient and employee safety will always be a top priority for our hospitals.

While we're still reviewing these recent amendments, which make a very significant step and absolutely appreciate the hard work by Assemblymember Gibson and his team. Madam Chair and Committee staff Perez and the Bill sponsor, SEIU California, we look forward to continuing to work with all towards a creative solution on that shared priority of patient and employee safety.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Member, Sarah Bridge, on behalf of the Association of California Healthcare districts here, respectfully opposed unless amended to AB 2975. ACHD represents the 77 public healthcare districts throughout the state, over half of which own and or operate a hospital.

I want to first thank the author, sponsors, and Committee staff for their continued work on the Bill. We feel like the Bill is moving in a positive direction. However, at this time, we have remained concerned about the implementation of the Bill and the potential liabilities it creates.

District hospital's priority and primary concern is the safety of our staff and patients. It is for those reasons we want to ensure that the shared goal of making hospitals a safer place can actually be achieved through the Bill.

As mentioned in the analysis, hospitals are federally required to provide access to care for all patients seeking hospital and emergency services. There are currently no federal or state statutes allowing a hospital to reject an individual who is seeking care because they have an item that may constitute a weapon.

Further, hospitals are not, and nor should they be, storage facilities for personal property, especially weapons. Our hospitals want to ensure that our patients can freely access hospital services without the chilling effect of metal detect that a metal detector may cause.

Further, we want to ensure that our hospitals are not confiscating personal property of those experiencing homelessness, nor do we want to have to engage law enforcement when it may not always be warranted and or appropriate. For our small rural providers, the installation and operation of metal detectors create significant spatial and financial challenges for these providers.

A handheld metal detector, also known as a wand, may be the most feasible option. However, proposed amendments only allow these proven tools to be used in conjunction with another metal detection system. Allowing a wand to be used in certain cases as a sole detection system would achieve the goal of the Bill.

While ensuring that our providers can meet the requirements. The proposed Committee amendments move the Bill in the right direction. We look forward to continuing conversations with the author and sponsor and are confident we can find a appropriate approach. However, at this time, we remain opposed unless further amended. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else also wishing to speak in opposition to the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair Members here with a concerns position, Jean Hurst. On behalf of the California Association of Public Hospitals and Health Systems, our concerns are similar to those expressed by the California Hospital Association and the Association of California Healthcare Districts. Thank you very much.

No one else speaking in opposition. We'll move to the dais. So I will just say to the author, thank you for taking the amendments and glad that we were able to reach agreement.

Of course, making sure workers are safe is the absolute, utmost priority for this Committee, but also making sure patients and visitors are safe as well, and that their rights are protected. We know too often when we start talking about surveillance. Unfortunately, we have a history of certain groups having disparate outcomes with that.

And I think this is a way for us to address it by making sure that we have proper safeguards in place that ensures that everyone's rights are respected.

So with that, I want to say we're going to ask you to close, and we likely we'll put the Bill on call as we wait for our Members to show up.

Sure. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate again, the work from your Committee and working with my team. And also for those in opposition of the Bill, I think that we can continue to have further conversation.

But I appreciate my witnesses who came forward, Miss Horne, and also Fiona, who came forth to talk about one we don't live in a time that we did 20 - 30 years ago. Let's be real. We find ourselves if churches are no longer safe, nightclubs are no longer safe, places of worship are no longer safe. Right.

Churches are moving to putting in metal detectors and wanting individuals to making sure that the place of worship is a place of peace and safety. Shouldn't our frontline hospital workers have that same kind of security going to work? Shouldn't our patients also have that same kind of security going into the hospital?

To have nurses to become security officers, they need to be on the front line like they're supposed to be on the front line. And that is providing the care and the needs and the support that families need and those who are seeking the healing when they come to the hospital needs most.

And so again, even in this building, we come through this building, why do we have metal detectors? Why do we have people with wands? To making sure that no one brings any kind of weapons in that would do any harm to any one of us. The same thing when it comes down to concerts.

So we live in a different time, so we can't use what we use or implemented 20 and 30 years ago, that time doesn't exist.

And so this is a thoughtful, common sense approach to making sure that our frontline workers underscore our frontline workers go to work and leave in a safe environment so they can go home, so they can come back the next day and heal those who need the healing most of all.

And so again, this is a sensible measure, and the testimonies are legitimate and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. At the appropriate time.

Thank you so much and glad to see that you're well and healthy and with us. And we will take that motion once we get a quorum. Thank you very much. Appreciate you. Okay, so we're going to move back into file order and we're going to go to file item number four, Assemblymember Ortega, AB 2068.

And I think you will also be presenting for Assemblymember Rendon as well. We'll take them both up at the same time. You may proceed, Assembly Member.

Thank you chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present AB 2068 today. AB 2068 would require California state agencies and departments that contract their public and customer call center services to out of state to provide a full list of these contracts.

In recent years, there has been indications that these California agencies and department call centers are now being located in other states, even though they are paid exclusively by California taxpayer dollars.

It is challenging to develop a plan to bring these jobs back to California because we don't know the exact number of state agencies and Department call centers positions that are located outside of the state.

AB 2068 would require the state to gather a master list of all out-of-state call centers that the state agencies and departments have signed, the cost of California taxpayers and the number of types of jobs found in other states. Witnesses.

I have one witness today to testify, and that is Ignacio Hernandez with the communication workers of California district nine.

Great. We'll take them at the podium. Please proceed. You have two minutes.

Great, thank you. Madam Chair Members, Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the Communication Workers District Nine, which encompasses California, Nevada and Hawaii, we are the sponsors of the measure. I want to thank the author for the Bill.

As was indicated, we have seen a migration of call center jobs both in the public sector and private sector outside of California and sometimes out of the country.

It's particularly problematic when we have state dollar taxpayer dollars being spent for these jobs outside of California instead of in state, and really problematic when someone is calling a public entity and expecting to have a customer service representative in California, and instead those call centers are going elsewhere.

It's a problem both for the consumer calling in, but also a problem for the job creation here in California. And we have been losing these jobs. There was a Sacramento call center specifically for state agencies and departments, just as one example, a few years ago, I had over 200 workers. They're now down to about 20.

And that is being repeated throughout the state. So these are, and I have to remind you, these are jobs that are not just short-term jobs. They oftentimes become careers for workers. And so we've been talking about building up middle class and building up ways to help, you know, increase worker opportunities in California.

And this is one way we can do it. And unfortunately, we've been trying to get this information about which departments and agencies have contracts for call center jobs out of state.

And we have been unable to gather that information, and it's not readily available so that we can come up with a game plan to bring these jobs back. So this Bill would move us in that direction. Look forward to, hopefully, your support when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

Any other witnesses? Okay, anyone here speaking in support of the bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliate.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in support.

Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Okay, we will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses today? Okay, anyone just speaking in opposition of the Bill today? Okay, we will move to the dais. Senator Wilk?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. Just make a quick comment. I've already seen this in GO. Support it there. Plan to support it here. I think it's outrageous that administrative agencies will not report back information to the legislature, we have a constitutional duty for oversight. And so.

And I mean, I agree, if we're spending taxpayer money, we ought to be spending it here in California. So this is a good bill and we'll support it again today.

Are you making the motion? Is that what you said? When the time. When the time is right. We will hold for our motion once we have a quorum. Thank you so much. Would you like to close?

I will use Senator Wilk as my closing. And respectfully, I ask for your aye vote when the time is appropriate. Thank you.

We'll move then to file item number 11. AB 2754.

Thank you, Chair and members, I am here to present on behalf of Speaker Emeritus Anthony Rendon. AB 2754 will provide greater employment protection to poor drayage truck drivers across the State by ensuring companies that contract with them are held liable for any violations of labor law.

Making these cargo owners responsible for labor law violations will incentivize them to contract only with companies that follow the law and properly classify their employees. Furthermore, this Bill will push these companies to ensure that their contracts can satisfy legal obligations to their. To their workers.

Here to speak in support of the Bill is Shane Gusman, representing the California Teamsters Public Affair Council.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman, on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, the sponsors of the Bill. As the Assemblymember said, this Bill is trying to address a problem that is a decades old problem in our ports. Misclassification of truck drivers. We took a lot of amendments as the Bill moved along.

Working with the California Trucking Association and other opponents. I believe most, if not all, the opposition is now neutral. Just to clarify, there was a provision quoted in the analysis, the opponent's arguments, that was on an earlier version of the Bill that is no longer part of the Bill.

And hopefully we get everybody to neutral at some point, urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, let's move to opposition. Oh, sorry we are doing support. Those who are to support the Bill, please step forward. Name, affiliation and position.

Good afternoon, madam. Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation and support.

Now seeing no other witnesses, let's move to opposition. Anyone speaking in opposition to the Bill today? Seeing none. Okay, thank you so much. Would you like to close?

I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time comes.

Thank you so much. We will hold this for motion when we have our quorum. Thank you.

Thank you.

We are going to go on to Assemblymember Lowe, who's next up, and let's file item number 10. AB 2421. Assemblymember, please proceed when you're ready.

Thank you very much, madam chair and colleagues, for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 2421 to help strengthen the relationship between union employees as well as many in the workplace.

This is to specifically address the issue of the circumstance in which employees discuss workplace matters such as discipline or grievances with a union representative, oftentimes to be addressed with conversations to be made confidential. With me to testify and support should be additional witnesses representing Porak if they are here. Yes, Mister Talbot.

And respectfully ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time.

Please approach the podium. Mister Talbot, you have two minutes.

Thank you. My name is Tim Talbot. I am here on behalf of PORAC, who is a sponsor of the Bill to ensure public sector labor unions function is guaranteed by California's collective bargaining laws.

Union members must be assured that what they tell their union representatives in confidence cannot be forced out of their representatives by government employers or their agents. Union members must know and be secure in feeling that union representatives will not be transformed into unwilling agents of the employer.

AB 2421 accomplishes these objectives and aligns with existing precedent of the California Public Employment Relations Board or PERB, has held that questioning union members or union representatives about union activities or representation unlawfully interferes with the rights of the union members and the public sector unions and constitutes an unfair labor practice.

AB 2421 would make clear that such interference with union representation by public employers is unlawful and an unfair labor practice. The bill does not prohibit employers from questioning employees or prohibit employees from volunteering or sharing information about workplace safety or problematic conduct in the workplace.

Employees remain free to voluntarily share any such information with the employers if they choose to do so. But what employers cannot do is question the union employee or the union representative about confidential communications relating specifically to the representation.

We PORAC amended this Bill on our own to make clear that the confidentiality does not apply to communications between union Members and union representatives who are themselves witnesses to or involved in the events giving rise to the administrative, disciplinary, or criminal investigations of unit members. We believe that eliminates the concern that was previously expressed.

But questioning a union representative whose only role in the matter is from their status as a union representative serves no purpose except to fish for union strategies and possible employee confessions and turn the union representative into a witness against the union and its members.

Such conduct interferes with the basic and important function of labor organizations, which is to provide advice and counsel to members regarding matters within the scope of representation. AB 2421 sensibly prevents such interference with union representation.

Is there another witness? Okay, no witness. So now we'll just go to support. zero, you are.

Pat Moran, Aaron Reed Associates. We represent the Peace Officers Research Association. Association of California is co sponsoring the Bill. The California Association of Higher Patrolmen also cosponsoring the Bill, the Orange County Employees Association in strong support, and California Association of Professional Scientists, UAW 1115 in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair Matt Broad here for the California School Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in support of the Bill? Okay, we'll move to opposition. Or is there an opposition? Witness, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, while we appreciate the efforts to address concerns, the bill will interfere with our ability to ensure a safe workplace. Even with the changes to the intent language, the substantive provisions of the bill remain largely unchanged and will function like a privilege.

While the amendments assert that this act does not create an evidentiary privilege, how the provisions might interact with judicial and administrative proceedings is deeply unclear at best.

It could easily be interpreted in civil litigation that third parties, that is, the plaintiffs suing an agency, can compel access to this information, but the agency itself cannot compel access to or disclose of the information in its defense.

In addition, amendments to address an exception for when the employee representative is a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of potential administrative displacement or criminal investigation are exceptionally narrow.

To be clear, this is not a complete exemption for criminal investigations, rather applies only when the employee representative themselves was a witness or party to an event. It does not cover the likely scenario in which an employee who is a witness or party or perpetrator or victim provides relevant information to the representative.

This is both problematic for criminal and administrative investigations. We are also concerned how this bill interacts with recently enacted SB 553 Cortese, which provides a new structure and requirements for preventing and investigating workplace violence.

If the employer is limited in his communications with employees, it will make it much more difficult to comply with these legal obligations to create a safe workplace. It should also be noted that SB 553 will allow collective bargaining representatives standing to seek temporary restraining orders in connection with workplace violence.

AB 2421 may create a problematic scenario wherein such a TRO may be sought, but an employer may not be able to fully investigate the underlying facts.

In conclusion, even as amended, AB 2421 would interfere with the public employers' responsibility to provide a safe workplace by impeding their ability to communicate with employees to investigate and respond to such concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, so any that was our last witness. Are you second witness in opposition. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Chair Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities here today in respectful opposition to AB 2421. As previously noted, while the prior intent language referencing a privilege has been removed, the substance of the Bill remains largely the same.

Our concerns with the bill are consistent with issues raised in previous raised in response to similar legislation, such as AB 418 from 2019 and reflected in the veto message of AB 729 from 2013.

This bill is broad and can be read to prohibit employers from communicating with employees about anything from day-to-day activities to matters that are important for city operations.

Employers may not know when they are violating the bill by communicating with staff because only the employee or the representative would know or could decide when a communication was made in confidence. Additionally, the term employee representative and administrative disciplinary investigation is not defined within the Bill, leaving the bill's application subject to interpretation and possible dispute.

In order to conduct proper investigations that uphold the public's trust, it is critical that public employer have the ability to interview all potential parties and witnesses to ascertain the facts. The bill could interfere with investigations because the employee representative could potentially prevent an employer from communicating from completing a comprehensive investigation.

Additionally, AB 2421 lacks safeguards to prevent potential conflicts of interest that could arise during employee conflicts. Unlike other types of privilege that are carefully defined, this bill does not establish specific guidelines or require training for the employee Rep. So for those reasons, we're respectfully opposed. Thanks so much.

Thank you. Okay, so those speaking in opposition, the bill. Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair Member Stephanie Roberson, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed to Mister Low's bill for all the reasons stated. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members, Kalyn Dean, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Jean Hurst here today, on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also in respectful opposition, I'd like to also communicate the opposition of the California Special Districts Association, the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the California School Boards Association, the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, the Association of California Healthcare Districts, and public risk innovation solutions and management prism as well. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California also opposed.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of acts of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Okay, I guess at this point I will ask you to close.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Just for the public interest as well too, and acknowledging some of the concerns that have been addressed.

Number one, of course, it is our obligation to help address any of these issues for the public entities that have expressed concern should this bill move forward through your committee and just to reaffirm the importance that this bill does not hamper the workplace investigations or allegations of discrimination, harassment, or workplace safety, that is, of course, not the intent at all.

And happy to address the any additional of the outstanding issues should this bill move forward. And I acknowledge and appreciate the I support when the appropriate time becomes available.

Thank you so much, assemblymember. As soon as we have a quorum here, we'll take up the motion.

Thank you very much. Thank you. And I see Assembly Member Grayson. So we will give a little time for transition and move to file item number six, AB 2284. Proceed when ready.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I would like to begin first of all with a sincere thanks to the Committee for their Diligent work on this very important Bill. Thank you so very, very much. And I do accept the Committee's suggested amendments and committed to continuing our efforts to ensure the success of this legislation.

So again, thank you so much to the Committee and to chair.

AB 2284 authorizes the county Employment Retirement Law of 1937 or retirement systems to define grade as a group of employees based on shared similarities in their job duties, their schedules, work locations, collective bargaining unit, or among other logical work related groupings for the purposes of the calculation of pensionable compensation.

The retirement system for public employees in California operates under two distinct provisions, either the public employment retirement law, apparel, or the county Employment Retirement Law of 1937. Cerro sorrel governs retirement systems for county and district employees.

Under Cerill, pensionable compensation is defined as the average compensation upon the basis of the average number of days ordinarily worked by persons in the same grade, class, or positions during the period or at the same rate of pay. Perl oversees the Administration of CalPERS for the employees for both state and local jurisdictions.

This group provides a clear definition of group or class employment utilized as part of the of its definition of pensionable compensation, whereas Cerro, on the other hand, this does not provide a clear definition for that portion of their provisions of pensionable compensation. Introducing what we would know as ambiguity and potential disparities.

This ambiguity is what compensation items are pensionable that can lead to reduced retirements. So AB 2284 addresses this inconsistency and will provide clarity for the county retirement system by creating a definition for, and I quote, grade similar to one found in pearl for the term group.

The consistency will reduce the legal burdens for all parties as well as allow for secure retirements. So I would like to emphasize that this Bill is permissive and in nature and does not restrict retirement systems from making their own decisions. They can still make their own decisions.

So with that, through the chair, I do have witnesses that I will have self introduce.

Wonderful witnesses. Please step forward to the mic.

Good afternoon. Shane Levine. On behalf of the police, thank you. And thank the author, Mr. Grayson. I won't take up too much time. He said everything very, very well. But we did have some employee associations come to us to suggest that there was needed clarity in this definition. In Searle, it's not already there.

So that's effectively what this Bill does, is provide a little bit of clarity and some guidance for the systems that choose, as Mister Grayson articulated, to use this definition. It is a may, it is permissive. No system in the Searle system has to use this definition to the opposition.

There has been some late opposition into that, opposition that has been transparent in their positions. I think we'll probably get there with this amendment that we're accepting from the Committee, I think may resolve a lot of those differences, and we'll continue to work with opposition. So with that, ask for your I vote. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Doug Subars. On behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, I won't try to be too repetitive, but I'd like to thank the authorization in the Committee for their Engagement on this Bill. We represent 35,000 Members, a significant portion of which are in county employee retirement systems.

So it's imperative that we, when we hear from them about issues or ambiguity in the law, we always work, seek to address them and provide clarity. And we think that this Bill does that. So for these reasons, we ask for your I vote. Thank you.

Okay. We will now move to opposition. zero, I'm sorry. Me toos for support. Any folks want to support the Bill, please step forward. State your name, affiliation. Okay, I didn't see anyone lining up, so we'll move to opposition. Is there anyone speaking in opposition to the Bill? No witnesses. How about me, toos? Any opposition? Seeing none.

I want to just say thank you to the author for working with the Committee on this. You know, these bills are hard because we want to make sure that our pensions are protected. And I appreciate you and the sponsors really stepping forward and helping us deal with the reality that we have, you know, 20 different searle systems.

And sometimes we're pursuing the same approach, but those approaches might be in some ways, colliding. And I think this was an opportunity for us to really look at this body of law and figure out ways to provide flexibility without in any way undermining the statewide system and the protection of workers in their retirement.

And glad that you acknowledged the amendments. They might not cover every possible problem and scenario. So this might not be the only time that we'll be working on this. But I know that you're committed to future dialogue and some of the opposition that's just sort of come forward and working through it.

So I will support the Bill when it's time and when we also get a quorum, we'll have a motion and we'll move it forward. So thank you for your time. Thank you so much.

All right, we will take a brief recess as we wait for presenters and Assembly Member Haney, Calderon, Assembly Member Rubio, Arambula, Assembly Member McCarty, Assembly Member Zbur, please come to Labor. And Assembly Member McKinnor, we're waiting for you. And until they arrive, we will be in recess. And we will come back to committee in 10 seconds.

All right, well, we are reconvened. Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement. We see Assembly Member Haney is here. We will go in file somewhat file order with you. File item number eight, AB 20, I'm sorry, AB 3190.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members, AB 3190 will ensure that every construction worker on an affordable housing project is being paid a fair wage while also advancing our state's housing goals. It addresses a significant loophole in existing public works law that has prevented construction workers on affordable housing projects from receiving prevailing wages.

Under current law, affordable housing projects funded through state low-income housing tax credits and state or local below-market rate loans are exempt from prevailing wage requirements.

This is problematic because the tax credit program has grown to provide nearly $500 million per year to affordable housing projects, and below-market rate loans contribute an additional 700 million per year in funding for affordable housing.

The increase in the use of both of these funds and their exemption from public works law around prevailing wage means that many affordable housing projects in our state do not pay the workers on these jobs at prevailing wage.

Unfortunately, the prevailing wage exemptions, as well as the lack of benefits and wage theft, prevent the state from recruiting construction workers to work on housing projects. California needs 100,000 more residential construction workers to meet the state's affordable housing production goals. It needs an additional 200,000 construction workers to meet the state's overall goals.

Due to the lower wages, the state is unable to retain an affordable housing workforce, with many construction workers choosing to work on non-housing projects instead.

This bill will provide a clear solution to these challenges and also hopefully make sure that we can pay these workers what they deserve and that they themselves can afford to be able to provide for their families and access housing.

With me here to testify today is Jay Bradshaw, Executive Officer of the NorCal Carpenters Union, and Danny Curtin, Director of the California Conference of Carpenters. Both of them are available for technical questions as well.

Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good afternoon. Honored to be here, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and honorable senators. I want to thank the author and our brother in this struggle, Assemblyman Haney, and we are proud to sponsor, co-sponsor this bill. In a nutshell, it's no secret to anyone in this room.

I would argue that the housing crisis we're facing in California is top of the list. You know, we literally, right, need millions of homes, particularly in the affordable housing arena and ultra-affordable. What's happening, though, throughout the housing industry that isn't talked about enough, I would argue, is what's going on with the workforce itself.

So, residential overall, you're talking about upwards of 300,000 workers, 90% of which are hyper-exploited in our state. Underneath that, there's a $5 billion price tag to that.

And this is being conservative, but when you look at what we refer to as the crime scene of production, including in projects that are often supported by LIHTC funds, public funds of wage theft, and now cases that our own teams are bringing forward around human trafficking of workers into these job sites.

So, this is on often the public dollar, which is upwards of billions of dollars over the last three to four years in funds. And now it looks like it will be, and we're working to support this, too, regular funding of about half a billion a year towards that and towards affordable housing, which we support.

But it's crucial that we pull workers up, and these are primarily immigrant workers, folks of color in that industry, and we need another 100,000 residential workers to move forward and build the housing that California so desperately needs. So, a couple things here. Let's pull the workers up. Let's build more housing.

This will keep tax dollars and resources within the communities, and it will help us attract a new workforce, and it'll be a win-win. And actually, what the state and the counties and the cities will gain is they will capture more tax dollars by bringing pervading wages and rights for those workers on the job.

So, we plead for your support of this, and we look forward to continuing to work with our partners to get it done. Thank you so much.

Thank you very much. Just to add on a little bit to what Jay said. Hello. Good to see you again, Senator. This is actually growing on a bill that was passed over 20 years ago, which bases the foundation for. It is when the government intervenes in the marketplace by either money or benefits that are equivalent of money.

It's more than that. One simple intervention. Almost 100 years ago, the beginning of prevailing wages in the construction industry started with that premise. It was during the depression and when the government was intervening and building basically infrastructure. They decided that the workers needed to be taken cared of care of and instituted prevailing wages.

That's been the law for almost 100 years. There have been some exemptions and some loopholes, and that's what this is. And 20 years ago in California, we expanded the definition of public funds to include low-interest loans, cheap land, value of land, anything that was the equivalent of money. There was a few things that got missed.

This was one, and it couldn't be needed more now than ever in the past, equivalent to the Great Depression. By the way, the workforce is desperate. Half of the construction workforce in the housing industry is either low-wage, very low-wage, or extremely low-wage in poverty.

These people are building affordable homes that they cannot afford to live in. So, what we're doing, hopefully, is correcting that complete problem. And the housing crisis, as we discussed earlier, is more than just the price of housing. I mean, with the low wages in the industry, you would think the prices wouldn't be high. They're high.

Has nothing to do really with those wages. So, what we want to do is lift the wages, as Jay said, make those people homeowners, bring that whole industry up. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mister Curtin. We have now me toos in support of the bill. Please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Members Mike West, on behalf of the state Building and Construction Trades Council, in support. Thank you.

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

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

Anyone else speaking in support of the bill?

In the interest of time, I just want to recognize the carpenters who showed up today, and a lot of them took time off work, too. I could maybe just say, hey, we'll do a group me too. And thank you for your patience with that.

Thank you very much. Thank you for being here. Next, we'll move to opposition. Is there opposition witnesses speaking against the bill today? Please step forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Senators. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. I think we all understand the benefits of prevailing wages. Paying workers more is a good thing, but we also need to talk about the cost. So, UC Berkeley has studied the impact of prevailing wages on affordable housing and found that it increased development costs by about 14%.

That number is actually higher when you talk about rural and inland areas where there's less, there are fewer prevailing wage contractors to be able to do the work. And with that increase in cost, it will actually drive down housing production. Because the housing funds that we currently have are dwindling. The state bond funds have been expended.

The budget doesn't have a whole lot for affordable housing. We're unlikely to get another housing bond. We've already seen a 38% reduction in affordable housing production in the last year alone. And if we have to spend more on each development, we will see fewer units built next year, significantly. So, this is not exactly a win-win situation.

We will be paying higher wages for workers, but we will actually have fewer jobs because there are fewer developments that we can actually proceed with. We come with an opposed and less amended position. We understand.

So, what we are asking for is that as we increase wages, we also increase the resources that allow us to at least maintain, if not increase, affordable housing production. So, this bill is linked with AB 3160 by Mister Gabriel. That would lock in the state housing credits for five years. Those would be resources we currently aren't guaranteed.

So, we would be willing to accept the prevailing wages requirement with those new resources. We are opposed to the parts of the bill that go beyond the enhanced state low-income housing tax credits and apply the developments, apply the prevailing wage standard to below-market-rate loans at the state and local level.

So, we are hoping that the Committee would consider those amendments. With that, we could be neutral. And I just also want to say that I was also here 20 years ago when the current law was stipulated. And I wouldn't say that things were left out or that these were loopholes.

That prevailing wage law that exists today was meticulously negotiated and everything that was in there was sort of part of the negotiation. And so, you know, obviously, 20 years later, the Legislature is free to revisit that. But it was not. These things were not left out on purpose, is my last point. But anyway, we look for your.

We hope that we can work with the carpenters to get to an agreement here on this. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, you have two minutes.

Just a me too, ma'am. Steven Stenzler with Brownstein on behalf of Housing California, echo the comments of my colleague, Mister Stivers, and look forward to working with author to resolve this. Thank you.

Okay, so we're taking me toos. State your name and affiliation.

Marina Espinoza with the California Housing Consortium. Also, with an opposed unless amended position.

Thank you.

Melanie Perron. On behalf of the Associated General Contractors in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa Werner on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will move to the dais. Senator.

I want to thank the author for bringing this forward, and the sponsors as well. And to the opposition, I may suspect this is going to get out of Committee. I'm certainly a supporter and be happy to move the item.

To the opposition, I think sometimes, sometimes when good comments are made like that, if somebody doesn't acknowledge them, opposition will feel unheard. And I just want to acknowledge that both are needed. This is a both and situation, and we are woefully oversubscribed in tax credits. We need more, a lot more. I think we need credit enhancement.

I think the state's, its own credit rating should be used to help finance projects. And I think we need more subsidies in general. And all of that is very, very important.

Those are all things that should be carried in other legislation and in budget actions and not amended onto this bill because what we can't do is do all of that. I'm going to turn the tables, do all of that, and then have people working on these projects who can't afford to move into them.

So, we have to just take these things separately sometimes. I do agree it's a good time to bring these things up. I mean, we're having a hearing. Everyone should speak their piece and talk about what else is needed. This is just one piece that's needed, and it's a piece that we need to move forward today.

And again, I'm happy to move it.

Thank you so much. And we will move it for our motion as soon as we have a quorum. And I just want to echo your comments, Senator Cortese, and thank the author and the sponsors for this bill. It's unconscionable to have workers build something like affordable housing and then not be able to afford to live in.

And I think we do, in this Committee, have an obligation to make sure that workers are protected, that wages are increasing so that all Californians can afford the cost of housing in this great state. So, you know, this is about breaking the cycle of poverty. We thank you for this, and we'll give you a chance to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to appreciate the folks from the opposition. Obviously, we all have to do this together. Those are folks who are building affordable housing, who are leading these projects, and the folks who are in the room who are literally using their hands to build these projects.

We do want to make this a win-win. This bill is now tied to Mister Gabriel's bill that has an annual $500 million in it.

So, we make sure there's resources, we make sure those resources are used not only to build housing, but to make sure we pay the folks enough so that they can provide for their families and have housing themselves.

It doesn't make sense for us to use public dollars, pay such a low rate to workers that they can't afford to care for themselves, and then we have to step in with additional state resources.

I do hope that we can continue the conversations with the opposition and make sure that we can provide for these workers and also expand the level of resources that are available, which we would all agree are far too few. With that, at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member Haney. And I was just reminded that the Committee hasn't yet to establish a quorum, so my motion will have to wait. But we will obviously, respectfully consider the item. As soon as we get a quorum, we can take up voting. Appreciate you being here. Appreciate all the witness testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I'm doing all this talking because I've been drafted into chairing, but I'm going to talk a lot less while I'm chairing, and our esteemed chair will be back soon after she's done presenting a couple of bills. In the meantime, we are going to go to Assembly Member McKinnor.

This is file item seven, AB 2335. Just following the file order.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee and Chair. I am here to present AB 2335, which is sponsored by, excuse me, sponsored by the California Association of Professional Scientists, United Autoworkers. This bill mandates the state to uphold or reinstate the historical salary parity among state civil service classification and bargaining units, ensuring that comparable compensation is provided for roles that are fundamentally alike. Moreover, it requires the state to rectify any gender based wage disparity and may persist between civil service positions and classifications that perform similar duties.

State scientists' salaries lag their local government and federal counterparts and other state employees that do substantially similar work by upwardly of 40%. This is inconsistent with this Administration's declared priority of establishing equity. As the state's largest employer, it's critical for the State of California to lead by example and work to create a California where all employees are valued and respected and paid equitably. Providing equitable pay is essential for promoting gender equality, attracting and retaining state employees, and enhancing the state's ability to be the employer of choice. With me today to testify on behalf of the bill is Hannah Johnson, representing CAPS UAW.

Please come forward. We'll have a couple of minutes.

Okay, thank you, Chair, and or when the Chair returns, and Members, for considering this important bill. My name is Hannah Johnson, and I'm a research scientist with the Department of Public Health and also the Secretary of CAPS UAW Local 1115, which is the union for California State Scientists. I want to first thank Assembly Member McKinnor for her unwavering support of state scientists and for sponsoring AB 2335. I want to speak on behalf of this bill by letting you all know that we are losing California state scientists.

State scientists that help make up the bedrock of our public health infrastructure, including pandemic response, who monitor and regulate industrial polluters, who clean up oil spills and mitigate wildfire damage, who keep our food and drinking water safe and clean. We are losing state scientists at a time when science is the key to mitigating climate disasters.

We're losing them to county governments, to city governments. We're losing them to private industry and to federal government, all who pay more competitive wages than the State of California. And most shockingly, we're losing them to the gender pay gap that exists within our own California state government, where equal pay for equal work is not being honored and where historical pay structures are being ignored.

This has led to state scientists, who are a predominantly non-male bargaining unit, to be compensated at a rate of up to 40% less than state engineers, a predominantly male bargaining unit, for the exact same work and for work that was previously comparably valued. This has forced many state scientists to leave the scientific bargaining unit for the engineering one. The state has already addressed this injustice for our scientific supervisors and managers, yet refuses to do so for rank and file employees.

AB 2335 will require the state to restore and maintain these historic salary relationships that existed between rank and file state scientists and state engineers. This will also help close the gender pay inequities that exist within state civil service jobs and classifications that are performing like work. As the state's largest employer, like Assembly Member McKinnor said, it is critical that the State of California leads by example and stands by its own stated values. So please support AB 2335 and help ensure that state workers are paid fairly and equitably. Thank you.

All right, thank you for your testimony. Are there others in the committee room who would like to come forward and express a support position?

Good afternoon. My name is Esther Tracy. I am with CAPS UAW Local 1115, and I am in strong support of the bill.

My name is Sara Keeler, and I'm with CAPS UAW Local 1115, and I am also in strong support of the bill.

Justin Garcia, CAPS UAW Local 1115, in support.

Tom Hintze on behalf of the UAW in support.

Thank you. Now we'll go to opposition. Is there a lead opposition witness on this bill? I'm seeing none come forward. Is there anyone in the committee room who would like to make public comment and express opposition at this time? Seeing no one come forward. We'll come back here to the dais. Senator Wilk.

Chair, I just want to make a quick comment. I know we have challenges in terms of retaining employees when it comes to IT, and obviously the sciences. I had no, I thought we had fixed this problem a long time ago. I know in the Senate, it was before we got here, but there was gender inequity and that was addressed like nine or 10 years ago. So I'm kind of shocked that this has gone on this long. So going to be supportive of your bill today, and happy to move it when appropriate.

Thank you. Assembly Member, we'll give you an opportunity to close. As you probably heard, we have not established a quorum yet, but it looks like you have a strong motion in waiting. So we'll get to that when we can. And you may close now.

Thank you. It's extremely important to make sure that we pay our scientists, especially as we look at climate change, as we look at what's happening to our state. We don't need to lose scientists, we need them there. So I'm urging and asking for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Appreciate the testimony. We are now going to go to Assembly Member Zbur on file item 12, AB 2889. Welcome.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, Member. I'm proud today to present AB 2889, a measure that makes resolving labor disputes more efficient, effective and fair within Los Angeles County and the city of Los Angeles. This bill is sponsored by the Union of American Physicians and Dentists, SEIU California, and AFSCME California.

The Public Employee Relations Board, or PERB, currently has oversight jurisdiction over disputes between almost all public agency employers and employees California. However, current law provides the city and County of Los Angeles with a local alternative to PERB oversight.

The Los Angeles local alternative has the power to investigate unfair practice charges, determine whether those charges are justified, and if so, prescribe appropriate remedies. The standards that apply to the city and county of Los Angeles give employers an unfair leverage that is not present in other parts of the state.

This means that unions that bargain with the city and county of Los Angeles are the only public employee unions in the state of California that are not afforded the same extent of protections that other public employee unions obtain through PERB.

A bit of history in 2011, the Legislature enacted protections to prohibit union busting within the jurisdiction of PERB. That year, SB 857 prohibited perb from awarding strike preparation expenses as damages from an unlawful strike due to the drafting error.

The employee relations entities in the city and county of Los Angeles were not expressly identified in the law, which means that these protections may not apply to unions under their jurisdiction.

Many of the activities workers routinely engage in during a contract campaign, such as membership rallies, wearing union buttons or participating in the strike authorization vote, could be used to justify these damages. However, I think we can all agree the right to collectively bargain is not meaningful if workers cannot engage in concerted activities.

This bill is not only about aligning labor practices across the state, it's also about fairness for all public and public sector employees in California.

AB 2889 provides PERB with exclusive initial jurisdiction over requests for injective relief by both the city and the county of Los Angeles, just as it already has for all already has for other public agencies.

It also clarifies that the local employee relations entities in the city and County of Los Angeles do not have the authority toward damages resulting from a strike.

This ensures that local public sector unions in the city and county of LA have the same protection from union-busting tactics that other unions under per jurisdiction have enjoyed for over a decade. I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time and with me today are Janice O'Malley, representing AFSCME California and George Osborn, representing UAPD.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California.

We were the original sponsors of Senate Bill 857 13 years ago, along with AFSCME Local 3299 representing UC workers authored by then Senator, now Congressman Ted Lieu, to protect every public employee in California from attacks on our right to strike and saving millions of dollars in false and frivolous claims.

The law was created to protect all unions from union busting tactics as the right to collectively bargain is impaired when workers are dissuaded under threat of exorbitant damages from engaging in concerted activities.

The premise that an employer is entitled to strike preparation damages, including where no actual strike occurred, directly interferes with the ability of workers to exercise their rights under the law.

When AFSCME sponsored Senate Bill 857 in 2011, the assumption was that it would cover all public employees and those under the Meyers-Milias-Brown Act, the act that establishes bargaining for California's municipal, county and local special district employees. You see, the bill that was passed in 2011.

It was before a court of appeal decision established PERB in the MMBA, but it failed to identify ERCOM and LA ERB, and therefore it is legally left unclear whether both those entities, employees in the city and county of LA have the same rights as their union siblings and other MMBA jurisdictions.

Therefore, we ask for your support for AB 2889 to afford the same strike preparation rights to LA city and LA county employees as all other public sector employees currently enjoy. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, please.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. George Osborn for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. Co-sponsor for strong support, of course. And if you have any questions, technical questions, I'm here to answer them. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for being here. We can now open it up to public comment. Anyone wishing to express support for the bill, please come forward at this time.

Thank you, Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, proud co-sponsors in support.

Hello, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, Juan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in strong support.

Great, thank you. Seeing no one else come forward, we'll move to opposition. Do we have an opposition witness in the room? If so, please come forward. Seeing no such person. Is there anyone in the Committee room who would like to publicly express support? If so, please come forward at this time. I'm sorry, opposition. We did support.

So, last call for opposition. I've seen no one come forward. We will come back to the Committee at this time. Nothing from Senator Wilk. I would just thank you for bringing the bill forward, Assemblymember, and we're struggling to get our quorum together here, and as soon as we do, we'll move on your bill.

Yeah, and just thank you all for considering the bill. This bill has no registered opposition and respectfully asked for your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Let me just note that we have made it through the agenda. We do obviously have items to move and vote on up and down the agenda, except for item five, which is Assemblymember McCarty's bill, and if somebody knows his whereabouts, please slip him a note and ask him to come on over.

We'd like to do what we can to get him through the process here right away. With that, we're going to take a five minute recess and hope that he appears during that period of time, and I'm going to officially recess until we come back in five minutes.

Assembly Member, welcome. I don't know if you need time for witnesses or if you're ready to come to the podium. If so, I'm going to reconvene. We may need 30 seconds to lift the recess. So Senate Committee on labor, public employment and retirement will reconvene at this time. And we'll give our audio 30 minutes to come on.

30 seconds, not 30 minutes. Hopefully we won't be here in 30 minutes. All right. It looks like we're ready to go. Assembly Member and we're happy to see you here. Welcome. You can present whenever you're ready.

Thank you. This is a bill that you may be familiar with from last year, other policy committees. It didn't pass last year. It was vetoed. But we took a look at the veto message and worked with the Administration, the opposition, and attempted to clarify and address some of the shortcomings.

And I know we're not quite there with some of the opposition we'll hear from again.

But we think that we've come a long way and really boils down to the simple issue of, in our districts, where we have classified employees, whether they be from k 12 district or community college district, many of these people work in part time jobs. And some of the, some job openings come open other part time jobs.

And, you know, many individuals work part time, let's say, as the bus driver during the morning shift and the afternoon shift, and they may have to go work other jobs, other sometimes fast food industry, other minimum wage jobs because they can't get enough hours to pay a living wage. And the concept of this is not that complicated.

It says if there's a job opening on the campus. So the hypothetical we use is if there's a lunchroom aid and there's a bus driver that does the morning bus shift and the afternoon bus shift, and, hey, maybe they can do the lunch shift in the middle.

Let's give them the first right of refusal for this job opening. All of our school districts are having an educator workforce shortage, not just in teachers we know about, but in clerical maintenance, food operations, computer services, classroom aides, as well as bus drivers.

And it's tough to have people split between these two part time jobs because, let's face it, with rising costs and food and housing and so forth, who wants to work multiple part time jobs? And so there are qualified workers out there, and many times they're right under your own noes.

And so we think that we put together a fair, balanced approach wherever I, no additional, you know, limit the time extension on this, but give the workers who are already on, on the campus in these districts the first crack to apply and gain employment for these positions.

Thank you for your consideration and with me today, I have a representative from CSEA as well as CFT. Thank you.

All right, welcome. Can you begin your testimony when you're ready? You'll have a couple minutes each?

Sure. I'll be quick. Mister Chair Members, Matt Rod here on behalf of CSEA, I think Assembly Member McCarthy summed it up perfectly. We have significantly amended the bill to address opposition concerns. I think, you know, we're probably as far as we can take it, you know, without compromising the spirit of the bill.

We've made very sure to be deferential to collective bargaining, and we would encourage that this right of first refusal is really the floor. If education employers want to bargain around provisions, they're certainly welcome to. And we would encourage them to. Finally, just as an anecdotal note, this can already happen.

It's been implemented in several school districts across the state. We implemented in the Bay Area during COVID The school district evades me, but they went from having 46 paraeducator openings to less than six from 2020 to 2024.

And if that isn't proof that this works to sort of address that education worker shortfall, I'm not sure what else would. So with that, I ask for your aye vote, and happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Next witness, please.

Thank you, Mister Chair Members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to co sponsor this Bill along with CSEA for all the reasons stated so well by the author and previous witness.

We would just add that we see this as a pretty important measure and sign of respect for our classified Members and all their contributions.

They love what they do, and they've been around for weeks or months or years or sometimes decades, despite the demands and despite the often relatively Low pay that they earn, because they like being a foundation of the education system and they like being able to make a difference in students lives.

But when they see their hours being kept Low and many other part time jobs being created around them, it's one more thing that makes it harder to keep them there. And eventually, you know, if it gets bad enough, they will leave and they will go find other employment.

We lose those years, we lose that experience, we lose that dedication and that love for the job. And so this is a big step in the direction of keeping those folks there, keeping the students and everyone there where we can benefit from what they know and what they've learned.

And so we think not only is it the right thing to do for these workers, it's the right thing to do for our education system and keeping the right people there on the job, keeping that experience there, and we would urge your support. Thank you.

All right. Thank you for the testimony. Members of the public who wish to come forward and express a support position may do so now.

Tiffany Whiten, SCIU California in support.

Mister Chair and Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and strong support.

Janu Somelli Asked Me California in support.

All right, it looks like that concludes our support. Witnesses, is there any opposition here to testify? Please come forward. You'll have a couple minutes each.

Great. Thank you. Good afternoon, Members. My name is Laura Lilly and I am with the Placer County Office of Education. I'm here this afternoon in opposition of AB 2088 on behalf of the California Association of School Business Officials representing 30,000 school business leaders statewide.

While we appreciate the intentions of AB 2088 to improve opportunities for the classified staff, we respectfully oppose the measure. This Bill would impede the LEA's ability at the local level to expediently hire employees best suited for our students needs.

AB 2088 would lengthen vacancies when we are already experiencing staffing shortages, as was mentioned, especially in the classroom paraprofessional positions.

Many of those positions serve our students with disabilities who have individualized education plans or ieps, and we are legally bound to provide those important services to our students immediately and continuously during the proposed 10 day wait period for internal applicants. First right of refusal.

We may be lucky and we might find a substitute, but more than likely, we'd need to hire from an outside staffing agency at double or triple the cost. There are also a wide range of tasks and competencies required to support students for those with and without special needs.

We need to match our staff skill sets to the student needs and a higher date should not be the factor. We believe that AB 2088 will undermine our local efforts for diversity, equity and inclusion. Districts across the state understand that our student attitudes are changing and we want our workforce to represent both the inherent and acquired diversity.

This Bill would make it difficult to consider diversity of our departments, of our school sites, or our districts as a whole when making hiring decisions. In closing, I'd like the Committee to consider the long term impacts of this bill as well.

School districts have lived through the great resignation and we've often had to lower our minimum qualifications in order to fill our vacancies. What will the impact be to our schools over time? Can you please wrap up your time as yes. What will be the impact to our schools once seniority is the main driver?

How innovative will current employees be knowing that their means to promotion is based on when they were hired, not their rapport with students or their experiences? And how will we attract new people? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Next witness. Yes.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm Eric Rowan, Executive Director of classified human resources for the LA County Office of Education. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. We can all agree that California students deserve support and services from the most qualified, passionate and hardworking employees available at the time of Hirever.

Unfortunately, AB 2088 fails as standard and creates unintended consequences that will harm classified hiring processes and in turn, are students. The stated goal of this Bill is simply to allow part time classified employees to increase their working hours and receive paid benefits.

However, the language before you applies to all promotional opportunities for staff in union represented positions, limiting the district's ability to fill every single vacancy in a timely manner. It also prevents the use of equitable and validated methods for hiring the most qualified candidates to fill these essential roles and support our students.

You often hear classified personnel described as the custodial staff and administrative support positions that serve as the backbone of our school communities.

And while that is 100% true, it is important to note that this Bill would affect a wide variety of positions, including technical roles like network engineers, accountants and building architects, direct service roles like special education assistants and occupational therapists, and even school police.

There's no other industry, public or private, where these essential roles would be hired solely based on promotional status, minimum qualifications, and first right of refusal in the personnel Commission office. Our primary responsibilities to uphold the practices prescribed in Ed code, ensuring hiring practices are conducted in a fair, equitable and merit based manner.

The reason I'm here today and that so many districts and organizations like the California Personnel Commission and Association, is because this proposed legislation would skip over our processes completely. For example, this Bill required districts to hire and promote based on minimum qualifications for the position, but other education code.

Sir, please wrap up.

Sure. So, other education code dictates that those minimum qualifications should be as Low as possible to ensure a diverse group of qualified applicants. And unfortunately, this Bill would not allow us to consider those applicants.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

So, anyone speaking in opposition to the bill, please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of Acts of the Association of California School Administrators in respectful opposition. Also speaking on behalf of colleagues who are in other committees from the Association of California Community College Administrators and the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, all opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California. In opposition. Also in opposition to Citrus College, Mount San Antonio College, and North Orange County Community College District as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Andrea Ball. On behalf of three organizations, California Association of Suburban School Districts, the Orange County Department of Education, and the Central Valley Education Coalition. In respectful opposition.

Anna Ioakimedes. On behalf of Los Angeles Unified School. District in respectable opposition.

Bella Kern. On behalf of Clovis Unified School District, in opposition.

Stella Johnson. On behalf of Redondo Beach Unified School District and the Alameda County Office of Education in opposition.

Sierra Cook with San Diego Unified and respectful opposition.

Christina Marcellus. On behalf of the Small School Districts Association, the School Employers Association of California and the San Bernardino County District Advocates For Better Schools in opposition.

Good afternoon. Chris Reefe, on behalf of California School Boards Association in opposition.

Okay, looks like that's it for opposition. I'll turn it over to the dice, but before we move forward, let's get a quorum since we have Members here. Committee assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Members. Any comments?

Question, Senator Cortese, let me just make a brief comment again, you know, with opposition here, I think has sincere concerns. I kind of fall back on my school board experience, which was many years ago, but was in the largest High School District in Northern California.

And, of course, I've still been connected through all my local government work and senatorial work here with that district and many others. But having been there as a school board Member for eight years, you know, I'm falling once again on the side of creating this opportunity.

And, you know, my hope is that from an administrative standpoint, the districts can figure it out and make it work. I commend the author for, you know, coming back, I supported last year's version of the bill and again, certainly commend his efforts to try to create opportunity.

Wherever, you know, there could be oversights, there could be, you know, a little trepidation or reticence for people to. To try to make, you know, the leap into that, that other position.

I just think anything that encourages that kind of homegrown, in house, you know, off the bench kind of advancement is typically good, especially in our public sector.

But, you know, I think we all know in our private sector, we'd like to see more of that as well, and less part time and more full time where we can get it. So I don't mean to. I hope we haven't mischaracterized anything in the bill.

I just recall from my look at it that the value of accomplishing what the bill's trying to accomplish, you know, kind of outweighs the administrative concern for me right now, even though I think it's valid. And they'll have some things to work out. So I'm happy to move the bill. Madam Chair.

Thank you so much. We have a motion, and so we will go to you, Mister McCarty, to close.

Yeah, thank you. I appreciate the conversation. I to the life of me don't understand how this is so complicated. I think it just boils down to the school district's one half people who work part time because they can pay them less, we'll have to pay them benefits. And that's as a race to the bottom.

So we focused on qualifications. These aren't super, super technical positions that require. These are many times entry level classified positions. And if there are, like a classroom aide who's a TK, we say there has to be some basic requirements. No one gets to skip ahead.

So, all things being equal, if there's an entry level position that's open, that anybody in the public can qualify with minimum requirements, let's give the person who's already on campus the crack of that job so they can have full time employment and have a full time salary with benefits and take care of their family and be less likely to leave as well.

They'd be less likely to bolt and go somewhere else because they're juggling part time jobs. We also narrowed the time, the window for having these positions open so we don't have unfilled positions to make it more difficult on local leas and community college districts. So we think we've answered the call. These issues.

Maybe it's just a policy choice that, you know, they'd rather have a bunch of part time people and have the race to the bottom. And I don't think that's right for our public positions in our school districts. Thank you for working with us and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Committee assistant, please call the roll.

On File item number five, AB 2088. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of two to one on that Bill. It is on call. Thank you. So we are going to go back to our file items in order and we're going to start with consent. But I need a motion. Thank you, Senator Wilk. Committee assistant, please call the roll on The consent calendar which includes file items 1, 2,3 and 8 today.

[Roll Call]

Okay, the Senate Committee on labor, public employment Retirement is going to take a long recess while we wait for our fellow Member to present a number of bills, and we will reconvene when she arrives. So thank you. Okay, Committee is in session. We are going to reopen the roll and begin with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of five to zero, and that Bill is out. That concludes our file items for the day. If you wish to submit any testimony, feel free to do so in writing. And I at the time of 401. Senate Committee on Labor Public Employment retirement is adjourned.