Assembly Standing Committee on Insurance

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Committee on insurance. Today we have two Members filling in. Assemblymember McKinnor will be filling in for Assemblymember Gipson, and Assemblymember Lee will be filling in for Assemblymember Jones Sawyer. Today we're going to consider nine bills. File item number two, SB 1060 by Senator Becker was pulled at the request of the author.

The following four bills are recommended for consent file item four, SB 1090, by Senator Durazzo file item number five, SB 1217, by Senator Glazer file item seven, SB 577, by Senator Hurtado and file item 10, SB 1295 by Senator Susan Rubio. I want to give a quick reminder.

For each Bill, we request no more than two witnesses per side, limited to two minutes each. All others, I respectfully request name, organization and position. We are going to actually start as a Subcommitee, and we're ready for our first author. Senator Cortese, whenever you're ready, can present on SB 1299.

Good afternoon, Chair and Assembly Members. I'm very pleased to present SB 1299 today, sponsored by the United Farm Workers. The increased frequency of extreme heat conditions and its growing risk to workers highlight the importance and necessity of employer compliance with California's outdoor heat regulations to keep workers safe.

SB 1299 promotes compliance with the existing outdoor heat regulation through a rebuttable presumption for heat related injury and death. Farm workers who suffer injury, illness, and death while working for a noncompliant employer would be treated and compensated expeditiously. The bill also establishes the Farm Worker Climate Change Heat Injury and Death Fund to offset DIR's administrative costs.

The new fund will be funded on a one time basis from the existing Workers Compensation Administrative Revolving Fund. Some of the largest agricultural counties in the state are experiencing record breaking heat waves. In 2022, King City in Monterey County broke its hottest temperature ever recorded at 116 degrees. Fresno recorded an all time high at 114 degrees.

Stockton and San Joaquin County shattered its 1988 record of 106 degrees by reaching 112 degrees. These record breaking heat waves are harming the health of agricultural workers. From 2018 to 2019, the number of suspected and confirmed farmworker heat related deaths increased exponentially. With us today to testify, we are joined by Teresa Romero, President of the United Farm Workers. And at the appropriate time, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Go ahead.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairs and Members of the Committee. Teresa Romero, President of the United Farm Workers. Every farm worker who dies from outdoor heat has a name. Maria Isabel Vasquez Jimenez. She was 17 years old. Her life and needless death inspired change.

In 2005, we worked with Governor Schwarzenegger to enact the first outdoor heat regulation in the United States. Cool drinking water, shade, rest breaks. Simple, decent, yet strongly opposed and weakly enforced. As more farm workers died, we sued the State of California twice. What we quickly discovered is that Cal/OSHA's enforcement is limited.

It is nearly impossible, and no amount of money can monitor approximately 40,000 farms in this state. For the basic standards in outdoor heat regulations, this bill encourages employer compliance. It doesn't change the heat regulation. It doesn't add additional Worker Compensation benefits.

If a farm worker suffers a heat illness injury, or death at work, and the farm worker proves that their employer was not in compliance, then the injury becomes eligible, eligible for the rebuttable presumption under the bill. However, if the employer proves compliance, then the bill does not apply.

I want to repeat that. The bill doesn't apply to employers who are in compliance with existing outdoor heat regulation. Climate change is making working outdoors in the heat extremely dangerous. Every employer should comply with the state's basic outdoor heat standards. They work. They prevent farm worker heat illness injury and death. Saving a life, even one, is worthy of your effort. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses In opposition? Oh, I'm sorry. Any additional support?

Anne Katten, California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, in support.

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

Elizabeth Espinosa on behalf of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors in support. Thank you.

Okay, do we have any witnesses in opposition?

All right. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. We understand and are sympathetic to the frustrations of the proponents regarding Cal/OSHA. However, it's important to remember that this is a Workers Compensation bill, and it should be analyzed accordingly.

The data shows us that there is no failing of the Workers Compensation system with regard to heat claims filed by agricultural workers. A recent study by CWCI shows that less than 1% of all Workers Compensation claims filed by agricultural workers involve a heat related injury, and that is the same as other outdoor industries. Of agricultural claims that are filed, 89% are accepted. That 89% is actually higher than the acceptance rates for all other Workers Comp claims and is higher than claims for those other outdoor industries. Workers Compensation is its own delicate system.

As the analysis notes, both this Legislature and the Administration have stressed how rarely we should enact new Workers Compensation presumptions. It should only be for unique circumstances where it is difficult to prove causation, and the data shows us that a presumption is warranted, but that is not the case here. A couple notes as well about the mechanics. The bill is a little vague as far as how the mechanics would work. That WCAB would need to hold a full hearing to determine if the presumption applies.

Because of SB 1127, which was passed several years ago, the timing that you have to adjudicate a claim depends on whether a presumption exists, and the code section that this bill would fall into would fall under that. And so there, in addition to what we see as a lack of data showing that a presumption here is appropriate, we also have concerns, really, about the mechanics and the realistic way that this would operate and the overlap between WCAB and Cal/OSHA.

Again, as the analysis does note. So we support the increased staffing of Cal/OSHA. We support increased enforcement, but utilizing a very unique Workers Compensation system with its own unique procedures to address this separate problem, when the data shows us that the system itself is functioning well and how it's supposed to with regard to these claims, we do not believe is the right solution. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Laura Curtis, and I'm here on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. Our members are very sympathetic to this issue. We, too, want to reduce the risk and exposure to heat illness.

However, we don't believe that SB 1299 is the right solution. We align our comments with the Chamber, but I'd like to underscore two points about this bill. First, as this Legislature and the Administration have recognized many times, presumptions should be issued sparingly.

Just last year, Governor Newsom made clear in several veto messages that the Workers Comp that in the Workers Compensation system, a presumption must be based on clear and compelling evidence because a presumption is not required for an injury to actually be compensable.

However, the proponents have not provided data showing the high rate of denied heat illness claims or a fault in the Workers Compensation system itself. Without such clear and compelling evidence, this bill fails to pass the standards set by this Legislature and the Administration in establishing presumptions.

Second, injury is defined in Section B of the bill as any heat related injury, illness, or death that develops or manifests after the employee was working outdoors or within the pay period in which the employee suffers the heat related illness, injury, or death. So there is no time limit as to what would constitute after working outdoors.

For the majority of agricultural employees, the pay period is often a week, but for several others such as dairy farming, the pay period may be as much as a month. So the injury must develop or manifest a week or a month after the employee's working and could include, for example, returning home, working out, playing sports in the high heat.

While the presumption is technically rebuttable, a review of Section 3395 shows that there are 73 individual standards that could trigger the presumption under SB 1299, and they don't have to be causally linked to the worker itself. The presumptions are rarely rebutted because the virtual impossibility of proving a negative renders a presumption functionally conclusive.

Thus 1299's definition of injury would arguably create a presumption of coverage for an employee who suffers a heat illness injury a week or a month after working, and such precedent would upend the Workers Compensation system. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Again, we are very sympathetic to the issue. We just don't believe that SB 1299 is the right solution, and there is no fault in the Workers Compensation system itself. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there additional opposition?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation in respectful opposition.

Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, respectfully opposed to the source of funding.

Madam Chair and Members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Fresh Fruit Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association, and the Strawberry Commission in opposition.

Good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association, also opposed. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition for the reasons previously stated. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee Members. Assembly Member Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you. I just want to thank the author for this. I think this seems super simple. If you comply with the rules, then nothing changes. So maybe workers should just to comply with the heat standard regulations and then they won't be brought to this presumption. So I think it seems like an obvious step forward that will protect people in what is a rapidly changing climate. So I'm happy to support it today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, do we... Okay, we don't have a quorum, so would you like to close, Senator?

Yes, I would. And let me just say very respectfully to the opposition, rather than rebut anything that they said on very practical issues regarding timing and so forth. We're more than happy to entertain amendments that would deal with those issues while we still have time to do that. But we, too, believe it's a very straightforward bill.

Simply shifting the presumption in cases of heat illness. And we really appreciate the committee's help. As we came into this committee with this bill and the Chair's help and the comments that have already been made. I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator, and we'll take it up when we have the quorum.

Thank you.

Hey, Senator Ashby, whenever you're ready to present on SB 1058.

Hi, colleagues. Good, is it afternoon yet? Afternoon. Thanks for having us.

Whenever you're ready, Senator. Okay, go ahead.

Thank you so much. Thanks for having us. I'm here today to present SB 1058, which extends workers compensation and disability protections to county and special district park rangers. Park rangers across the state serve a variety of functions, including protecting regional parks, wildfire, and the public visiting these areas.

Additionally, park rangers enforce infractions, misdemeanors and felonies in our parks lands. In Sacramento County alone, our park rangers this year have made 328 arrests and issued 89 felony citations or arrests.

In order to do this, park rangers must complete extensive training and are required to complete a post certified academy in order to be hired by their county or special district. Oftentimes, these park rangers are the first point of contact for disturbances facing similar risks to other law enforcement agencies across our region.

However, despite all of this, these park rangers are not given the same workers compensation and disability protections granted to the state park rangers or to other law enforcement agencies under the California Labor Code.

In fact, some counties rely on deputy sheriffs or police officers to fill their park Ranger positions, further emphasizing both the overlap in responsibilities and duties and the disparity in protections. SB 1058 amends the labor code to safeguard park rangers on the front lines, addressing blatant gaps in workers compensation and disability protections.

With me to testify today is Chief Orman, the chief ranger from the Sacramento County Regional Parks, and Randy Bickle, who is the President of the Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union.

Hi. As she stated, I'm the chief ranger. I've been there since about 2017. Chief Ranger for about three and a half years. It's an honor to speak before you on this important issue. Our rangers are responsible for public safety in our regional parks and open space throughout Sacramento County.

Our most popular and well known area of responsibility is the 23 miles of the American River Parkway. In the last 10 to 15 years, our agency has transformed and evolved from an interpretive ranger agency to a strictly law enforcement ranger organization where we're dealing with public safety issues full-time.

In 2023, we made approximately 1500 arrests in our parks. 350 of those were felonies, including violent crimes, firearms and drug distribution. Just last week we assisted Rancho Cordova that had three people shot in their city. Our rangers responded, arrested the suspect in that case.

Had our ranger been issued or, excuse me, been injured during that apprehension, they would have been treated vastly different than if a regular peace officer working for Rancho Cordova Police Department was the person injured. The disparities are great in how they get treated, especially if they end up with a disability retirement.

This is a statewide issue for rangers. It's a matter of equity. Furthermore, for us that are responsible for recruiting, hiring and retaining folks, it's a real issue. We hire a lot of academy students, put them through the academy, they get out of the academy and after a little while they figure out they're treated differently.

And if they're unfortunately, my most valued employees apply to other agencies. I was notified yesterday that two are leaving me for other mainstream police departments in this region and their main reason is pay and benefits, including 4850 disability.

It's very hard for us to maintain our numbers and anyway, I thank you for taking the time to hear what I had to say and your help in this endeavor.

Good afternoon Chair Calderon and honorable Committee Members. My name is Randy Bickel. I'm the president of the labor union that represents the Sacramento County regional park rangers.

Park rangers are the first responders that provide safety for park patrons, respond to emergencies, render first aid, life saving techniques, conduct water rescues, put out wildland fires, conduct search and rescue and then make arrests.

The county and special district park rangers attend the same standardized police academies that are certified through either the California Peace Officers standards and training or the 14 plus week National Park Ranger Law Enforcement Academy. County parks and special district parks have become popular location for the unhoused and parks have seen an uptick in homeless encampments.

This has brought an increase in challenges to the park rangers dealing with illegal drug use, drug sales and unfortunately, overdoses. Criminal activity is on the rise, including crimes of violence, as you just heard. I served as a sergeant with the Sacramento County Regional park rangers for four years.

I previously served as 30 years as a law enforcement officer in the Bay Area as a police officer. I'm now currently an investigator with the Sacramento County Public Defender's office and through that experience I have witnessed firsthand the dangers that county park rangers face daily. Several injuries rangers sustained in the performance of their duties.

Park rangers, not only of the Sacramento County, but of several counties and special districts statewide, are doing the brave work of emergency first responders. They are putting themselves in danger to protect others, keeping our parks and open spaces safe while protecting the natural resources.

They are the police officers of the parks, sworn and certified to protect park patrons. We respectfully ask that you protect them by supporting Senate Bill 1058 and extending the same disability benefits as defined under Section 4850 of the California Labor Code to include them like other peace officers up and down the state. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional support in the room?

Madam Chair, Members Randy Perry with Aaron Read and Associates on behalf of PORAC, in full support. Thanks.

Alexander Hapke, president of Midpeninsula Rangers Peace Officers Association in support.

Do we have any primary opposition in the room?

Chair and Members, Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities here today in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 1058. Currently, some, but not all, statutorily identified categories of safety officers are provided their full salary in lieu of temporary disability for up to one full year per injury without taxation, regardless of their period of service.

When an officer receives this benefit pursuant to labor code 4850, their net pay is higher than when they were working or would be if they returned to work, which can provide a disincentive to do so.

SB 1058 would provide taxpayer-funded, yet tax-free to the officer full-salary continuation benefits to park rangers and housing authority patrol officers working for every county and special district in the state in lieu of temporary disability benefits if they're hurt at work.

We are not aware of any objective evidence of a specific need for this expansion of taxpayer funded salary continuation benefits to demonstrate this benefit is appropriate for these classifications, and there has been no evaluation of the cost to our local government members, many of whom are struggling to meet the demand for public services.

Local agencies typically fund workers compensation costs out of their general fund through a not-for-profit JPA, and every dollar spent on special enhanced benefits is diverted from funds used for public service.

Funding for this enhanced benefit proposed by Senate Bill 1058 will come out of local government budgets, and our coalition would urge the Legislature to examine the justification and the cost related to the proposal before doing so. For these reasons, were respectfully opposed.

Do we have any additional opposition in the room?

Yeah, Madam Chair and Members, Julee Malinowski-Ball on behalf of the Mid Peninsula Regional Open Space District. We came with a late, opposed unless amended position. We're asking for an exemption for our park rangers who do not carry weapons. We hope that would be satisfactory, and then we would move our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation and PRISM, Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, in respectful opposition.

Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee. Do we have any questions? Seeing none. Senator, would you like to close?

Sure. Just to address a couple of the concerns and then ask you for an aye vote.

First of all, this bill has support from the Sacramento Criminal Justice Employees Union and as well as the Fraternal Order of Police and PORAC, and also Sacramento County and the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors, which is where the bulk of these individuals will come from. There are fewer than 500 folks statewide not covered by this provision.

Most of them are in Sacramento or in Senator Cortese's district, which is why he's the co-author of this bill. At its heart, this is a worker's rights bill. Someone in LA County had the good sense of doing this already. So the LA County parks folks are already covered, but they're the only county.

So they have the same job requirements, they have the same job duties, they have the same risks, but they have different protections. I'm asking you to help me remedy that, and urge an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. At the appropriate time, we'll bring this up. Thank you so much.

Okay, we're waiting for authors. We're waiting for Senator Durazo, Senator Laird, and Senate Majority Leader Gonzalez. We also need Assemblymembers who serve on the Insurance Committee. We need to get a quorum, so please come to Committee.

Okay, Members, we're going to establish a quorum secretary. Call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We need a motion and a second on file item one, SB 1299. Cortese SB 1058, SB 1058. I'm sorry. Ashby.

File item number one, SB 1058. Ashby. Motion is do pass. [Roll Call]

Okay, file item three. We need a motion in second. This is SB 1299 by Senator Cortese. Secretary, call the roll.

File item number three, SB 1299, Cortese. Motion is due past two appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's going to be on call. Okay, on the consent calendar. We need a motion in a second, please. Do I have a second?

Consent calendar file item number four, SB 1090. Durazo. motion is do pass to appropriations. Recommended consent file item number five, SB 1217. Glazier motion is do pass to appropriations. Recommended consent file item number seven, SB 577. Hurtado motion is do pass to appropriations. Recommend Consent file item number 10, SB 1295.

Rubio do pass recommended consent. [Roll Call]

We're going to lift the call on file item one and file item three.

File item number one, SB 1058. [Roll Call]. File item number three, SB 1299. [Roll Call]

That bill's on call, and we're just waiting for authors. Welcome, Senate Majority Leader Gonzalez. Whenever you're ready. Hello? Whenever you're ready. Present on SB 370.

Home insurance finder tools. SB 370 enhances the public's awareness of available insurance coverage options by requiring agents and brokers to provide a person who is seeking property insurance coverage with information about the California home insurance finder tool. But in addition to that, the fair plan as well.

And we want to just bridge the gap with information for all in California and testifying and support. Today I have Lee Camerich, policy advocate for the Rural County representatives.

Good afternoon. Lee Camerich with the Rural County Representatives of California. We are pleased to support the bill. When residents are non renewed and looking for available and affordable insurance coverage, they often don't know where to start and what tools are available to help them.

So the home insurance finder tool should be better utilized and certainly before customers settle for last resort options. And for these reasons, we ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have any additional support in the room?

Move the bill.

Okay. Do we have any opposition to this bill?

Yeah. Julie Malinowski. Paul. On behalf of the fair plan, just wanted to note we have a neutral position.

Thank you. Okay, I'll bring it back to the Committee Members. Any questions? Assemblymember Berman.

I feel like we waited a while for some action in the Committee hearing, and this is happening too quickly, so if you could just, like, expound upon that. No, just kidding. Happy to support the bill.

I'm like, I can't answer that question. Madam Secretary, call the roll. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

You're welcome. Please call the roll.

File item number six, SB 370. Senator Gonzalez. Motion is do pass to appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's going to stay on call. Thank you, Senate Majority Leader.

Okay, we're going to add on to file item number six, SB 370. Gonzalez.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're going to do add ons. Secretary, please calls a roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we're waiting for authors. We're waiting for Senator Durazzo and Senator Laird. Please come to the Assembly Insurance Committee in the Capitol. Okay. We're going to take a five minute recess. We'll convene in five minutes.

Okay, we're reconvening the Assembly Insurance Committee. Welcome, Senator Durazo. Whenever you're ready, go ahead and present on SB 1116.

Thank you very much, and I appreciate your patience.

I understand it's a busy day.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I am joint author of SB 1116 and here to present on behalf of Senator Portantino. SB 1116 will allow workers who go on strike for more than two weeks to become eligible for UI benefits.

We are prepared to amend this bill to clarify that it only applies to strikes, quote, over wages, working conditions, or other employer practices related to collective bargaining as defined by state and federal law, end quote.

When I led the Hotel workers union, I saw firsthand the incredible courage workers have to stand up and demand respect and fair wages. I also saw firsthand the extreme hardships families face when on strike. They don't take it lightly.

I saw examples of workers losing their homes and unable to put food on the table simply because they were exercising their right to try to earn a better living. Prolonged strikes are not just devastating to the workers and their families, the impact, the whole economy.

That's why when our Hollywood unions were on strike, many local businesses in Los Angeles expressed support for this bill. Allowing UI benefits for workers on strike is a lifeline for the whole community. UI benefits don't come close to covering a workers actual salary.

This is a basic lifeline to help families survive, keep a roof over their head and food on the table. Workers do not go on strike because they want to. They do so as a last resort as the only way to get fair working conditions.

While the majority of strikes do not last long enough to qualify under this bill, for workers in prolonged strikes, it will be life changing. We have two people here today, Members of United Food and Commercial Workers and my own union, unite here to share their stories about why this bill is so important to the labor movement.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. My name is Victor Valenciano and I have been a grocery worker for 44 years with bonds and a proud local UFCW 1428 Member. I was on strike for 141 days in 2003 and four the largest strike in history. And I witnessed firsthand the hardships of going on strike for myself, my coworkers and our community.

While this was 20 years ago, I remember it like it was yesterday. At the time of the strike, I was battling cancer and was in the middle of receiving treatment. When we went on strike, I was very worried about whether I was going to be able to afford cobra health insurance, my doctor payments, medical treatments.

On top of that, my rent, car payment, food and other bills. It was a very stressful and mentally exhausting time. I would often stay awake at night worrying about if I was going to have to stop my treatments, find a new doctor, and pay for my medication. I was one of the lucky ones.

Many of my coworkers weren't so lucky. One of my coworkers was a single mother with two young daughters and was ashamed of needing assistance from food banks. But that was her only safety net, that she could put food on her table. The strike really took a toll on her and her daughters.

If we had the protection from this Bill in 2003 and 2004, our futures today would be a lot different. We would be able to sleep at night knowing we could cover our basic needs for our families.

Some coworkers might not have lost their homes, their cars, and been more financially secure than they have been in the last 20 years. Our employers extended the strike for as long as they could to wear us down and force us to giving and slashing our healthcare benefits, putting our health and lives at risk.

SB 1116 makes sure we have a level playing field with our employers when we exercise our right to strike. This is why I ask for your support for workers like me, that you support this bill today. Thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Eva Ortega. I'm a floor server for Cash Creek Casino Resort for 20 years. The employers right now, they have all the power to decide how much we should get paid, how it's going to be, the work, our conditions.

We don't have no power as employee, as a worker, especially when there's no union around the companies, it's really hard. The pave that we get is not enough. Thinking about stride, it's hard. It's hard because we have families. We have to bring food at home. We have to provide. Sometimes it's just hard for the pay. We don't.

We work. We live here in California. It's really expensive. It's not easy. When it asked me if I want to be in strike, I think about it twice because I had to bring food home. But I have to do what I have to do to try to bring food home.

It's not fair for us to be in stress. If we can have someone to help us, at least for a couple of days and be able to bring food at home. We don't ask for anything.

We just ask you to help us for a couple of days, to be able to fight for our rights, to be able to. To fight for. Bring more food home. That's what we ask you for, to please help us to be able to fight for whatever is right. Thank you. Thank you for your help.

Do we have any additional support in the room?

Madam Chair, Committee Members. Louis Costa with smart transportation, state legislative board in support.

Jazzy Grewal, UFCW, Western States Council proud co sponsor and support.

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association and support.

Madam Chair Members Nicholas Weiss of the Department of Insurance under the leadership of Insurance Commissioner Ricardo Lata in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Kobe Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in strong support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters SAG-AFTRA, Unite Here, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists, and the Utility Workers Union of America in support.

Cleo Cabral, Communication Workers of America 9408 out of Fresno. We're in support.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Megan Subers on behalf of the Writers Guild of America West and support.

Madam Chair and Members. Mike Monaghan on behalf of the California State Building Trades in support.

Good afternoon, ma'am. Chair Members Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Good afternoon. Julie Nielsen with the National Union of Healthcare Workers in support.

Ignacio Hernandez on behalf of the Communication Workers of America District nine, which covers California, Nevada and Hawaii, co sponsor of the bill.

Good afternoon. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support.

Madam Chair and Members, Caitlin Vega on behalf of the California Labor Federation, proud to sponsor this bill along with so many of our unions.

Okay, thank you. Do we have any opposition? Please come forward.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Robert Moutrie for the California Chamber of Commerce and we are opposed to SB 1116 as a job killer. We've all heard about this bill before, so I'll try to be quick, but four key concerns here. First, we view this bill as doing something fundamentally new.

It is the state weighing in on one side of present and future labor disputes. That is something that is new to California and most importantly to us. It hits both employers involved in the strike and employers who are not involved in these strikes at all, who will be forced to subsidize those payments there.

And that's a real fairness concern for us on the employer side. I also need to highlight one fundamental issue here, which is we view striking as fundamentally different than being fired. Someone on strike, though it is unpleasant, has a job and may get back to that job at the end. Someone who's been fired may never work again.

And it's just a different situation, both legally, I think, and emotionally. I want to also flag the UI Fund debt and the tax implications for California businesses. California employers are already paying increased taxes due to the UI Fund debt as no, you all are aware.

And I want to appreciate staff analysis for flagging this issue as it was raised in the governor's veto message of last year's SB 799. There's also a federal law concern here that hasn't been raised.

I want to reiterate, federal law requires people claiming UI to be able to work, looking for work and unemployed through no fault of their own. We have a problem seeing how those second and third elements apply. People on strike, that is, looking for work and unemployed through no fault of their own.

Finally, I want to flag the EDD concerns that staff analysis also flags, particularly in this budget year. We have concerns about EDD being asked to pick up and get ready a new program and a new process for review. Thank you. With that, I'll pass to my colleague.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Matt Sutton with the California Restaurant Association. We are opposed to the bill. We've been opposed to the previous versions of the bill. I'll just build a little bit upon what Mister Moutrie said. We represent independent restaurants for the most part. About 85% of our Members are the community based restaurants.

And Unemployment Insurance is sort of this, this quiet other budget deficit Mister Motri mentioned. We have a $20 billion deficit, and our issue is not a matter of whether any one of these strikes, we're not commenting on those. It's a mathematical situation for us.

And we're already paying as restaurants and employers, an added assessment because of the $20 billion deficit. So restaurants are getting every January, February, March, as well as other employers, these bills that come, and they come in increments of $21 per employee per year. So it goes $21, $42 and it goes on and on and on every year.

And if the state does not act, we get up to over $400 per employee per year. We're super labor intensive. We're proud of that. We're hospitality. But the more employees you have, it's per head, the more it costs. And we offer a lot of transitional job opportunities. So we have turnover. So we again, are disproportionately impacted.

And I think the thing I would just emphasize here is the Fund is broke. It's been broke. It's been historically problematic. For over a decade, we've sat at the table with the chamber and with others trying to talk about redoing the system.

What's proposed here is a dramatic rework of a system to provide benefits for those that it wasn't intended to. If we're going to have that discussion, let's have a comprehensive discussion about that and the fact that we're $20 billion in the hole here. The governor's veto, Meshitz clearly says it. This bill will add cost pressures for employers.

It will result in tax increases for employers. The debt in the UI account will get worse. So this is certainly the time to do no harm and not to do any further damage to the Unemployment Insurance Fund and those that pay into it. All of us employers. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there additional opposition in the room? Please come forward.

Madam Chair and Members, Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business, in opposition.

Madam Chair. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, the Hollywood Chamber of Commerce, and SHRM, the Society of Human Resource Management, in opposition. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Kern County Board of Supervisors, in opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Members. Skylar Wannacott with the California Business Properties Association and the Building Owners Managers Association of California and NAOP California, in strong opposition.

Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association, opposed.

Amelia Zamani with the California Travel Association and on behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association, in opposition.

Lawrence Gaydon, on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, opposed.

Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition. For the reasons previously stated.

Thank you, Ryan Elaine with the California Retailers Association, in opposition.

Thank you, honorable chair. So sorry for being out of order. My clients in support unite here, local 11 and their 32,000 folks in Southern California and strong support. Thank you.

Courtney Jensen, on behalf of 21st Century alliance and opposition.

Jason Schmelzer here, on behalf of prism, in opposition.

Also asked to register opposition for Calcite, CSAC, Rural County, representatives of California, California Special Districts Association, Association of California School Districts, Association of California Healthcare Districts, Urban Counties of California, California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities and the California Association of School Business Officials. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members. Carlos Guterres here, on behalf of the California Grocers Association, in opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yanis, on behalf of the California Trucking Association and the California Fuels and Convenience alliance, also ask to register opposition on behalf of the Orange County Business Council. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Apologies. I'm also out of order, running between committees. Janice O'Malley with AFScMe California, in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I'm going to bring it back to the Committee for questions. Assemblymember Bauer-Kahan.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It gives me no. Great pleasure to say what I'm about to say. So a year ago, I voted for this bill, and I did so proudly. I have voted in my almost six years here for healthcare, for striking workers, for the right to strike every time it's been before me.

I come from a family. My sister's been arrested I don't know how many times on the strike line in Wisconsin, and I believe so deeply in the right to strike. And a year ago, I thought I knew what the right to strike meant.

I thought it meant the right to do what the witnesses here today talked about, the right to stand up and demand better pay and better working conditions, to give us the things we benefit from today. A 40 hours workweek, safe working conditions. I know how many women died to get us what we have today.

And so I voted for it. And now I sit here in the shadow of the UAW strike on campus, and I no longer understand if we have a shared understanding of what a strike is.

They are allegedly striking on working conditions, which is why the amendment you offered is meaningless, because they are arguing that divestment from the State of Israel is working conditions. Somehow they're marching across our beautiful UC campuses yelling, kill one more in reference to the Jews.

And I've been told, well, you can't punish every worker for what they're doing. It's true. I don't disagree with that statement, but I've seen laborers stand silently or complicitly in saying that that's a strike, that that's okay, that that's right, that what they're doing is just, and it's not.

And as everybody in this room knows, I'm the granddaughter of Holocaust survivors. I was raised by women who survived. Not everyone in my family survived. And they taught me about the horrors of gas chambers and the roundups. They lived through the Anschluss and Kristallnacht.

One of my relatives was in a concentration camp, and they lived to teach me that it isn't just the horrors that happened inside those facilities. It was silence. And it wasn't just the silence as my relatives were being rounded up and sent away. It was the years of education to hate the Jewish people and others.

The LGBTQ community and others. The education, the indoctrination, the propaganda. That's what's happening on our campuses right now. People are marching across campus saying, kill one more jew, and they're doing it in the name of a strike. And others are standing by and saying, don't cross the picket line.

And I can't sit here silently and allow us to be complicit and silent in the face of that horror. Because I have Jewish children, I need to protect, and my grandmothers taught me this is the moment to speak up and to demand better.

And so I cannot support sending Unemployment Insurance to individuals who will call that working conditions. And I want to be very clear. I'm doing this on behalf of my community, but I do not believe this is just a threat to my community.

I could see a local union that doesn't share our values on LGBTQ plus rights striking because they don't want to go into school and honor the gender of the students that are in their classrooms, a value that I hope everyone here shares. And now, apparently, that's a violation of their working conditions.

We believe what is happening on campus is a strike, and we would be sending them Unemployment Insurance. And so until we can get a shared understanding, a clear, shared understanding that strikes are meant to protect workers in the way your witnesses spoke to.

I cannot vote for this bill, and I want to thank everyone who is not standing silently by, because I've talked about those that have, but many are not. Many are speaking up and standing in solidarity with our community at the hardest time in my life.

Assemblywoman Ortega.

I don't. I know this is a difficult conversation, and, you know, I've been working in and around the capital and labor for decades. This has been one of the most significant, impactful bills that we could ever pass when it comes to representing working families.

We saw that this summer when we saw strikes across the country because workers were coming out and saying, this is not their fault of this.

They were out there because it was not a fault of their own that their working conditions were okay, that the wages were not enough, that they no longer mattered, even though we were calling them essential during the pandemic. And I'm talking about teachers, healthcare workers.

I actually stood on a strike line with healthcare workers in Alameda County during the pandemic because they were having to wear grocery bags, grocery bags as PPE, because they were not given the essential needs that they needed. So it was through no fault of their own that they chose as a last resort to go on strike.

To the comments that were just made by my colleague. I have not been silent. My whole career has been around standing up for injustices. As an undocumented immigrant who came to this country, I will not be silent when I see injustices. That is not. Hasn't happened ever.

And it will never happen because that is not who I am or will ever be. But I understand some of the concerns that have come up through the language and the discussions.

So I just want to ask the author, I know you're presenting for Senator Porchettino, but was there not amendments provided to you to make sure that we clarify what legitimate strike is?

Yes, I referred to it in my opening remarks that it is very specific about wages, working conditions, employer practices related to collective bargaining as defined by state and federal law, so that there's no, no one outside of that purview is going to decide what a strike is. That would be where the workers would be eligible.

I just want to clarify, we're not, we didn't accept any amendments to this bill. This is the exact same bill, word for word, that was presented in this Committee last year that this body voted for and sent to the Governor.

Thank you for that.

Assemblyman Lee.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to. Of course, of course. Thank Senator Durazo for presenting for Senator Portantino last year. I was very proud to be a co author of this Bill, and I still am very proud to support this measure.

I would urge a lot of my colleagues to think about supporting this measure still, because I want to remind folks of why some of my colleagues alluded to why we came to this bill, point to why it was so important.

Yes, a lot of the pandemic revealed such disparities in the workplace, from healthcare to grocery stores to every essential worker we said was essential. Our heroes. And now, today, almost five years later, from the pandemic, you're seeing more and more of these workers be treated as replaceable.

And that's why it's so important to have the essential right to strike. And remembering at the time the backdrop when he had this legislation, it was the hot labor summer. It was when Hollywood went on strike for almost 56 months. And that captured the world's attention.

I didn't have conversations with my locals, little tiny, little small unions for teachers and educators who said, if they can do it and they can win, we should do it, too. And then UAW went and won one of the biggest strikes, of course, as well, and revolutionized working conditions for the entire auto industry.

So just to keep in mind that the disparities that are revealed during the pandemic are so plain for so many to see right now. We're struggling to get by.

And there are so few strikes that have been eligible for this because it's for strikes that last more than two weeks, that there was only three last year, even though it was momentous for so many labor movements, only three.

But it still gave the courage for our workers to stand up and demand more, to ask more, to bargain harder, and doesn't always come down to the strike. And I do, even though I know, of course, the amendments weren't taken today.

I know there's a spirit of the sponsors and the author to want to work collaboratively to address that. And if we enshrine this in state law, to say that it has to be a strike about work conditions, wages, et cetera, I think that gets us much closer to spirit.

But I just want to remind folks that there are so many people out there who would be so much benefited because we need to make sure that the working class movement in America and California is strong as possible, because there's so many disparities out there.

And yes, our University would constantly be the battlegrounds of so many intellectual debates. Trust me, I was student body President when my University constantly wanted platform, like literal Nazis and people who still did just in the face of free speech and all that stuff like that, they wanted to platform these people.

And of course, we didn't want that either. We didn't want any of these things and these kinds of debates, but they want to constantly be these debates about free speech. But we should not conflate that free speech intellectualism argument with what a real, real argument we have here to better working lives for people.

That's really, really important here. And there's so many people counting on this, and we can join other states. Thank you.

Assemblyman Berman.

First of all, I want to thank, and second, everything that my colleague Rebecca Bauer-Kahan said, and I agree with everything that she said, 110%. Did the UAW, did the labor Fed sanction a strike by UAW due to working conditions?

Is that a question?

Yes, for whoever. I don't, I don't, I don't, whoever wants to answer the question.

The Labor Federation sanctioned a UAW strike per, which is the body.

I'm sorry, the question was, did the labor Fed sanction a strike requested by UAW due to working conditions that would have qualified under the amendments that were discussed but not accepted by the Committee?

They came to us with an unfair labor practice strike, which we were authorized. The amendments that the author is offering should this bill move would be very clear about worker wages, working conditions, employer practices related to collective bargaining. As recognizing.

Excuse me. Excuse me one moment. I just want to clarify that the amendments that were presented to this Committee did not address the concerns of the Committee Members, and that's why they weren't accepted.

So thank you for that. And that's the point that I was getting at, is the labor Fed sanctioned a strike by UAW under the auspices of working conditions. And then UAW jointly held a march at UC Davis where they chanted for the death of Jews. And then AFscMe 3299 proudly and prominently put on social media.

We stand with our brothers and sisters against genocide, against genocide. So is genocide happening at UCLA? I assume not. And so if that's the case, why is AFSCME 3299 proudly standing with their brothers and sisters against something that has nothing to do with working conditions?

And the reason for that is the strike has nothing to do with working conditions, but it was sanctioned by the labor fed. And that is what gives me and my colleagues who voted for this bill last year an immense amount of heartburn, heartache that you heard so eloquently from my colleague.

And we've had those conversations about those concerns over the past two weeks with the sponsors and the amendments that were offered up did nothing, nothing to address those concerns. We have.

There's a problem, and we're going to have to have some conversations to address the problem that is happening in terms of the antisemitic, the anti-Israel that has quickly led to antisemitic incidents that are happening on our college campuses, on our UC's, on our CSUs, that are being supported by different labor organizations.

And we've worked with some labor organizations very successfully, very successfully, and others have been a lot more of a challenge. So those are some conversations that we're going to have to have when we have more time to focus on them. And I think those are important conversations.

But given the situation that exists, given the siege that our community is under, especially at our institutions of higher education in California, there's no way I can support this bill today.

Okay, anybody else?

Assemblywoman Rubio. Thank you. I also supported the bill last year, and as a Latina woman that was also undocumented and immigrated to the United States, I've seen throughout the years what has happened. Had any other ethnic community been named the way that the Jewish community was called out, everybody would have been up in arms.

If it was about Mexicans, we would have had a heart attack and would have been protesting that kind of strike because they were naming an ethnic community. I didn't see that either. And I belonged to the Jewish caucus. And in listening to what was not done through this, whatever time we're going through, it's horrible for everyone.

I cannot support the bill because it's not fundamentally addressing the issues that we requested be addressed, and I did support the bill last year. The other issue, I think that's the fundamental issue, but the other issue is we can't afford the Unemployment Insurance we have now.

And somebody told me, well, what's a little bit more, if the fund is already $20 billion in the hole, then a little more doesn't matter. But the fundamental issue of not standing with our ethnic communities is part of, or the biggest part of the issue that I'm having with this bill.

So I will not be supporting it this time.

Are there any other members that wish to make a comment or ask a question? No. Okay. Well, I want to thank my, let you close, Senator. I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Sure. Obviously, I don't understand the pain that my colleague talked about in the same way that you do. And I feel terrible about what you continue to feel from what generations have gone through in your community and in your family. So I feel very terrible about that. And I have always stood. I have always stood.

I believe I've always stood on the side of justice. I've spent my life in the labor movement. Spend my life in the labor movement because those are people who are trying to raise the next generation the best that they can, and they get treated really bad.

I've been, I don't know if anybody here has ever been on strike, but it's a really, really difficult thing to do. A lot is risked. People don't get their jobs back, and especially women don't get their jobs back. Live in poverty, work hard, work 23 jobs. It becomes unbearable, what it does to them and their families.

I'm not trying to compare the pain that you spoke about and that you feel. There's a different kind of pain that working people go through and they need help. The state has the record of wage theft of anywhere in the country. Tens of billions of dollars in wage theft. They don't even get paid what the law says.

They don't have health insurance. They are constantly being harassed by the employers. There's sexual harassment, you name it, all the things that go on in these workplaces. And that's why the labor movement is so important.

And that's why a basic, basic premise in the labor movement is being able to go out on strike with all that it takes, with the risk that it takes, with the sacrifice that it takes. It's a basic union right, a basic labor right.

And that's what we're trying to do here, is protect that, not all the wrongs that particular unions are doing or not doing this is about those working men and women having the ability to take on these horrible working conditions. And that's what we're about. That's what this Bill is about.

And I really hope that, yes, we can have that. We should have that conversation. But I hope that it's not one pain for another pain. It's that we have to stand up for everyone. We can't be pitted against each other, especially by employers.

So I know there's an issue being brought up about the Fund and whether it's broke or not. I also have been looking at it and studying it. Employers have not been paying anywhere near what employers across the country pay into their Unemployment Insurance Fund. So there's a lot to be said about that.

This is not going to affect that at all. We just know it won't. So I respectfully ask for you all to please support a fundamental right of the labor movement, not just here in LA and California, not just here in the US, but all over the world. It's a fundamental right that we must continue to protect.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator. I would like to thank the witnesses for coming forward and sharing your stories. I know how difficult that is for you, and I appreciate you taking the time to be here. And I also want to acknowledge my colleagues.

I've talked to you before this Committee, and I know that the intergenerational trauma that you experience is very real, and it's hard for me to see you in pain. But for today, I'm looking just at this bill, the underlying policy on this bill. I supported it last year and I'll be supporting it today.

File item number nine, SB 1116. Portantino. Motion is do pass two appropriations. [Roll Call].

It's on call. This is on call. Thank you, Senator.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Senator Laird, whenever you're ready to present on SB 1205.

Oh, thank you. Hopefully, this will be different. Although I was in rules when they said come to insurance, I was in education when they said come to insurance, and then I was in labor when they said to come to insurance. So I'm glad I'm finally here.

Senate Bill 1205 will guarantee workers access to medical care for on the job injuries by prohibiting employers from retaliating against workers who must receive medical care during business hours. I want to thank the Committee staff for working with my office on this measure, and it was extensive work.

I accept the Committee amendments as outlined in the analysis and happy to talk to them if there's concern, and the analysis points to a remaining recommendation that there be additional flexibility within the bill for employers. We will continue to explore that.

A 2003 Supreme Court decision found employers may deny wage loss benefits to injured workers who might must miss work to receive medical care necessary to treat their occupational injuries. In these cases, the decision even allows employers to deny injured workers the right to use their earned sick leave.

This bill would address the fact that the end result is that workers are being forced to forego essential medical care, which can worsen their condition and potentially turn a temporary injury into a permanent one or face losing wages.

A lot of times it's a small number of visits, it's a small number of time, a small amount of time. There are accommodations made before you get there. This just clarifies that situation.

The bill originates from the classified division of the California Federation of Teachers and workers they represent, whose employers have required them to stay on the job, essentially denying them medical care and sometimes causing the injury to worsen. This bill would protect injured workers by ensuring they can access timely medical care without retaliation for their occupational injuries.

I have with me Mitch Steiger with the California Federation of Teachers to speak in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals proud to sponsor this bill. We'd also like to express our appreciation for all the work that committee staff did in getting the language of the amendments right.

It was quite a bit of work, as the author mentioned, but I think we're in a good place now. Just really wanted to emphasize where this bill came from. So, as mentioned, it did come from our classified division.

So these are janitors, bus drivers, cafeteria workers, folks who often do pretty dangerous work, often get hurt at work, and when they're out recovering from their injury, and then when they come back, there's often a need for follow up appointments, for physical therapy, other types of evaluations, which can be exceedingly difficult to acquire outside of regular business hours.

A lot of these folks work 9 to 5, 8 to 4, and if anyone's ever tried to get physical therapy at 7 p.m. at night, it's virtually impossible to do so effectively. This means that these workers don't get medical care.

So all we're trying to do with this bill is clarify that workers do have the right to go get that medical care during their work hours if necessary. And also just wanted to briefly touch on the amendments that were taken. We've taken a great deal of amendments to respond to opponent concerns.

We've clarified that workers are required to try to schedule the appointment outside of work hours if possible. They have to notify the employer of the appointment that the timeout counts toward their CIF relief. The California Family Rights Act, 12 weeks of unpaid job protected leave so the employer, they'll lose that time when they're out.

And then we also remove the temporary disability benefits that were in an earlier version of the bill that concerns were expressed about. So what is left, we think moves a great deal towards what the opponents were looking for, but still leaves us with a very strong bill that very much helps our Members, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional support in the room?

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

Chris Myers with the California School Employees Association in support.

Juan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Do we have any opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Jason Schmeltzer here today on behalf of the California, excuse me. On PRISM, Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, California Coalition on Workers Compensation, and also CSAC asked me to register opposition for them as well. I'd like to start with a few thank yous. Obviously, first, to Senator Laird and his sponsor and staff.

They did spend quite a lot of time working through the various issues with us on this Bill, and we very much appreciate the progress that has been made. And then second to the Committee, for all the hard work that you did bringing the parties closer together.

This is how the best policy gets done is when people hear each other and try to move in a common direction. So we appreciate Senator Laird accepting the Committee amendments, which are in large part a reflection of the ongoing discussion between the parties.

We will sort of allow our detailed opposition letter to speak to the bill in print, but I do want to focus on a few issues with the amendments.

The amendments definitely move the bill in the right direction, and we appreciate that there are a few sort of outstanding issues that need to be addressed from our perspective, and I want to clarify a few things. One, in the workers compensation system, the normal rules for accommodating employee leave requests do apply.

What we sort of learned when we were having a conversation with the author and the sponsor is that there's nothing within the workers compensation portion of the labor code that sort of makes that clear. So there could be some confusion amongst employers.

Our idea and what we've been working towards is to clarify within the workers compensation portion of the labor code that these traditional accommodation requirements do apply. But there are sort of two significant concerns that we have remaining.

One, paragraph five in the amendments that are being taken say that every instance of an employer denying an accommodation is tantamount to discrimination under the statute. That leaves no flexibility for business necessities, undue hardship, etcetera, which are a common factor in accommodation law across every other aspect of California state law.

So we'd like to see that sort of addressed. And then second, which my colleague from the CalChamber will expand upon, is the absence of language very related that allows for that type of undue hardship consideration.

We appreciate Senator Laird's comments about working with us on those issues into the future, and we remain opposed until those are worked out, but appreciate all the work that's been done.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I want to echo the thank yous to the author's office as well as the Committee staff for working with us. So, as previously mentioned, presently employers provide time off for workers compensation appointments under about four general buckets.

So you have CFRA, which is mentioned, which the bill does address, paid sick leave.

You can absolutely use your paid sick leave as is in statute now, to attend appointments, um, reasonable accommodations, which I'll come back to in a second, and then also maybe an employer policy or, you know, like a one off request may be granted.

Um, so this last bucket, when we talk about reasonable accommodation, which is generally found under FEHA, because that's not capped, that is something that is subject to an undue hardship exemption.

So especially when we're talking about, like, a small business, if it would be a grave financial burden, maybe if someone's out that day, they would have to close, close for the day. That is a consideration, again, because there is no time cap.

And so in this bill, because we are confirming that there is leave available to attend workers compensation appointments, and again, it's not a set capped amount of leave, our proposal was that we would import over that undue hardship piece.

And what we're really focusing on here is the small businesses. Again, the small business who, if one employees out for a whole day, may not be able to open what have you.

We want to make sure that those smaller employers do have some flexibility when it comes to this again, especially because there's no really set hours cap that we're talking about here. And I want to clarify as well that we definitely do not intend for that to apply where the employee is using CFRA or paid sick leave.

Really, it would be when those situations do not apply. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any additional opposition in the room?

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

Hi. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Laura Curtis, on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, we really appreciate the work of the Committee staff and the member as well as the sponsor, on the amendments. Our members are reviewing them to determine position, but just really thank everyone.

Madam Chair and Members. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocery Association, in opposition.

Thank you. Bring it back to the Committee. Are there any questions for the author? Seeing none. Okay. Senator, would you like to close?

Yes. Let me just say I appreciate the comments and once again, really appreciate the committee because we were trying to thread a lot of needles here.

I have a problem in the education budgets wubcommitee I chair, because last year somebody from the Department of Education used four acronyms in one sentence, and I finally went, okay, that's it. And so the California Family Rights Act, really, the eligibility requires at least five employees.

So a lot of times we are not talking about the smallest of businesses. And I think we really want to thread the needle because the real question, and I don't see somebody going away for 8 hours an entire day unless they have some extreme thing.

And so this should work, and there should be ways that we can make this work. So we are happy to continue talking.

We do not want to lose the real impetus of the bill, which is what the committee really served with the amendments, is making sure that we try to protect the interest, but that nobody should be denied medical care.

And there have been suggestions that this be collectively bargained, not necessarily here right now, but when do you collectively bargain a right? Do you have as an injured worker? That is a standing right? It's a question of sometimes the conditions, which is what we're trying to address here. So I think this is in reasonably good shape.

We'll continue to talk, but I would respectfully request an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Okay. Secretary? Oh, wait. Do you have a motion? In a second, we do. Okay.

File item number eight, SB 1205, Laird. Motion is do pass is amended to appropriations. Calderon. Calderon, aye. Chen. Alvarez. Bauer-Kahan. Berman. Berman, aye. Mckinnor. Mckinnor, aye. Lee. Lee, aye. Lowenthal. Lowenthal, aye. Ortega. Ortega, aye. Joe Patterson. Joe Patterson, not voting. Petrie-Norris. Rubio. Rubio, aye. Valencia. Wallace. Wood. Wood, aye.

That bill gets out. You're welcome. Okay, we're going to open the roll.

[Roll Call]

We'll leave the roll up until. 415.

[Roll Call]

Open the roll.

[Roll Call]

This concludes the Assembly Insurance Committee Facebook.