Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning and welcome to the public returning Members and those newly assigned to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. I'd like to welcome two new Members, Assembly Member Robert Garcia and Assemblymember Sade Elhawary. She'll be here shortly.

Because this is a Committee's first hearing of this legislative session, we need to adopt the Committee's rules before proceeding through the agenda for this hearing. We will be limiting testimony to three minutes each for two witnesses on each side of the Bill.

All others may only state their name, organization, if any, position on the Bill for Committee Members. Since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here in respect of them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the Bill before making a motion so the public has an idea of what the Bill is about and what's needed.

If a motion is made during author's opening remarks, I'll simply say the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time for authors. You'll note that our hearing is publicly noticed in file order. Your staff should be monitoring this hearing to assist you with coming at the appropriate time to present your Bill.

Finally, the Assembly has experienced a number of disruptions, disruptions of Committee and floor proceedings in the last few years. Because we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process and can effectively deliberate on critical issues facing California.

So that everyone is absolutely clear, conduct that disrupts, disturbs or impedes the orderly conduct of the hearing is prohibited. We will not accept such behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence.

To address any such conduct, I will direct the individual to stop and warn them that if this continues, they will be removed from participating in the hearing or from the Capitol and will be temporarily. And we will temporarily recess the hearing if necessary, so that the sergeants who are sworn officers can restore order.

Hopefully, it won't come to that. Because if it won't, if we don't see none, we won't get any. Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Members, we need to establish a quorum. Do we? Secretary? We have. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next. Moving to adopt adoption of the Committee's rules. Is there a motion and a second to second? A motion by Assemblymember Nguyen. A second by Assembly Member Alanise. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Place this on hold. Before we begin with the remainder of the agenda, I'll remind everyone that we're limiting testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill and each will have three minutes to speak to the Bill. Everyone else must only state their name, organization, if any, and position on the Bill.

Before we do that, you should announce. That we have sufficient votes for the rules.

We have sufficient votes for the rules, so we will adopt the rules. Thank you. Appears that we have enough Members to establish a quorum. We already did that. Let's start at the top of the agenda with file number seven AB 672. Caloza. Please begin when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. McKinner. Good morning, Members and to everyone who's here. I'm here to present, present to you AB 672, which is about protecting our public employees and their right to collectively bargain. AB 672 will require public employees, public employers, to notify the Public Employment Relations Board if they file a court action involving the statute's PERB administers.

It would also give PERB the right to protect public employees and intervene as a party to help maintain the consistent application and enforcement of labor protections and policies across the country, especially at the federal level. Public employees are vulnerable and need more protections in the workplace.

Many of our public employees are also union Members, predominantly women of color, immigrants, working class people. These are the jobs that help forge the middle class.

Childcare providers who care for young children, teachers who educate the next generation of leaders, park employees who keep public parks available to all and all public employees are the backbone of our state and deserve protections. I believe that California can show the nation that public employees are public servants and that this is still an honored profession.

It's imperative that we treat public servants fairly in order to produce a more responsive, more representative government where we are all valued. But we can't just accomplish this with words alone and words of thanks or recognition. It's important that the structures, policies and practices of our state ensure fairness for all.

AB672 would safeguard California's workers and their rights by promoting fair and consistent application of the laws intended to protect all public employees. Here with me today to support this Bill is Sandra Bayero from SEIU California.

Thank you. Proceed. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California. We are the sponsors of this Bill. I'd like to thank Assembly Member Coloza for authoring this important measure to protect our collective bargaining rights. I'm available to answer any questions and. I respectfully request your aye vote

If so, if anybody is in support of this Bill, please step forward. Give your name, organization and your position.

Good morning chair. Members Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. We are pro co sponsors and urge your. I vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California. School Employees Association in support.

Good morning, ma'am. Madam Chair and Members Louie Costa with the International Association of Sheet Metal, Air, Rail and Transportation Workers, Smart Transportation Division in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reid and associates representing the Orange County Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Madam Chair. Members Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation Of Labor Unions in support.

Hearing and seeing no more witnesses. In support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses in opposition. Is there anyone that wants to come up and give their name, organization and position? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais. Anyone have any questions? 2nd Assemblymember Wynn moves the Bill. AssemblyMEMB. Seconds. Would you like to close?

Thank you, Chair McKinner and Members. I respectfully ask for your. I vote as a proud public servant and looking forward to seeing more protections in the workplace for all of our public employees. So thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have sufficient votes. We'll place this Bill on hold for add ons. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair McKenna. Thank you. Thank you colleagues.

Next in file order, AB283. Haney.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB283 which would allow in home supportive services or IHSS providers and employers to negotiate their contracts and wages at a state level instead of a county level. Getting care in the setting of your choice is a human right and a basic freedom.

It's also the most cost effective way to deliver care. Currently, the IHSS program employs over 700,000 providers and serves over 800,000 recipients. But the long term care system in our state is broken and the promise of delivering long term care in the comfort and safety of an individual's home is threatened.

This is in part in fact, due to the fact, that our IHSS workers are leaving the workforce at alarming rates because of Low wages and Poor benefits. While IHSS wages vary across California, there is not a single county that currently pays providers a living wage. For example, in five counties they pay just the minimum wage.

Another 23 counties pay less than $1 above the minimum wage, 24 more counties pay less than $2 above the minimum wage and only six counties pay $2 or more above the minimum wage. The state has estimated the population of older adults will double over the next 10 years.

And without action that will that will help increase workforce retention, the crisis in caregiving will become a full blown catastrophe. Unfortunately, the current fragmented system of the IHS collective bargaining process is not conducive to establishing a living wage or filling the impending long term care shortage.

Caring for all of California is a statewide endeavor requiring bold vision and leadership to match the size of the challenge. Caregivers with frontline experience must have a recognized voice at the state level.

By transitioning the collective bargaining process from the county level to the state, AB283 will provide IHSS workers with living wages and benefits, ensure a more equitable distribution of long term care funds and allow the state to meet its long term care demands.

Here to testify with me today is Sabrina Bishop, who is an IHSS provider and Ronald Penn, who is an IHSS care receiver from San Diego.

Now we'll hear from two witnesses in support. You'll have three minutes total.

Thank you Madam Chair, and thank you to the Committee. Good morning. My name is Sabrina Bishop and I am a home care provider in San Diego and a proud union Member of UDW. I am here today because the bargaining process for in home support service providers is broken.

It's cumbersome, it's outdated and it leaves providers, like me, stuck in a cycle of poverty. Often having to work an additional two to three jobs just to make ends meet. We're stuck in this vicious cycle.

In San Diego, we've reached the state wage cap on bargaining and the county will not pay us more because it means they will have to pay us out of their own budget. And like most counties, they are simply not willing to do that.

Even though we saved the county millions upon millions of dollars caring for these individuals in their own homes. But somehow those dollars need never seem to come down to the ones providing the care. My union siblings in Kern had to wait nearly eight years for a new contract. I'm going to repeat that.

Eight years for a new contract. They faced a hostile Board of Supervisors who refused to acknowledge the dignity of our work even though during the pandemic we were essential workers. And we will always be essential workers. The county wasted millions and millions of dollars.

And they said out loud we would rather pay financial penalties to the state than pay IHSS providers. And when they did come to the table, they offered us pennies. Not a quarter, not a dime, pennies. Bargaining with the county was disrespectful.

I'm sorry, you have one minute.

And it keeps us holding back. We can't even buy eggs. We can't pay high rent. I'm asking you today, California can do better. And I believe AB 283 is the great State of California doing better. And I ask you today to unanimously approve AB283. Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Madam Chair, Committee Members, my name is Ronald Penn. I am a long standing citizen of the great City of San Diego. I am a IHSS recipient. I am formerly a licensed clinician in the State of California, hospice nurse and a proud army veteran.

And two and a half years ago, I would have been an IHSS provider, going out and serving our community, our county, our state, my city, my proud city. Due to illness, I lost my vision, I lost my ability to walk. I lost my ability to work.

I live alone in my home and the only care that I receive is through my wonderful provider, Sabrina Bishop. Without her, I would end up in a state facility.

I wouldn't be able to bathe, I wouldn't be able to feed myself, I wouldn't be able to take care of my personal needs, banking, medical appointments, so forth and so on. I am the face of the IHSS recipients.

Unfortunately, as she just stated, there's many times where my care providers don't have gas to come over and provide me care. Tears at my heart. Look at me. I'm not the exception. I'm not the exception. Please dig deep into your heart.

Someone in your family, someone that you know, someone that you love, may end up in like situations. AB283 is essential. Essential to keeping these providers in a State of a living wage.

They can care for individuals like us that would end up in a state facility, that would end up homeless, that would end up with a short lifespan, diminished lifestyle. It's absolutely essential. We appreciate you. We have voted you into office to represent us.

And we now ask you, humbly ask you to please reach back and take care of the citizens that have placed you here to help and address our needs. This is beyond a need. Beyond a need. Thank you, sir. This is essential. Absolutely essential. I would. Excuse me. I'm very passionate this morning, I wouldn't be able to live.

I wouldn't be able to live honestly. I would end up in a facility someplace. And we all know the horror stories of state and county facilities without my workers. I would not be here today. I would not be here today. I could be your family Member, someone that you love, someone that you care about.

Please, please, please pass this Bill. Talk to your constituents, reach out, and if anyone has any questions or any doubts, please reach out to me.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you for your time. I appreciate you.

Thank you. Is there any more witnesses in support? Please come up. State your name, organization and your position.

Hello, my name is Gavi Lopez Loomis. I am a Nevada county representative. I am an IHSS caregiver and I'm asking you to stand with caregivers and support AB283.

Thank you, ma'am. Name, position and organization. Thank you.

Yeah. Position. Nevada County Rep. UDW.

Support or oppose?

Support.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Helene Ginter. I am Secretary, District 6, Local Board and I support to AB283.

Oh, UDW.

Good morning. My name is Heidi Chandler. I'm an IHSS provider and I am employing you to please pass AB283 so that I can continue to do that I do.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Nilda and I. Am a recipient, I guess. I'm with UDW and I support AB83. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Rachel Hagan. I'm an IHSS provider for 2015.

Thank you.

Oh, I'm in support.

Hi, my name is Belinda Wells from El Dorado county. I'm an IHSS provider and I am in support of AB283. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Aurelia Walker and I'm a proud member of SEIU 2015. And I need your support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Pamela Smith with SEIU IHSS, and I strongly urge you to support and I do support AB283. Thank you.

Thank you.

Vicki Osborne, SEIU Local 2015. I support the Bill. Please pass.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Joyce Witt. I'm a recipient. Recipient of this Bill and I. Please pass. Pass the Bill. Thank you. That's good.

Okay.

Hi, my name is Julie Richardson. I take care of my grandma and I'm in support of the Bill.

Hi, my name is Morgan White. I'm a provider and I support this Bill. UDW.

Hi, my name is Suzette Miller. I'm a IHSS provider and I'm on the E Board and I support AB283. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Hanadi Anoimi. I'm from Placer County. I'm a caregiver for my parents and I support the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Naomi Rodriguez. I'm a UDW supporter and I take care of my mother-in-law and for the AB283. Thank you.

My name is Vern Hart. I'm an IHSS provider from Tehama County and I support AB283.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jennifer Smith. I'm a IHS, IHSS provider in Nevada county for my 80 year old mother and please support AB283.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Emily Bailey from Nevada County, California and I'm here in support of AB283.

Raymond Hampson, Sacramento County. I'm an IHSS provider. I'm in support of 283.

Good morning. Jim Frazier with the Arc of California, UCP collaborative and strong support for this Bill and hopefully the Committee will also identify the family care workers who do not receive benefits. Thank you.

Thank you. Assembly Member.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. Proud supporters of AB283. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties, also speaking on behalf of the County Welfare Directors Association. We have a pending position. I wondered if the Chair might allow a few comments regarding that pending position.

Sure.

Wonderful. Thank you so much.

First, thank you to the author for your commitment to strengthening the IHSS provider workforce. Counties are committed to strengthening this program as well and have invested more than $100 million in county funds and local wage increases just in the last fiscal year.

We've worked collaboratively on the concept of statewide bargaining both in the legislative process and through the CDSS workgroup that was recently formed to examine this issue. And we'll be releasing a report soon.

And just recently this week we shared along with the California Association of Public Authorities, amendments to the Bill to the author and the sponsors addressing three key issues that we wanted to highlight.

The first of those is ensuring that the state is responsible for the share of costs for any increases or new mandates it agrees to in state bargaining.

The second being removing some items from the scope of representation that are county and public authority administrative functions, and the last one being ensuring county and public authority input in state bargaining. Anything that counties and public authorities would be responsible for implementing. So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Good morning. Kim Rothschild, California Association of Public Authorities for IHSS. Echoing my colleague's comments, the public authorities are committed to working with the author and the sponsors on this Bill. Just citing the concerns we have with the scope of representation items as well that are PA functions. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing no other witnesses in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition that would just like to give their organization name and opposition and position? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Boerner moved the Bill. Assemblymember Nguyen second.

Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, thank you. My only question is, is there a specific reason why family care workers were not included in this proposal?

We recently became aware that the family workers is an issue and so we are currently going to be talking with the Assemblymember Frazier and ARCA to figure out the concerns and try to address them the best that we can. So we just found out about the sit, so we're committed to learning more.

I appreciate that because I will be supporting it now, but if it doesn't isn't included on the floor, I, I will change my position. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there any other Members? Assemblymember Elhawary.

I just want to thank you so much for sharing, I know, for authoring the Bill, Assemblymember Haney, but also for sharing your story. It was really incredibly powerful and definitely look forward to being able to support you all in all the ways that we can, especially through the collective bargaining at this state level.

Thank you. Is there any other. I would like to thank the author for bringing this up. Thank you so much. I would even like to be a co author if I can, if I may. And to the witness, I really, really thank you for coming and sharing your story.

It takes strength to come out here and tell us about what's happening to you. And you know, I have family. I had a grandmother that my parents took care of. And you know, we know that we have people that have their parents to take care of, their kids, to take care of their friends and family.

And so I thank you for this Bill. Assemblymember. Oh, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Yes, just briefly. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And of course, would love to have you as a co author and be honored and as we would welcome anybody who wants to join on this Bill. This is absolutely something that affects every single one of our districts. It is not a partisan issue.

There are providers and recipients in every single corner of our state. They are the backbone and the foundation of care in communities in rural and urban and suburban and every part of California. So we all need to be united on this.

I really do also want to echo my gratitude for Mr. Penn and Ms. Bishop for being here and sharing their stories and all of the providers and recipients who are behind us. They represent the over 800,000 recipients and 700,000 providers across our state who are relying on us to make sure we provide a foundation for this care at the statewide level.

So, with that, again, thank you, Madam Chair, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, call the roll.

The motion is do pass and be referred to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call] That Bill has seven votes. It's out.

Thank you.

I'mma take my pennies.

The next Bill in file order is AB339 Ortega.

You may begin when ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members for the opportunity to present AB339 today. All AB339 does is create a reasonable timeline for a process that local governments are already legally obligated to do. It's a transparency and accountability measure when it comes to our public dollars.

The MMBA requires that local governments provide reasonable notice to local employee unions when they are contracting out bargaining unit work. However, local governments inconsistently comply with the requirements to notify the union and negotiate the decisions or impacts to contract out the work.

AB339 would require local governments to notify unions of plans to contract out bargaining unit work with 120 days before engaging in an RFP or RFQ process. You will hear some opposition from local governments claiming that this is an impractical and unworkable bill, but this is something that they are already supposed to be doing.

So the claim that this is impractical and unworkable is quite contradictory to the claim that it's also expensive and it's going to take too much work to do.

AB339 is a simple measure to ensure that civil service employees who have a contract and that the expertise to perform local government services aren't undercut by private contractors being paid with taxpayer dollars. Again, this is about transparency and accountability. Today my main support witnesses are Sandra Barrero with SEIU California and Bryant Miramontes with AFSCME California.

Thank you. Two witnesses. You'll have three minutes total. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee Members Bryant Miramantes with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud co sponsor of AB339. AB339 strengthens existing law by ensuring local governments fulfill their already established obligations to bargain with affected unions before contracting out to external providers.

While current law requires agencies to meet and confer over these decisions, the lack of adequate notice requirements has rendered this obligation largely symbolic in many cases. Our Members across the state have repeatedly faced situations where contracting decisions are presented as foregone conclusions.

Workers who have dedicated years, sometimes decades, to public service learn just with days or maybe weeks notice that their positions will be eliminated through privatization or that their duties will be transferred through contracting decisions. By the time required negotiations begin, contracts are already drafted, vendors are already selected, and the opportunity for meaningful alternatives has vanished.

The 120 day notice requirement doesn't create new bargaining rights, it ensures existing ones have real meaning. This timeline aligns with the reality that procurement processes typically involve months of internal planning before public announcement. If agencies can plan far enough ahead to develop detailed RFPs. They can certainly provide affected workers with adequate notice.

The information requirements simply formalize what should already be recurring in good faith bargaining. This includes transparent disclosure of cost, scope and rationale. Without this information, workers and their representatives cannot offer informed alternatives that might better serve the public interest.

We have numerous documented cases where hasty privatization led to higher long term cost, reduced service quality and loss of institutional knowledge. And these are outcomes that might have been avoided with proper notice and genuine bargaining. This balanced approach respects management's authority while preventing the circumvention of existing bargaining obligations.

The emergency provisions ensure flexibility when truly needed, while the standard timeline promotes thoughtful decision making and fair treatment of dedicated public servants. Madam Chair, as unions and the public sector workforce are being attacked, this bill is about protecting union jobs at the end of the day and with that we urge your support.

Thank you, Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California. I'll address the opposition's claims, but first I just want to point out that over 113,000 public servants at the federal level have lost their jobs with no regard to their contract or their rights as union Members. This bill is our way to protect public sector union jobs in California.

Our hope is that by forcing employers to come to the table, which they are already required to do if they're going to contract out bargaining unit work, union jobs. You know there is already in the MMBA an exception for emergencies. The opposition has raised concerns around emergency situations in the mmba.

The duty to meet and confer is subject to reasonableness requirements, meaning it doesn't apply in emergencies. And we also have narrowed the scope of this bill as much as possible. It only applies to bargaining unit work covered by an MOU.

If there is a dispute over what is covered, the ONUS is on the union to go to PERB and file a charge and then PERB can make a determination on what is and what isn't bargaining unit work.

We know that contracting out overall has reduced union jobs since the start of the privatization movement and that's why the Committee analysis includes 14 other bills that seek to address the practice. I also have with me today recent examples of employers failing to notify the union when they contract out bargaining unit work.

But to reiterate, this bill does not stop contracting out. It does not limit employers ability to contract out. It's about getting employers to the table so we can try to save union jobs. I respectfully request your Aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please step forward and give your name, organization and position Good morning, Madam Chair.

Members Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud, co sponsor and support.

Good morning. Chairmembers. Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association and support.

Morning Chair and Members Pat Rand with Aaron Reed and associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support.

Thank you. See no other witnesses. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please. Step. Thank you. You'll have three minutes total. Thank you.

Good morning. Honorable Chair, Members of the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. My name is O'Neill Comelo. I'm the current city Manager for the City of St. Helena and previously served for over 20 years as HR Director or Admin Services Director, responsible for labor relations and human resources.

Let me just begin by saying that the Legislature continually makes laws that makes essentially public agencies less efficient and essentially prevents us from, as managers, from managing the public's resources effectively and efficiently. We need the ability to run our organizations efficiently. The public demands it, requires it and expects it.

Unfortunately, because public agencies are not efficient, we get attacked by the community. And what's been happening at the federal level is being justified because according to them, public agency are inefficient. So please do not create yet another barrier to efficiency. We work with very tight budgets. We want to ensure quality services to the community.

We want to maximize value to our taxpayers. So in General, I just want to say that the Bill is simply not. It's just simply a narrow version of AB 2557 from last year. It is a different Bill, but directs local government, essentially restricts our ability to run the organization efficiently. The previous speaker talked about Mmba. That's right.

We already are required to provide notice and essentially collaborate with the unions on such matters. So if the city or any private public organization does not adhere to those requirements, the unions are free to file unfair labor practice. And they do. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Madam Chair. Members, I'm Jean Hurst, here today with the Urban Counties of California. We are a coalition of the 14 largest counties in the state. And on behalf of my local government colleagues, regrettably we are here in opposition to AB339.

We do believe that the measure will undermine local agencies ability to practically, practically and effectively execute the public services that our communities need and deserve. We believe that AB 339 applies broadly to any contract that was in the scope of work of any job classification represented by a recognized employee organization.

For local agencies with represented workforces, this essentially means nearly every contract would be subject to notice and possible meet and confer, which we believe is broader than the existing requirement.

For bargaining under the mmba, which requires notice and meet and confer in good faith with any affected bargaining unit prior to making any decision that is within the scope of representation. The MMBA is a well settled law.

There are seven several common sense exceptions to the notice and meet and confer requirement, including where there is long standing past practice of contracting for particular services or where contracting out is contemplated in the MOU. We believe AB339 subverts these well set up settled principles to the detriment of local public servants.

We dispute that local agencies are inappropriately withholding public records and further disagree that local agencies are failing to comply with existing notification requirements under the mmba. If either were true, there are already existing remedies for sponsors to address those issues.

Finally, AB339 undermines existing provisions of the MMBA that ensure that negotiating parties can reach a final agreement on the MOU under this section of the measure that authorizes reopening negotiations indefinitely. There's no benefit to finalize negotiations and close on an agreement and as a result we have a concern that there will be no labor peace.

We do not believe that this measure is a scaled back version of last year's Bill. It's just a different approach to the same ends and as a result we are opposed to the Bill and respectfully request your new vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Give your name, organization and position.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the County Board of Supervisors for Merced, San Joaquin, Siskiyou, Fresno, Butte, Kern and Placer, and also on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District, as well as Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, better known as PRISM. All in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, also on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies and the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning. Farrah McDade Ting on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in opposition.

Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in respectful opposition.

Thank you.

Jeff Neal representing the County of Contra Costa and the County of Lake and the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, also opposed.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Mike Robeson here on behalf of the California Staffing Professionals, and the American Staffing Association, the Staffing Industry in California, opposed. Thanks.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses in opposition. I'll Bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Boerner.

Thank you. It's more of a comment. Is that okay? Chair Yes, I support this bill. I lived in Germany for 12 years. It's probably the most efficient bureaucracy, for better or worse, in the entire world. And you know what they don't do? They don't spend time fighting with labor unions over contracts. They just don't.

That's what efficient companies do. They meet, they confer, they sort it out, they figure out what they need. To contract out, they figure out what they don't need to, and they move on. That's what efficient governments do. With that, I move the bill.

Second.

The bill was moved by Assembly Member Boerner, second by Assembly Member Elhawary. Is there any more comments from the dais? I would like to thank the author for bringing this bill. Last year, I did a bill AB 2561. Thank you for taking this a little bit further.

When we think about contracting out, I also look at these as temporary workers, pretty much. And as we move forward with our retirement, this is PERS. We want to make sure that our retirement is funded and. And will fully fund it for our employees so that they can retire in dignity.

And so I would ask that, you know, you guys work together to come up with a solution, because we do need that. We do need you to work with the. With the unions.

And when we talk about the 113,000 employees that got fired from the Federal Government, that is an absolute, absolute shame, because these are people who've decided to give their career to public service like I did. And that's. It's just an absolute shame. It doesn't mean that you guys are inefficient. You guys are efficient.

And so we won't let the Federal Government tell us that we're inefficient because we have union workers. With that, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

The motion is do pass, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call] We have sufficient votes, we'll place this bill on hold for add ons.

Thank you. Next Bill on file is AB340 Aherns. Good morning.

Morning. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. And Members, when employees discuss workplace matters such as discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe that these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed.

AB340 makes the communications between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential for fostering trust and ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry with PORAC and David Mastagni, legal counsel in to PORAC and love for them to say a few words.

Yes. Witnesses, you have three minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Chair Members, good morning. I'm David Mastagni. On behalf of PORAC, I'd like to first talk about what this Bill would do. AB340 codifies existing PERB case law to ensure that communications between employees and their union representatives remain confidential.

PERB has long held that it's, quote, beyond dispute that an employer's inquiries into discussions between employees and their union representatives have a tendency to chill the protected activities of both the employees and the representatives. This Bill levels the playing field for public employees by making this protection universal across all public employers under perbs jurisdiction.

It accomplishes this by making it an unfair labor practice for an employer to require union representatives to disclose information from these communications with their Members. I want to also address what the Bill doesn't do and the contentions of the opposition. The opposition's main concern is that this Bill establishes a privilege. That's not true.

This Bill is modest and it's balanced. There is no privilege that's created. Rather, it just codifies this limited protection against a public employer. Compelling disclosures regarding communications made in confidence between a representative and a Member of that labor organization in connection with any matter within the scope of representation. This Bill doesn't alter the evidence code.

This Bill doesn't apply to criminal investigations. No privilege would exist in any civil or criminal proceeding where someone other than the employing agency or its agents seek evidence regarding these communications. It's only enforceable through per, which is a very important point as an unfair labor practice against the employer. In short, it simply codifies existing PERB case law.

There's also a contention that it will interfere with investigations. And just if I may briefly, it doesn't in any way. If the representative is a percipient witness, then the confidentiality wouldn't apply. It's limited strictly to those communications.

It also incorporates sections of the Peace Officer's Bill of Rights which expressly state that the representative can't be a percipient witness to the underlying investigation. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Members. Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, I would just add that the. Some of the opposition said, you know, if, if, if PERB law is already, or case law is already clear on this. Why do we need to codify it?

Well, the fact that all the opposition is here today of the employers still opposing this Bill, then I think there's a clear question as to whether or not it's illegal to question the representative. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please step forward. Give your name, organization and your position.

Cassie Mancini, on behalf of the California School Employees Association and support.

Madam Chair Members Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and associates representing the California Association of Highway Patrolmen, Professional Engineers in California government and the Orange County Employees Association. All in support. Support.

Madam Chair Members. Coby Pizzotti with the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians and support.

Good morning. Eric Paredes, on behalf of the California Faculty Association. We stand in strong support and we are a proud co sponsor of this Bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support of this.

Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Mitch Steiger. Excuse me. Mitch Steiger with cft, a union of. Educators and classified professionals also in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Thank you. And you'll have three minutes.

Good morning. Thank you. Madam Chair Members, my name is Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed to AB340. We requested no vote on AB340 today for three primary reasons. First, although the Bill states that it is intended to be consistent with with the William S.

Hart Union High School District PERB decision, the bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision. That decision engaged in a circumstantial analysis to determine whether or not employer questioning was prohibited. AB340 goes beyond that, foregoing any such analysis or weighing of interest. It categorically prohibits certain lines of questioning. The need for this change has not been established.

There is no evidence that perv is not appropriately protecting employee interests in this regard. Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, this Bill will still function as a privilege in some contexts.

For example, in two party litigation between an employer and an employee, if an employer is prohibited under AB340 from requesting a court to compel certain testimony, that testimony will effectively be off limits to discovery, just like a privilege. However, unlike privileges in professional contexts, such as attorney client or physician patient, AB340 does not contain guardrails.

Third, regardless of whether the bill's provisions are characterized as a privilege or not, it will function to interfere with legally required employer investigations in the workplace. And I want to address just one quick thing that was brought up by in supporting testimony. This Bill, this version of this Bill this year does not contain an employee.

I'm sorry, Union rep witness exception as the Bill did last year. AB 2421 low. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, behalf of the Association of California School Administrators , representing our education leaders. We are also opposed to AB340.

And I want to build on the comments from my colleague from the Special Districts Association as it relates to specific examples on why we need to maintain these open lines of communication and questioning for HR personnel and administrative investigations, non criminal investigations. One is AB218, childhood sexual assault cases.

These are often built over time with evidence collected from the employee's work site with the employer investigations. These are not things that are caught in the act. And we're concerned that blocking administrative investigations will unfortunately leave bad actors on our school sites for longer.

In addition, the second example as it relates to students with a disability, we have seen a growing trend of in classroom support and teachers aides seeking TROs, temporary restraining orders against students with a disability who may have cognitive or other motor problems where they have limited control over their verbal or physical acts.

Blocking students from returning from the classroom unfortunately infringes on their right to an education and their equitable access to learning. We know that through administrative investigations there's often a alternative to the TRO so that those students can return to their classrooms and the teachers, aides and other classroom supports feel that their safety is not at risk.

So for these reasons, we do respectfully oppose AB340. Thank you. Apologies. My colleague from the California Association of School Board Officials would like to add their opposition. Apologies.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. State your name, organization and position.

Clifton Wilson, on behalf of the Public Risk Innovation Solutions and Management, also known as prism, in opposition. Thank you.

Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Claire Sullivan with the California, Association, Association of Recreation and Parks Districts in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and also my colleagues at the California State Association of Counties. Respectfully opposed.

Sarah Dukett with the Rural County Representatives of California, respectfully opposed.

Brianna Browns of the California County Superintendents as well as my colleagues with the California School Boards Association, I respectfully oppose.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed.

Thank you. I'm seeing no more. No further opposition. Like to bring it back to the daisy for any the Bill was moved by Assemblymember Boyner, second by Assembly Member Nguyen. Any other comments? Thank you for bringing this Bill forward to the author. I was a field rep. A rep.

Representative in the union, when I worked in public, in the public sector. And I do support this Bill because I do think you should be able to talk to your union rep. Thank you, Madam Chair. Without being questioned. Do you have a comment? Assembly woman?

I just wanted to ask. I just wanted to ask, with respect to the opposition Assembly Member, are those cases that are kind of like. I guess I wanted to know, like, what do you.

How does the Bill kind of address specific examples around the child abuse as an example, and I think the kind of restraining orders against students as an example. Sure. I can have my witness answer that.

In our view, it doesn't have any impact. As I stated, if the rep or the employee is a percipient witness, there's no restriction on questioning them regarding the underlying facts, circumstances, what they observed, what they did. The only thing that this Bill would prevent is the employer from interrogating the representative regarding their communications with their Member.

The only purpose that I could see for that would be to find out who a whistleblower is who complained about an unsafe condition to chill a union rep so that they're singling them out and subjecting them to interrogation so that they are not an aggressive advocate or to try to get the union rep to impeach the Member and see what they told them.

But there's. On the underlying facts and the circumstances, this Bill doesn't impact the ability to conduct a thorough investigation. Thank you.

And so just to kind of make be clear, this is your. This is about the shop steward in the. In the building talking to their Member.

And conferring with their Member, not holding evidence, not doing any of those types of things. And so would you like to close?

Correct.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We did it. We did. We named it already. Yes. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Next on the row is AB 378 Valencia.

Good morning, Assembly Member.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. I hope everybody is doing well this Wednesday morning. AB 378 seeks to extend eligibility for participation in the Classified School Employees Summer Assistant Program to employees of joint powers authorities. This change will ensure that all classified school employees who provide transportation, nutrition, special needs, and other vital services are treated equally regardless of their place of employment.

Many classified school employees work less than 12 months and due to the length of a typical school year averaging around nine to ten months, many of these employees do not get paid for those three or two additional months. Understanding this challenge, the Legislature established the Summer Assistance Program to backfill these months.

However, the definition of local educational agencies excluded employees of JPAs. Since JPA employees are not included in the Summer Assistance Program, they do not have the same safeguards around this program. With me today to provide testimony is Cassie Mancini, legislative advocate for the California School Employees Association and Alex O'Neill, program registrar for the Metropolitan Educational District.

Thank you, witnesses. You have three minutes.

Good morning. My name is Alexandria O'Neill and I serve as a program registrar at Metropolitan Education, a school district established through a joint powers agreement in San Jose, California. The Classified School Employee Summer Assistance Program was designed to provide financial stability for classified staff during their summer break.

However, classified staff at JPA schools, such as a school that I work at, have been excluded from this vital program. This is creating a clear inequity that must be addressed. Like our counterparts in traditional school districts, classified staff at JPA schools can experience financial hardships due to school closures.

By extending this program to include them, that will help support employees who are already earning modest wages. It will also help to improve staff retention and reduce financial stress. As someone who was born and raised in the Bay Area, I love California and the people who make it so special.

But I cannot ignore the economic challenges that the community in our state faces. Rising rent, cost of groceries, transportation expenses. Not to mention classified staff are also parents or caregivers, which stretches their resources even thinner. At Metro Ed, I can personally attest that that our school does not run unless in plans alone.

It operates because of the hard work and dedication of our classified staff. Without Gabriella from maintenance, doors wouldn't open and security would not be in place. Without Sarah and Sheena from our payroll department, paychecks would be delayed and, excuse me, budgets would fall apart. And without Rosalie, our data reports wouldn't reach the appropriate government agencies jeopardizing critical funding.

Assembly Bill 378 seeks to right the current inequity by extending CSAP to classified staff staff at JPA schools across the state. This bill is a crucial step forward for ensuring financial stability and fairness for all classified school employees. Classified employees are the backbones of our school, both JPA and non JPA alike. It is time to ensure that we receive the support that we rightfully deserve. Thank you. And I urge you to vote aye on AB 378.

Thank you.

Good morning. Cassie Mancini on behalf of the California School Employees Association, the sponsors of this bill. Here to answer any technical questions the committee may have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please step forward. Give your name, organization, and position.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition that would just like to state their name, organization, and position? Seeing none. I'd like to bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Nguyen moves the bill. Assemblymember Elhawary seconds. Do you have a comment? Comment? Author, would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just on a personal note, my mother was a 29-year CSEA Member, so a classified school employee serving the Anaheim community. And I firmly believe that every single classified school employee deserves to have this, the access to this program. Because it's what put food on the table over summer months for my brother and I and our family. And it should do the same for many families across the State of California as well. With that, I respectfully ask for a yes vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Next on the roll is AB 393 Connolly. Oh, is he still here? Oh, I'm sorry. Next on the roll will be AB 374 Nguyen.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, I'm proud to present AB374. You know, I started working at the age of 15 and a half. I worked at Togo's. And I remember the day that I received my first paycheck. I opened it up and being that young teenager, I thought I was going to get every single dollar.

The $4, actually $3.75. And I calculated my hours and thought this is how much I was going to make. Little did I know that there were deductions that needed to be made.

And I looked at my pay stub, and that right there told me how much I made every hour, how many hours I worked, and what the deductions are. This Bill here, AB374, ensures that our classified employees receives just that.

Can you imagine receiving a paycheck and not knowing where the deductions are, not knowing how much vacation hours you have, not knowing even how much you are being paid?

I receive a pay stub every month that gets sent to my house and I open it up and I look at it, because errors are made, mistakes are made, even at the technical level.

But when you have a pay stub where you can open up and you can take a look at and see the numbers on there and calculate it yourself, it makes a difference. As we think about our classified employees and the fact that they don't all have that opportunity.

They just have to look in their bank account to see how much they receive and not know where the deductions came from, where deductions are at. But more importantly, as we get into spring, spring vacation is coming up.

I would like to know how many hours I have left, if I can even take vacation hours to go with my family. But many of our school employees don't have that.

AB374 would ensure that they can receive a pay stub at every pay period and see how many hours they have for vacation, where the deductions are taking place, how much is being deducted, and if it's actually accurate. Madam Chair, permission to provide a prop?

Yes.

Carlos here has a Prop that I 'd Like to give to you so that you can see and see what a pay stub looks like. And the fact that if you didn't have that, you wouldn't know exactly what you were being paid, where deductions were at. You would just have to guess.

Or you would call maybe HR or some Department and wait. Not just a few hours, days, weeks, maybe even, and hope that you could get the information in time so that you can possibly request time off for a vacation, if you had vacation hours. With me here today to speak is Carlos from School Employees Association.

Hi, everyone. My name is Carlos Lopez. On behalf of the California School Employees Association, I'll be here to answer any technical questions. But I also wanted to highlight that many classified employees also work what's called out of class, meaning they're working multiple positions within the same district at different rates of pay.

So even if you do receive your gross and net pay, but you don't receive your hours, it's more complicated than just dividing your hours by your gross pay to figure out what your wages were, because you may be working as a bus driver and a mechanic, for example.

But primarily I want to pass the microphone to Adara Clark-Gunn, who was one of our CSEA Members and Chapter President for San Juan 127.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Mckinnor and Members. My name is Adara Clark-Gunn and I'm a Data and Compliance Technician for San Juan Unified School District Special Education Department and President of CSEA Chapter 127. I have been a part of the San Juan family for over 17 years, a K12 student turned in class turned and classified employee.

I'm here representing the California School Employees Association speaking in favor of AB374. This Bill, as proposed, would ensure parity for classified public school employees with their private sector counterparts by providing them with critical details necessary to decipher their paychecks.

I can personally attest to the frustrations experienced by classified employees, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, when something goes awry with their monthly compensation. The headache of attempting to investigate the issue typically begins with a frantic email from an employee requesting immediate assistance.

This then escalates to a ticket to Human Resources, which is then directed via a ticket to payroll.

A personal visit to the payroll department and several emails later, you are given an explanation of where things went wrong via an email in the form of a high school algebraic word problem and a promise that your check will be ready for pickup in two weeks. Because we just missed the cutoff for a revolving check.

I'll emphasize the intent of the Bill, which is to increase the transparency of the total compensation. Employers are providing their classified employees with public tax dollars. Overpayments and underpayments could be more easily mitigated by the employee and or employer with clearly detailed pay stubs.

Without this required parody, a sense of distrust between employees, their employers and the public will be perpetuated and continue to stymie the educational field's ability to recruit and retain essential staff.

Although the opposition will state that this requirement may be cost prohibitive, I believe we have an obligation not just to employees, but to taxpayers, to be as transparent as possible with how public education funds are being allocated. For this reason, I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any further witnesses in support? Please step forward. Give your name, organization and position.

Morning, Madam Chair and Members Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Mitch Snyder with CFT also in support.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Sandra Barrera with SEIU California in support.

Louie Costa with the Sheet Metal Air, Rail and Transportation Workers Transportation Division, SMART TD in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please step forward. Thank you. You have three minutes.

I feel like the chairs take a minute just to figure out sometimes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, also known as AXA, were respectfully opposed to AB374 this morning. We fully support the intent of the Bill.

We want to make sure our employees classified certificated, everyone in between has everything they need to know about their benefits, their weight, their time off. We just think this Bill has some unintended consequences and we've appreciated uplifting those with the author and the sponsors. We're just really hoping to stress a couple points.

And yes, this would result in additional costs for some districts. Not all because many districts and their county offices actually have a far more robust offering for all of the information about their payment. So the first issue though is we are concerned how to provide a detachable pay stubborn from a check when you maybe have direct deposit.

Many districts offer direct deposit. It's timely. You get that check immediately in your account. So we're trying to figure out how to then provide a detachable pay stub from the physical check that is a direct deposit check. In addition, many of our employers offer online portals permission to use a prop or just show a demonstration.

You may have seen something like this. Whether it's Frontline, Escape, Paylocity, it is your full dashboard of information accessible to you at any time.

Again, realizing this is not every school employer but is a far more robust offering than I have led to believe is the problem this Bill is trying to solve for, on a technicality calculating the time off. The way that the payroll calendar works is you usually have let's say July 1st to July 26th.

You then cut off the 26th so the amazing payroll team can process everything and make sure paid leave time, non paid time, medical leave time, that's all calculated for so that that paycheck is ready for employees July 31. The way the Bill is written, we can't do the calculations accurately to provide for the whole pay period.

It's fixed in arrear. So happy to keep working on that language. And then finally we do have some districts that have two different tracking systems so the information is always available. One is on payroll, the other is on time leave.

We're trying to think how to marry up those two systems without again reducing the level and robustness of the information provided because they are offered through two different systems. And so for those reasons, we do respectfully oppose this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition, please step forward. Seeing none, I will bring it back to the dais. Assemblymember Boerner moved the Bill. Assemblymember Garcia second. Are there any other comments or questions from the dais? I have some. I worked for. I know I was a public employee, you guys.

I was a timekeeper for Department of Social Services, which is like your HR. And it really helps if you give the employees this information up front because it just helps the HR as well, because then there's just less question, less confusion, and especially around the time, like your time, your vacation, your sick time.

You know, as a parent, most people are parent. A lot of people are parents. They're trying to figure out if they can stay home with their kid, if their kids get sick. They need. They actually really, really need this information.

I know that the author will continue to work with the stakeholder about the dashboard, about the attached form, but you can get it because your check, it's like a void check that you get and then the information at the bottom. That's what we used to do like 25 years ago at DPSS.

And so I know that you guys will continue working together on this. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the opposition and what she had said. You know, if there are districts that are already doing this, we don't want to touch them. They're already doing this. We just want the simple information.

And I love the fact that you said that you have more robust programs that are happening in other districts. I'd ask for that. I'm asking for something simple. But if you have something that's more robust, I would absolutely like to talk about how to make it even more robust, which means adding more to these employees. Right?

I'm asking for something simple. You've got something even better and more. I'd be more than happy to entertain that, because if we can give employees more information, that's even better. If they're able to access the portal online, that's great. I'm just asking that they have the information. So. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Members. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is due. Pass. And we refer to the Committee on Higher Education. [Roll Call] We have sufficient votes, we'll place this on hold. Thank you.

Last but not least on the roll is AB393. Connolly.

Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Proud today to present AB 393, which would require the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, CDCR., and the Department of State Hospitals to conduct a cost analysis when trying to have a contractor fill a position that should be filled by a civil service position.

Historically, California has contracted out civil service positions within CDCR and the California Correction Health Care Services, or we will call them CCHCS, at rates that are two or three times the average for several service positions within the Department. For example, a 2020 ruling by the California State Personnel Board found that CCHCS had failed to justify several contracts.

It also found that CCHCS had violated the prohibition on state agencies contracting out work—that civil service employees can perform adequately and competently.

In one of the contracts, the board found that CC—this is a quote—"CCHCS knew staffing levels were inadequate to service the needs of the Prison MA population, yet it did not take any action to obtain additional positions." Instead, they resorted to a private contractor to fill its needs at a higher cost.

According to the Legislative Analyst Office, Bargaining Unit 16, which includes physicians, dentists, and psychiatrists, had a vacancy rate of 26% within CDCR, higher than the state average. For family medicine physicians, the vacancy rate was 23%, and for psychiatrists, it was 46%. These issues with contracting out positions at exorbitant rates has plagued departments for years.

AB 393 is a straightforward measure to ensure that, if the cost of a contractor is more than the cost of a civil service physician, then the Department must hire a civil service physician, before using a contractor.

This Bill will also require a report from CDCR and DSH that includes data on the number of cost analyses completed, the number of contractors employed, and the number of civil service physicians and psychiatrists employed in extra shifts. We must do more to ensure that taxpayer dollars are being spent effectively.

California should be using its civil service physicians, who want to do good work for this state, to service the needs of our prison inmate population, instead of overpaying contractors. With me to testify today is Doug Chiapetta and George Osborne, with the Union of American Physicians and Dentists.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblyman Connolly, Madam Chair, Committee Members. Doug Chiapetta, Executive Director for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists. We're affiliated with AFSCME. This is a long-standing problem. Damon did an excellent job of giving you a summation of the problem. I've been here 23 long years. Not, not a lot's changed during that time.

Contracting out was an issue back then; it remains an issue. There are those who may say, well, you have a Provision in your MOU that allows your psychiatrist to essentially undertake work if there are vacancies or there's an opportunity for contractors to come in.

100% of the time, we've lost that opportunity because management discretion does not allow Civil Service Psychiatrists to work these additional hours, despite the fact it's in our MOU. It's been an across the board, "No." And you know, we're, we're dealing with a major multibillion dollar federal budget deficit, as well as a state budget deficit.

It's untenable and unheard of, in 2025, that we're still dealing with a problem that historically plagues the State of California. We just want an even shot in employment. Our Civil Service Doctors sign up for extra work, yet management tips their hat and always goes with the more expensive contractors.

This Bill will alleviate this problem, and we thank Assemblymember Connolly for advancing it. I'll now turn it over to our contract advocate, George Osborn. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. George Osborn, representing the over 6,000 Members of United—Union—of American Physicians and Dentists. Thank you, Assemblymember Connolly, for bringing this forward. Thank you, Assemblymember Addis for co-sponsoring—co-authoring. As stated by Executive Director Chiappetta. You know, this problem has been ongoing for years, decades even. And it's, it's, it's really simple.

We want the state to look at the cost of a civil service worker; compare that to the cost of the contractor they'll hire, which is running at two to three times higher. And if that's the case, then hire the Civil Service Doctor to pay extra work.

Taxpayers win, doctors win, patients get continuity of care, as we have an opportunity—responsibility—to provide them. This is one of those bills where I, I'm, I'm dumbfounded that it's just, it's just a no brainer. And thank you, Assembly Member Connolly, again.

And there is no opposition, so that's good.

And there is no opposition.

Thank you. Are there other witnesses in support? Please step forward and give your name, organization, and position.

Yeah. Madam Chair, Members, Kobe Presario with California Association of Psychiatric Technicians. We also suffer from 30 to 40% vacancy rates, and the state is creating a shadow workforce by outsourcing...these jobs. Support.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, proud co-sponsors of the Bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.

Ivan Fernandez, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support. I hear there's none in opposition. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will bring it back to the dais.

Second.

Assemblymember Nguyen moved the Bill. Assemblymember Boerner, second. Any comments from the dais? Well, I'd like to thank the author for bringing this Bill. Again, whenever I see contracting and temporary workers, I always worry about our retirement funds because that means that we're not paying into those, and we know we want to make those 100% funded.

Also, with the budget, the tight budget we have this year at the state, we definitely need to make sure that we're not overpaying contractors. If they do have to have contractors, they definitely shouldn't be paid 2 or 3—more—than what our Union brothers and sisters are making. And so, I thank you for bringing the Bill.

Would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Respectfully ask for an "Aye" vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

And now we'll go back to—through—the roll for add-ons.

Item number two. Current vote is four to zero. Alanis.

I'm sorry, which one are we on?

Item number two. 8339.

Not voting.

Alanis, not voting. When? When not voting. We'll place it on hold. Item number 38340. Current vote is 5-0. Alanis.

Sorry, I missed the file number on that one.

Item number 38340. Current vote is 5-0. Alanis? Alanis aye. I will place this on hold. Item number 48374. Current vote is 5-0. Alanis? Alanis aye. I will place this on hold. Item number 58378. Current vote is 4-0. Alanis? Alanis aye. Boerner? Boerner aye. I place this on hold. Item number 78672.

Current vote is 5-0. Boerner? Boerner aye. I place this back on. Assume this Bill is out 6 to 0. And for Committee adoption of Committee rules. Boerner?

Boerner aye.

Aye.

Thank you. Yes, please. I'll wait on Mr. Thank you, guys. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We'll hold the row open for five minutes for Assemblymember Lackey. After that, we shall adjourn. Thank you, Madam Secretary. We shall close the roll.

Let me go back over the votes. Item number 18283. Final vote is 7-0. Item number 28339. The vote is 4-0 with Alanis and when not voting. Item number 38340. Current vote is 6-0. That bill is out. Item number 48374. The current vote is 6-0. That bill is out. Item number 58378.

Current vote is 6-0. That bill is out. Item number 68393. The current vote is 6-0. That bill is out. Item number 78672. The current vote is 6-0. With Lackey not voting. That bill is out.

Thank you. We are adjourned.