Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Employment and retirement will begin in 10 seconds. Good morning, everyone. Welcome to our very First Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee hearing today. And we will come to order. First, I want to welcome our Vice Chair, Senator Strickland, who has joined us. Thank you for joining us this morning.

And we are waiting on authors and it looks like we have one coming right up, which is great. We have about 14 bills that are up today, and we will be pulling one SB469 to be heard at a later date. And we have three bills on consent this morning.

So before we start, I would just like to make a brief statement. Just saying this is going to be an incredible year for our Senate Labor Committee as we see state and workers across the country facing unprecedented challenges.

As we look at the wildfires in Los Angeles and the deepening economic inequality that is happening with our most vulnerable workers in informal economies, to our federal workers who are here in the State of California who are currently facing attack, as well as the integration of new technologies, all of which are putting pressure on the ability for workers to earn a decent living.

And we know in order for workers to have a good life, they've got to have a good living. California must be prepared to confront these challenges. And we in this Legislature have fought certainly for decades to establish workplace protection.

And now is the time that we will need to strengthen and defend them and to work very closely together to accomplish is our responsibility to ensure that these systems have a place to address worker exploitation and safety. And that will be here in this Committee.

I look forward to working with all of you and certainly this amazing staff and looking forward to the work ahead for a brighter future for California. It looks like we can. I think we can establish a quorum this morning. Good morning. Committee assistant, please call the roll.

All right. Senator Smolod. Cuevas. Present. Smas. Present. Strickland. Here. Strickland. Here. Cortese. Durazo. Here. Laird Or Durazo. Here. And Laird. We have a quorum.

Wonderful. We have a quorum. And let's look at our Committee. I think we have to just say at this point that our first order of business is to adopt our new Committee rules for the year. There is no motion or roll call needed unless there are Members who want to voice any objection.

So without objection, the Committee rules for 2520 succession will be adopted. The new rules will be posted on our website later today. And with that, we will go to our first Bill.

Madam Chair, can we move the consent calendar?

Oh, absolutely, let's do that.

I would like to move the Consent calendar.

Thank you so much, Senator. Today the consent calendar has. Yes, let's see. Today our consent calendar has SB422, SB230, and SB275. Committee assistant, will you call the roll on items 47 and 12? Yes.

[Roll Call]

Great. With a vote of 3 to 0, that is those consent calendar items are on call and we will go to File item number one, SB8. Senator Ashby, please step four forward. Welcome, Senator Ashby.

Madam Chair, I'm missing one witness, but I think that he will show up at some point and if you may send, we'll include him. All right. Thank you so much. It is great to be here this morning. Madam Chair, I'm particularly happy to see you this morning in Sacramento. Thanks for being here. All right.

I am here to present SB8, which this Committee so generously supported last year. And actually this Bill made it all the way through the Legislature, but struggled to get out of the Governor's office. We've worked with his team a bit, made a couple modifications, and have brought it back.

So I am hoping to have your support again this year. SB8 extends workers compensation and disability protections to Sacramento county park rangers. Madam Chair probably remember said it was broader than Sacramento county last year, which is a request that was made of me that we are making in terms of change this year on the Bill.

Park rangers across the state serve a variety of functions, including protecting regional parks, wildlife and public visiting the area. One of their most important duties is enforcing infractions, misdemeanors and felonies that occur within the park system.

In order to do this, park rangers must complete extensive training and are required to complete post certification academy in order to be hired by their county or special district, which is the same certification that police officers must complete.

Park rangers are the first point of contact for disturbances facing similar risks as all other law enforcement across the region. Despite this, the county park rangers are not given the same workers compensation and disability protections granted to other state park rangers or other law enforcement agencies under the California Labor Code.

As I noted previously, somebody wisely already included the Los Angeles County park rangers. SB8 expands the law to safeguard Sacramento's park rangers who are on the front lines. Addressing blatant gaps in their workers compensation and disability protections is a must. I have two witnesses, although I think only one is here with me today.

I have Randy Bickel, who's the President of the Sacramento County Criminal Justice Employees Union. And should Chief Orfman show up, we will call him up, but he may be busy with other duties. Wonderful.

You may approach the podium.

Good morning, honorable Senate Committee mayors. I am Randy Bickel. As stated the President of the labor union that represents the Sacramento county park rangers. And on behalf of the Sacramento County park rangers, we humbly ask for your support. Senate Bill 8.

It provides those peace officers with the same disability protections as those granted to California State park rangers and California law enforcement officers up and down the state.

The Sacramento county park rangers attend the same standardized police academies and certified police officer training through the peace officer standards and training of California park rangers are the emergency first responders that provide safety for our park patrons, respond to emergencies, render first aid, life saving techniques, conduct water rescues, put out wildland fires, conduct search and rescue and they make arrests in addition to their duties as patrol officers.

County parks have become a popular location for the unhoused. And parks have seen an uptick in homeless encampments. And it has brought an increasing challenge to the park rangers dealing with illegal narcotics, criminal activity, crimes of violence and overdoses. As a result, unfortunately, the park rangers encounter people who are sometimes often very violent.

Serving myself as a sergeant with the park rangers for four years, I witnessed firsthand the dangers that park rangers and faced every day and sustained numerous injuries while on the job. In the performance of their duties, the park rangers of Sacramento County are doing the brave work of emergency first responders.

They are putting themselves in danger to protect others while keeping the parks and open spaces safe. They are the police officers of the parks who are sworn and certified to protect park patrons. We respectfully ask that you protect them by extending the same disability benefits as defined under 4850 of the labor code for other California peace officers.

Randy Perry of Aaron Reed and Associates, lobbyist for PORAC, couldn't be here this morning. He's in another hearing and he told me to please express. PORAC's 100% supported this Bill and I appreciate your time. Thank you, Committee.

Thank you, Mr. Bickel. And I should have said you had two minutes, but you were right on time. Do you have your other witness here? Did they. We'll hold for it a couple minutes. And. And then. Did you say you're taking the amendments from Committee? I didn't hear you at the beginning.

Yes, we are taking Committee amendments. I don't think he's here. You're fine.

Okay. So with that, we will move to witnesses in Opposition to this Bill, please step forward. Oh, I'm sorry.

Not in opposition, just an additional Me Too support. Okay.

Me too support. My first hearing and I'm forgetting the protocol. Any others in support of the Bill?

Thank you. Audrey Ratajczak, on behalf of Sacramento County Supervisor Rich Desmond, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Do we have anyone speaking in opposition to the Bill today? Okay. Seeing none, we will move to the dais. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Strickland and a second from Senator Durazzo, call the roll. do you want to close Senator Ashby?

I appreciate it. Nonetheless. Senator Durazzo, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

[Roll Call]

Okay. That Bill has a vote of 3 to 0. It is on call. We're waiting for some Members to come back. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thanks. Thank you, Senator Ashby. All right, I see. Senator Menjivar on file. Item number two, SB20. Senator, you may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. It's my first time presenting in this Committee. It's exciting.

Well, welcome. We will mark the moment.

Whoa, whoa, is there like a plaque you sign underneath the table? Colleagues, Senators, I'm here to present SB 20. If you know, my district number is 20.

And this bill, I chose it according to my district because this bill is specific to what's happening in my district. If you haven't heard, in the past couple of years, there's been a silicosis outbreak in California. However, ground zero is happening in my backyard. Predominantly the northeast San Fernando Valley.

In fact, across the state, 259 confirmed silicosis cases. Madam Chair, with 57% of the cases in LA County, again, predominantly in the San Fernando Valley. So what is silicosis? What is happening is our fancy kitchen tops, the granite, the quartz, the way it's cut, is impacting the workers.

They are breathing this in, and they're is a lack of regulations and enforcement of how to create a safe space, a safe working environment for these individuals. Some horrendous statistics that so far we've had 15 young men die from this, and it's a preventable disease. 30 individuals have had to had lung transplants, at times, double lung transplants.

Majority of them, 98% of them Latino men with a median age of 45 years old. I've met someone who was in early 30s who had a double lung transplant. This is no inexpensive disease. This is life threatening. And I think we need to do better to protect these individuals.

So, what happened is two years, less than two years ago, OSHA came out with some emergency standards. And I'm thankful that they did that. And just in February, those emergency standards turned into permanent standards to move forward. But even in their meeting where they made these permanent, they spoke about the need to do more.

And this is why SB 20 is doing more. We're complementary to the regulations that Cal/OSHA put together. But the regulations are based on complaints. Once you have a complaint, that's it. It's too late. That individual could already need a lung transplant.

My bill is looking to codify a lot of the things they put into regulations, but do it more on a preventative measure. So, what my bill is looking to do is to create a certification process where these entities, these fabrications get certified, get inspected before, to proceed and not be reactive to a complaint service.

Madam Chair, we all know what's going on. A lot of these individuals are undocumented. They're not coming forward and complaining. So, we need to step up and inspect these entities. I went off script here, so let me see what I've missed. It's going to establish a workers' education through the establishment of a training curriculum on best practices.

We want to empower the trainers to know what is their right, what kind of safe environment needs to happen in their entity. In their workplace. Enforce workplace standards. It brings oversight over these fabrication shops. It requires DIR to adopt a training curriculum on best practices.

It requires DIR to maintain a database of where all the violations are occurring right now. Department of Public Health is tracking how many cases, but what do we do with that number? Yes, we have how many cases we have of silicosis across California, but what are we doing with that information? Are we stopping these facilities?

And there are so many small fabrication sites. The number of enforcements is nowhere near the number of fabrication shops that we have. So, Madam Chair, I'd like to now turn over to my lead witness who's going to testify on behalf of SB 20. That's Judy Yee from the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California.

Thank you, Senator. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair. Is it working? Good morning, Chair and Senators, thank you for having me here today. Judy Yee, on behalf of the State Building Trades, representing over 450,000 working men and women in the construction industry. I would first like to thank Senator Menjivar for authoring SB 20, the STOP (Silicosis Training, Outreach, and Prevention) Act.

Secondly, we appreciate the Senator for introducing and building upon Congresswoman Luz Rivas' AB 3043 with the language that the stone fabricators and manufacturers and other stakeholders negotiated in last year. In conjunction to Cal/OSHA's permanent standards, the Department of Public Health launched an engineered Stone Silicosis Surveillance Dashboard to track the state's silicosis case last month.

While we appreciate Cal/OSHA and the Department of Public Health's efforts, they do not go far enough to prevent workers from contracting silicosis, especially from the unregulated market. Cal/OSHA's regulation and CDPH's Silicosis Surveillance Dashboard monitor cases and provides resources after a person has already contracted silicosis. Once someone has contracted it, their clock starts ticking.

Silicosis is an irreversible fatal disease. The reality is the fabrication industry is highly mobile and unregulated. Employing majority undocumented Latino men. Anyone can buy a slab of these stones and hire workers and cut them anywhere, such as in a garage, a warehouse, in the back of a trailer.

Without proper training, safety measures, and protections in place, we are seeing the unregulated fabrication businesses in Los Angeles skirt the laws by closing their businesses and relocating across the street or to a different county. Therefore, the state does not know who is operating and where these unregulated fabricators are located to properly prevent and enforce silicosis exposure.

The San Fernando Valley is the epicenter, but we're seeing a spread throughout California. Unfortunately, between the introduction of AB 3043 last year, we have seen 166 more silicosis cases and five more deaths throughout California. As of March 19 this year, we have seen the following counties identify psychosis cases.

Alameda, Contra Costa, Fresno, Kern, Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, San Diego, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Solano, Sonoma, and Tulare. Until the state takes a holistic approach to tackle training, tracking education, and prevention efforts, California will continue to see an uptick in silicosis cases and deaths.

SB 20 will choke out the unregulated market by creating a statewide registration and tracking systems for fabricators and manufacturers to receive certification to buy, sell, and fabricate engineered stone to the state. In order to operate, the industry must ensure fabricators are trained.

Are you coming to a close?

Yes.

We're a few seconds over.

Yes. It allows the state to see. The tracking system allows the state to see concentration in silicosis cases in the regions and allow for enforcement. Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? It looks like we'll have 'me too's.'

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks from the California Federation of Labor Unions. In support.

Hi. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members, Glenn Farrell, on behalf of the Silica Safety Coalition, which is a coalition of industry stakeholders. We're supportive of SB 20 today and really look forward to continuing to work with the Senator and her staff on strengthening the bill as it moves forward in the process.

We believe there's some issues related to the safety provisions that could be strengthened. The Administration of the certification process. There could be some stronger provisions in that.

Thank you. Thank you. It's just name, affiliation, and position.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Thank you. Kurt Kimmelshue, on behalf of the Agglomerated Stone Manufacturers Trade Organization, ASTA Worldwide. We're the manufacturers, also in a support position. Really look forward to working with the Committee and the Senator as the Bill moves forward. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Jeff Seavers, on behalf of the Cosentino Group, one of the world's largest producers of stone products, in support as well. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chairman and Members. Matt Cremens, here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. In support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Cynthia Gomez, on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights. In strong support.

Great, thank you. Do we have anyone in opposition against this bill? Any lead witnesses in opposition? No, 'me toos' in opposition? Okay, great. I just.

Yes. I forgot to say. I am accepting the Committee amendments.

Okay, thank you. Just wanted to clarify that. We'll bring it to the dais. Any Members?

Move as Amended.

Thank you, Mr. Strickland. We have a motion. Please call the roll.

I just want to make a comment. Thank the author and thank everybody who is here. Apparently, you've done a really great job of including everybody. And so, this is a really powerful thing to see.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. And absolutely agree with that. Would you like to close, Senator?

Respectfully asking for an aye vote.

Thank you. All right.

On file, Item 2, SB 20. The motion is do pass as amended to the Committee on Health. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3 to 0.

The Bill is on call. Thank you, Senator.

Item Number 3, Senator Wahab is in the building. Please step forward. And that is SB 261. You may proceed.

Thank you, Chair. Chair and Committee Members. Before I begin, I want to thank the Committee staff for their help with this bill.

SB 261 supports enforcement of wage theft judgments by requiring the Labor Commissioner's Office, or the LCO, to share more information about their findings on their website and create a public list of employers with outstanding judgments. It also authorizes additional penalties of three times the original judgment after six months of non-payment.

The existing process to file and pursue a wage theft claim is long and burdensome, and often taking months or years. Even after the LCO issues a judgment, employers often don't pay. The Legislative Analyst's Office found that workers reported collecting less than a fifth, under 20%, of the unpaid wages they were owed.

Wage theft disproportionately affects vulnerable groups in our state. Black and Latino workers in particular, workers without college degrees, and non-citizens are all more likely to experience wage theft. This is based on a Rutgers study. We need to take addressing wage theft more seriously and give enforcement some teeth.

This bill would help workers and advocates push non-compliant employers to pay what they owe. And I want to highlight the mere fact that we often have these laws, but they have not been updated to make sure that we are going for the bad actors. That is the point of this, right?

And so, here today in support of SB 261, our supervisor, Betty Duong. She is a Santa Clara County Supervisor and former head of the Santa Clara Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. We also have Ruth Silver Taube, an Employment Law Attorney and Coordinator of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition.

Thank you very much. Ms. Duong, you can approach the podium. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and Committee Members. I'm Betty Duong, Supervisor for the Second District in the County of Santa Clara. It is an honor and pleasure to be here with you all today. First, I want to thank Senator Wahab for her leadership on this issue. Next, I want to extend gratitude to Senator Cortese.

During his time as County Supervisor, he was the person that put forth the legislation to create the first county-based Office of Labor Standards Enforcement. An office that I was able to help build and manage prior to becoming County Supervisor. The county OLSE works towards a healthy business economy and a safe working environment for all.

Between 2010 and 2024, the California Labor Commissioner's Office issued wage and hour judgments amounting to over $35 million in Santa Clara County alone. Wage theft is the product of employers failing to pay workers the full wages or benefits to which they are legally entitled.

Wage theft can happen to anyone, but disproportionately impacts low-wage workers, women, and immigrants in the retail, food, hospitality, construction, transportation, and healthcare industries. Most of those judgments go unpaid as there are few consequences for businesses.

OLSE uses existing county processes, including contracts and food permits, as leverage to collect unpaid wage theft judgments. In partnership with city, county, state, and federal enforcement agencies.

OLSE's efforts, which were paused by the pandemic for a few years, once resumed, have returned more than $435,000 in unpaid wages back to the workers who now rely less on county safety net services and achieve a better quality of life. While this has been a model to close judgments and get workers paid, much work remains.

SB 261 will help encourage businesses to satisfy their wage theft judgments, which is critical to having a healthy economy. This bill will also authorize the court to impose additional penalties after six months of prolonged non-payment.

This is an important aspect of this bill because workers who get through the wage claim process, often representing themselves, are enduring long process times. Prolonged non-payment impacts workers' ability to afford basic needs like shelter and food. Before I close, I want to note that none of this should be a surprise.

Businesses are contacted multiple times by the Labor Commissioner's Office, defend themselves in hearings, and appeal the hearings the judgments afterwards, so during their investigations, and are provided an opportunity to settle the claim before it becomes a judgment.

Please wrap up, we're about a few seconds over.

Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. I'm the Supervising Attorney of the Workers Rights Practice at Santa Clara University School of Law and the Santa Clara County's Office of Labor Standards Enforcement Legal Advice Line. I have been the Coordinator of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition for 11 years.

I have personally seen the devastating impact of the epidemic of unpaid wage theft judgments on the low-wage workers we serve, some of whom have become homeless and have had to rely on food banks and public benefits.

At times, we have heard from as many as four to five clients in a single clinic who've been unable to collect unpaid wage theft judgments. Most never collect.

One of our luckier clients received the pay he was owed, but only after nine and a half years when the Labor Commission filed suit on his accompanying retaliation case and included the wage theft judgment in the settlement.

To many workers we serve, winning a judgment was often at best a hollow victory because there are few effective enforcement mechanisms.

According to the recent California State audit, only 12% of cases referred to the Labor Commission's Judgment Enforcement Unit are paid in full. It has been the mission of the Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition to ensure that wage theft judgments are satisfied and to urge state and local governments to enact legislation that incentivizes the prompt payment of wage theft judgments.

SB 261 is a powerful tool in achieving this goal. SB 261 will increase employers' compliance with wage theft judgments. Posting the order, decision, and award on a public website will empower local enforcement by public prosecutors. Increasing penalties for non-payment will be a powerful incentive to employers to satisfy judgments. I urge you to pass SB 261. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone else testifying in support? 'Me toos' for this Bill?

Madam Chair, Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We're proud to co-sponsor this Bill. Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. In support.

Navnit Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association. In support.

Good morning. Rachel Deutsch, with the California Coalition for Worker Power. In Support.

Good morning. Whitney Francis, with the Western Center on Law and Poverty. In support.

Good morning, Chair. JP Hanna, with the California Nurses Association. In support.

Good morning. Erin Evans, with Santa Clara County on behalf of the Civil Prosecutors Coalition, a coalition of seven of the larger jurisdictions, city attorneys, and county councils. Also a proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, is that it for 'me toos' in support? Okay, let's move to opposition. Any opposition witnesses? You have two minutes.

Yes, thank you. Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition, and I want to be very specific, we are only in opposition to Section Two of the bill. We have no concerns outside of some clarifying amendments with the breadth of the bill, really dealing with those who have unsatisfied judgments.

Our concern is that as we read Section Two, every single order issued by the Labor Commissioner would go be posted online on this list. regardless of whether the employer has satisfied the judgment or not. And there is no way to then be removed from that list. So, we really have three main concerns.

The first is that we see that is putting those employers on the same level as the true bad actors that this bill is going after, those with the unsatisfied judgments, those that are ignoring their legal duty to pay the workers what they are owed.

And I think, you know, when you think, hey, if you have an order against you, right? Maybe that makes you a bad actor. And I think what we have to remember with labor and employment law is the labor code is, it's this thick. A lot of the things in there are not black and white rules, right?

They are things like when a worker should be exempt or non-exempt. That is a fact-specific base determination where you have genuine disputes that can arise. Things like reimbursement for business expenses.

Covid is a really good example of a scenario where employers were making their best guess is what they thought was a reasonable business expense and that led to legitimate disputes or scenarios where you don't have records. An employee may be saying, this manager denied me rest breaks. And you have your manager saying, I never did that.

And so, we have a concern that what this bill does is if you choose as the employer not to settle, or maybe the plaintiff doesn't want to settle and you go to a hearing, if you lose on even just one claim, you are now on this list and being held out as a bad actor, like those with unsatisfied judgments, which we feel are a different category of bad actor. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there another witness? Or are we going?

One more. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Micheli, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, we echo Ms. Hoffman's concerns. First of all, oftentimes, in addition to the complexity of the Labor Code, appeals are very expensive. Wage and hour claims are not covered by insurance.

And I think fundamentally the problem here is there's no distinction between a good actor and a bad actor. We would like to see the new subdivision A2 of 98.1 struck. The better approach is what's already being added in 98.15, which is Section 3 of the bill.

They're posting an unsatisfied ODA, and there are some due process provisions, including the posting will be removed if there's been full payment or submitted certification that there's been compliance. In Section 2 of the bill, in that A2 of 98.1, it doesn't draw any distinction between the good and the bad actor.

And so unfortunately, I think what you're going to have is ultimately an unintended consequence of driving more appeals in an effort of employers to stay off of this sort of hall of shame type provision. So, we would like to see that provision struck in toto. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Are there any others in opposition to the bill? 'Me toos', please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Daniel Conway, with the California Grocers, also in opposition. Thank you.

Okay. And it looks like it for now, we will ask Senator Wahab. Have you accepted the amendments? I want to just go on.

From the Committee? Yes.

Okay. Thank you so much. We'll now turn to the dais. I want to say thank you for bringing this b1ill forward. It's a critical piece of policy, and it is so frustrating to see how little we are investing in the enforcement of wage theft laws, particularly for our most vulnerable.

We see a lot of our cutbacks and rollbacks at the federal level. California has to hold the line on protecting workers and as you say, creating this level playing field for employers who are doing the right thing. We want to make sure that we address those. Those bad actors.

So, I want to say thank you so much, and I will be supporting the bill today. Anyone else want to give comment? Senator Durazo.

Yeah. I want to thank the author as well. Having come out of many years of working with men and women who've worked, who didn't get paid just outright, the overwhelming majority just did not get paid. The employers were looking for ways to just not pay them. And they weren't very creative. They just didn't do it.

And so, this isn't about, you know, a business meal deduction. This is about people who are not getting paid and going years, and they're poor, and the employers are taking full advantage of them. You know, there may be some things that you're already working on.

You know, how does somebody get their name off after they've fulfilled, you know, they finally fulfill their responsibility. But I think the core of this is really important. You know, people end up not being able to pay their rent. People end up not being able to do basics in their lives because they don't get paid.

Just imagine, imagine everybody in this room, you just didn't get paid. You couldn't pay your bills. So, I appreciate any effort that pushes the responsibility that these bad actors should have.

Thank you, Senator Durazo, for that. I think we are ready to call the roll. Would you like to close?

Yes. One, I appreciate the commentary here. One of the things I just want to highlight is that these are people that have actually done the work. They have done the work. They deserve their pay. These organizations are not paying them purposely, maybe. Right?

And taking advantage of the fact that the legal system is very complicated, but the reality is a crime is being committed and the fact that they are not being paid. We also want to highlight that this. We understand some of the opposition. We are more than happy to continue conversations and to address some of the concerns.

But we also give roughly a month to be able to pay the individual. And if you haven't paid in a month. There are questions there, right? As one of our witnesses stated, they are contacted by the Labor Commissioner's Office multiple times to address these concerns.

So, I say that because we also need to hold bad actors in all business industries accountable and protect our most vulnerable community members. These are largely minimum wage workers and communities of color. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. And I think we are. Did we get a motion from Senator Durazo? A motion? Thank you. Let's call the roll.

On file, Item Number 3, SB 261. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

All right. Okay. We have a vote of 3 to 1 on this Bill, and it's on call. Okay. I think we'll move to file item number six. Senator Umberg. We're waiting on Senator Rubio. She should be down any moment. Senator, you may proceed.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, a special thank you to Jasmine Maraguin for your help on this Bill. This is a very simple Bill. This Bill simply provides health benefits to children of deceased firefighters and peace officers who are killed in the line of duty. Currently, they're provided health benefits stage 21.

This would extend at age 26, which is in alignment with many other insurance programs. I think it's also in alignment with the. What was commonly known as Obamacare. With me here to testify. First, let me thank the Orange County Association of Deputy Sheriffs for sponsoring the Bill and bringing it to my attention.

With me here to testify in support is the former Executive Director of the Orange County Deputy Sheriff's, now the President of the California Peace Officer Memorial, Mr. Mark Nichols.

Thank you, Senator Umberg. We have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Committee. As Senator Umberg said, I was the former Executive Director for the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs. I was also a retired Santa Ana police officer and the current Executive Director for the California Peace Officer Memorial foundation, of which I've been associated with for 26 years.

During a recent update of our Survivors Benefit Guide that helps survivors navigate the waters after an officer is killed in line of duty, we found a technical discrepancy between the California and the federal federal laws in regards to dependent child care age limitations. California being at 21, the federal ACA Affordable Care Act at 26.

It's very confusing for the survivors. Their worlds are turned upside down when these happen. So we try to provide these benefit guides so that they can navigate those waters. We believe that this was just a technical error.

When the Affordable Care Act came in, I believe in 2010, it was just an oversight and it, you know, made the limitation for everybody at 26.

What we're asking is that we get these technical error corrected, updated to safeguard our dependent children of officers killed in the line of duty, firefighters killed in the line of duty, so that they have this benefit. Being 26 years associated with survivors, I've seen the benefit to our families, children over and over and over again.

And on behalf of aocds, we're asking that you make this amendment so that these families can continue to put their lives back together. Many, many do not.

But help them get back on track so that their children could be successful because these officers and firefighters that died on line of duty would expect and ask nothing more from you. So I would ask that you support this legislation. Madam Chair.

Thank you. Our second witness. You have two minutes.

I'll just. I'll make this brief. Madam Chair Members, good morning. Shane Levine, on behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police. I'll just align my comments with Mr. Nichols and ask for your. I vote. Thank you. Appreciate it.

Thank you. Anyone else here speaking in support of the Bill? Me too.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support. We apologize for not getting a letter in on time. Thank you.

Any others? Me toos in support? Okay. Anyone in opposition to the Bill? Witness, please step forward. Okay. Any me toos in opposition to the Bill? Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Oh, would you like to.

I just want to thank the Senator for bringing this forward. If you amend it anytime in the process, I would love to co author this Bill and thank you for bringing this forward. Sure, sure.

Thank you, Senator Strickland. We'll do so.

Would you like to close?

Senator, this is simply a matter of fairness and recognition of the sacrifices of firefighters and police officers who are killed in the line of duty. I urge and I vote.

Thank you so much and thank you for bringing the Bill. We have a motion from Senator Durazo.

[Roll Call]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, thank you.

We have a vote of 4 to 0. The bill's on call. Thank you, Senator Umberg. Okay. We will go to File item number 11. We're going to skip around a bit. Senator Durazo. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. This Bill, SB 513, ensures that qualified employee training records are comprehensive of all training what are useful in demonstrating skills and accessible for an employee's search for a new job. When workers are laid off, they must respond quickly and find new employment opportunities.

Senator Durazo, you may proceed.

In some instances, training records are being withheld from employees until the end of their employment. For example, the Phillips 66 refinery notified their employees that they would be laid off in December of 2025. However, their training and education records are being withheld from them until August of 2025.

This is unjust because workers need to prepare, verify their training records and search for their next job opportunity in advance and not until the last minute. They have families to feed and communities that they're a part of. They are experts in their specialties.

They just need to prove that their training certifications to future employers and prepare for their futures, especially as job sectors transition to meet state climate goals. But how will they find a job if they can't get access to their records?

It's like someone was withholding your bachelor's degree and then you need it for your a job opportunity but you can't get your degree. Can't get your degree verified because it's being withheld from you Members.

Another example of these challenges have happened was in 2023 when the marathon refinery in the Bay Area which affected 350 workers represented by the United Steelworkers workers shared that they need assistance to this day with skill verification training programs and job search assistance.

This Bill ensures employees across sectors can confidently demonstrate their certifications which describe their formal skills and show the work that they have completed. Employers are in control. Employees have no other way to require their employers to provide them with their education or training certifications. Today we have the pleasure of hearing from two witnesses.

Ron Espinosa, United Steel Workers Director and local union 5 Member and Regina K. Fleming, United Steel Workers Process Safety Representative. We also have Norm Rogers and Catherine Houston with technical questions. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you Madam Senator and first witness, Mr. Espinosa. Or please step forward. You have two minutes.

Good morning Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Ron Espinosa and I am the USW Sub District Director for Northern California and a Local 5 Member. I began working in an oil refinery 47 years ago, advancing through multiple refinery positions and continuing later as a staff rep for the union.

I'm here today to share with you the significant roadblocks members encounter as employees cease refining operations. Laid off. Workers need to begin searching for new employment yet don't have access to any of the critical information necessary to support them as they navigate through the stressful time.

The job search experiences were challenging and discouraging after we had a Marathon refinery closure and contributing causes were well documented. In a 2023 report, research conducted by the UC Berkeley Labor center laid off workers cited two major frustrations when seeking new employment.

Number one, prospective employers lack knowledge about refinery workers skills and two workers could not prove their skills or experience through certifications or verification.

Application process requests to the employer for training personnel records went unheeded and what minimal information was available did not include specifics related to training expertise, as many do not hold college degrees or other specific credentials. Having been trained, as I was through extensive on the job employer labor training programs.

At a time when dedicated workers have lost their livelihoods, job search efforts should not be made more painful because. Because a worker can't provide documentation of their training and experience, having access to what they've achieved in detailed records is crucial to allowing them to clearly demonstrate the extent of their skill sets to prospective employers.

I ask they be given the dignity and respect and thank the Senator for authoring the bill to assist workers when they need it most, which I respectfully request your support of SB 513. Thank you.

Thank you. Ms. Fleming, please step forward.

Good morning. My name is Regina Fleming. I work for Phillips 66 Los Angeles Refinery. Right now, October 2024, they announced that they were going to close. They told us to expect our layoff notice Christmas time for 2025. I was an operator for many years. I've been working there for 17 years.

And I was a part of Bargain Effects. When we went to the table, it took us over a month just for them to finally allow us to. With provisions, we are going to get a Layoff notice. Once we get that Layoff notice, then they're going to allow us to have access to our training records.

And that will be only for 90 days. After 90 days, do not call them, do not contact them. They don't care. So basically, this agreement was a significant achievement. However, we desperately need SB 513. Unfortunately, this closure will impact 900 employees.

To facilitate our transition to new employment opportunities and retooling college credits, it's essential that we have full access to our training records. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other folks that MeToo and support, please step forward?

Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Thank you.

Navneet Puryear, on behalf of the California School Employees Association, also in support.

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

Fatima with California Environmental orders and strong support.

Catherine Viera, Houston United Steelworkers District 12, on behalf of USW Local 326, Rodeo and Local Union 1945, Bakersfield, California in support. Thank you.

Julia Sebastian, on behalf of California labor for Climate Jobs. And strong support.

Okay, we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Any opposition? Me toos. No. Okay, we will turn to our dais.

I just want to say, Senator, I think that the. The goal of this bill is very noble. Just a couple concerns as it moves forward, Obviously, I think it's going to go through the process as is. But you just were. My concerns are, is the private employer has to.

Now, I believe if I read the bill right, three years, that has to hold that. I think that's kind of excessive. I understand where you're trying to go when people are getting laid off and they need that record to get the next job. But I think that's a long time for especially small business.

And if there's a way to get a difference between some of the larger businesses that can have the capability to do something like this versus a small business, I think definition there, those are the two issue areas that I'd be concerned about. But I agree with the noble goals. But at this time, I can't support it. But those are the issues that if it amends down the line, that I would be supportive.

Okay, thank you. And I just want to say to that point, Senator, that is existing state law, not related to this bill. So that is not contingent on what the Senator is presenting today. It's already in statute. So I want to say thank you for bringing this bill.

We know we need to make sure we get folks back on the job and to do it in a way where they maintain the ability to sustain themselves and their families and that those documents are critically important to that.

You have one through the chair on the clarification, please. It might be already in statute, but we can always. We're here, we're lawmakers. We can undo that statute if.

Well, that would just be a separate bill. I'm just saying it's not related to the Senator's bill that she's putting forward today, but noted that that could be a bill that could be brought forward, but has nothing to do with the matter we're discussing today. Thank you.

Senator Durazo, would you like to close before we go to a vote?

Thank you for your comments, Madam Chair. And I just want to make sure that these skilled workers have access to their training certifications. With that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Can we get a motion, please, on the bill. Thank you, Senator Laird.

On SB 513. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Cortese? Aye. Cortese. Aye. Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Laird. Aye. Laird. Aye.

On a vote of four to one, that bill is out. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Rubio is in the audience. So we are going to go back to our previous file order file item number five. Senator Rubio, please step forward.

Do my witnesses get to come in the front?

Witnesses can sit at this table. I'm sorry, at the podium. Me toos at the podium. That's right.

Not at this table. First time here. Well, welcome. You ready? Please proceed. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Thank you for allowing me to join you today to present this Bill. I'm excited to present SB443. This is an important Bill that helps joint powers of authority to operate effectively and recruit experienced local government employees.

I want to thank the chair and the Committee for Offering your thoughts and your feedback and assistance, especially especially because the amendments will help expand this Bill statewide. SB 443 will clarify that the process for public employees to retain their CalPERS retirements when they transition to a joint powers of authority.

So under existing law, when public agencies form a jpa, employees who transfer to the new entity within the first 80 days get to retain their existing CalPERS retirement plan. However, when the public agency joined the JPA later in the future, it's unclear whether or not they get to retain their benefits. So this ambiguity doesn't help.

And this helps clarify that it may discourage qualified people to want to work for these new JPAs if they're not certain that they can take their benefits. So SB443 will clarify that the same 180 days rule applies to employees from agencies that join the JPA after its initial formation.

So I know it's very technical and a little convoluted, so I'm going to give you a real life experience from what's happening in my district. In my district, we have the City of La Verne and the City of Covina who are exploring creating a regional police dispatch center under the new JPA.

And under existing law, employees from those cities could transfer and work with the new dispatch center and be able to keep their existing Calper retirement if they transfer within the first 180 days of the JPA creation.

But if a neighboring city later on finds it's a great process and a great thing and they want to join later, it's a little unclear if they would also fall under the 180 day rule. So this will help.

So without the clarification provided by SB443, this could effectively prevent experienced employees from wanting to join those cities later in the future. So today I have someone with me, Ken Dahmer, from the City Manager for the City of La Verne who can share some thoughts of I may turn it over to him.

And before you witness, did you say I know you work with staff on it. Are you accepting the amendments? Absolutely. Okay, wonderful. Thank you. Senator, please proceed. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning Chair Members of the Committee, My name is Ken Domer, City Manager for the City of La Verne and on behalf of the La Verne City Council, we want to express our steadfast support for Senate Bill 443 which will clarify retirement benefits for CalPERS classic employees and existing law.

As was stated, the cities of La Verne and Covina are currently collaborating with the intent to establish a joint powers authority to create a regional police communications dispatch center. While La Verne and Covina serve as the founding Members of the jpa, we have the intent to include other cities in the future for greater efficiencies and regional partnerships.

But under current CalPERS guidelines and recent interpretation of the law, employees from La Verne and Covina who are classified as Classic employees can retain their classic status when they transfer over.

However, after seeking guidance from CalPERS due as part of our due diligence, an interpretation of the existing regulations suggests that employees from any future city joining the JPA could only transfer over as new Members under the Public Employees Pension Reform Act.

So that's a great it effectively bars highly experienced employees from coming over and being part of the jpa. So this is an interpretation that only affects joint powers authorities. Currently, if a Classic Member transitions from one CalPERS agency, a city to another city, they get to retain their classic employee status.

As such, the current interpretation disincentivizes future JPA Members beyond the forming Members of the agencies and it would penalize their more experienced Classic Members if those cities want to join. So I want to stress that this legislation does not undermine at all PEPRA very supportive of that very needed from a local city manager.

Instead, this legislation is about fairness that it simply clarifies one of the few issues in PEPRA that remains an interpretation by CalPERS versus following the original legislative and intent of the Pepper legislation.

As stated, Bill seeks to ensure that Pepper's original cornerstone negotiation piece remains intact and the classic level employees can maintain their benefits when changing jobs to another CalPERS contracted agency. The current interpretation creates a similar few minutes over time. Multiple bills have been introduced over the years. This one is statewide, so it's great for all JPAs.

We believe it's the right approach and appreciate your support. If there's any questions I can ask.

Thank you. Do you have a Second witness? No. Okay. Anyone in support of the Bill? Me toos. Please step forward. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Okay. Anyone speaking in opposition of the Bill? Okay, great. Well, we will move to the diocesan. Would you like to close, Senator?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you for this. And this is critically important because usually when we form JPAs, people don't find the value and later on they do. By way of example, I created a JPA with a housing trust and cities didn't quite believe in it. There was five cities. Now we have 25. So there's always opportunity to.

To join later on. So with that, I'll just say thank you for this opportunity and. And I asked for an eye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We have a motion from Senator Strickland.

Then please call the roll on file item 5. SB 443. The motion is due. Pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Small Cuevas. Aye. Strickland, Aye. Strickland, Aye. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, Aye. Durajo. Aye. Durajo, Aye. Laird. Aye. Laird. Aye.

We have a vote of 5-0. That Bill is out. Thank you. Have a good day. You too. Okay, friends, we're going to lift call on previous agenda items and we're going to start with file item number one.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 5 to 0. That Bill is out. Next we're going to move to item number two, SB20.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of 5 to 0, that Bill is out. Next, we're going to move to File item number three, SB261. Wahab.

[Roll Call]

Okay, with the vote of 4 to 1 that Bill is out. Next we are going to move to file item briefly, the consent calendar. zero, we're going to do consent calendar now. Okay, we'll move to consent calendar. And I just want to say those are file items 47 and 12.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of 5 to 0, the consent calendar is out. We have one final item we're lifting off of call File item number 6. That is Umberg SB 477. SB 447.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of 5 to 0, that Bill is out.

We are going to go back to file order now. And that is File item number eight, Senator Cortese, SB494. And Senator, you have three bills, so we'll do them all in file order.

Thank you. Madam Chair, good morning. Good morning, everyone. And I appreciate very much the opportunity to present, starting with SB494, which provides parity to classified employees in schools by guaranteeing that their disciplinary appeals are heard by an administrative law judge.

Under current law, teachers already have this right if a K12 teacher chooses to appeal a disciplinary decision made by their district. It's overseen by the Commission on Professional Competence. Community college faculty are also guaranteed a third party arbitrator, paid for by the district. However, classified employees are not guaranteed the same right under current law.

The system is not equitable. It denies many employees a fair hearing. While classified employees represented by a union can collectively bargain for a third party hearing officer, the vast majority have not been able to do so. SB 494 provides classified employees with the same right as K12 teachers, community college faculty and many other public employees.

So this Bill is a reintroduction of SB433 from last session. That Bill moved through. The Legislature appreciated this Committee's help and work on it last year, but it was vetoed due to cost. This year, the sponsors have a formal budget request to cover the cost. I think the agreed upon cost, which is $4 million.

Additionally, in this version, appeals are made to administrative law judges rather than third party hearing officers. And that change was made to more closely align this process with teacher appeals. So there's no disparity there.

The Bill is co sponsored by the California School Employees Association, otherwise known as CSE and afscme, and it's also supported by the California Labor Federation, the California Teachers Association, the California Federation of Teachers. With us today to testify is navneet per year with CSEA and at the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. You may proceed. Two minutes. Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navneet Prayer, and I'm here on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing more than 250,000 classified public school employees across the state. We're proud co sponsors of SB494. At its heart, this is a parity Bill.

It would provide classified school employees with the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers and community college faculty. Currently, a classified school employee who is suspended or terminated and wants to exercise their right to an appeal must have that hearing conducted by the school board. This deprives many classified school employees of a fair appeal.

Because school boards typically vote to take the initial disciplinary action. It's unfair for the same board that voted to terminate or suspend an employee to also be the appellate body. I like to share the stories of 32 Members who could not be here today. One district terminated a maintenance employee over vague allegations of incompetence and insubordination.

An arbitrator found that the district did not have sufficient evidence to support the termination and that the employee should be reinstated. Another district terminated a Member shortly after she became chapter leader and raised concerns at a school board meeting about a survey. She appealed to an attorney representing the school board, but the attorney refused to reinstate her.

Had she been a teacher, she would have been allowed to appeal to a neutral party. Classified school employees deserve the same disciplinary appeal rights as teachers, college faculty and other public sector employees. So for these reasons and many more, we respectively ask for your A vote. Thank you.

Is there another witness? No, it looks like we're moving to metoos. In support, please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Mitch Tiger with CFT. Also in support.

Sandra Barrera with SEI, FCIU, CA. Also in support.

Sarah Flocks, Labor Federation, in support. Thank you. Katherine Villa, Houston United Steelworkers, District 12 in support.

Thank you. Are there any opposition witnesses testifying this morning? Any opposition on the record? For me to please step to the podium?

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Reef, on behalf of the California School Boards Association here, respectfully in opposition. As you know, we have over 5,500 school board Members, all duly elected school board Members in California, who take this. This responsibility very seriously.

Are you a witness speaking in opposition?

Are you in opposition to SB494? My apologies.

Two minutes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure. Because I had called for that, so I just wanted to make sure.

My apologies.

We'll restart your clock then.

Okay. Thank you.

Bit of training?

No, quite the contrary.

You may proceed. Thank you. Good. Senator.

Thank you. Senator, in respectful opposition, we would appreciate working with the author and the sponsors of the Bill. At the end of the day, as I was saying, our school board Members take this responsibly, very seriously.

When a case of this matter, in terms of the demotion, suspension or termination of a classified staff employee comes to the board, it goes through a rigorous and thorough legal review. And the board is one that takes that very seriously because they understand that their decision is. It could be subject to potential civil appeal. Right.

These cases can, in some circumstances, be appealed in civil court. And so they very much follow the light of the law. Also, in regards to the Bill, the implication that there is a bias or that there is a prejudice by the school board in that regard is not reflective of what current day practice is.

We understand the arguments around parity, but at the end of the day, there are differences between a certificated employee and a classified employee. A certificated employee has two years of probation before they become a permanent employee getting access to their due process rights.

Classified employees receive a six month period of probation before they get their due process rights. Teachers have a credential, classified staff have different requirements and some do have certifications, but are different in terms of the nature of their job duties and job responsibilities. But also this is a matter of what is the responsibility of a school board.

These are duly elected officials who are making these decisions and ultimately have the ultimate right and authority. And if this Bill passes, it will take away that authority and put it to the hands of a administrative law judge with no recourse. And in certain circumstances you're going to.

You'll have scenarios where the board will have no ability to reconsider the individual or to be determined if the ALJ's decision is correct or not. And so I also. Just one more point is that the cost of an ALJ is substantial. ALJs are employed by the Office of Administrative Hearing.

There is, we understand that there's a budget process and a budget request in. We think that that is wholly inadequate. But at the end day, it takes time to stand up that type of program. Thank you. To be able to bring the judges online. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in opposition to the Bill, please step forward.

Lucy Salcedo Carter on behalf of the. Alam County Superintendent of Schools and the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools in respectful opposition.

Briana Browns on behalf of the California county superintendents, also in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Michelle. On behalf of California. Association of School. Business Officials, respectful opposition to. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrea Ball on behalf of the Orange County Department of Education in respectful opposition.

Thank you. We'll turn to the dice. Any Members, comments, questions? We'll move to Bill. Senator, would you like to close and maybe respond?

Yeah, thank you, Madam Chair. Lots of stuff kind of thrown out there by the opposition witness and we've heard some of that before. Obviously we'll continue to work with opposition, especially this early in the process. We did that all year. Last year, obviously the Bill moved all the way to the governor's desk.

So I think we adequately address concerns with the possible exception of the Appropriations, but we're dealing with that. Remember, these are just appeals. This Bill is just dealing with the appeals. So nobody's taking any right of the school board to hear these issues. That's not what's happening here. It's a question of where should the appeal go.

Does the appeal go to the same board that just ruled on on the facts of the primary case, or should it mimic a very successful process that we have with teachers and faculty already, including what kind of hearing officer? As I said, we've amended that. What type of hearing officer comes in and conducts that appeal?

There's really no reason to treat classified employees differently or with any kind of lack of parity relative to teachers and faculty. I think that's a real issue here. It's a parity Bill. And with that I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Senator Cortese. We have a motion by Senator Durazo.

On SB605. File item 9. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. zero, I'm sorry, my mistake. I'm reading the wrong line. SB494 by Senator Cortese is do pass to the Committee on education. Double referred. Senator. Small. Aye. Strickland, no. Strickland, no. Cortese, aye. Cortese, aye. Durazzo, aye. Durazzo, aye. Laird? Laird, aye.

Okay, we have a vote of 4 to 1 and that Bill is out.

Thank you.

We'll move to File item number nine SB 605.

Yes. Thank you again. So I'm very happy to present SB 605. This bill would require the Department of Human Resources to create an annual salary survey for bargaining unit 2, job classification for these employees divided by counties and if the budget permits, meaning our budget would integrate salary parity between state and local public sector attorneys.

Over a three year period starting in 1977, the Legislature codified the ability for rank and file state employees to collectively bargain with the Governor for wages, hours and the terms and conditions of employment. In 2022, bargaining unit 2 submitted a memorandum of understanding to bargain with their salaries at the top of their list.

While the bargaining unit received General salary increases and rise in the maximum salary for Class 2 and Class 3 attorneys through their 2022-2025 contract. CalHR noted in its 2023 salary survey, the bargaining unit 2 salaries still lag. This lag is 25.5% in wages and 19.2% in total compensation in comparison to state employees salaries to market averages.

Additionally, salaries in the San Francisco Bay Area Region, for example, lag 8.8% behind local government salaries and are 10.2% below the market average during the 22. Excuse me, the 2022 negotiations that I just referenced.

The LAO surveyed CALHR compensation study using data from 2020 and found that state attorney turnover was likely due to voluntary separation as just as likely due to voluntary separation as it was for retirement. So SB 605 would require the Department of Human Resources to conduct an annual survey to compare salary averages and negotiate in good faith.

This Bill would also classify state attorneys into three geographic regions with salary adjustments reflecting regional public sector averages. It would also protect against reductions by specifying that no state attorney or administrative law judge will experience a salary reduction under the Bill.

More importantly, the salary adjustments within this Bill are contingent on whether there's enough funds in the annual Budget Act. The phase in structure spreads across three years, with one third of salary adjustments implemented each fiscal year starting in 2026, again subject to appropriation.

With me today is Timothy O'Connor, President of the California Attorney's Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in the State in State Appointment. I'm sorry to give you the full title. Let me just say that again. Timothy O'Connor is the President of the California, Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Employment. To speak in support. Thank you. I want to make sure I got your title right.

Thank you, Senator.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. It's a mouthful, I'll admit, so I'll say it again. I am the President of California, Attorneys, Administrative Law Judges and Hearing Officers in State Service. Shorthand is Case. I'm also myself a trial attorney in state service, and I'm here on behalf of Case as the sponsor of S B605.

I want to thank Senator Cortese for authoring this very important legislation. Thank you very much. The professionals in bargain unit 2 routinely win big for the state. They win big in terms of appellate court victories, trial court victories, settlements reached, fines levied, and they fight hard for these monetary wins. But it's more than money.

They also achieve justice in fundamental rights in health care and access for all Californians. So through their dedication and work, we achieve workplace safety and compliance with regulations. But despite these contributions, our Members lag by our numbers. It's actually a little different. It's 20%.

I'm rounding up the 19.5 to 40% because when looking at the sectors of comparable public sector attorneys, city attorney's offices, district attorneys, that's where the numbers come out to be. So this leads to problems of attrition. We have attorneys routinely leaving state Service going to city service, we lose our talent. And that creates recruiting problems as well.

SB 605 would address the lack of competitive compensation for state attorneys who work so hard for California, given their all, to achieve the victories and the success that they have that's vital to the State of California. So it would be subject to a budget appropriation, of course.

And in closing, I just want to say, I want to echo the words of. Of our chair on the good living and good life that we heard at the beginning for all workers in California. Let's achieve that good living and good life also for our legal professionals who work so hard for the State of California. And I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other witnesses, Senator?

No.

Okay. Me Too's in support of the bill. Please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position. Do we have any opposition witnesses on this bill? Okay. Anyone speaking in opposition on this Bill? Me too. Or otherwise. Okay, well, we will turn it over to the dais members. Okay. We have a motion from Senator Durazo.

Senator Cortese, would you like to close?

Thank you very much. I was very privileged, as most of you know, to serve on the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, where, just prior to my taking office there, the Government Attorneys Association there was able to, after a lot of work and a lot of angst and consternation, get their salaries and wages.

I'm sorry, their salaries and benefits up to parity. Similar. Similar. Not the same, but similar to what the survey would. Would help bring about. While I was there, the. The government attorneys and the law office in the County of Santa Clara were named the number one law office, public sector law office in the country.

And I think, really that's what our witness is testifying to here. That only happens if you can have stability and continuity. People have the opportunity to work together on big cases. And there it was. Things like the tobacco cases and the lead paint cases and so forth on behalf of all Californians, just like these folks do.

It requires people to stay on those cases for multiple years, and retention is really, really important. And I think that's what this gets us.

Obviously, subject to the Budget act, it will ultimately get us an even stronger Department, an even stronger unit, I think, to use the right terminology, bargaining unit, too, that is stable and can lean on the longevity of some of their Members who aren't leaving for other jurisdictions like Santa Clara County. With that, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Durazo.

Let's call the roll now on SB 605. The motion is do passed to the Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Quevas? Aye. Strickland? Cortese.

Aye.

Cortese, Aye. Durazzo? Aye. Durazzo, Aye. Laird? Laird. Aye.

Okay, this Bill is on call with a vote of 4 to 0. Thank you. And then we are going to move to your final Bill, Senator Cortese. SJR2.

Yeah. Thank you again, Madam Chair. This one, of course, is the Senate resolution. SJR2 urges Congress and the President to enact federal legislation that affirms and protects the rights of classified school employees, the essential workers who keep our public schools running every single day, whom we've heard a little bit about today.

Across the country, more than 3 million classified staff, including paraeducators, bus drivers, custodians, clerical workers, food service staff and more, are the backbone of our education system. Yet too often their work is undervalued. Their hours are limited. Their wages and benefits fall far short of what's needed to support themselves.

SJR2 outlines a comprehensive vision of fairness, dignity and opportunity for classified workers. It really charts the course of where we need to go. Livable, competitive wages, affordable health care benefits, paid family and medical leave, a safe working environment, a voice in school policies that impact their jobs.

California cannot allow our classified workers to be treated as an afterthought. Maybe today more than ever, if we want strong schools, we need to invest in the people who make them work. The Committee amendments add Senator Cervantes as a joint author of SJR2, and add Senator Gonzalez as a co author.

I'm very appreciative of the other co authors on the Bill, Senators Araguin and Umberg, Weber, Pearson and Assembly Members Ortega and Chiavo for again also being co authors at this point. SJR2 is sponsored by the California Federation of Teachers with support from the California Labor Federation, California School Employees Association and SEIU California.

With us here today in support is Mitch Steiger with the California Federation of Teachers. And again, at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your high vote. Thank you.

Mr. Steiger.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members, Mitch Steiger with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, proud to sponsor this resolution for all the reasons stated so well by the author.

This is part of a nationwide campaign to place as many of these resolutions as possible in as many states as possible so that we can send a strong message to the current Administration about the need to enact stronger protections for these classified workers.

The author mentioned a Lot of the types of work that our classified Members do, it's really everything that needs to happen for a school to function. And when they're understaffed, when we don't have enough people doing that work, broadly speaking, school just becomes a harder place to be.

It's not as clean, things aren't maintained, certificated workers don't have the support they need. And it's tougher to keep workers there, it's tougher to keep students there, and our entire education system starts to suffer. And so we think that it's really important to make this statement to honor the value of their work and send this message.

While we're hopeful, we're not delusional about where we stand with the current Administration and understand they're not exactly bending over backwards to pass new labor laws at the moment. We think with enough support from enough corners of the country, we can hopefully push them in the right direction.

And at some point in the future, we can start to enact some of these reforms because we've really seen it happen with a lot of our classified members.

I would encourage everyone, whenever you have have a chance, to go to your local school district and just look at the classified job announcements on their website and you'll see the need for this resolution. For some of the policies that are laid out. A lot of the jobs are right at minimum wage or just barely above.

A lot of them offer 15 hours a week, 20 hours a week, but they still want often college degrees or a lot of experience and training, sometimes master's degrees. And so with all of those things together, it makes it very, very hard to keep people doing this work.

And so we need to not only continue addressing these issues at the state level through specific policies that we actually can in many cases get through the California State Legislature, but also really do what we can to make things better at the federal level.

And we think this resolution is a good step towards doing that, and we urge your support.

Navneet Puryear, on behalf of CSEA in support.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Anyone else speaking in support of the Bill, please step forward. Me toos. Affiliation and position.

Sarah Flocks, Labor Federation in support.

Catherine Viera Houston United Steel Workers, District 12 in support.

Sandra Barrero, on behalf of SEIU California in support.

Thank you. Is there any opposition witnesses today? Okay. Any opposition support? Me toos in the room. Seeing none. We will move to the dais. Okay, we have a move moving of the resolution and we're going to ask the center to close. And I want to Say thank you for bringing this.

Just when you're finished.

I want to thank you for bringing this forward. Finally, we are acknowledging the role of classified workers and how these are oftentimes workers who are from some of the most marginalized communities where having, you know, decent wages, having benefits, retirement are key to supporting these communities.

We know that there is a lot of controversy now at the national level and the ways that all workers are being treated, but particularly it will have the hardest impact. Impact on this classified workforce. And so want to especially say how grateful I am that you're bringing this forward. And Senator Rosso, I know you also want to add.

I also want to thank you and. And I would ask you to consider adding me as a coauthor if and when that's appropriate. Thank you.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Senator Durazo. We will add you as a coauthor as soon as. As we can. I would assume at the next Committee. I'm going to keep my clothes very brief, but just say that I think

Mr. Steiger said it all, said it very well, and was very candid and very open about the fact that this is not only charting the vision, but it's an organizing and counter organizing piece of legislation that's needed right now.

It's not going to be the last step, but it is a step forward in terms of the anticipated counter to actions that we're beginning to see at the Federal Government. So we want to make no qualms about that and put that on the table and respectfully ask for your. I vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Durazo. Oh, Senator Laird. Thank you. Yes. Representative Laird, please call the roll on file, item 10.

The motion is that it be adopted as amended. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, Aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Cortese. Aye. Cortese, Aye. Durazzo. Aye. Durazzo, Aye. Laird. Laird, Aye.

Okay, we have a vote of four to one. That bill is out and we're going to lift call on Senator Cortese's Bill now that we have our other Senator here. SB 605.

All right. Current vote is four to zero with the chair voting aye on SB 605. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland? No.

Okay. What a vote four to two. That bill is. bill. Okay, vote of four to one, that bill is out.

Members now we'll have the Chair present on her bills. The first one's file item 13, SB442 Madam Chair, please open.

Thank you Mr. Vice Chair, appreciate that. Members, good morning. I'm pleased to present SB442 which establishes basic staffing standards for self checkout. This is a Bill that I brought last year and we are continuing to ensure that we have a safe working environment and customer experience for folks who use our state self checkout counters.

Across our state, self checkout kiosks have become a common place in many of our grocery and retail stores and too often these kiosks are used to replace customer facing staff, leaving one employee to manage customers, monitor for theft and respond to disruptions all at the same time.

A Harvard Kennedy School study found that 61% of workers with self checkout reported always or often having insufficient staffing to complete their work.

Understaffing not only increases the risk of theft, it also makes the shopping experience more difficult for people with disabilities, older adults, and anyone who may need extra help navigating the technology, bagging items or reading the product codes. SB442 sets minimum requirements to improve safety and to ensure a better shopping experience for everyone.

Specifically, this Bill requires at least one staff checkout lane to remain open to customers when self checkout is used.

It ensures that at least one employee is dedicated solely to monitoring self checkout stations, limits the types of items that can be purchased at self checkout, including those requiring age verification or anti theft devices, and establishes a 15 item limit for self checkout transactions.

Furthermore, this Bill, as amended, will reiterate that workers are protected from retaliation when seeking enforcement of these provisions. Members last year we began this conversation and many of you remember as we looked at dozens initially of crime bills that were coming before the Senate and the Assembly this year.

SB442 reflects a more targeted approach that brings us closer to addressing the challenges around our automation and our chronic understaffing and also addressing the retail theft where it happens the most. In our last retail package we passed very serious penalty enhancements to the growing concerns around retail theft in our retail stores.

And since the passage of these bills, Prop 36, we have already seen an increase in arrest and many consider these obviously are crimes, many defined as crimes of poverty like petty theft.

But while we have increased these penalties and enhanced law enforcement's ability to prosecute these crimes and are also trying to figure out how to pay for that enforcement, we must complete our broader retail theft response by ensuring our stores are fully staffed.

We already see that some retailers like Target and Walmart and Dollar General have already decided to take steps to deal with self checkout. We just don't think a piecemeal approach is enough. It's crucial that the state establish a clear baseline to ensure consistency, fairness and most of all, safety across the board.

With me today is Kristin Heidelbach from UFCW and Sara Flocks with the California Labor Federation to give some expert testimony on this issue. And I appreciate enthusiastically ask for your aye vote.

Witnesses in support. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members Kristen Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council, proud co sponsors of SB442. I want to start by thanking Senator Smallwood-Cuevas for her leadership and unapologetic dedication to protecting grocery and retail workers. Thank you.

Grocery and other retailers have touted self checkout stations as innovative ways to help customers since the first machines were put in stores in 1986. But as self checkout machines have proliferated through grocery and retail locations in every state, so have the problems.

Self checkout has led to the reduction of frontline grocery and retail workers, creating a range of problems for management, stores, workers and the public.

Many of our workers are now managing up to 10 to 12 self checkout stations in one store while juggling other duties as well, and this demonstrates how 10 jobs have become now the work of one. The reduction in frontline checkers has created a crisis of chronic understaffing and a burnt out workforce.

To understand how self checkout impacts the public, I only need to turn to my 74 year old mother who tries to check out with her fruits and vegetables and has some challenges there.

As the Senator mentioned, SB442 will require one manual station that is open if a self checkout option is available so that folks can if they have disabilities or our aging community can get out of the grocery store. Additionally, SB442 will require employer policies to limit self checkout to less than 15 items, much like an express lane.

And finally, SB442 would prohibit items that require ID verification, like alcohol and medicines, and any items that are locked or secured with anti theft protection devices to go through self checkout. I want to add, as the Senator has as well, we've made considerable adjustments to this Bill and it's distinctly different from last year's SB 1446.

Having mentioned that, we hope lawmakers see that we've made a good faith effort to consider both workers and businesses in this language. We thank you for your leadership and respect.

You're exactly two minutes. Good job. Next speaker.

Mr. Chair, Member Sara Flocks from the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are also proud to co sponsor this. It's part of a package of bills that we are doing that ensure that the use of technology in the workplace is safe for both workers and consumers. And that technology, whether it's self checkout or whether it's artificial intelligence.

And so my colleague talked about the need for safe staffing in stores. Staffing is not the only part of this. The part about 15 items having a policy on 15 items and other items that can't be brought through self checkout also contributes to staffing because it reduces the workload.

It streamlines the ability of people, customers going through the self checkout line. And we can also see, already see the effects of this. After the Senator introduced her Bill last year, all of a sudden all of the safeways in my neighborhood had the signs, can only bring 15 items through.

It wasn't a law, but it was the policies of the stores to try to reduce the traffic.

It's similar to what is done in express lanes where it's a policy, you know, the checkers aren't, don't necessarily need to enforce it, but there's the peer pressure to do it so that we can be able to get people smoothly through those self checkouts. And so we think this is a very smart Bill, streamlined and targeted. And we thank the Senator for bringing it forward and urge your aye vote.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses? Me too. And support.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of TechEquity Action and support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Mr. Vice Chair of Members, Matt Broad. Here on behalf of the Teamsters and support. Thank you. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you. Any others in support? Witnesses? Oh, please come, come. Sorry, didn't mean to make you run.

No, it's okay. Rachel Deutsch with the California Coalition for Workers Power and Support.

Thank you for being here. Any others in support? Witnesses in opposition? Two minutes.

Yes. Good morning, Mr. Vice Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully opposed. We do appreciate there are some differences between last year's Bill and this one, but there are still quite a few provisions in this Bill that we have concerns about. One of which is the limitations surrounding the duties.

It says that someone supervising self checkout, monitoring self checkout, would not be allowed to engage in other duties. I think we. I have a concern from the chamber perspective of the precedent of that. And so granularly regulating exactly what a worker can and cannot do without consideration of potential needs in the store.

Or say there's no one else in the store and a customer needs a quick, you know, something quick, a money order, something like that, that could be done. Another piece is the signage. We appreciate the language that says, for example, if a customer actually did bring more than 15 items through that, that would not be a violation.

However, effectively we could still be cited up to $200,000 for not having the signs, even though the signs don't have to be enforced at all. And so we have large concerns about that. And of course, the precedent that has of fining us for not following a procedure that doesn't actually have to be to be enforced at the end of the day.

We do have still our concerns, same from last year, about what items can and cannot go through self checkout. For example, what items may be behind a locked cabinet will vary from store to store.

And then finally, with the new amendments that were, I think, being taken today, you know, we historically have a lot of concerns when we have potentially patchwork local ordinances that govern kind of the same things that are being governed from the state perspective. And I know the center talked about consistency.

And I think our concern is that when you have local jurisdictions being allowed to all of a sudden create their own ordinances on this issue, that actually kind of decreases consistency on these kinds of policies.

And especially when we're talking about technologies and the use of those in different stores, we would like to see, I think, just one, you know, if there's going to be a standard, have that be one standard. So thank you.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in opposition.

Good morning. Daniel Conway of the California Grocers Association here in respectful opposition. Like my colleague, I do want to acknowledge that there's been some changes to this Bill that we view favorably, namely the fact that we don't have the same 6 to 1 ratio that we had last year.

But in General, we still have a lot of concerns about this legislation. As mentioned by both the proponents as well as the opposition, this Bill does a lot to basically codify store policies, right, in terms of the way stores are staffed, the way items are allowed to go through different checkout systems, things like that.

We think that that's best left to the stores on a case by case, site by site basis. Again, we had the supporters kind of reference their local grocery store. You know, what's happening in your neighborhood is not necessarily what's happening in another neighborhood.

And stores need to be able to kind of reflect each community in terms of how they staff their stores, just like they reflect that in terms of the items that they carry at their store. More than that, we think this is just going to create real problems for our, not just our customers, but for our employees.

Because as mentioned, you're going to have things like prohibited items that could include deodorant, shampoo, things like that that could be locked up in one store but not another.

And now you're going to have to have our employees explaining to an upset customer why you could buy shampoo at store A but not at store B kind of thing. Right. And beyond that, we just see this as an unnecessary overreach that's really not going to do anything to improve the customer experience.

Because if the issues around safety and theft were as real as the proponents say, you wouldn't see the adoption of self checkout. Right. Stores regulate this. They would not be facilitating theft in their own stores. The last thing I'll mention, we saw the amendments.

We hadn't been given the heads up, so we didn't see them until we saw the analysis. But I will note that, like what was said, if we're going to look to regulate these kind of policies, first of all, it seems more appropriate in collective bargaining. But if we're going to have statewide standard, let's have a statewide standard.

But as of yesterday, an ordinance was proposed in the City of Long beach to address this exact issue. So we're seeing these things move simultaneously and it's concerning.

Thank you. Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition for me too.

Hi, Ryan Allain. On behalf of the California Retailers Association. No official position yet. We're working with the sponsors and the author. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Any other witnesses me too's opposition? See none. Members anybody would like Senator Cortese?

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. More of a comment than a question. I. I just wanted to share that I participated in one of those things that a lot of us participate in from time to time here in Sacramento, a panel discussion where the author was present and fielded questions and offered a lot of give and take with folks, including, without mentioning specific retailer names, major grocery retailers, the National Retailers Association and so forth.

And what I heard was we are willing to work with you on this Bill. We like to see how we could work things out. Those kind of comments were perhaps not that far off.

So I walked out of there very supportive of the author's efforts in the sense that she acknowledged, and you know, some of the folks that have testified in opposition today acknowledged that there's a path on the Bill. And I just think that, you know, I'm not.

I understand how testimony works and how opposition works, but I think, you know, we all ought to be saying the same thing in the same forums, in the same venues, on the same bills as much as possible. And I definitely think after that discussion I heard that the author deserves to keep working this through with the opposition.

I'm sure she's going to speak to that herself at some point. That's all I have to say. Madam Chair or Mr. Chair, I'm sorry.

Thank you. Thank you. I do have a couple things I would just like to comment. Concerns. I still remember it was about 10 years ago. First of all, let me open. I hate kiosks and I hate self checkout. I actually hate doing it. So I understand where the Chairwoman's coming from.

However, some of my concerns and I gave this speech at USC when I was teaching there about 10 years ago about how a lot of the regulations we do in the Legislature and unintended consequences of, for example, raising minimum wage to a point where it makes more sense for retailers now instead of hiring people.

And I always say minimum wage. Not every job was meant for a family of four. I remember my first job was washing wheelchairs in a nursing home in the middle of the night just to get some extra money in my pocket to take my girlfriend to the drive in that tells you how old I am.

I used to do the drive in. But when we do these artificial increases, what it does is it drives a lot of young people out of the job market to get workforce experience.

And with a lot of the regulations in those, what ends up happening is retailers and others look for other means just to make ends meet to get across the finish line. And when we're talking about affordability, California, I think if we pass something like this, it would make it less affordable for people buying the groceries.

And my hope is a lot of grocers are leaving the State of California right now. I'm hoping to keep them here. And I don't necessarily think that this Bill gets us to that point. However, I come in new and I understand that you carried this last year. I wasn't here last year.

So I commend the chair for working with the opposition to see if there's a resolution there. But where we are today, I can't support the Bill. I just think, you know, and you know, the chair will get the close.

But the affordability is an issue because I do think, you know, when you have this kind of legislation it gets passed on to the people actually buying the groceries.

And I do think a lot of our policies in California are making it where young people get that workforce experience like I used to when I was 161819 just to get in that job market. So with those, those are just my concerns. Seeing that there's no other questions from Members. Madam Chair, please close.

So really appreciate the conversation and yes, I will continue to work with opposition. I think we've been working through, through the recess into now to make sure this is a Bill that does what it's intended to do, which is to ensure workers are safe and to ensure that our customers are getting the adequate service that they need.

We affordability. I want to just address that point. You know, young workers and all workers are the ones that have to purchase goods. So, you know, the more that we ensure that our workers are paid a living wage, the more we see dollars circulating and keeping these box stores open in our communities, which is critically important.

So I don't think this is a conversation about whether workers should be paid a living wage or not. I think this is about, you know, the fact that self checkouts get 16 times more shrinkage then a live cashier, a human cashier.

This is data provided by the National Retail Federation that said that shoplifting has increased, you know, over one third. About 88% of retailers reported shoplifting and that it's becoming more aggressive.

And this is simply saying that we want to make sure that workers who are focused and charged with these kiosks, you know, are able to do so in a way that keeps themselves safe and customers safe. I want to appreciate my good Senator from San Jose from, you know, lifting up the conversations that we're having.

And I think that's where we're coming to some agreement around how do we get a Bill that ensures, you know, after so many decades of not having any regulation on self checkout, particularly where we are seeing instances where workers and customers are not safe, that we have a responsibility to address that.

And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. And as you know, we'll continue to work.

And Madam Chair, I assume you take the the Committee's amendments.

Okay, and then will the Committee move by? Senator Durazo, call the roll on file.

Yes, I have.

Item number 13. The motion is do pass as amended, to the Committee on the Judiciary. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas.

Aye.

Smallwood-Cuevas. Aye. Strickland.

No.

Strickland. No. Cortese.

Aye.

Cortese. Aye. Durazzo.

Aye.

Durazo. Aye. Laird.

Aye.

Laird, aye.

The bill's four to one. It's out. And Madam Chair Members, item 15, SB578. Madam Chair, please open.

Thank you. You're doing pretty good for your first day. I want to say thank you. Pleased to present SB 578, which would codify the successful California Workplace outreach program. This ensures that workers receive vital workplace rights information from trusted community organizations in dozens of languages across the state.

I want to say now more than ever, trusted messengers of information for workplace protection is critically important, particularly when we get into some of our low wage, informal and vulnerable working populations. What seems CWOP does?

It was launched during the pandemic and we know there were so many shifting changes in our workplace rights and paid leave during COVID-19. And we wanted to make sure that workers had that information in real time from messengers they could trust.

The labor and Workforce Development Agency partnered with over 62 community based organizations that served as those trusted messengers. And we're ensuring that those workers who were in the highest risk occupations, those essential workers, particularly the hardest hit regions and industry, had a direct pipeline to that information.

The program proved highly effective, reaching workers in 38 counties covering 96 of California's population. And we know that our state worked strong during the pandemic largely because our workforce was informed. The need for strong worker outreach goes far beyond the pandemic.

Each year California workers lose nearly 2 billion due to minimum wage violations alone, which we talked about earlier. CWOP has demonstrated that the most effective way to inform workers of their rights is through community based outreach in their neighborhoods, in their primary languages, and led by people who understand the challenges they face.

I came out of low wage work and informal industry sectors and sometimes you gotta go to the bus stop at midnight when the workers are getting off work to have this conversation. Not all, not everyone can come into a government office or have access. And certainly now we know so many workers are afraid to do so.

It is incredibly important for SB 578 to make permanent part of state law, reinforcing our commitment to ensuring every California worker knows and can assert their rights on the job. We are passing these bills, but they're only good when our workers can actually take advantage and we can enforce them.

With me today to testify and support are Domenica Lopez with the UC Merced Community labor center and Grisella Reyes with Mexteco Indigena Community Organizing Project, who will speak as expert witnesses on this matter.

Witnesses and support. Thanks for being here.

Hello, my name is Domenica Lopez and I represent the UC Merced Community and Labor Center. As part of our mission, we conduct research and education on issues of community labor and the environment.

Beginning in 2021, we served as the regional lead for the California Workplace Outreach Program, known as CWOP in the San Joaquin Valley, a region that consistently ranks poorly in every major indicator of well being.

Prior to joining the Center, I managed CWOP for The Jakara Movement, one of the 14 partner organizations supporting workers in the Valley to understand and assert their workplace rights.

Across California, thousands of community rooted organizations partner with state labor agencies to educate workers in their primary language, including Punjabi, commonly spoken by workers who turn to the Jakara Movement for information and support. Since joining the UC Merced Community and Labor Center, I've helped administer the fourth iteration of CWOP.

In just one year, CWOP organizations provided information to over 132,000 workers in the San Joaquin Valley alone. Since its launch, CWOP has provided information to approximately 7 million workers statewide. Seaw plays a critical role to strengthening an ecosystem of support that advances the mission of state labor agencies.

Recent research from UC Berkeley underscores the essential role of CWOP's trusted messenger model in making California's strong workplace rights a reality. Through CWOP, Valley organizations have developed the capacity to help workers file complaints to address wage theft, retaliation and unsafe working conditions.

By addressing workers distrust and lack of awareness of government agencies, bridging language and cultural gaps, and empowering workers to take action against workplace violations, CWOP is transforming workplace protections for all workers. Industries that pay low wages and employ a high concentration of immigrant workers are especially prone to exploitation, including wage theft, workplace abuse and unsafe conditions.

Expanding and sustaining CWOP's statewide and regionally tailored infrastructure is crucial to safeguarding the workers rights and protections. By codifying the California Workplace Program and the Labor Code, the Legislator will take significant steps towards advancing compliance with labor standards and across the state. Thank you.

No, thanks for being here. I really appreciate it. Other witnesses in support thanks for being here.

Hola. Mi nombre es Griseldar Reyes y medice en El Programa De alcanze en Los luares Del trabajo De California estre Con El prueto Mitchteco Indigena en LA Costa Central De California Como extravagadora Agricola De La industria De La fresa estacundamente personal mente parami.

Other speakers in support Me too. So this will be the interpretation of what she just said. Good afternoon chair members.

My name is Griselda Reyes Basurto and I serve as a program Manager of the California Workplace Outreach Program in the Mixteco, Indiana Community Organizing Project on the California Central Coast As a former farm worker in the strawberry industry, this cause is deeply personal to me.

Now I have the honor to of advocating for the rights of those who continue to work in the fields, ensuring they receive the protections they deserve. With that in mind, I'd like to share my personal story. When I worked as a farm worker, we were never paid overtime. I never had access to shade.

Now I lead a team whose life experiences offer support to farm workers in vulnerable times. Farm workers have always been essential to our nation's food production and supply chain, something the COVID-19 pandemic made even more evident. Throughout the crisis, they worked tirelessly to ensure our state had access to food and under dangerous conditions.

However, their wages and working conditions do not reflect the critical role they play to promote better access to labor protections and educate workers on how to act when their rights are violated and to ensure their safety and health.

This year, MICUB will host a critical regional event alongside the ALRB, Cal Osha, EDD and other partners, complementing the Know youw Rights Caravans and final to strengthen the work, MICOP will provide training to worker leaders through the Indigenous Leadership Institute. Programs like CWOP provide essential education and support helping workers combat wage theft, retaliation and exploitation.

CWOP plays a vital role in strengthening protections for the most vulnerable workers in our region and state. We respectfully request your vote in favor of SB 578. Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Now me toos in support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thanks for being here.

Magali Sagal with the California Partnership to. End Domestic Violence and support.

Thank you for being here.

Cynthia Gomez on behalf of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and strong support.

Thank you for being here.