Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly labor and Employment Committee hearing. In order to facilitate this process, we're going to go ahead and start as a Subcommitee. We will not be able to take any votes, but we can begin the process of hearing our bills.

I know a number of the presenters are here, so I want to be respectful of their time. So we will go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee. Now, I do have some announcements. In order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public.

Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. Commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed. Announcements Reminders for our witness policy.

For each Bill, we will take two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will get up to two minutes each for additional public comments. We ask that you state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. AB963, Petrie Norris has been pulled by the author. All right, so Ms. Davies, would you like to go first?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Today I'm here to present AB296. First, thank Committee staff for working with my staff and stakeholders on this measure. Under current law, California high schools are required to provide students and parents information about a variety of job opportunities via college or career fairs.

However, there is no standalone requirement about hosting or putting on apprenticeship fairs for those in our labor community to come and speak to students about opportunities for pre sorry, apprenticeships and apprenticeships. California is at a crossroad.

We have thousands of jobs that need to be filled by an educated and trained workforce, yet not enough workers to fill these roles. AB 296 is a simple measure to ensure that at least once during a school year, a school or district shall host an apprenticeship fair.

The measure is vague on what that entails so that every school or district may decide for themselves how best to put it on for their community. As we know, one size does not fit all.

Furthermore, negotiations with Committee staff and stakeholders have also improved the bill because we also now allow that if no program exists in the county, the measure now allows schools to work with programs outside of their geological boundaries. Again, we provide flexibility. Lastly, to raise engagement and attendance for college, career and apprenticeship fairs.

AB 296 would also allow a school district to award one hour of community service credit for students who attend in Community service hours are required for graduation. According to ZipRecruiter. On average, apprenticeships can earn roughly 72,000 a year in entry level positions in a variety of apprenticeships.

Not enough young students know that being employed in this type of field could lead to a lucrative and stable career.

This measure has support from a variety of businesses and labor organizations who understand we need to start training the next generation workforce, including the California Chamber of Commerce, our pipe trade councils, our contractors, our electrical workers, and many more.

With me here to testify and support is Melanie Perrin. On behalf of the Association of General Contractors of California, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Good afternoon, Chairwoman and Committee Members. I'm Melanie Perrin here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in strong support of this legislation. AGC was established in 1920 as the only statewide construction trade Association with nearly 1,000 Members. While our contractors are building projects, we also need to be focused on building the workforce of the future.

AGC of America, in a study, notes that 80% of construction firms report difficulty finding qualified workers to hire 80%. AGC of California is acutely aware of these challenges and I'm excited to highlight the work and resources AGC has dedicated to workforce development.

AGC has created a nonprofit arm called the Construction Education foundation, which provides resources including scholarships, support and training through innovative programs to attract, develop and retain a skilled workforce. Part of the foundation's work is a program called Build California.

We also have a website, buildcalifornia.com as a little shout out there, which helps the current and future construction workforce and provides resources and assistance to those wanting to find work in this field. There's challenges that we have experienced with workers just merely trying to get exposure to an apprenticeship program where we're able to bridge those gaps.

I cannot emphasize this enough. Construction careers have the ability to transform lives, but we cannot do this alone. And there are many partners in this space working to develop the next generation of the construction industry workforce.

We need more tools just like this legislation, which provides a vital opportunity to engage with high school students at apprenticeship fairs and introduce them to fulfilling careers that do not require a college degree. By showcasing these opportunities, we can help students identify the best path for their futures while addressing critical workforce needs in industries such as construction.

We want to express our deep appreciation to the author as she has been and continues to be a leader in this space in fighting for additional apprenticeship opportunities at high schools. And we continue looking forward to working with her and request your support and Aye vote on this bill.

Do we have any other witnesses in support?

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

Madam Chair, Members. Brett Barrow with United Contractors and the National Electrical Contractors Association and strong support.

Madam Chair, Members. Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors in support.

Madam Chair Members Eddie Bernacchi on behalf the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry and the Northern California Allied Trades in support.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in support.

Seeing no others in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Chair.

Do you want to come? Do you want to come?

Good afternoon. Member Chair, Madam Chair and Honorable Members. Sarah Kaminsky on behalf of the school administrators representing over 18,000 administrators throughout the state in respectful opposition to AB 296. To be clear, we are not opposed to apprenticeship fairs. Quite the opposite. AXA has historically been a supporter of apprenticeships and the important linkage with trades and schools.

We are active also active participants on the state's PK12 Teacher Apprenticeship Working Working Group.

Our opposition of AB296 is based on apprenticeship fairs being mandatory for all school districts with no consideration to local coordinated efforts already underway and the fact that the mandate would also include elementary school districts where students are too are young, as young as four years old in transitional kindergarten.

When the Governor called for the master plan for career education two years ago, AXA Members saw this as a call to action. Our top goal is to streamline efforts in this space, but AB296 perpetuates a siloed approach with less integration.

Current law already requires schools and districts that are planning to hold career and college fairs to notify all apprenticeships in their county. AB 296 would mandate separate apprenticeship fairs for all school districts, even the 516 elementary school districts where students are too young to participate.

Parents of elementary school age children would be less likely to attend these mandated events and it's also doubtful that industry partners would invest their time in attendance when the age of the students prohibits participation.

Successful events are made with industry partner participation and family attendance, but the bill mandates schools and districts hold events with no guarantee of any apprenticeship partners.

For these reasons, we are opposed to the measure and I thank the author and her staff for their accessibility regarding the bill and remain committed to working with them should this bill pass out of Committee today. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will turn it over to questions from Members or Member none. See Seeing no questions I will just want to thank the author for bringing this forward.

I think it's a very important bill and recognizing that we do have shortages and not everyone is ready to go to a four year University or have the resources, but many in our high schools are ready to go to work and so making sure they get into a kitchen, guild and train program is very important.

And so I want to thank you also. I very rarely get bills in this Committee that unify everyone, so thank you for that as well. We cannot take a motion right now, but we'll let you know once we have a quorum and vote. Thank you for today.

Can I finish close?

Oh yes please.

I just want to say thank you so much and also I believe in the perfect bill because I know that's that's something that's going to be beneficial to everyone and we're happy to work with the opposition in regards to having this bill only apply to students in grades nine through 12.

So to me then that could be a perfect bill and no opposition. So I respectfully ask for an aye vote and thank you.

Thank you Assembly Member Bryan, whenever you are ready.

Thank you Madam Chair and colleague. It's good to be back before your committee. I'm proud to present AB 1221, which will prohibit the use of invasive and potentially discriminatory surveillance systems in the workplace and will protect worker data from being sold or shared by their employers.

Workplace surveillance is not a recent phenomenon, but today's workplace surveillance tools differ in their scale, speed, and invasiveness. Employers used to have to monitor video feeds to track workers. Now, artificial intelligence and tech advancements allow them to not only track worker movements, but also compile massive amounts of data points to analyze them in real time.

Current technology includes wearable devices to monitor worker speech, devices that can collect and retain biometric retina tracking, and systems that use emotional, facial and gait recognition. Employers can use the surveillance data for predictive behavior analysis, to perform prevent workers from exercising their protected rights, or to figure out deeply personal information such as health or immigration status.

Employer surveillance takes various forms. Call center workers, for example, may be required to use tools that employ emotional recognition and generative AI to analyze interactions. These systems send constant nudges to alter worker behavior and provide data to supervisors for corrective measures.

Worker face risks of bias. Workers face risks of bias, discrimination and errors, usually without knowing how algorithms assess their tone, their accent, or their choice of words. Other surveillance tools secretly monitor body movements using gate recognition, flagging suspicious individuals, whether customers or employees, based simply on how they walk.

This can easily lead to discrimination against individuals with physical disabilities. AB 1221 creates a surveillance and data protection structure for transparency, worker protection and prohibitions on abuse of technologies. This Bill prohibits the use of most unreliable and potentially discriminatory types of surveillance.

It also prohibits the use of these tools to obtain or infer protected or personal information about workers, including immigration and health status and the likelihood of unionizing or speaking up against workplace violations.

AB 1221 requires advance notice to workers when employers introduce or use surveillance tools so workers know where, how and if they are being monitored in new and advanced ways.

The bill enacts data protections that prohibit employers from sharing worker data for purposes beyond interpreting the data and makes both the employer and third party entity liable if worker data is breached or misused or unauthorized and it's being shared. Lastly, the bill requires employers to produce corroborating evidence to validate surveillance output before disciplining or firing workers.

This requirement ensures human oversight over these algorithmic surveillance tools that may produce faulty outputs or interpretations. AB 1221 protects worker privacy and human oversight in the age of pervasive digital surveillance. Joining me to testify are Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and Shane Gusman representing the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council.

Good afternoon, Madam Chairs and Members of the Committee. Yvonne Fernandez of the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud co sponsor of AB 1221, a bill that will establish guardrails on the use of workplace surveillance technology. As the assembly member noted, workplace surveillance is not a new phenomenon.

From Pinkerton agents being used to spy and bust union organizing to the introduction of workplace cameras, employers have used surveillance technology to control workers for decades. However, the tools at the disposal of the employers, big and small far exceed the capabilities of any surveillance technology or method workers have previously faced.

The Assembly Member highlighted the use of sophisticated surveillance tools such as wearables as well as gait emotional and facial recognition technology. These tools are not in development. They're not theoretical. They are here. They're widely available and surprisingly affordable.

For example, developers such as Humanyze sell biometric worker ID badges equipped with microphones and sensors to record conversations and body movements. These wearable trackers can gather large swaths of data ranging from the workers biometrics to conversations in the workplace.

Another tool on the market, Everseen. It provides retailers with discreet monitoring to track the body movements and workers on the shop floor.

Powered with algorithmic real time loss detection, this tool flags suspicious quote unquote on suspicious individuals and their mannerisms, a form that is likely to flag and discriminate against people with disabilities whose walking patterns may be flagged by the system. Regarding the case highlighted by the Assembly Member,

those MetLife insurance call center workers were surveilled by a pseudo scientific emotional surveillance recognition technology known as Cogito. And it uses technology which is. And this use of technology is a clear example of how voice, speech patterns, vernacular and a person's accent can all be misinterpreted by an emotion recognition system trained with limited and biased data.

The introduction of these tools only stand to exacerbate the discriminations that workers face. And technology is not free of any biases and the flaws of humans that create them. Human biases are typically visible and can be tracked and scrutinized because they are made at the human scale.

However, these tools operate secretly in the background, making it harder to detect and even more difficult to correct. AB 1221 will establish first in the nation protections for workers by establishing human oversight, transparency, data transparency and data protections. We are open to working with opposition and just, you know, noting that the bill was put into print recently.

So we, we are open to having those conversations. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, proud co sponsor of the bill along with the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists Unite Here, the Engineers and Scientists of California and the Utility Workers Union of America all in strong support of this measure.

The use of technology as a worker management tool has gone well beyond reasonable assistance to extremely invasive and dangerous method of monitoring every movement and action of a worker. The constant monitoring erodes workers rights to privacy and autonomy. It also jeopardizes workers health, safety and well being through stress and unrealistic physical demands.

To make matters worse, technology is replacing managers as decision makers, eliminating human input and increasing the risk of unfair discipline and termination. We need appropriate guardrails in places to use as this technology grows, it's happening at an exponential rate.

As you heard from the previous witness, it's in every industry whether it's workers cleaning hotel rooms or those making sure your packages get to the right place at the right time. These workers deserve dignity. They deserve a safe workplace. And we urge your I vote on the bill.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Good afternoon. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Good afternoon. Kristin Heidelbach on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in support.

Navnit Puryear on behalf of CSEA in support.

Jorge Plascencia on behalf of California Coalition for Worker Power in strong support.

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

Megan Abell on behalf of Tech Equity Collaborative in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Madam Chair, Louie Costa with the Safety and Legislative Board of Smart Transportation Division Smart TD in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

You may begin whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon Madam Chair and members. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, we are respectfully opposed to AB 1221, which is one of our cost driver bills, which is a re envisioning of our traditional job killer list. I appreciate the acknowledgement that this bill went into print Friday night.

So this is the first time we saw it. So bear with us on our letter. And I want to start by saying we do not object to some level of disclosures regarding data that may be used to, for example, discipline an employee. And we have supported prior bills and prior sessions to that effect.

But we have a lot of concerns really with the detail and the function and the practical impacts that this bill would have. So for example, in the notice you would be required to tell all workers, for example, which vendors under what conditions that they have certain data.

Those terms are so broadly defined that, for example, if an employer is turning over emails or other kinds of data to counsel, you would be required to disclose that to insurance companies for accidents, workers comp, what have you.

If you are hiring someone, for example, to do like a pay data report and so you're turning over certain data to assess whether you're comparable to other employers in your region, that would all need to be disclosed due diligence, potential merger. So there's a lot of unintended consequences that would be impacted by some of these disclosures.

Also, when we supported a bill previously with similar Pacheco, we had exceptions in there for things like investigations, right? Where potentially fraud is happening, where employers who are regulated by Federal Government about having to track certain financial transactions that are taking place need to be taken into account. Further, there's a provision in 1552 related to transfer.

It appears there might be a typographical error and it's unclear whether these requirements apply just to transfer to any third party or a vendor. But for example, we do not believe that there should be the same rules governing aggregated de identified data as there should be for individualized data.

Also, again, you would have to make any third party you transfer this data to jointly liable for a data breach, even including the Civil Rights Department. And I'll let my colleague continue. Thank you.

I love that sound. Madam Chair, Chris McKayley, on behalf of LA Chamber in respectful opposition to this measure, wanted to raise two concerns with you. The first is the limitation on data. For example, the text states that you cannot. There's a restriction on primarily using data from surveillance tools to make disciplinary decisions.

So, for example, if a security camera on the facility property caught somebody, you know, attacking another or stealing something, for example, that we would be prohibited from utilizing that in disciplining the individual.

The concern on facial recognition technology, for example, in some of our businesses, we have individual employees who clock in and out, for example, utilizing their cell phone and most often with an iPhone people get that recognition by facial recognition to activate their phone or not. Our second issue is regarding the right to access.

In 1552, subdivision H, there's a broad right to access. It simply says an employer shall allow a worker to access incorrect worker data collected by its workplace surveillance tool, with no limitation or guardrails around that broad language. The other provision is in subdivision G.

The definition of worker not only includes the individual, but also a quote, unquote, authorized representative when it comes to things such as accessing data and correcting records. We don't think that that brought a definition to include an authorized individual should have access to data, which can also include data of other individuals working at that facility.

So for those two reasons, we respectfully oppose the measure. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses? In opposition.

Good afternoon. Kalyn Dean with the California Hospital Association. In respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association. In respectful opposition.

Matt Easley, representing Associated General Contractors, California. In opposition.

Tim Schmelzer, Wine Institute. In opposition.

Dylan Hoffman on behalf of TechNet. Respectfully opposed.

Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors Association. Opposition.

Madam Chair, Members, Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association. In opposition.

Good afternoon. Brett Barrow with the National Electrical Contractors Association of United Contractors. In opposition.

Good afternoon. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no others in opposition. Assemblymember Brian, would you like to address some of the opposition's comments?

Yeah. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the opposition for being here. We are definitely open to these conversations and apologize for getting this to print kind of late. It's an important topic. We're in a new frontier, as was mentioned by my witnesses.

These are not theoretical conversations or, you know, dystopian, futuristic depictions of what work life may be. This is reality and the potential for reality right now. What was mentioned by Mr. McKayley was that, you know, if you're caught stealing on camera, then you couldn't be fired. That's not true.

It just means the supervisor needs to watch the tape and catch that you have been stealing on the tape and then discipline you, not machine learning or any of these algorithmic tools making the decision for a supervisor. Even in our bill, we allow for that human process.

It's the humanity in the workplace that we're trying to protect and maintain. The way some of these tools currently work you almost need to sever your work reality from your outside.

In fact, if you've had a difficult time outside, your innie may need to hide that emotional reaction because it can be tracked and monitored biometrically with recommendations for corrective worker behavior or disciplinary action. That is the reality we're heading without appropriate guardrails.

This bill is the start of that conversation about what guardrails should be as we use these incredible technological advancements to increase productivity, but to protect workers, their humanity, and most importantly, their data from being unauthorized, accessed by unauthorized users and used to their detriment.

And with that, when the appropriate time comes, I respectfully ask for an I vote.

Do we have any questions from the Committee Member? Ditto. Well, I want to thank the author again for bringing this forward. I also sit in privacy, and I've learned a lot over the last two years in terms of what is happening with a lot of this technology and how fast it's moving and how we're playing catch up.

And this is one where I truly value what you're bringing forward and happy to work with you moving forward as it moves out of my committee, as it has an I recommendation to address some of the concerns, but also put a face behind the robot or on the robot that's making these decisions, because as you mentioned, it's happening and we're playing catch up.

So thank you for bringing this forward, and at the appropriate time, we will move with the vote. Thank you. Assembly Member Haney, would you like to present? Whenever you're ready.

Is there one you want me to start with, or. I have two.

Whichever one you'd prefer.

We have 1181 and 1198.

All right. Why don't I do 1181 first? Thank you, Madam Chair. Members. 11 AB 1181 is the Firefighter Cancer Prevention Act. AB 1181 will ensure that firefighters are protected from cancer by ensuring their gear is free of cancer causing chemicals. Firefighter gear has been found to contain significant levels of PFAS.

PFAS is a man made chemical that is often referred to as a forever chemical. It is harmful to both humans and the environment and can stay in both the body and in nature for a lifetime. Additionally, research has established that PFAS is a known carcinogen, indicating its potential to cause cancer.

20 years ago, heart disease was the biggest threat to firefighter health. Today, cancer has replaced heart disease as the biggest killer of firefighters, with the International Association of Firefighters attributing 66% of deaths between 2002 and 2019 to cancer.

While firefighting is an inherently dangerous profession, it is critical for the health and safety of California's firefighters that all unnecessary cancer exposures are eliminated. Recently, the Legislature passed numerous measures to restrict the use of PFAS in consumer products. There is no reason not to take the same steps to protect our firefighters.

Firefighters put their lives at risk every day on the front lines. We were reminded of that recently and some of the most dangerous and devastating wildfires our state has seen. And we have an obligation to ensure that they are not exposed to cancer causing chemicals from the very equipment designed to keep them safe.

This bill will ensure that California's Occupational Safety and Health Standards, OSHA, develops standards to ban cancer causing chemicals from being used in firefighter turnout gear by 2027.

With me to testify in support of the bill is Jeremy Crawford, a captain with Sacramento Metro Fire and chair of the Cancer Committee for Sacramento area firefighters Local 522 and Megan Subers from the California Professional Firefighters who is here to provide technical support.

Good afternoon Chair Ortega and Members of Committee. Thank you to Assemblymember Haney and CPF for having me. As he said, my name is Jeremy Crawford.

I'm a 21 year veteran with the Sacramento Metropolitan Fire District, currently serving as a fire captain and as he also said, the chair of our cancer committee for our Regional 522 Sacramento Area Firefighters Cancer Committee.

I'm here to talk to you today about the prevalence of cancer in the fire service and the role that that protective equipment worn by us plays in this terrible disease. Firefighters, by nature of our profession face a higher risk and rate of cancer than the general population.

In fact, that risk is so great that recently the International Association for Research on Cancer, or IARC declared our profession itself as a type 1 carcinogen, which is very alarming.

Cancer has touched all of our lives in some capacity, but it's taken far too many of my brothers and sisters. My heart is broken many a time and many tears wept for widowed spouses, mothers and fathers, and father and motherless children.

We willingly face these risks for the same reason that we put ourselves in harm's way on fire or emergency scenes. It's because we love our jobs and because we care deeply about protecting our communities.

However, what we did not sign up for was that additional unnecessary exposure to known toxic substances that increase our risk of developing job related cancer. There has been much discussion in recent years about the toxic chemicals known as PFAS, which is linked to the development of numerous types of cancers and is currently found today in our gear.

As this awareness has grown, so too has the discussion of PFAS free turnouts which are still in development and have been tested by several other departments around California and throughout the country. This gear has been sold to us as a safer alternative to our old PPE that still meets the required testing standards.

However, research recently completed at Duke University found that this quote unquote safe gear proudly marketed as PFAS free instead contains added flame retardants.

The specific flame retardant that was detected is not only chemical similar to a banned flame retardant substance that has significant toxicity concerns, but the concentration in the gear we were told was safe is in fact 19 times higher than the concentration of PFAS in our current gear. That is unacceptable.

It's clear the national standards for turnout gear do not meet the mark if they allow for the addition of a toxic substance at significantly higher concentrations and we in California can and should do better.

AB 1181 will enable our state to develop a more protective standard that eliminates not only PFAS but all other regrettable substitutes from our gear while still keeping us safe. Thank you. I got beat though.

Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, proud to sponsor this bill and I'm just here to answer questions.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses and support?

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

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters in support.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. Tim Shestek with the American Chemistry Council. We're not opposed to the bill. We did have some conversations with the bill sponsor last week about some concerns regarding the scope of PPE in terms of the definition beyond clothing.

There are a number of other products that could fit into that category where there may not be alternatives and the timelines associated with the bill could prove challenging for product availability.

So we would encourage the opportunity or like the opportunity to continue to work on this bill and get to a point where safe products are available for firefighters. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions? We will move the bill as soon as we establish quorum. Would you like to close?

Thanks again. And we'll continue to work with the opposition. And I think that this is essential and we've propose it in a way to. To be able to meet these standards and consider alternatives and respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you. At the appropriate. At the appropriate time, we will move forward. Thank you so much for your testimony and your service.

Thank you. All right, next bill I have is AB 1198, which is the Fair Pay for Construction Work Workers Act. This is crucial legislation to ensure equitable pay for construction workers across California by addressing several shortcomings of current prevailing wage law.

Right now, prevailing wage rates are locked in at the time a public works project is first advertised for bid. Workers are then forced to take the prevailing wage for when the project was first announced, even if that is years before the project actually breaks ground or if there is a lower wage in place.

These outdated rates create a loophole that some bad actors are exploiting to underpay workers lower bids, bid costs unfairly and undercut contractors who are doing the right thing. Wage theft is already a massive problem in California. Construction work is one of the top industries where it happens.

In 2021 alone, workers lost at least $338 million to wage theft. In the same time, the Labor Commissioner opened nearly 2,000 prevailing wage violation cases cases and assess over $10 million in unpaid wages. AB 1198 ensures that workers receive the current prevailing wages on projects regardless of when a project was announced for bid.

The adjustment is necessary to maintain equity within in the industry, ensure workers are receiving adequate wages throughout the duration of the project. We would not pay a minimum wage from five years or 10 years ago and we shouldn't pay a prevailing wage from many years ago.

And it is unfair both to the workers and for the contractors who are doing the right thing. We've had good conversations with the opposition, are looking forward to receiving proposed amendments to address their concerns.

And here with me to testify in support of the bill is Keith Dunn on behalf of the building trades and Eddie Bernacchi on behalf of the United Contractors.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Eddie Bernacchi on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association, the California Legislative conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry and United Contractors.

AB 1198 as the Assembly Member just stated addresses a significant competitive issue for union contractors on large and long duration public works projects by requiring that contractors pay the prevailing rate in effect at the time the work is performed rather than the prevailing rate that is published when the project was advertised as its currently required under dir regulation.

Currently our union contractors on these projects must estimate what the future wage rate is going to be when they're bidding these projects because their collective bargaining agreements may expire midterm or mid project.

And as we all know primarily the prevailing wage rate in the state and the localities is based off of the modal rate which is based based off of collective bargaining agreements throughout the state.

In converse, the non union sector is able to just bid the project based on the rate that is published at the time of advertising, giving them a competitive advantage in the bidding process on public works, which is somewhat ironic.

Further, the issue is becoming more and more common in public works projects as public agencies are moving more towards alternative delivery methods such as design build and progressive design build where the actual construction date is far removed from the project advertisement date.

And so as we get these new delivery methods and we move away from design bid build, you get a lot of engineering in the actual construction bid. And so the actual work that is being performed is could be years down the line from the advertisement date. So these these preventing rates are becoming very outdated.

And then finally the problem is really becomes worse for our union contractors when they're asked to perform change orders or additional work as they must perform that work at their collective bargain rate and not the rate within the that's post that time. So with that we'd ask for your Aye vote support.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Keith Dunn here on behalf the State Building and Construction Trades Council. I appreciate our good union employers being here today and talking about the disadvantage that they find themselves out. Mr. Bernacchi brings up a good point.

I've been involved in I think almost every alternative project delivery legislation for about the last 20 years. You're going to hear about one of them later today that does some clarification for our state universities.

But the fact of the matter is that we do do these plans planning interactions with our design professionals and contractors on the front side of things. It sometimes kicks construction out where the advertised bid will come up against a collective bargaining agreement that's been changed.

Some in the opposition talk about the fact that they don't know how to plan for that. I would tell you that contractors routinely plan for changes in cost not only with labor but also materials. I think everyone here is aware of the cost of inflation on construction that is in materials. Every contractor does that.

What we're seeing is that non union contractors oftentimes will underbid. They put that extra 56% in their pocket and they still are under what our workers would be paid under a collective bargaining agreement and use that as an advantage on public works.

There's no disagreement about the fact that these are public works and you're paying a prevailing wage. It's just that over years, and usually it's a three year process, if that wage changes, they don't have to comply and pay that wage. So you're underpaying the workers. It's not fair.

It's not fair for our union employers who are trying to make sure that they're doing the right things by our workforce, who have additional costs. Every worker in California faces cost increases, whether it's housing or the cost of fuel to drive to work.

As many of you may have heard for me earlier today, we don't get to jump on public transportation. We have tools. We have to usually drive. We're usually there leaving the house at 4 in the morning.

So we have a lot of things that restrict our, our movement and a lot of it's based on where we work and how we work. So with that we appreciate the author coming back with this legislation. We'd ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do I have additional witnesses and support?

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, Matt Crammings here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. Strong support. Thank you.

Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers in support.

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

Madam Chair. Members of the Committee, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions and support Support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Teamsters in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support. Before I call for opposition, I would like to establish quorum. Secretary, can you please call the roll? [Roll Call]

Quorum is established. Any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair. Committee Members. Sarah Dukett. On behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, along with the Coalition of Local Government Associations, respectfully in opposition to SB 1198.

We have serious concerns about potential unanticipated cost pressures or increases to public works projects midstream and the cost to the contractor that would need to recoup these unexpected costs because of prevailing wage increases during an ongoing project.

Currently, when a project is first advertised for bid, the public agency as well as the contractor can go to a web page managed by DIR to see what the prevailing wage rates are. These wages generally include those upcoming increases which will occur during the duration of the project.

We are concerned that further changes to the wage midstream will result in uncertainty in bidding and contracting and put projects in jeopardy. These additional cost pressures may impact the ability of a jurisdiction to move forward with the project or reduce the number of projects, particularly in rural jurisdictions where we have very limited funds, general funds.

A lot of our projects are funded through bonds, grants from the federal, grants from the state. Unexpected cost pressures can really mean the difference between a project moving forward in rural California, which is why you see a continual uphill battle with any type of development, including housing. For these reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

But we are very much willing to work with the author and see if we can make progress and address our concerns. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Eric Lawyer, speaking on behalf of the California State Association Counties and League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Ophelia Szigeti. On behalf of the California Special Districts. Association, we respectfully have an opposed position on this bill.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Committee Members. Marina Espinosa with the California Housing Consortium. We hold an oppose unless amended position on the bill. We're requesting that affordable housing projects be exempt from it and appreciate the conversations we've had with the author's office regarding our concerns. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership sharing the opposing less amended position from the California Housing Consortium. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no others in opposition, I'll turn it over to the committee for any questions. Assemblymember Haney, would you like to respond to the opposition and any closing remarks?

Happy to continue the conversation with them. No further comments, but respectfully ask for your I vote.

We have a motion and a second secretary. Please call the row.

The motion is due. Pass to appropriations. Ortega. Ortega I. Flora Chen. Elhawary I. Elhawari I. Kalra Lee. Lee I. Ward. Ward I.

That bill is out thank you, Assemblymember Rogers, whenever you are ready.

Well, good afternoon, Chair Members. I'm here today to present AB 1235. 1235 is actually a really simple bill. It standardizes building practices across the community colleges, UCs and CSUs. Currently, community colleges and UCs are required to use skilled and trained workers when they're constructing buildings.

I think we all can agree that our students deserve the highest standards for quality for their buildings and that the workers deserve to make a wage that allows them to continue to live in the Golden State.

This bill would standardize across the three systems and make sure that the CSUs are also using skilled and trained labor right now. Many of them already do so, although unfortunately, we have seen projects that have been going to the lowest bidder instead, which deprives them of an opportunity to live in their communities.

So with me today is Keith Dunn with the California Construction and Building Trades Council to be able to speak to the need for the bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, I'm pleased. When you reach that age where you start seeing bills that were referenced and needing to be extended and amended and changed in 785, design, build, build with former Senator Lois Wolk was my bill. This bill would conform the CSU, the system, to that labor standard.

Again, as you heard earlier, when we change to alternative delivery processes, there's lag times. We need to make sure that that that interaction between the designer and the contractor and the owner also includes the workforce.

And as those discussions move forward, we need to make sure that it's a skilled workforce that understands the complexities of building out our very complex and unique systems that are being built on our UC, our CSU campuses. So this conformity, I think, is a simple bill. It's a bill that I'm happy to be a part of.

I think it's an important bill. And with that, I would just ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Do we have additional witnesses? In support.

Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions. In support.

Matt Crammings, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. In support.

Madam Chair Members Eddie Bernacchi, on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association and the California Legislative Conference of the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry. In support.

How's it going? Mitchell Bechtel, District Council Vine Recruits and support

Martin Vindeal, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, and the California State Pipe Trades Council. In support.

Chris Walker with the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. In support.

See no additional witnesses. In support do we have any main witnesses in opposition? See none. We'll turn it over to Committee Members for questions comments we have a motion and a second Secretary Please would you like to close?

I think that that's planning thank you so much. I respectfully ask for the Aye vote.

The motion is do pass to Higher Education Committee. {Roll Call] That measure is out.

Thank you. We have item number 10. Assemblymember Berman.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. AB 1250 I was like where's my witness? Oh, this is just me. It's just me doing this bill AB 1251 addresses the emerging and disturbing trend of ghost or fake job postings.

I first learned of the term ghost job from a constituent who believed that he had been deceived by ghost job postings. A ghost job posting is just that, a job posting for a position that does not actually exist.

A number of recent surveys of hiring managers, as well as a Wall Street Journal article, have illustrated that the practice of posting ghost jobs is on the rise and becoming a real problem.

As discussed in the Committee analysis, a 2024 survey by Resume Builder found that 39% of hiring managers reported posting a ghost job that year, and hiring managers also reported contacting candidates for the ghost job.

Some of the reported reasons for posting ghost jobs include to to collect resumes to keep on file for a later date, to make it appear the company is open to external talent, to act like the company is growing, and to make employees believe their workload will soon be alleviated by new workers.

But as the Committee analysis points out, perhaps the most startling reason is to make current employees feel replaceable. To use an industry term, this is messed up. Looking for a job is already an arduous, time consuming, anxiety ridden, and potentially demoralizing process.

Misleading ghost job postings unnecessarily add another layer of worry and frustration for those looking for a job. In response, AB 1251 would add much needed transparency by requiring every private employer to include in job postings a statement disclosing whether the posting is for an existing vacancy or not.

The statement must be clear, conspicuous, and written in a legible font. Californians deserve to know whether the job they are spending the time and energy to apply for is actually real. I respectfully ask for your Aye vote.

Do you have any witnesses in support?

I hope so. Maybe one.

I think they ghosted you.

They ghost. Well played.

Maria Flores here with the Mesa Verde Group on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support.

Any witnesses in opposition? They did not ghost you. They're coming up.

We're having conversations. We are, yeah.

Hello again. Ashley Hoffman. On behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I think our one primary concern is, as noted in the analysis, is just the enforcement mechanism. We believe that this should be enforced by DIR or CRD, which are the current entities that enforce job posting related requirements or prohibitions on certain language.

And then we are having conversations. The author's office. I think some of our Members are just getting a little tripped up on the existing vacancy phrase. For example, if they know a role is coming up, but it's not technically a vacancy at the time, like in the entertainment industry, sometimes that there's a job posting within.

Department heads are out there on their own trying to recruit people. Just some of those scenarios. But I think that's something we can work out. So. Yeah. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll pass it over to the Committee for questions? Comments? Would you like to close?

I appreciate the conversations with the opposition and issues that have been raised in the analysis and you know, to be an ongoing iterative process, but respectfully ask for Aye vote.

Do we have a motion? We have motion and a second secretary. Please call the roll.

The motion is due. Pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [Roll Call]

Thank you.

That measure is out.

Appreciate it.

If we can take a motion on item 1, 6 and 8. We have a motion on item number six. AB 1181. Let's do one at a time. Yeah. Sorry.

It's okay.

So am I.

AB- AB 1181. The motion is do pass to appropriations. [ROLL CALL]

Item number one, AB 296.

The motion is do pass to Education Committee. [ROLL CALL] That measures is on call.

That measure is on call. Item number 8, AB 1221.

The motion is do pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. [ROLL CALL] That measure is up.

Can I get a motion for the consent calendar?

On the consent calendar, we have the following motions. Do pass consent to appropriations on AB 751 and AB 889. We have a motion of do pass consent to Higher Education Committee on AB 694. We have a motion of do pass consent to the Assembly Floor on AB 1392. We have a motion of do pass consent to Insurance Committee on AB 765.

[ROLL CALL]

There's a vote change on file item 1.

Assembly Member Lee on AB 296 from not voting to no.

That measure is still on call. Alright, we will now move to item number 11, AB 1331, Assemblymember Elhawary, whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1331, which strengthens workplace privacy laws to address the rise of invasive employer surveillance. Employers today aren't just using cameras, they're using wearable trackers, facial recognition, speech monitoring, algorithmic surveillance to monitor workers every minute of their shift, on and off the clock.

The communities bearing the weight of this surveillance state aren't the folks sitting in corner offices. It's black, brown and immigrant workers, the ones doing physically demanding low wage jobs, who are tracked, monitored and policed every minute of their shift. In California, nearly half of our low wage workers are Latino.

In regions like the Inland Empire, warehouse workers are disproportionately black and Latino. And let's be honest, these are the same workers who don't feel like they can speak up because they're just trying to keep their jobs and provide for their families.

These are the very communities, black, brown and immigrant workers, who are disproportionately subject to surveillance systems that track, control and monitor every move they make. This kind of monitoring isn't neutral. It increases stress, reduces job satisfaction and strips workers of their basic dignity. AB 1331 will modernize our laws to protect workers privacy.

It limits surveillance in private spaces, off duty locations, and ensures that surveillance of a worker's home or vehicle is only allowed when absolutely necessary.

This bill is about restoring dignity in the workplace and protecting the very people who keep our economy running, black, brown and immigrant and low wage workers, so that they are not forced to sacrifice their privacy just to earn a paycheck. With me testifying in support is Sara Flocks from the California Federation of Labor Unions.

Also with me in support is Shane Gusman with the Teamsters.

Madam Chair, Members, Sara Flocks California Federation of Labor Unions this bill is part of our three bill package to put some guardrails on workplace technology to protect workers this bill specifically goes to worker privacy. And when we say invasive surveillance tools, this is for real. Like we are way beyond cameras and microphones.

Spacewell is a company that has heat and motion sensors that you can put under desks, in ceilings, on doors. You can track who's going in and out. You can monitor parking spots, what they call sanitary facilities, which I believe is a bathroom. Logitech, which makes computer equipment, also makes millimeter wave radar.

I don't even know what that is, but it can basically measure waves. They have recordings that can use computer vision and AI to really sense who's in rooms. Controlio is another product. They monitor keystrokes so they can see what you're typing and how fast you're typing.

That is something that DOGE has instituted for federal workers with concerns about violating classified information. They monitor mouse clicks and they have webcams and retinal trackers that see how long you look away from the screen so that they can see how many minutes you are off task. Why are they doing this?

I think the name of the product, Controlio, really sums it up. They want to have ultimate control on a workforce no matter where they are, if they're on the job, if they're on the shop floor, if they're in their car, if they're at home.

This is really tipping away from safety and security into full, invasive and oftentimes unproven surveillance of workers. The other reason they might want to know where, when workers are off duty, but on, you know, on the premises is when workers start talking about their working conditions, their wages, comparing salaries, talking about unionization.

So this bill is very simple. It does small things to protect worker privacy. We have spoken with the opposition. We want to continue addressing their concerns to get to the intent of the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the Teamsters, co sponsor of the bill, also on behalf of the ATU, the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Machinists Union, Unite Here, the Utility Workers Union of America and the Engineers and Scientists of California, all in support of this important legislation.

Surveillance and monitoring of employees has been a grow, has been growing for some time. Unfortunately, with new technology, algorithms, etc. This practice has now become increasingly invasive and terribly problematic for worker health and safety, privacy and actually productivity.

Employer directed surveillance at times and in places that were once thought of as private and off limits is a trend across many industries. Many of the industries, the unions that I mentioned, have this going on right now. Workplace restrooms, break areas, private vehicles, employees homes, they're all subject to some kind of monitoring technology to protect workers.

We need to consider appropriate guardrails on the use of employee monitoring technology and similar surveillance methodology. In our view, AB 1331 takes a reasonable approach- reasonable approach to ensuring some sense of autonomy and privacy for California's workers. And we urge your aye vote.

Thank you. Do you have additional do we have additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon Madam Chair. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Kristin Heidelbach UFCW Western States Council in support.

Keith Umemoto California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Mitch Tiger with CFT also in support.

Navnit Puryear with CSEA in support.

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

Janice O'Malley AFSCME in support.

Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Jorge Plascencia on behalf of California Coalition for Worker Power in support.

Megan Abell with TechEquity in support

Madam Chair, Members, Louis Costa with SMART Transportation Division in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Chair Members. Kalyn Dean with the California Hospital Association in very respectful opposition. We've appreciated the conversations with the sponsors on behalf of the author's office, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. The safety of our hospital workers as well as our patients are of the utmost importance to us.

Hospitals do not want to infringe on the privacy of our workers and we do not surveil in areas like the locker rooms, lactation spaces and bathrooms.

But in order for us to ensure safety while adhering to workplace violence prevention standards and a host of other regulations, we do use security cameras 24/7 or 24 hours a day, seven days a week. We do this throughout the hospital facilities on the grounds as well as the perimeter of the hospital.

Hospital workers take their breaks at various times, often in areas that are shared by the public, such as the cafeteria or designated smoking areas. While off duty, either to begin or end their shift, workers are likely to be in other public areas like the hospital corridors, stairwells, the parking lot. There are cameras in all of these areas.

AB 1331 is not practical. From a security perspective, the components of the bill would put our healthcare system at higher risk by not being able to observe activity in common areas to include assaults, larcenies, slip and falls, or infant abduction.

One of our hospitals told us that just in the last 90 days they encountered 83 incidents where camera footage played a critical role, such as post incident forensic analysis after staff needed assistance in common areas and criminal activity was reported by visitors in public areas. Badge card readers fall into the bill's definition of workplace surveillance tools.

They control access to medication, access to secure areas, as well as controlling access to restricted areas for employees such as the pharmacy labs, doctor's dining room. If a badge swipe is needed for an employee to access a break room, it would record the time they entered.

We are also concerned AB 1331 would impact our core cybersecurity monitoring to prevent ransomware and cyber attacks. In order for us to comply with HIPAA security rules as well as the National Institute of Standards and Technology cybersecurity framework, we extensively monitor our networks and end user computers to identify activities of risk.

So with that said, we are in respectful opposition to AB1331 and continue looking forward to working with the author's office and sponsors. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and opposition is one of our cost driver bills.

We share the concerns with my colleague from the Hospital Association and believe that many of those concerns also apply to workplaces where there are equally vulnerable populations or where employees have access to very sensitive, for example, consumer data such as at financial institutions, private schools or daycares or retirement communities.

We also have concerns about the impact of the bill on the ability to monitor company owned or company leased property such as company cars or cell phones.

Speaking to the safety aspect of the bill, a lot of times there are monitoring in company owned vehicles to ensure that workers, for example, are wearing seatbelts, that they are driving the appropriate speed limit or not engaging in other reckless behavior.

Also a lot of times, for example in the construction industry you may see things like anti theft measures on very expensive equipment that sometimes has been stolen in previous or for purposes of wage and hour compliance tracking, maybe where a car is assigning folks to certain on location sites, things of that nature. Because of the bill's language,

really the only way to comply here with the requirement that all of these kinds of tools be disabled during a worker's off duty hours, even a 10 minute rest break would be to allow the employee or an independent contractor, which is also included in the bill, the ability to turn off and on those systems themselves, which is not only impractical but also it is not secure and to my colleague's point, would undermine systems that are supposed to be operating 24/7 like cybersecurity.

So I think that even though a lot of the examples provided right, maybe these examples that we're not thinking about your everyday workplace, the breadth of this bill does apply to things like security cameras or some of those anti theft measures.

And so I really would encourage you as this bill moves forward to continue to I think review the Bill as amendments come as we just have a lot of concerns about just how broad this bill is and broad reaching.

Even if some of these examples provided of course sound like things we don't want in the workplace, it reaches far beyond that. Thank you.

Thank you. Additional witnesses. In opposition.

Madam Chair, Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition.

Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association and respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Nick Chiappe here on behalf of the California Trucking Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Tim Schmelzer, Wine Institute and opposition.

Good afternoon Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Margaret Gladstein on behalf of the Security Industry Association and respectable opposition.

Bret Barrow with the National Electrical Contractors Association and United Contractors in opposition.

Chris Walker on behalf of the California Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. In opposition.

Madam Chair, Members Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association. In opposition.

Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers. In opposition.

Bryan Little with California Farm Bureau. In opposition.

Emily Udell, California Credit League. In opposition.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of PRISM as well as TechNet. In opposition.

Matt Easley on behalf of Associated General Contractors of California and the San Diego Chapter. In opposition.

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

Eric Lawyer, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. In opposition.

Seeing no other opposition, I will now turn it over to committee members for question. Assemblymember Ward thank you.

I want to thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward.

Similar to work that this Committee and I've seen last year and feel very strongly about making sure that we're not overusing surveillance technology in a way that is convening personal freedom and freedom of movement and especially the places that I think that you are trying to identify made it for me on its face, you know, absolutely a no brainer.

And then I was very sympathetic to the comments or some of the examples that were given here by representatives from the Hospital Association because of course, if somebody was exiting the facility during down a back stairwell, going to their car, well, I would also want that person protected.

I know harms that come from people outside of these facilities. Right. We want to make sure that there is at least some evidence, if not some deterrence from some of these activities happening.

And so there definitely is a way to sort of meet here as well to try to get some of these parameters right that is going to sort of meet the intent of what we must and we should do while thinking about the implementation of this and some of these real world examples.

And, but, but respectfully, was starting to lose a little bit here on some of these examples here too because I'm not sure how this could be considered a cost driver. I mean, if anything, businesses are paying additional, probably a lot of additional resources for this technology. And some of the examples too.

You know, I'm not, I'm not terribly warm about that. People could be surveilled, you know, off duty, off hours.

But there's got to be a way to be able to thread some of that as well too, because there is personal time and personal space that every person should be afforded and just because as a requirement of doing their job or maybe a relationship to their job, they shouldn't have to lose the right to some of that privacy as well.

So got to work out on some of these details, but I do feel very, very strongly about the intents of what you're doing. I would like to be a co author on this bill if you'd have me, and I'm happy to move the bill.

Additional Comments. Would you like to close? Or address some of the.

Our office. Has been actively engaging with the opposition and we're committed to ensuring this bill is both workable for employers and meaningful in protecting the rights and dignity of workers. I respectfully ask for an I vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

The motion is due pass to Privacy and Consumer Protection Committee. Ortega I. Ortega I. Flora. Flora not voting. Chen. Elhawary I. Elhawary I. Kalra, Kara I. Lee. Lee I. Ward. Ward I.

That measure is out. Thank you. Item number 12 Assembly Member Cholera are you Whenever you are ready.

Sorry, I apologize. Whenever you are ready, please.

Thank you so much. I'm really excited to introduce AB692, which will end the exploitative practice of employers coercing workers into debt agreements, which are oftentimes disguised as basic on the job training, orientation, equipment, loans or other educational programs.

These stay or pay contracts, also known as debt traps, are usually hidden in employment contracts or onboarding paperwork, locking workers into their jobs and holding a debt over them regardless of whether they choose to leave, are fired or are laid off. Debt traps are especially prominent in the transportation, health care, retail, aviation and tech industries.

In recent years, the Legislature has made progress in ensuring workers are not coerced into paying for employer mandated trainings as a condition of employment, as evidenced by AB 2588 by Kalra and ensuring that workers are made whole for any work related costs they incur.

However, employers have been using employer driven debt agreements as a way to hold the worker responsible for training costs within a certain period of time. Threatening workers with financial ruin is not how they should be treated and should not be used as a method to retain workers.

State or pay contracts have also had a chilling effect on the workplace, discouraging workers from speaking out against unsafe or unfair working conditions. For fear of being fired and forced to pay off the debt. AB692 will end debt traps by prohibiting employer debt agreements that require workers to pay their employers a debt if they leave their job.

Regardless of how and would void these agreements as unlawful contracts. Workers should be able to decide where they want to work and not be afraid to speak out without the threat of financial debt or retaliation.

With me today to provide supporting testimony are Sandy Redding, Councilor Presidents for California Nurses Association, and Lee Hepner, Senior Legal Counsel for American Economic Liberties Project. And also for any technical questions, we have Carmen Coste with California Association and Ken Wang with the California Employment Lawyers Association.

Guess it's my turn. I feel right at home. It's nice and cold in here. Like my operating room. Always advocating Good Afternoon Chair Ortega and Committee Members. My name is Sandy Redding. I'm President of the California Nurses Association, representing over 100,000 registered nurses across the state.

CNA is a proud co sponsor of AB692 and as a working operating room nurse for more than 30 years, I've seen more and more healthcare employers use debt repayment contracts to lock nurses into jobs with unsafe staffing and dangerous working conditions.

About 40% of new nurses have had to sign a debt Trap in a trap if a nurse quits, is laid off or terminated for any reason before finishing a minimum work period, usually two to three years, the nurse must pay their employer thousands of dollars for the alleged training costs.

Hospitals recruit new nurses in these stay or pay contracts with the promise of high quality training. But it's a bait and switch. Instead of getting the specialized training they were promised, nurses are simply getting on the job training and orientation that any newly hired nurse receives.

Nurse Traps Nurses in traps are getting the worst shifts that are understaffed and have the sickest patients. I've seen this happen to both newly graduated nurses and to immigrant nurses. Employers use the threat of debt collection to exploit nurses as they get their first nursing jobs.

They're scared of losing their license because they are so unprepared and patient care conditions are so unsafe. But with debt hanging over them, nurses are chilled from speaking out, from advocating for their patients, from being active in their union.

In short, these stay or pay contracts handcuff us to employers that exploit our calling as nurses to care for others. We urge you to pass this Bill to ensure that no worker is locked into a job under the weight of debt to their employer. Thank you for having me today.

Good afternoon Chair Ortega, Vice Chair Flora and Members. My name is Lee Hepner I am an antitrust attorney and Senior Counsel at the American Economic Liberties Project.

Last year we put out a paper called Better Wages and Working Conditions which sought to explain how non competes and De facto non compete agreements like these debt traps bind workers in the workplace, restrict labor mobility, and reduce the ability to of those workers to negotiate for better wages and working conditions.

My colleague from the California Nurses Association spoke to some of the examples in the healthcare industry. I thought I would highlight a few others.

In 2022, a pet groomer named Brianne Scully sued for relief from her employer, PetSmart, the largest retail pet chain store in the country, who subjected her and other pet groomers to $5,000 debt agreements for routine mandatory on the job training.

This was for a job that paid just over California's minimum wage with demanding and often dangerous working conditions. And the primary beneficiary, crucially of this training was petsmart. Their grooming academy trains employees to perform the job that they were hired to perform.

In 2023, a worker brought a case against Smooth Stack, an alleged IT recruiting agency that hires workers under the premise of training them to advance their careers. Instead, those workers are paid under market wages to perform work for Smooth Stack's CL Against Smooth Stack is the beneficiary of this training.

When workers figure out they've been scammed and try to quit their jobs, they're subject to a $24,000 debt agreement. When they are promoted from recruit to consultant, which is a job promotion, they are subject to a renewed $24,000 debt agreement. So this is how workers are being bound in these jobs.

In the airline industry, Kathleen Fredericks sued for relief from a debt trap imposed by Ameriflight, a cargo airline based out of Dallas. Her debt trap was $30,000 and that was after she had obtained her commercial pilot's license in order to get the job in the first place. So you see these agreements being opposed across industries.

Low wage workers, highly skilled workers are all subject to these agreements. And they're really contrary to the foundational principle that workers should be allowed to move and negotiate for the jobs that they wish to work for. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and UFCW Western States Council in support.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Marissa Hagerman with Tratton Price Consulting registering support. On behalf of Economic Security California Action, strong support.

Megan Abel with Tech Equity and support.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Von Fernandez, California Labor Fed proud co sponsor.

Good afternoon. Ken Wang on behalf of The California Low Income Consumers Coalition, in support.

In support, Maria Flores. We're the group here on behalf of the of the Commission of Commission of California. I'm sorry, the Commission foundation of California and support.

Do we have any witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. This Legislature did consider a nearly identical bill AB 747 by Assemblymember McCarty two years ago.

And I think, you know, at the time and now I think from our perspective, we are still not exactly clear on the examples of what is happening that this Bill is trying to correct because labor code Section 2802 very clearly says that an employer must reimburse employees for all reasonable expenses.

And that has been interpreted by courts even as it applies to trainings that if an employer mandates a training that they must reimburse or pay for the cost of that training. It's even been include interpreted so broadly that even if it's something like you're paying for a worker's cell phone, I know, not related to this bill.

But even if you're not losing money as the worker, if it's being used for purposes of work, it must be reimbursed. And the prior bill specifically clarified that 2802.1 that 2802 applies to health care related trainings. And then the Petsmart case did come up two years ago as well.

And from my perspective that, you know, that conduct again is very clearly illegal under existing 2802. And so our concern is that it is not clear where the gap in 200802 and 2002.1 are. And we're very happy to have that conversation.

But I think, you know, the concern that was raised last time around was that if you pass something this broad, you risk losing good programs where employees do benefit. And that is something that my colleague is going to expand more upon. Thank you Madam Chair.

Chris McKealy here on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management. A couple of examples that we found amongst HR professionals certainly are, for example, hiring bonuses in some industries, particularly after, for example, the Covid 19 pandemic had to pay individuals signing bonuses in effect to bring them back to the workforce.

If those people don't commit to staying a certain point, you could have somebody quit the next day or two or three weeks after providing in some instances $5,000 bonuses, for example. If you preclude those, it's not going to happen. That's not going to be provided. Educational programs that benefit individual employees, not just training but educational opportunities.

Those will be shut down. Now perhaps larger corporations or something might continue, but certainly small, medium sized businesses are not going to do that if somebody could derive a bonus or payment for educational opportunities and then depart within a day or two thereafter. We're also concerned about multiple enforcement mechanisms.

Labor Commissioner Minimum $5,000 penalty 17. 200 actions, private right of action, all provided in the Bill. And the last point is that was raised in proponents testimony seems to throw out the notion of non competes and including those in this discussion.

Of course, non competes have been prohibited in California, both under the Arthur Anderson decision as well as a number of statutory changes prohibiting them here in the State of California. Thank you Madam Chair.

Do we have additional witnesses? In opposition.

Madam Chair, Eduardo Martinez here with AltaMed Health Services. We're a large safety net provider in Southern California. We have an opposed unless amended position.

We're asking to exempt voluntary programs that are initiated by the employee that don't relate to the job that they currently have, which we think would address some of the situations that were brought up by proponents today.

Good afternoon. Kaylin Dean on behalf of the California Hospital Association, respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Nick Chappie with the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Eric Lar on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the Urban Counties of California in opposition. Thank you.

Ben Ebbing on the Cal on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition.

Mike Robeson here on behalf of the California Staffing Professionals and the American Staffing Association opposed.

Jacob Brent on behalf of the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

I will turn it over to the Committee Members. Assemblymember Ward thank you.

I want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and I think this is going to be a tricky one to solve because I would get the perspective right that we would not want situations where individuals are being held hostage for commitments associated with employment that are there and not being able to make a fair choice for what's best for them for some of their next steps.

At the same time I would recognize this scenario. It would be deeply unfair if somebody was using an opportunity to get a free training program to become qualified and then would just immediately that's a lot of investment that's there on that person's behalf and then immediately pivot to go somewhere else.

But maybe look, for example, in the case of many of our nurses who work long hours and work really hard to try to better themselves and we have the shortage that we do in and we want to get them into an environment. And so to do that, you should provide that training. We need to accelerate that.

And there shouldn't be this cloud hanging over their head that they're somehow indebted or really tied to, to that employer. What if it's a very hostile work environment? Is that a condition that, you know, a does this indebtedness clause, you know, should be suspended?

So it's going to be a tricky thing to thread, I think, to find this agreement, but I would love to see that explanation explored because there might be those kind of conditions where it's fair and it kind of. And it would make sense.

But in balance, I'm going to err on the side of the employee because I would also hope that with some of the incentives that you are trying to get to get the excellent workforce that you want for your business to succeed, that you're going to continue providing the excellent environment in which is a great place to work.

And so. And there would be no motivation to want to try to exit out of that clause, you know, unfairly from their, their perspective. So I appreciate that we're going to continue to be able to work on this and I'm happy to move the bill.

Vice Chair.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I may, from the attorney's perspective, or a couple attorneys up here, by the way, but how are these contracts written when you, from a traveling nurse, when you come into contract with any type of hospital? Because I am curious if there's a client clause in there that says you can opt out.

I mean, a lot of these facilities have signing bonuses. So if they were to opt out, do they. Does the employee have to pay back their signing bonus at that point if they break that contract? Like, how does that play out in practicality?

I'll just say that I think that the presumption of this question is that these contracts are negotiable in the first instance and that workers who are fundamentally trying to find employment in the first instance are in a position to negotiate the fine terms of that.

And this is where you get this question and this controversy around what is voluntariness in a dynamic where there was already such a great asymmetry of power between employer and employee. Typically these provisions are tucked into a contract and unknown to the employee until the employer seeks to recover the debt after the fact.

Do you see this more with. Go ahead, ma'am. Through the Chair. Through the Chair.

I just want to say a basic premise is that it's not necessarily for travel Nurses. We want to staff our hospitals with community nurses, permanent staff, and we don't want these things in there. And what I'm saying is from the trenches.

I'm a nurse, I work in the hospital, and I also speak to other nurses that are in my hospital. And what's happening is those traps are in there and it's basic training that we used to always get for regular nurses for orientation. I hope that helps.

Madam Chair, I have Carmen Coste from the California Nurse Association for technical.

Thank you. Thank you, Assemblymember Flora, for your question. In terms of healthcare spaces for registered nurses, we see every period permutation of the contract, but oftentimes it is not optional and it's mandated as a condition of employment.

We also have cases where you're in onboarding and slipped in a piece of paper saying, we're offering you training and just sign this. So we have both versions of a mandatory contract that you have to sign sign in order to get or choose your job. And as Sandy Redding pointed out, it's not just for travel nurses.

Actually, this is primarily happening to direct hires where employers will ask new graduate nurses. So these are people who have not worked as nurses whatsoever who don't know that the training that they're being offered is the type of training preception, which is a common type of training for registered nurses, that that is what they're offering.

So they don't even know that this is something that they should not be paying for. So there's no real opportunity to negotiate because they're preying on the most vulnerable employees that are out there.

No. And I think I'll have the opposition to respond. But before you go real quick, sorry. I was just curious because I am curious because I think going back to the core of the question, if. Because we obviously have a nursing shortage, right.

And so a lot of times when we try to recruit folks, there is signing bonuses and those types of things to give them to come into a particular facility, hopefully local community Members as well.

But if we're given signing bonuses and then to your point, if there's something in the contract they're not happy with and they want to move locations, what kind of protection do we have for that facility to kind of deal with that? So then I feel like they're out double on that.

They've given a signing boast to bring in an employee, they've given the training, there is an issue with the contract, and then they move on. Like, how do we address that part of this?

We would argue that, you know, There are other ways to improve working conditions to retain the nurses. I think one of the big things that we're seeing when nurses get into these traps, they are put in the worst shifts.

They don't, you know, they're putting on, putting them on the night shift in ICU without, you know, any real type of orientation, the basic orientation that you would get. Oftentimes nurses are training in the training program, quote, unquote, training program, are training the new trainees. We've seen that multiple times.

So, you know, improving the working conditions is really important to retain nurses. Also, I think one of the important things is that wages could be increased. Other types of incentives to pay workers to stay rather than requiring an employer to claw back those wages.

Really what we're seeing is that employers are using this to get wages back from workers. And in the case of PetSmart, you know, those could be sub minimum wage work once the amount of money is taken back from these workers. So improving wages and working conditions is how we get nurses to stay on the job.

I appreciate that very much. Madam Chair, I would like to opposition, if you don't mind.

Thank you. Yeah, thank you for your question.

I would love to see, I think the language of the contract revisions that you're speaking about, because what I'm hearing I think fits very clearly into labor code Section 2802, which is California Appeal appellate court just a few years ago said that where a Police Department was requiring all newly hired officers to attend a specific training program and if they didn't stay for five years, they had to pay back the cost of that, that was illegal.

That's a violation of 2802. And I think that is also from my understanding from reading the petsmart case, I also think that's already a violation of existing law. So I'm really not, I think clear where, where that gap is. It also sounds like this, this may be a healthcare specific instance, that that might be very unique.

Whereas the bill applies to all employers, all industries. And so that's some of our concern as well. Yeah.

Senator Lee, you had questions?

Yeah, I think some of my questions are being answered. But I know some of these contractual legal questions can be resolved in the next Committee if this bill were to get out with the tough judiciary chair. So hopefully he'll figure that those ones out.

You know, speaking as a nurse family, I do think this is one of those really bad practices and exploitive practices. So I'm happy to ask to be a co author if you'll have me onto this Bill as well, and I'll move the Bill. Thank you.

Would you like to close?

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you to the staff for the excellent analysis and for the questions from Members in the conversation. Ultimately, it's true that there are some programs that incentivize folks to come work there, but that's not being done out of the generosity of the employer. It's being done because there's a demand for that work.

It's a supply and demand issue. And if you have work and are trying to attract someone there, there might be a variety of programs, signing bonuses, what have you that entice them. I don't think that by itself should restrict the freedom of movement of employees.

If they get to the place and they're sold a bill of goods that doesn't live up to what. What they were promised, they should have the right to leave and not feel trapped by debt or by an educational program.

And the reality is that we actually faced this when I was on San Luis City Council with efforts to try to claw back from police, police officers or firefighters to do training, be pushed back against that effort because ultimately it came down to the fact that we are not only going to give them high quality training, we're going to give them high quality place to work.

And if we can't do that and they leave for somewhere else, then that's on us as an employer. And so ultimately, who's in the best position to absorb this type of loss? And I think it's certainly the employer and that the employee should have the ability to seek new employment as they seek fit, as they see fit.

But I think that there isn't some scourge of employees that are just getting signing bonuses and leaving the next day. The reality is that they are being offered bonuses or other programs and in many instances are enjoying that place of work. Stay there. And that's the outcome we want to continue to see grow.

With that, I respectfully asked for an I vote.

We had a motion and a second secretary. Please call.

The roll motion is do pass to Judiciary Committee. [Roll Call] That measure is out.

I will now hand the gave over to our Vice Chair so I can present my bills. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. We'll start with file in 14, AB552, if that's all right with you.

I respectfully ask for your Aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. Members for the opportunity to present AB552. AB552 is a simple Bill that allows the Agricultural Labor Relations Board to establish its principal office in a location besides Sacramento.

Most agricultural workers live in the Central coast and Central Valley and it may be more convenient for those workers to have the main ALRB office located in one of those areas. However, the Bill leaves it up to the discretion of the board. I do not have any witnesses today. I respectfully ask for your I vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Any other additional witnesses in support in the hearing room? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition in the hearing room? See none. Bring it back to the Committee. Seeing no questions from the Committee. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Measures out and we will move on to file item 15, AB 1110.

Thank you chair and Members for the opportunity to present AB 1110 today. AB 1110 is a simple Bill that increases worker awareness of California Cal OSHA safety standards and resources by updating the poster that is required to be posted in all workplaces to include the address, telephone number and email address of the nearest division office.

Ensuring that workers are aware of how to contact their nearest Cal OSHA division office is essential to increasing worker safety. I do not have any witnesses today. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Anybody else in the hearing room in support of AB 1011 or 1110? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition? Seeing none. Bring it back to Committee. Any questions from Committee? See none. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll call]

The measure is out. We'll move on to file item 16. AB 1136

Thank you Members for the opportunity to present AB 1136 today. AB 1136 is a small change with a big impact. This Bill will expand the current definition of high road training partnership to include multi sector programs. AB 1136 makes a small amendment to the definition to clarify that these cross sector Training programs are also eligible for the state HRTP funding. My primary witness support today is former Assembly Member Alberto Torrico.

Mr. Torrico, you have two minutes and I will shut you down.

I would expect no less, Mr. Vice Chairman. Good afternoon. My name is Alberto Torrico, testifying on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Western States Council, sponsors of the legislation. I want to thank Assembly Member Ortega for her ongoing and steadfast leadership and advocacy for working families around the state. As the Member mentioned, AB 1136 is pretty straightforward. Bill just closes the gap on the HRTP funding. We respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you very much, sir. Anyone else in the Committee room in support of AB 1136? Seeing none. Anybody in opposition to 1136? Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee for questions. Seeing none. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much. That measure is out. We'll move on to file item 17, AB 1234. And just so everybody knows, we're going to allow extra time for some interpretation. So for your first witnesses, come on up.

Good afternoon, members. I am pleased to present AB 1234, which will encourage employers to participate in the state's wage claim process. We know that wage theft is a significant problem in California. Workers lose an average of $2 billion annually due to unpaid wages.

As I was preparing my comments for today, I remembered a story which, if you'll indulge me for a minute, I'd like to share with this committee. I started translating for my parents when I was five years old. I learned to speak English watching soap operas.

And my parents, like many other immigrant parents in the State of California, recognized that I had an ability to translate for them. And so I used to go to hospital appointments, doctor's appointments, job interviews, you name it, I went with them to help them translate. And one of those unfortunate times was when my dad's wages were stolen.

He worked as a restaurant dishwasher, and he worked there for 15 years. And I remember very vividly as a nine year old having to go to his boss and ask that the wages that he earned that were stolen were given back. And so this bill is personal. And I'm glad that it's an Ortega bill. Sorry.

Our wage claim process is broken and my dad's story is not unique. Unfortunately, in 2024 we saw a landmark case against the Cheesecake Factory where the Labor Commissioner found that the company liable for $1 million in unpaid wages to janitors who for the first time fought for those wages.

And it took up to nine years for them to be able to get those stolen wages back. Currently, there is also a startling backlog of 47,000 wage claims as of last year. Even if workers prevail on their claim, they are likely to only see a portion of that what was stolen from them.

These significant delays and inadequate awards for workers cannot continue. We must have a sense of urgency in making the system more efficient and more responsive. That is why AB 1234 is so important.

This measure will encourage employers who actually participate in the wage claim process by authorizing the Labor Commissioner to enter a judgment against them when they fail to answer the wage claim complaint or fail to attend the hearing. The bill would also require the defendant to actually explain why they are disputing the claim in their response.

These reforms are common sense and desperately need it. Allowing the Labor Commissioner to essentially close a case when a defendant fails to participate in the process will reduce the backlog and get workers their hard earned money sooner. Now I would like to turn it over to our first witness, Dolores Gonzalez, to share her experience with wage theft. And then Daniela Urban, Executive Director of of the Center for Workers Rights.

Thank you.

Daniela will translate for Dolores.

Thank you very much. Madam Chair, you will have four minutes combined. Thank you.

Okay. Buenas tardes. Good afternoon. Dolores Gonzalez.

My name is Dolores Gonzalez, and i have worked for nine years as a janitor.

Okay.

We were hired by Julio Rodriguez Janitorial. In 2018, we suffered wage theft. Between my husband and myself, I'm owed approximately 32,000 in wages that were stolen from us. As a result, my children, my husband and I were evicted and living in our car. My children had to attend therapy to deal with this trauma.

Since then, my health has declined. After my health declined and with the help of MCTF, we filed a wage claim in November of 2020 to obtain our wages. We had a conference on that claim in March 2022. We thought that the employer would engage, but they didn't show up.

That's why I'm here for my support for AB 1234. This law will encourage employers to attend and participate in the process. It will help employers incentivize that they participate. We are here today still waiting to see justice.

With the support of AB 1234, we hope that we see justice for other workers that are going through the same situation. Thank you a lot.

Thank you so much for your testimony. Anyone else in support of AB 1234? Hi.

Oh

Oh you're the next. Oh, I apologize.

Okay. My name is Daniella Urban. I'm the Executive Director of the Center for Workers rights. For over 10 years, we have helped workers pursue wage theft claims for the California Labor Commissioner's Office. I've seen firsthand how delays in the process and the employer's ability to ignore claims leave workers struggling to recover their hard earned wages.

Last summer, we held monthly workshops to help worker file claims, detailing violations on wages owed and penalties of the claims submitted. During our first session on June 1, 2024 not a single employer has received notice of that claim being filed. These delays are not due to incomplete or missing information. The problem is the Labor Commissioner process itself.

The consequences of these delays are severe and real. For one of the employers who worked with the workers that we worked with on June 1, 2024; 12 more workers have filed claims since June 1, 2024 when we filed claims for three workers. This system is not stopping bad actors from committing wage theft again and again.

One of the biggest reasons for these delays is the employers have no obligation to participate in the process. While cases sit unresolved, workers struggle to survive without the wages they are owed at the end of the process.

After several years later, the worst that happens is the employer is required to pay the same amount they were required to pay at the beginning of the process. No extra costs, no consequences for dragging out the claim.

In civil lawsuits, employers factor in the cost of discovery motions and fee shifting of attorneys fees when deciding whether to fight a case. None of those costs apply to the LCO claims, allowing workers allowing employers to contest valid claims with no downside.

AB 1234 reforms the individual wage claim process to reduce delays in workers seeking justice by creating greater efficiencies in the system and putting deterrence in place for employers who engage in wage theft. The wage claim process is meant to be a low cost, informal way to resolve wage claims, and we want to keep it that way.

Thank you for making this process truly efficient by supporting AB 1234.

Thank you so much. And this time, it's not a drill. Anyone else in support? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Vice Chair. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Leslie Simon, Legal Director for Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund. We're a statewide watchdog group working to eliminate wage theft and other illegal practices. In the janitorial industry, and we are strongly in support.

Hello, assembly members. My name is Edgar Cortes. I'm a member for Center for Workers Rights. Unfortunately, I am a victim of wage theft for nearly two years. And we've been waiting in this process for about two years. And I like to say that I'm favored with AB 1234. Thank you.

Thank you. Name and organization, please.

Mi nombres. Alejandra Chavez.

My name is Alejandra Chavez.

Soy miembro Del Centro Derecho De Trabajadores.

I'm a Member of the Center for Worker Rights. I was abused for wages theft.

El Processos Atardado casidos anos.

This process for me has taken almost two years and I still have not seen any results. I'm in favor of Assembly Bill 1234.

Thank you so much. And friends, I will just remind us it's name and organization only, please. Name and organization, please. That's. It sounded really aggressive. I'm sorry.

Julio Santos. My name is Julio Santos. I'm a Member of the Center for Workers Rights.

My name is Mario Herman. I'm a member of the Center For Workers Rights in support.

Let's just remind them of name an organization and support.

I Support Assembly Bill 1234.

Perfect. Thank you so much.

My name is Marisela Dueñas. I'm a program administrator with Center for Workers Rights and I support AB 1234. Thank you.

My name is Alba Bautista, program administrator of the Center for Workers Rights and. In full support of AB 1234.

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

Support Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. And we're a proud co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California. Strong supporter of AB 1234.

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

Thank you.

My name is Alondra Ramirez. I'm with MCTF. I'm in favor of Assembly Bill 1234.

I'm in favor of Assembly Bill 1234 and I work for the Center for workers. Right. Huh, MCTF.

Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Hi, my name is Rocio Gonzalez. I'm with MCTF and I support AB 1234. Sorry.

Chloe Osmer with Maintenance Cooperation Trust Fund, MCTF, in support of AB 1234. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Dali Sanchez. I am with MCTF. I support AB 1234. Thank you.

Hello. Jorge Plascencia on behalf of California Coalition For Worker Powers in support y gracias por su testimonio.

Thank you very much for the support. Anyone in opposition to AB 1234. Go, anytime you're ready.