Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Do I need to take out the yellow one?

Okay, this is muted, everybody.

Good morning and welcome to the public and Members to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Before we begin, I have several announcements for this hearing. We will be limited substantive testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill and each will have two minutes.

All others may only state their name, organization, if any, and position to the Bill. For Committee Members, since our hearings are public and some travel far to be here in respect of them and the author.

Please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the Bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the Bill is about and why it is needed. If a motion is made during the author's opening remarks, I'll simply say that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time.

For authors, you'll note that our hearing is publicly noticed as file order. Your staff should be monitoring this hearing. Excuse me. To assist you with coming at the appropriate time to present your Bill.

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

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

To address any such conduct, I will direct the individual to stop and warn them that if they continue, they will be removed from participating in this hearing or from the Capitol and will temporarily recess the hearing if necessary, so that the sergeants who are sworn officers can restore order. Hopefully, it won't come to that.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation. Good morning. It looks like we have a quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

We have a quorum.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Before we, we begin with the reminder of the agenda, remainder of the agenda, I will remind everyone that we're limited to two primary witnesses on each side of the Bill and each will have two minutes. It appears that we have enough Members to establish our quorum. Start with file item number one, Zbur.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I'm proud to present AB 460- 465, which is sponsored by AFSCME and SEIU California. This bill will protect city and county employers, employers, employees from unjust employer action by requiring minimum standards for employee discipline and grievance procedures in their Memorandum of Understanding.

Over the past two months, our country has watched in horror as tens of thousands of federal workers have lost jobs or been subject to discipline without warning or justification. Our government employees keep our cities, counties, states and country running and deserve protection from those kinds of actions.

Without these workers- without these workers, life would grind to a halt.

AB 465 will protect California's public sector employees by requiring employers, when requested by a union, to negotiate fair disciplinary procedures and an MOU, including, one a system of progressive discipline that grants due process and includes a just cause standard. Two, a grievance procedure allowing employees to appeal adverse action. And three, reasonable paid- reasonable paid time off for employee representatives when they participate in the grievance process.

The disciplinary process for these employees varies from contract to contract, with no statutory requirements for for warning or corrective measures to be taken before an employer takes disciplinary action. Additionally, there are no mandatory conditions like just cause standards or a required grievance procedure that must be included in collective bargaining agreements.

Collective bargaining units that attempt to negotiate better protections are usually offered a choice between that or a raise, an impossible choice for many Californians who are struggling to meet their family's basic needs. Again, this bill is sponsored by AFSCME and SEIU California. With me to testify in support of the bill is Janice O'Malley on behalf of AFSCME.

Hi, Good Morning Chair Members Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California thank you, Assemblymember Zabur, for authoring this legislation. We're fortunate in the State of California to have strong labor laws and governing bodies that, for the large part, respect collective bargaining agreements.

On the national front, we're seeing an administration unlawfully eliminate the right to collectively bargain for hundreds of thousands of federal workers. Federal workers and other public sector workers, including thousands of AFSCME members, are the lifeblood of their communities. They protect our clean drinking water and food supply.

They clean up our parks after severe, drastic wildfires, they educate our youth and so much more.

We're a country governed under a rule of law and these collective bargaining agreements, particularly related to how or when an employee can be reprimanded or fired by their employer, are basic rights that all workers should have, which is why we support AB 465.

The MMBA was created to strengthen employer employee relations through the establishment of uniform, orderly methods of communication between employees and the public agencies by which they are employed. Yet the law doesn't clearly articulate a minimum set of standards that should be contained in an MOU.

Other states, like Washington State require in state statute that all contracts provide for a grievance procedure that culminates with final and binding arbitration of all disputes. And similarly other states require the establishment of grievance and arbitration procedures.

AB 465 would allow for the represented employee, organization and the employer just to sit down, have a conversation and discuss the best grievance and disciplinary process that works for them. This is mutually beneficial for the employer and the employee. By establishing clear procedures, it allows managers to recognize and address problematic employee behavior before it escalates.

So thank you.

It helps employees to be more productive and perform at higher levels, fosters better communication between employees and managers and increases employee retention rates. Where these provisions don't exist, they are rife with unfair labor practice charges and grievances. Other public sector employees enjoy additional disciplinary procedures. Like classified and credentialed school employees.

They're entitled to disciplinary rights and procedures codified in the Education Code. State employees have the State Personnel Board to ensure fairness and disciplinary actions. But local government employees are not guaranteed fair discipline and dispute resolution. And MOUs can vary wildly from one jurisdiction to another.

Thank you.

We believe there should be a universal fair standard for employee discipline across civil service. And we urge the committee for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other folks out there would like to speak? Please give your name, organization and your position.

Kimberley Rosenberger with SEIU proud to co sponsor this bill.

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

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

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

Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members Louis Costa with the State Safety and Legislative Board of SMART Transportation Division in support.

Thank you. See nor- no more witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Good morning. You will have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair, Committee, Sarah Dukett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California in opposition to AB 465. We are concerned with the requirement that every MOU include a grievance procedure that culminates with compulsory final and binding arbitration for all disputes over the interpretation or application of the MOU.

While binding arbitration is one common means of resolving labor dispute, it remains highly controversial in many contexts, most notably employee discipline. The Attorney General's Racial and Identity- Identity Profiling Advisory Board has studied the effects of binding arbitration on policing practices and noted that using arbitration for peace officer disciplinary appeals raises accountability concerns, according to police scholars.

Arbitration also exclusively reduces disciplinary penalties for officers guilty of misconduct, scholars have also found arbitration also allows for third parties who may not be from the community to make final disciplinary decisions that overturn police supervisor decisions or oppose civilian oversight entities, according to scholars. Arbitration can reinstate fired officers, sometimes with back pay. According to researchers,

the tendency for arbitrators to side with officers is likely because police officers and unions often have the same level of influence over the selection of arbitrators.

The Independent Police Auditors of the City of Palo Alto recently examined the role of binding arbitration in responding to excessive force incidents and similarly concluded that major reductions of discipline by the arbitrator shows the structural and practical deficits of such a system.

The auditor report noted that other common labor dispute resolution mechanisms, such as independent Civil Service Commission or non binding arbitration subject to judicial review, would promote better accountability. Why?

These studies both arise in the law enforcement context, the same accountability concerns may arise from employees entrusted with other critical public functions such as child welfare, public safety, and management of public funds. I bring this up because binding arbitration is not always the appropriate or best in every situation.

Binding arbitration provisions are presently negotiated at the bargaining table where specific needs of the community bargaining unit and potential consequences and trade offs can be discussed and resolved by the affected party and we believe that should still remain negotiated at the MOU.

We do have other practical concerns around the progressive discipline components and its intersection with the current structure for the Civil Service Commission and some of the requirements around release time and lack of guardrails, which is typically negotiated at the MOU. But we welcome further conversation to hopefully resolve those two specific concerns. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members Johnnie Pina with the League of California Cities here today in respectful opposition. As currently understood, progressive discipline is a system of imposing increasingly severe disciplinary action on an employee and an employee's continued failure to meet performance standards or to conform with their conduct to employer policies, rules or regulations.

While the concept of progressive discipline is widely used to ensure procedural due process, it is not appropriate or required in all circumstances.

For example, procedural due process is not generally required for disciplinary procedures that do not result in a loss of an employee's pay or benefits, including written reprimands, transfer without a loss of pay, negative performance evaluation, or economic layoff. However, this bill would impose progressive discipline in all of these instances.

Progressive discipline is put into practice on a case by case basis upon the employee's conduct because progressive discipline may not make sense for particularly unacceptable work performance, egregious conduct, or situations where progressive discipline is unlikely to address the issue. AB 465 would also define progressive discipline.

The definition is problematic because it contains vague phrases such as an opportunity to learn from prior mistakes. The definition is not clear as to what it means to correct future work performance and what is included in a notice of departmental expectations. This lack of clarity will result in litigation and challenging implementation.

We are entirely aligned with the importance of respecting the due process rights of local government employees. However, this bill dramatically expands the scope of existing law and and would prohibit non progressive discipline, particularly regarding at will or probationary employees. There is concern that a particularly egregious behavior may not be dealt with in a proportional manner.

As a result, I respectfully request your- your no vote on AB 465. Thank you.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California and the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed.

Seeing no more witnesses in opposition. I'd bring it. Like to bring it back to the dais. Any member have any question?

I do.

Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I'm trying to understand exactly what this bill does, especially progressive discipline is well, well known and is a very important practice. And in being fair. I'm very familiar with that. Are there some local government MOUs that don't include Skelly in their grievance procedures?

Skelly hearings?

This is a right under. Under the MMBA for employees to have the opportunity to have Skelly hearings. But we took the legal definition for due process and progressive discipline and put it in the bill. But as noted in the analysis, we are removing the reference to the Skelly hearing.

Okay. Thank you.

Assemblymember Alanis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Very familiar with progressive discipline and MOUs as I used to be in my last profession. But I know the thing with binding arbitration is it costs money. Who in this bill is on the hook for it? Go ahead.

Us.

Okay.

And at least our portion. Yeah.

Okay. And if it's found to be in favor of. Not of the employee or not. I mean, does it matter which one? Or is it always going to be you on the hook?

The most part it would be us. Unless we won.

I'm sorry, we can't hear you.

Unless you won. Okay, then. Then. And then I'm assuming the association is now responsible for it or the employee themselves. Who pays for that?

I think the thing we would point out is that if you don't have binding arbitration, there are costs to the alternative dispute resolution, which would be litigation. So isn't that right?

Okay. And then the other thing is, I know you guys had mentioned universal MOU. I know just personally, within my own department, we couldn't keep our own department to stand or one MOU because we had different wants and different ways of working and how we did that. I don't.

Is there anywhere else where they do a universal MOU statewide?

So other states like Washington State, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, at least a dozen states require within state statute what should be contained within a collective bargaining agreement between either the state employees or public sector employees in general. They do refer to having grievance procedure as well as reference to final and binding arbitration. We just feel like they're. You know.

This is at the request of the union. So this doesn't open up all contracts. There are many contracts with our local bargaining units that like their procedures the way it's run. We just want the ability to sit down with our employer, have them not use this as a bargaining chip. Right.

That they can sit down and discuss what. What is a fair disciplinary process, fair grievance procedure. That works for us. Right. And that's all bargained and negotiated at the bargaining table.

Thank you. Go ahead.

I would just say I was. I did some research on Washington. I wasn't able to find those statutes. All I was able to find was the process for their Civil Service Commission that applies to state employees, fire employees, where the binding arbitration was in May.

I wasn't able to find anything for general employees that included all local government. Every MOU is different because sometimes we're dealing with dozens of MOUs, and all of them would have some type of progressive discipline. It might not be universal, but binding arbitration is definitely 100% not in every single MOU.

And it's really based on the appropriateness because we do have a lot of different types of employees from department head, management, public safety, social workers, you name it. So they do vary from bargaining unit to bargaining unit. But there is some type of progressive discipline, but it's not universal.

And like I said, I think there's work we could probably do together, but I would definitely say binding arbitration is not in every MOU.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions? For me thank you guys for bringing this. Excuse me. Thank you guys for bringing this bill. Thank the author for bringing this bill up. Thank you for protecting employees. I do believe that having a universal discipline would be great.

Instead of going county to county, city to city, it protects our employees here in the State of California. And seeing what's happening at the federal level, we definitely need to make sure that we protect employees here in California. And so with that, would you like to close?

Yes. I want to thank all the members today for your questions. I think the thing I commit is to continue working with the opponents on all of the issues they've raised and see if we can come closer together. And with that, I ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, can you please take the role? Sorry, I skipped the motion. Motion by Assemblymember Boerner. Second by Assemblymember Elhawary. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number one, AB 465. The motion is do pass and re refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [ROLL CALL] That bill is out with five votes.

Thank you. Next item on the agenda is AB 792. Assemblymember Lee.

Good morning, Madam Chair. First, I'd like to thank the Committee staff for their work on this Bill. This is a simple Bill, AB792, that seeks to provide more stability and focus for interpreters employed by the courts. Currently, collective bargaining is divided into four regions for court interpreters, although they are represented by a single union.

This Bill simply says that when more than one of these regions are in contract negotiations, then the negotiations can be consolidated.

This will be more efficient and lead to faster resolutions so that both the courts and the union Members can get back to meeting the real challenges, recruiting and building capacity to ensure that everyone has access to courts. With me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez.

Thank you. Two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. And we do have another witness, but they're stuck downstairs so they may not make it. Good morning, Ignacio Hernandez.

On behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters Local 39,000, sponsors of the measure, court interpreters are guaranteed by the California Constitution in criminal cases and in civil cases under civil code and also federal civil rights laws.

Despite the Legislature's significant commitment to court interpreters, including a line item in the state budget, we still need a lot of court interpreters.

What is unique about the situation is that every dollar for court interpreters throughout the state is actually paid for by the by the Legislature out of the state budget, as opposed to out of local court funds. It is a reimbursement model.

One of the challenges for this union is that there are only about 900 court interpreter employees for the entire state.

And the regional bargaining structure has made it very difficult for the union, which is led by full time court interpreters that have to do play both roles to have this round robin negotiations, especially since on wages, the majority of the discussions are about what's going on at the state budget.

I'll tell you personal stories that as their lobbyist for the last few years I've had to send screenshots of the Legislature's vote on the state budget while they're negotiating to prove where we're at in the process.

So these are discussions that are essentially repeated throughout the regions because this really comes down to what's happening at the state level in addition to the need for court interpreters. So the, so the resources and the time are too diminished for the union when they have to bargain regionally.

This was a model that was adopted back in 2001 at a time when they thought it would be much bigger number of court interpreters because that's the need. For these reasons, we think it'd be very helpful and ask for your support.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair. No, my name is Carmen Ramos. I'm the President of the California Court Interpreters.

Are you a primary witness? You could come forward. Thank you. To the desk. You have two minutes. Yes.

So I am the President of Local 39,000, the statewide union for court interpreter employees. And we are proud to be the sponsor of the. Of this Bill. As a longtime interpreter and ass head of the union, I want to thank the Legislature for its ongoing support of court interpreters.

From the annual budget state allocations, to the creation of a very successful workforce development program that has just received 1,100 applications. These efforts are invaluable and necessary. However, despite these efforts, we're still facing challenges in expanding the employee population.

Some local courts are still hesitant and sometimes outright unwilling to take needed steps to get more interpreters into employment. The only ones that are hurt are those individuals who need the language access services to meaningful participate in court proceedings.

We have less than 1,000 employees and by statute, we have a regional bargaining structure that often results in us having to negotiate across the states at the same time. And let me be clear, bargaining can take weeks or even months to resolve, even when some regions are only a couple of hundred employees.

This Bill is helpful because we will be able to address issues across regions. At the same time, the discussion on the state budget is the same across regions. This Bill would streamline labor negotiations and help resolve issues so that we can focus on providing language services to everyone who needs our. Who needs it in our courts.

I ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witness. Any more witnesses in support, please come up. Give your name, organization and your position.

Madam Chair. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. Thank you.

Thank you. See no more in support. Witnesses in support. Are there any witnesses in opposition, please come forward. Seeing no witnesses in opposition. I'll bring it up back to the diet. Yes, Assemblymember Lackey.

Yeah, I'm. I'm confused by what it mean, what, what this multi region demand means. Could somebody help me understand what that means? I could turn over to my witnesses to explain a little bit.

Thank you.

Yeah. Split up into four regions. And so the local courts have a regional bargaining team made up of representatives from various courts and then they meet with the union and then they negotiate. And what has happened over the last few years is that the bargaining has been prolonged. It has taken months and months and months.

Yeah, thank you Assemblymember Lackey for the question. And then I'll, I'll turn over to Carmen if, if needed. The way that California law was adopted in 2000, 2001 is that courts in the state.

Four regions, right?

So what happens is that instead of having one region at a time, they now having multiple regions having to bargain at the same time, which is splitting the union resources into time and energy and having similar discussions in different regions.

So Carmen and others who are full time interpreters and also running the union have to be running around. What would happen here is that they'd be able to sit down at the table with multiple regions at once. There are folks who, for example, who are attorneys for the courts who are also in those bargaining.

So it's some of the same people, though some of the local court representatives are different. So this would be kind of a multi table in one place to be able to discuss these issues all at once. Though you may have, you will have different wages in different regions.

And nonetheless, the discussion about the funding, a lot of this is about reimbursement because the funding is courts pay locally and then they're reimbursed out of the state budget through the Judicial Council. So we're really talking about what protocol, what happens to Judicial Council and the state Legislature. That's the discussion around wages.

That's a big part of it. So that's something that is universal to the region. So it would be in the same way we have representatives from different areas of California here to debate an issue. That's what would happen in this multi bargaining. It's something new.

It's something the union has asked for and they've been told because of the way the statute is set up, that couldn't be done. So it's one way to try this out and see if it will prevent some of the problems that they've had.

In fact, just recently there was close to work stoppage here in Sacramento and this region because they couldn't come to an agreement. Same thing happened in Santa Clara County a few years ago. And part of it is just trying to be more efficient about resolving this.

Okay, well, thank you for that explanation. It's still kind of fuzzy. To me, it seems like these employees are clearly in demand, they're required by law and they're labor represented. I'm not convinced that this really resolves much. So that's where I'm at right now. Maybe I can be convinced.

Move the Bill.

Assembly Member Boerner. We'll come back. Yeah, that's okay. We'll come, we'll come back to the, to the motions. Thank you.

Would you like to just very briefly, Madam Chair, if I may, and I appreciate it. I know Member Lackey and I've talked about lots of bills over the years. I'll just say this.

It is, I can't overstate how I have been surprised in the years that I've represented CFI and the work that Carmen has done over the years, how challenging it has been at the local court level for, for the local courts who take action to actually hire court interpreters.

Despite what you just said, it should be very simple because there's a need, there's a guarantee, but it's not happening. Santa Clara County, for example, more than 50% of their interpreters were independent contractors just in the last few years when the predominant languages are very clear, Spanish and some of the Asian languages, that's.

They know what they are and yet that is what's happening. There are some counties who have zero employees.

That's correct.

So it's hard to explain. Even though the funding has been 100% paid for by the state and even in the down economic times, that dollar amount in the line item in the state budget has never decreased. So it is off record and off time.

Maybe we can talk, but it's one of those things that's mind boggling to see how difficult it has been to get interpreters hired at the local courts, despite the fact that every dollar is there. And every year the local courts tell Carmen and the union we're not sure if the Legislature is going to fund interpreters.

So we're not going to hire. That's what's going on.

I also wanted to just chime in and say that streamlining of the wage structure would greatly help us achieve more incentives for employment. Because as of now, what's happening is the workforce, because it's a hybrid. The Interpreter act is a hybrid model of employment.

When you add to that having to bargain each region, it doesn't streamline the wages. And the independent contractors that shy away from employment tell me, I work with them, that is the wages that stop them from becoming employees.

So if we have a way to streamline that process and have the wages bargained multi regionally, it will help us create a wage structure that would attract more employees to each court.

Thank you, Assemblymember Alanis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. You talk about streamlining for wages. So I know we talked about regions are going to be different in different regions, but it's the streamline that you're talking about is this going to be across the board? Is this going to be across the state? Is that what your streamlining is?

Yeah. The way the Bill is drafted, Assemblymember is that if there were multiple regions bargain it in the same year, then that's when this Bill would kick in. It is not a requirement going forward. It's only when the region by region model is breaking down. Because now you have multiple regions bargaining.

They're supposed to be in different years, but because they're prolonged, they end up in the same year. So that's when this would kick in and that's when we say, okay, since we have multiple regions going on at the same time, we're all going to sit down and try to figure it out.

Okay. And then also you had mentioned that we would try this out. Is there a sunset on this Bill then?

No, I, you know, sometimes I, you know, I just speak. I think we said that because we've put forward a number, the union has put forward a number of different ways to try to improve the process and other things haven't worked.

And so this is when I say we try it, meaning that we think it will work, we think it'll be helpful. We think there are other things that can be done that go much further than this. But we decided to ask for what we think is a more modest proposal.

I think probably some of the challenges may be that maybe there's more that can be done. We agree. We think there's probably a lot more that could be done to make this happen. We just didn't ask for that this year, at least in the Bill at this, at this juncture.

So we said we tried is that this is where the union sat down and decided this would work for them. And so I know there may be questions, but it's coming directly from the folks who are in the room having to bargain constantly over the last few years.

So this is the model, this is the approach that they think will be very helpful.

Thank you. And then you guys, you guys talked about independent contractors. Is there something in, in your MOU or anything that has been negotiated that does not allow or only allows so many independent contractors?

Because I, I would think that as most labor unions out here would rather have their own labor union workers as opposed to independent contractors. How's, how does that work?

The Interpreter Act and the MOU has 100 day limit in the days that contractors can work. But as of now, unfortunately what's happening is the contractors are having to move from county to county to be able to work and keep up with the 100 day rule. But because of the wage issue, they don't apply for employment.

So we believe that this Bill will allow us to sit at the table with the courts and truly have a conversation of what's going to take to incentivize the employment and bring a stable workforce to each one of the courts. We did request for statewide bargaining.

I did request that this year, actually last year I started requesting it from the different courts and they declined to do that because of the regional system. And so this is a way, I think that in talking to a few of the courts, they are very much open to it.

But because there are many courts as signatures who pointed out that don't actually have employees, the CEOs are not, you know, they don't see exactly what how would benefit them because they don't deal with employees, they don't incentivize the employment. Actually we have filed grievances because they are using non-certified interpreters in some of these remote courts.

Many grievances and they don't post employment. There's one particular county that we had to file a grievance and we realized that they were not even posting employment for a Spanish interpreter that they need daily. They need at least two or three

And just a couple more. Who certifies the interpreters?

The Judicial Council.

Okay, and what is the. I don't know if you know these numbers. What's the difference in pay between an independent contractor and somebody who works under the contract with.

It's actually the difference in pay is pretty big. What has happened is throughout the years because the independent contractors are allowed to negotiate with the courts for the per diem, they, some of the independent contractors are charging quite a bit. There are non certified interpreters that are charging over $2,000 a day.

Some others that are certified are charging $1,500 a day, $2,000 a day. Our wages are approximately $400 a day.

And so do you think by making these four regions come together that you're going to get wages that are $1,500 to $2,000 a day?

No, but I think that is going to, we'll be able to have a discussion about what incentives the court needs, needs to provide for employees for the courts to staff more employees instead of contractors.

Well, this is just me thinking out loud, but I think you almost need to put a cap on the independent so that way they don't be able to go over the labor. That's just me thinking out loud. We'll talk to you later about that.

Good job.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Members? Well, you took all my questions. I was going to ask about the pay. You stole all my thunder because I was going to ask about the pay.

Because if I look at this and I can make $2,000 a day or $400 a day, I would make the $2,000 a day. I don't think that this is helping the budgets also of these courts as we go forward.

We know that our people need interpreters and we want them to not have a language barrier to go to the courts. But we also look at these employees and it's really unfair to pay someone 1500 or $2000 a day. And then the employees are paying for also they're not putting into their retirement benefits.

And so that's very important to me as well. So I thank you for bringing this up. Would you like to close?

Yes, I would thank the Committee for its robust conversation, its questions. You know, this is a Bill that's simply about efficiency and making sure there is more language access in our courts.

When our court interpreters who are busy interpreting the law and making sure their clients understand what is happening in their court case, or if more of their hours are sucked up in negotiations as they're trying to do this, this is all about efficiency.

If they can spend less of the time negotiating and more time translating and figuring things out for people, the more effective our justice system could become. And if it's more efficient hiring system, we can keep more people who can speak the languages of California in the court system. So respectfully ask your aye votes for the simple Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. A motion was made by Assemblymember Boerner and seconded by Assemblymember Elhawary. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number two. AB 782. Motion is due pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. McKinnor.

Aye.

McKenna. Aye Lackey.

Sorry, not voting.

Lackey. Not voting. Alanis.

Not Voting.

Alanis. Not voting. Boerner.

Aye.

Berner. Aye. Elawari.

Elawari. Aye. Garcia.

Aye.

Garcia. Aye. Nguyen. We have sufficient votes. We'll place this on hold.

Aye.

Thank you. The next file item is AB 1309 Flora.

Thank you, colleagues, Chair. I've never been more nervous of present a firefighter compensation bill with two cops on the dais. So here we go. But thank you for taking the bill. Pleased to present AB 1309. It improves compensation for CAL FIRE firefighters by ensuring their salaries are more competitive with local fire departments.

AB 1309 will assist CAL FIRE in meeting the needs of the state during what has been a consistently and increasingly becoming an annual statewide fire season. With me to testify in support is Terry McHale, represent CAL FIRE Local 2881.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates, representing CAL FIRE Local 2881. First of all, I want to say, Madam Chair, this analysis is full of action verbs. It looks like Mr. Bolden is going to take over the English Department or the History Department at UCLA someday.

It's quite exciting of a read. The truth is, CAL FIRE is the most diverse fire department in the United States. It is also the largest fire department in all of the Americas. This bill is not a formula bill.

What it ostensibly says is that they will take the 20 departments that HR has focused on and will decide on a salary within 15% of the average. They will no longer be the lowest paid, but they will certainly this will not make them the highest paid.

The second element of this bill that is different from last year is that Assemblymember Flora made it more organic by adding a cursory survey of the chief. Madam Chair, and committees, what CAL FIRE does is extraordinary and no less than the leaders of both houses have said that CAL FIRE is the gold standard of firefighting.

And to be the chief, and that's what they should call him, they call him the director because it goes back to the old days when it was a division of forestry. The chief of CAL FIRE has to be a brilliant strategist because he has to know how to fight these fires.

But he also has to be an extraordinary administrator with over 10,000 employees in a time when it's not easy to be a boss. This is an excellent bill. We appreciate that a former firefighter is carrying it and we ask for your support. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Please give your name, organization and position.

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

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'd like to bring it back to the Members. Assemblymember Lackey?

Yeah, I don't have any questions. We tease a lot about law enforcement versus firefighters, but we all have a first response to very difficult circumstances to manage. And certainly this is a fairness bill and I'll be happy to support it.

Thank you. Assemblymember Alanis.

I had a joke, but I'm not going to do it now. But I want to echo the same comments my colleague made. Obviously, we do have our joking back and forth, but when it comes down to it, we're here to take care of everybody, make sure they're safe.

And making sure that they're fairly compensated is very fair as well. So I look forward to supporting this.

Thank you. Anyone else? Assemblymember Elhawary.

I'm just really grateful as we continue to, you know, see just the impact of the wildfires that we're really compensating our firefighters well given the incredible work they do.

The statistic you mentioned about CAL FIRE being the largest fire department in all the Americas, like we shouldn't be paying them minimum wage for, you know, their entry level positions. They're doing incredible work and we really want to show that we support them because they're keeping us safe as well. So thank you for this bill.

Thank you. Also, I'd like to thank the author for bringing this bill. The firefighters did an incredible job in LA County. We had such a huge disaster, losing over 18,000 structures. And so just thank you, thank the firefighters for the work that they do with that. Would you like to close?

I appreciate the Committee and the analysis and it is an important bill for me. It's very personal. You know, a lot of the friends that I served with back in day are now chiefs. They're still with CAL FIRE to this day. It's incredible organization and bringing the chief-- and I appreciate Terry bringing that up.

He should be called a chief, not a director. Bringing chief into that and making sure they're compensated as well so they can stay on the job. We need men and women who are competent. We need them to pay them and compensate them properly. So I appreciate their support and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Is there a motion. Motion by Assemblymember Elhawary. Is there-- Second by Assemblymember Alanis. Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number 3, AB 1309. The motion is due pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call] This has sufficient votes, so place it on hold for add ons.

Thank you. And I didn't know you were a firefighter.

The next item on the agenda is a AJR 8 Schiavo.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for allowing me to present AJR 8. We know that Social Security is our nation's most important source of retirement income, disability, and life insurance for over 6 million Californians, including seniors, veterans, and those with severe work disabilities.

The program provides cash benefits and health insurance and benefits to over 800,000 children, which a lot of people don't realize. Social Security also prevents more than 1.4 million older Californians from living in poverty and lessens the depth of poverty for millions more.

We must remember that Social Security system is one where those now receiving benefits paid into those systems their entire working life on the promise that it would return to them when the time comes and they would receive those benefits that they're entitled to. So it's not a Ponzi scheme, as has been misrepresented by some folks.

Eliminating Social Security services or payments means that those retirees will not see that investment that they've made come back to them, throwing their entire retirement security into jeopardy. Most people are planning their retirements around some source of Social Security.

Pulling the rug out from under them and countless families and parents is simply not an option that we should even be considering. And some back of the envelope calculations, we find that on average, $1 billion is invested into each assembly district through Social Security benefits.

While Social Security is foundational to the health and economic security of so many Californians, the current acting Director of the Social Security Administration threatened to shut down the administration just last week and has already fired 7,000 workers.

We must be clear that closing the closing of Social Security field offices, laying off staff and personnel, or generally making it harder to access Social Security benefits will result in more poverty and suffering for the elderly and disabled community here in California and across the nation.

It's important that more than ever that we send a strong message to the Federal Government that any Social Security cuts will devastate our most vulnerable communities, and it's simply unacceptable. With me to speak in support of AJR8 is Keith Umento. Sorry. And I just know him as Keith, with the California Alliance of Retired Americans. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, good morning. My name is Keith Umamoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans. Many of you know us as CARA. We represent 300 organizations and approximately a million Californians. We're supportive of AJR 8. And let's look at history.

In four months, we will celebrate the 90th anniversary of the Social Security Act, a landmark achievement that transformed the lives of hundreds of millions of Americans and tens of millions of Californians. When Social Security first became law in 1935, half of older Americans lived in poverty. They panhandled or simply died impoverished.

A tragic reality faced by one in two. At the time it was enacted, Social Security changed that. Today, 10% of older Americans live in poverty because of Social Security. Here in California, the impact is just as profound. One in six Californians receive Social Security. 13% are veterans, and almost that same percentage are people with disabilities.

Over 1 million Californians are lifted outside the poverty line. But that's just a sample. Let's remember that Social Security is an earned benefit that you pay for, that our employers pay for. And when you look at that, this is not something that government just gives out.

It is something that all of us have paid into the system and receive our Social Security benefit when we are eligible. Now consider the impact that Social Security were reduced. We already faced homeless crisis. Let me give you a couple of numbers. The average rent in California is $1750. The average Social Security is $1865.

And the median, meaning half, are getting $1766, which is the cost of the average rent. United Way estimates that a single adult needs about $34,000 a year to live and meet their basic needs, food, shelter, and transportation. Social Security isn't just important, it's essential.

Anyway, we've heard our elected officials in the campaign trail support Social Security and they're not going to cut it. Let's hold them to that line. We urge you to support AJR 8 and the millions of Californians that are beneficiaries and the millions more that will be beneficiaries as long as we keep it intact.

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

Madam Chair and members, Caitlin Vega for the California Federation of Labor Unions here in strong support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in strong support.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Please come forward. Seeing no witnesses in opposition, we'll bring it up to the dias to the members. Any members have any comments or questions?

Move the bell.

Assemblymember Lackey?

Are you asking for a second?

Well, I'm asking first do you have any comments or questions?

Yeah, I have a comment. Clearly, Social Security deserves to be supported. There seems to be a lot of, I don't know, politicizing of this particular issue that disturbs me and it becomes a political football and should not be. It should actually be something that's based in pragmatism and in need and in demand. And I.

My frustration is when you start naming political figures by name in this kind of delicate situation, I think it's a distraction instead of a benefit. Excuse me. And so I would be fully comfortable if the name of political figures are removed from this and focus on what it accomplishes, I would be comfortable supporting it without hesitation.

But I think once we start including names of elected officials, I think it becomes a distraction and becomes polarizing, and we don't need polarization right now. Anything that feeds polarization, I resist.

Thank you. Anyone else, any other members? Well, in the17th this morning, I woke up while last night I went to sleep and Senator Cory Booker was speaking on the Senate Floor.

I woke up and in his 17th hour, he and Senator Schumer talked about Social Security and the 7,000 workers that have been laid off and the offices that have been closed and how hard it is for our elders to get to a Social Security office or to call in because there's no one to answer the phones.

This is a serious, serious problem, and Californians will suffer if they don't have Social Security. So I thank the author for bringing this forward. This is so serious to our elderly, to our disability community. And so again, I commend you. Would you like to close?

Yes. I mean, I think our witness really pointed out we don't have to guess what's going to happen if Social Security is in fact, you know, taken away, threatened, harmed. We saw 50%, you know, poverty levels amongst our seniors.

We know that already this is not enough to cover the expensive and high cost of living for folks, that seniors are the fastest growing community in the homeless population and that we need to, in fact, do more to support seniors and keep them out of poverty, not doing less.

This is a threat that will in fact make seniors homeless, and we cannot allow that to happen. So respectfully request an aye vote on a AJR 8.

I'm sorry. The motion was made by Assemblymember Boerner. Can I get a second? The bill was seconded by Assemblymember Garcia. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number four, AJR 8. The motion is be adopted. [Roll Call]

I'll support it now, but if that my remarks are ignored, I may change my vote.

[Roll Call] We have sufficient votes, so place it on hold.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Next on the agenda is AB 1247 Garcia.

I have my talking. Thank you right.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1247 a Bill that addresses the increasing issue of contracting out public sector jobs particularly within our school districts and community colleges.

Classified school employee positions are especially vulnerable to being contracted out. Jobs such as instructional aids after school program instructors, security officers, custodians, and countless others are now commonly performed by employees of outside contractors with predictably concerning results. These contracted workers rarely receive all the training required of direct hires, this means countless education workers across California have not received legally mandated instruction on how to perform CPR, how to prevent sexual harassment or even how to report child sexual abuse among other critically important subjects.

Despite not meeting the proper job qualifications or possessing the same experience required of direct hires, workers who are contracted by private third parties often make 5 to 10 dollars more per hour than their directly hired counterparts. Furthermore contracted workers are prohibited from participating in CalPERS leaving them with inadequate retirement security and significantly reducing both worker and employer contributions to that system.

AB1247 ensures that we can fill that concerning gap in CalPERS funding as well as guaranteeing our schools have fully trained and qualified staff. This Bill will protect our classified school employees and our students by furthering wage parity, training quality, and by creating a more equitable hiring system for all.

With me to testify I have Mitch Steiger representing CFT and Navnit Puryear on behalf of Classified School Employees Association.

Thank you, you have two minutes each.

Thank you Madam Chair, Members. Mitch Steiger with CFT - A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, proud to sponsor this Bill for all the reasons stated so well by the author. We just think that to help illustrate the severity of this problem an example might might be helpful.

This issue was brought to us by Members from our classified division who raised the situation and this is very indicative of what it's like in a lot of schools where the before and after school programs, in this one school they have 10 employees only three of which are direct hires so seven of them are contracted out workers.

Meaning that the majority of workers there likely have not received the mandated reporter training so should a child present with signs of abuse it's very likely that most of the workers there would not recognize those and would not take the necessary action to prevent that child or to protect that child from future harm.

There are also requirements related to depending on the working conditions a lot of different safety hazards at work from indoor heat to outdoor heat, bloodborne pathogens, there's sexual harassment training that everyone has to receive according to our Members who work there it's very obvious that the contracted outworkers have not received any sort of training at all.

Creating all sorts of harm not just to the workers but also to the students there and in addition to that when they when they talk to these students or when they, sorry, when they talk to the contracted workers it's pretty clear that they haven't worked with children.

They're very young and they're often uncomfortable working with children so they'll refuse some pretty important tasks like changing diapers, they may refuse responsibilities like working on Fridays, leading to a situation in the words of one of our Members who works there it's, quote, like having a few more kids to take care of, which is not something that, that we think a burden that we should add to those Members' already very busy schedules.

And so what this Bill does is look at that situation and improve the training not just for those workers but for everyone so that the intent of why those trainings are in law, why they're there, we can do a much better job of translating those into reality.

My colleague from CSEA will talk a little bit more about contracting out, just wanted to quickly mention that we understand the health care and contribution idea, requiring contributions on behalf of those contracted workers is a new one and so we're committed to working out exactly what that needs to look like so that it works for all the different entities involved.

So we're not necessarily wedded to that language that's in the Bill now but the concept is one that we think is very important and we're committed to working with everyone to make sure that it works well.

Thank you we urge your support.

Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. My name is Navnit Puryear and I'm here today on behalf of the California School Employees Association, a union representing 250,000 classified public school employees throughout the state.

We are proud to support AB 1247 which would require contacted classified school employees to meet the same training and job qualifications as direct hires. Classified school employees are the backbone of our TK through 12 schools and community colleges they ensure schools are clean that children are fed and get to school safely.

However school districts frequently contract out classified positions such as school custodians, security guards, and paraeducators. Contract employees do not have to meet the same qualifications as direct hires and they rarely receive all the training required of direct hires such as CPR training, sexual harassment training, or even how to report child sexual abuse.

This leaves students unprotected and exposed, exposes school districts to potential lawsuits. CSEA members often live alongside the students in the communities they serve contract out employees do not. These jobs eliminate local benefited positions but also commonality between adults and the students and, the, that share the same neighborhoods.

Now more than ever it's imperative that students feel they can relate and trust the adults on school campuses so for these reasons we respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any further witnesses and support please come forward and give your name organization and your position.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support thank you.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

I'm not that tall I swear. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you are there any witness in opposition please come forward. Good morning, you'll have two minutes each. Thank you.

Good morning Chair and Members of the Committee. Brianna Brens on behalf of the California County Superintendents representing the 58 county superintendents of school. Thank you for the opportunity to share our respectful opposition with you today and thank you to the Assembly Member and his staff for taking the time to meet with us to discuss our concerns.

We remain concerned that this Bill imposes burdensome restrictions on contracting out services and creates costly training requirements for classified employees. With the existing education workforce shortages adding administrative hurdles only delays the supports for our local educational agencies and the students that they serve.

Many schools rely on contractors to support urgent or temporary staffing needs yet this Bill significantly limits their ability to do so. The requirement that employers demonstrate a contracted worker meets or exceeds the minimum qualification for direct hires creates yet another barrier to quickly filling these critical roles. Moreover the requirement that trainings allow for real time questions and answers and that those specified trainings be conducted in person present serious logistical challenges.

Many schools rely on these virtual trainings to efficiently and effectively train up to thousands of employees. This Bill would eliminate that flexibility complicating compliance and increasing costs. Finally we appreciate the Committee's analysis pointing out the confusing terms used to describe the health care and retirement benefit contributions as well as the potential conflicts with state and federal laws. For these reasons we're here to strongly urge your no vote on this Bill.

Thank you Madam Chair and Members. Jeff Vaca representing the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools and also this morning the California Association of School Business Officials and the Alameda County Office of Education. We too are part of the coalition that's in opposition to the Bill.

Thank you.

Building on the comments of my colleagues at Riverside County Office of Education we work very hard to to reduce the amount of contracting out that we do so that it really is limited from our perspective to situations where there is an urgent or temporary and or temporary need for assistance we've brought all of our custodial services which used to be contracted out to a significantly back in house with some very limited exceptions.

We also operate a significantly large conference center at our campus in Riverside and all of our food services are RCOE employees and they handle all of the catering for events that are held there as well as operating a cafe that serves breakfast and lunch every day.

Some exceptions to that you know we have a number of 80 to 100 foot trees on our campus that in our, from our perspective it's a safety issue, we bring in folks that have qualifications to trim trees of that size, but we, our grounds crew handles just about everything else.

In Riverside RCOE is also the largest provider of early education services in the county. We operate quite a few Head Start programs and migrant Head Start programs out in the Coachella area of Riverside County, those programs carry with them pretty strict adult to student ratio requirements and as a last resort we do contract out in some instances for those programs to ensure that we're able to meet those requirements both at the state and federal level.

The folks that come in in those programs though regardless of whether they're an RCOE employee or a contracted employee those, they are mandated reporters if they are in that setting, so they are required to go through the mandated reporter training that for example I go through every year as an employee of RCOE.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any further witnesses in opposition please come forward. Give your name, organization and position.

Good morning Madam Chair, Members. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. We don't have a formal oppose at this time. We have strong concerns because of our internal position-taking process is not finalized till next Monday but we share the same concerns expressed by the opposite position thank you.

Thank you seeing no further witnesses like to bring it back to the Members. Any questions or comment Assembly Member Lackey.

Yeah more just a comment, and, that, I commend the author for his intent. I see where he's coming from but having served on, excuse me, board of trustees for a period of time and budgets are quite complicated, and especially in our rural regions this is not realistic. I think the application is the problem and so therefore I'm not in a position to support it and I apologize for that.

Assemblymember Alanis.

Good morning and I have the same comments, I also thank the author. I see what you're trying to do. I recently had a meeting with the superintendents from one of my counties that I represent and they were talking about all the, the loop, or not the loopholes but all the challenges that they had to just bring in a substitute teacher.

And this I just going through with the physical requirements the scores exams everything else that has to go through I could just see that being even more challenges to them. I know some of their, some of their schools have like one custodian who covers that whole school and if they're sick the others will try and cover but that's not really going to happen either and so I just I see the restrictions making that very hard for them and I can I could already hear what is going to go on with that if they're pushed to the same requirements that the Bill has before us.

But I am curious on either opposition or the supporting side working on Fridays and changing diapers, is that, how often does that come up or like is there specific areas?

I can't speak to how often it comes up but those are specific examples cited by our Members who work in that situation where there are only three direct hires and seven contracted out workers that specifically those workers have refused to change diapers which then means that our workers have to do all of that,

And the company that the school is contracting with will allow the workers to not work certain days if they want to so it's part of why, you know, it's such an issue for our Members and that in addition to them not having in addition to them having to take over a lot of those duties the contracted out workers make more money. Sometimes they can make 5 to 10 dollars an hour more. So it's it's creating a pretty difficult situation in our schools but I can't speak to how often those happen but it is a specific example that was raised by our Members.

Okay and I could see an example happening and maybe there's a few more I just I just don't want to say that that's probably a fair representation throughout the state I don't know if you guys have had any of those issues.

Assemblymember I'm not aware that that issue has not been brought to my attention, you know, which is not to say that it hasn't occurred I'm just not aware of that having happened at any of our programs.

Gotcha and I understand the concerns also that same issues we brought up with prior bills with the differences in pay. Obviously there was a much more bigger difference in pay on the other Bill but I also get that with employers also sometimes it is cheaper for them to hire and bring somebody in because then they're not paying for vacation time, sick time, everything else that goes with it by having a full time employee so I understand also. I look forward to working with you and being a yes with you on the floor but I also can't support this yet, thank you.

Any other Members? For me I have a couple of questions. are these employees getting fingerprinted, because I know if you're on schools you should get, the independent contractors sorry, are they also getting fingerprinted to make sure that they're not, they have the right backgrounds to work on schools.

Yes they are.

Okay, and the other training well you say they're mandated, they are mandated reporters, because they also can't be on campus without being mandated reporters, correct.

That's correct. At least in Riverside County. I can, I can speak for in Riverside County.

So I'll bring the question to you guys, the support .

According to our Members the workers who are brought in as contracted out workers haven't received any of the training and whether or not they've been fingerprinted or mandated reporters it tends to vary based on where they are, and it may vary from worker to worker, but that it's not at all clear in current law that all the contracted out workers have to meet all those requirements. And if they are all meeting the requirements then that should make the Bill pretty easy to comply with but what we keep hearing is that that's not the case.

Well that's extremely important because people shouldn't be on campuses without being trained without being fingerprinted and without having that mandated reporting training, that is, we have to protect the kids first because that's what I'm pretty sure the author is trying to get to here

And I hear time and time again about these independent contractors so some people are working in the schools but they're working independently. We have to get permanent employees in all of these positions that we've talked about today We have to get permanent employees that way these employees are getting medical, they're getting health care, and they're also contributing to our retirement system,

And it's, it's better for them even if they're making 5 or 10 dollars more, the $1000 more might be different but the 5 and 10 dollars, 5 and 10 dollars more, you know, we, we have to try and fill these positions so I think we have a bigger problem but with that would you like to close?

Thank you Madam Chair. Yeah and I want to say thank you to folks for bringing the concerns regarding the Bill. I do want to say so this Bill does not prohibit contracting out. What it does do is make sure that the standards are the same, and so in terms of the trainings that are required is that those that are contracted out have the same trainings.

And it's all for the purpose of keeping students safe. as an assistant principal I can tell you that we had AED trainings, we had CPR trainings, we had mandated reporter trainings and for the outside contractors like the ELO-P that's a separate organization we don't know what they have done or what they haven't done and so really it's to keep everything on parity, make sure to keep our students safe.

And so yes I wanted to address those concerns and so the other thing is also it's an issue of fairness I think we discussed that earlier already. Like I said this is not meant to be a disincentive for contracting out what it is supposed to do is make sure that the system as a school board Member, CalPERS, you know our district had to Fund at 25% hovering around that percent.

And the more contracting out there is, it takes out of that system and it's an issue of fairness and so that is the intent of the Bill, make sure that we have standards that apply to all and making sure that our system does not continue to be underfunded.

So with that I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, the motion was made by assemblymember Boerner, can I get a second? Second by Assemblymember Elhawary. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item number five AB1247 the motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Higher Education. Mckinner.

Mckinner aye. Lackey.

Aye.

No.

Lackey no. Alanis.

No.

Alanis no. Boerner.

Aye.

Boerner aye. Elhawary.

Aye.

Elhawary aye. Garcia.

Garcia aye. Nguyen.

Aye.

Aye.

Nguyen, aye. That Bill is out five to two. Thank you.

Next item is AB 288 McKinnor. I'm turning the chair over to Assemblymember Lackey.

Okay Assemblymember McKinnor, you may begin when ready.

Thank you. Mr. Chair and Members, AB 288 will protect a California worker's right to organize and collectively bargain by authorizing the Public Employment Relation Board to respond to remedy a claim that is not remedied by the National Labor Relations Board by their statutory deadline.

Members, it is no secret that workers across this nation are under attack by the current administration. DOGE is taking a wrecking ball to our federal workforce making it more difficult for our veterans to receive their benefits, more difficult for our seniors to access their Social Security and Medi-Cal benefits, more difficult to protect disabled students and more difficult to fight hunger and food insecurity.

The federal government is also attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees. I'm fundamentally right to join a union and collectively bargain for fair wages and safe work conditions.

How exactly is the federal government doing this? Well on March 28th, 2025, NLRB Member Gwen Wilcox was removed from the National Labor Relations Board making the board lose its quorum and effectively preventing the NLRB from being able to make any decisions to take any actions that would allow a worker to join a Union and collective bargain.

That's right in the middle of all the federal chaos last week this Administration has also effectively prevented any worker public or private from being able to join a Union into the foreseeable future. This is unacceptable and frankly un-American. California will not sit idly as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize due to the employer or federal inaction.

AB 288 respects federal labor law but affirms that if California workers are unable to get a remedy at the federal level California can act to protect a worker's fundamental right to organize. The right to join a union and bargain collectively is essential to the state's economy and security and the human dignity of all California workers.

AB 288 ensures that California workers can continue to exercise this right even in the face of one of the most anti-worker Administration in this nation's history. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 288.

The witness today is Brian Weston, Amazon warehouse worker and teamster member, Jeanine Roberts, Amazon delivery hub worker, Sara Flocks, California Labor Federation for technical questions. Thank you.

Good morning everybody, thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Brian Weston and I'm here to, I'm an Amazon teamster in San Francisco. Me and my co workers organized the first union of Amazon warehouse workers in California.

I need your support our movement for good jobs in California. We organized a union at Amazon because we need a voice. We are overworked and endangered on a daily basis because Amazon understaffs the warehouse. We are are managed by algorithm and can be fired because of a computer error.

Amazon thinks it's above the law and it believes that the Constitution doesn't apply to its warehouses. We exercise our First Amendment rights and organized a union in October and then we went on the biggest strike in history at the company. But at every turn Amazon has ignored the law and refused to come to the table and negotiate over the low pay and the dangerous work conditions.

Amazon thinks it can get away with it it has been six months and the National Labor Relations Board has yet to hold amazon accountable for breaking the law and refusing to bargain with us. It is truly a case of justice delay, justice denied but you can have an impact, we need you our elect officials to step in and I urge you to pass AB 288 and protect the rights to organize here in California.

This law will ensure that when California workers unionize the state will be a backstop to protect our constitutional rights. Never again should our hopes and dreams as working people be cut short by greedy companies like Amazon. Thank you.

Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Jeanine Roberts and I work at an Amazon delivery station in San Francisco. In October we won our union and we are now proud teamsters, but the government has not had our back. Amazon treats us like we're disposable, every day we put our safety on the line to meet amazon's unreachable demands and unquenchable thirst for profits.

I know what that can lead to. My mom also worked at Amazon and after a bad head injury she was fired. We all know a union is the solution. We organize because we need the power to make sure our well-being is priority. We were the first unionized Amazon warehouse in California. Drivers and warehouse workers at several other Amazon facilities are now organized too.

Amazon thinks it could pretend like it never happened and no one will hold them accountable. We need you to prove that wrong. We have the right under the First Amendment to organize a union but that right is hollow if our employer doesn't have to recognize it. We organized in October and since then Amazon hasn't come to the table and the National Labor Relations Board hasn't forced Amazon to do so.

That's why we need you to take action and defend the rights of working people in California. Pass this Bill. It will give our state the power to force companies like Amazon to negotiate a union contract if the NLRB fails to protect our rights. We need you to vote yes on AB 288 and ensure the freedom to organize in California. Thank you very much.

Guess that's my cue okay do we have any other folks who would like to speak in support of this bill good.

Morning. Shane Espin on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council co-sponsor of the bill. Also on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here Engineers.

And scientists of California machinists and the utility workers union of America all in support and because they couldn't be here also here on behalf of the United Food and Commercial Workers in support thank.

You.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU in support.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Scott Brent with Smart California Safety and Legislative Board in support. Thank you. Thank you.

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

Janice Melly, AFSME California in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Pat Moran on behalf of the Orange County Employees Association in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. JP Hannah with California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Alexa Chavez on behalf of United Domestic Workers AFSCME Local 3930 in support.

All right hearing and seeing no others in support we're now going to call on primary witnesses in opposition to come forward that's pretty hollow show. Looks.

Like there's no one in opposition that's a good thing second we have a motion have a second we have some comments zero yeah how about public opposition justice hollow okay how about Members of the Committee. Yes you may go.

I just want to say thank you for your testimony as someone that organized and founded their own teachers union I know how much hard work it is and the hostile environment that you have to participate in and so you're doing it for the benefit of yourself and your families and your co workers I just want to say thank you thank you.

Okay if we have no other comments, Miss McKinnor you can close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay let's call for the vote item number six AB 288 the motion is do pass and we refer to the Committee on Labor and employment mckinner.

Was there a motion in a second I'm sorry there was yes zero I'm sorry sorry let me stop chairing the Committee I making her aye Lackey not.

[Roll call]

The bill will move forward.

So we still have some. Yes, we have 1, 2, and 3. Madam Secretary please reopen the roll for absent members.

Item number one is out five to zero. Item number two, AB 792 the current vote is four to zero. Nguyen. Nguyen, aye. That bill is out five to zero. Item number three, AB 1309. The current vote is five to zero. [Roll Call]. That bill is out seven to zero. Item number four, the current vote is six to zero. Nguyen, Nguyen aye. That bill is out seven to zero. Item number five is out five to two and item six is out six to zero.

This meeting is adjourned.