Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning everyone. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment retirement begins now. We see our good Senator Archuleta in the audience. We are then going to go a little bit out of file item and bring him up. This is File item number three, SB536. We have a Subcommitee for now, not a quorum yet. So once Members come, we will take some official action then.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and everyone here. I think all of us can realize that California is the fifth largest economy in the world. We have to do things boldly and make a difference when we're trying to bring Labor Chamber businesses, the district attorneys across the state, everyone.

And I believe that this Bill will really make that impact. So once again, Madam Chair, good morning. And I would like to first accept the Committee's amendments and thank the Chair for her work with my office in putting them all together.

Today I'm presenting Senate Bill 536 which will empower insurers and license rating organizations to identify when employers are fraudulently withholding premiums by comparing what is reported to them with what is reported to the Employment Department, the Employment Development Department. There is definitely a discrepancy.

Senate Bill 536 is also designed to provide tools for the Employment Development Department to identify and prevent tax evasion. The insurer licensed rating organization is required to report all suspected premium fraud back to the Employment Development Department with these suspected bad actors. And that's who we're after, Madam Chair, the bad actors.

With these suspected bad actors identified to it by the insurance industry, the Employment Development Department will be able to focus its resources on recovering taxes from employers attempting to evade their responsibilities to the state. Senate Bill 536 is needed due to substantial underreporting of payroll to insurers by dishonest employers which directly impacts the competitiveness of honest businesses.

Honest businesses face higher rates than they would face if all employers reported accurately. It is expected that restitution of premiums fraud will amount to tens of millions and potentially even hundreds of millions of dollars when this takes effect. When we go after the bad actors, think what it will do to our state.

We've seen what misreporting and fraudulent reporting has done in the past. This Bill builds off a successful pilot program initiated by the state Compensation Insurance fraud to allow the State Fund to effectively identify premium fraud.

California Success Climate or Business Climate will benefit if the successful pilot program is expanded to the remaining 90% of the market to ensure businesses properly pay their taxes and their premiums. This Bill is a win win for California, bringing costs down for honest employers and targeting the bad actors who cheat the system.

This Bill has no opposition and is supported by a broad coalition of groups including labor unions, Chamber of Commerce, district attorneys and others. With me today to testify on behalf of the sponsors, the American Property Casualty Insurance Association, is Laura Curtis. Also testifying in support is Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the Chamber of Commerce.

And Michael Lasby, Vice President and Assistant General Counsel for Zenith Insurance Company is here with us today. For technical question I respectfully ask your aye vote at the appropriate time and I thank you for your time.

Thank you so much, Senator. And your first witness may step forward. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Laura Curtis and I'm with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Thank you so much for the opportunity to testify today. APCIA is proud to sponsor SB536, which is an important piece of legislation that will help fight fraud in the workers compensation system.

Dishonest entities significantly and substantially underreport or misreport payroll to insurers that directly impacts the competitiveness of insurers who honestly report payroll to insurers. In 2011, a pilot program was started with the State Compensation Insurance Fund and that program for over a decade has allowed SCIF to be able to collect on premiums that were under reported.

Fortunately, SB536 addresses the type of premium fraud in which employers under report payroll for purposes of workers compensation insurance. Importantly, the Bill creates a new obligation for insurers to report suspected fraud to the EDD and the Department of Insurance and this allows the EDD to then look into the issue and conduct further investigations.

Where the employer commits insurance fraud, they are more likely to commit tax fraud. However, this issue can be remedied when the abuse is identified. In 200951% of employers and businesses that were identified as underreporting or misrepresented reporting payroll came into compliance. This actually increases the collection of taxes.

California tax collections would benefit from the increased reporting of fraudsters to the EDD since greater compliance with these laws means more revenue to be taxed and a reduced burden on government supported programs that fill the gap by underinsurers and additionally improper payment of wages, occupational injury and illnesses that could be prevented.

SB536 would expand the payroll base for premium, decrease the cost for workers of in workers compensation insurance for honest employers and increase revenue to be taxed in California. Thank you for the opportunity and we appreciate your aye vote.

Next witness. You may proceed. Good morning Madam Chair. Members Ashley Hoffman on behalf of The California Chamber of Commerce in support of SB536. Cal Chamber represents approximately 13,000 businesses large and small across California. These employers pay various taxes, cover the cost of Unemployment Insurance and other employee benefits, as well as pay workers compensation benefits.

One way or another, these businesses compete against one another. And one of the critical elements to the ability to fairly compete is a level playing field. Employers who unfairly advantage by participating in premium fraud, undermine the system and put insured workers in a precarious position.

As you have heard, SB536 simply expands a very successful program currently being used by SCIF by providing other insurers the ability to confirm the number of employees and the payroll information that an employer is reporting to the EDD with the information that the employer is telling its insurer.

Employers in California pay a tax on workers compensation premiums and the tens of millions of dollars to provide funding for the Department of Insurance Fraud Bureau and provide grants for local district attorneys to prosecute workers compensation fraud. SB 536 will contribute to identifying as well as prosecuting those who seek to defraud the system.

Additionally, SB 536 will ensure that those abusing and defrauding the system pay their fair share of taxes, including premium taxes. For those reasons, we urge your aye vote today. Thank you.

Okay, are there any me toos in support of the Bill? Please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Actually, on behalf of my colleague Jason Smellzer. His client, the California Coalition on Worker Compensation in support of the Bill. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Food Association, California Cotton Ginners and Growers Association and the Western Tree Nut Association, all in support.

Good morning. Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in support.

Okay. Anyone else speaking in support of the Bill? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses speaking today against the Bill? Okay. Seeing none. Any opposition metoos against the Bill? Okay. Well. Good. Senator, we have. We're going to be waiting for our Members here to take further action.

But at first I want to just say thank you to you, Senator, for working with our team on those amendments. We absolutely want to protect workers against fraud and certainly fortify our workers comp system.

The one thing I wanted to stress though, it is important that when we talk about sharing state data with private entities, we want to do that very carefully and have the right safeguards that protect the privacy of Californians. And so I think our amendments got us to that point, and I appreciate you working with us on it.

Thank you.

We will ask you to close and then we will take a motion when we get our Members back.

Thank you. I would like to point out, Madam Chair, that this is time, as I mentioned, that the workforce development falls in this category. Be able to expand employment falls in this category.

To be able to look at what California is going to be doing as a state when it comes to Los Angeles. We're talking about the super bowl and the Olympics and everything else. So when employers can actually service to the top, the good ones, be able to expand.

And we know that when we give opportunity to labor, we're also giving opportunity to businesses. But we need to protect them all. And this is the Bill that can do it. And I certainly appreciate your time. And at the appropriate time, look forward to receiving the I vote.

Wonderful. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Well, thanks, everyone for being here. We are waiting on authors. If you are in labor Committee and have a Bill before us today, please make your way to room 2200. We are eager and ready to hear your bills.

Okay. Before the good senator gets in her seat, we are ready to move on to file item number four. Senator Grove, when you're ready, please come to the podium. We are operating as a subcommitee and so we will hear your presentation and witnesses and we'll take action once the rest of our members arrive. You may proceed.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, thank you. Senate Bill 628 proposes to have a tax credit to support the payment of overtime wages to agricultural farm workers in the State of California. The tax credit would be similar to credits enacted by a bipartisan legislative process in Oregon and New York.

The bill is needed to help farm workers who have lost their take home pay. Since agricultural workers are required to pay overtime workers over 40 hours a week. Based on a bill that was passed several years ago. We challenged that bill and said that this would actually reduce workers pay.

And now the evidence is clear with the documents that have been provided and the studies that have been done, that farm workers are taking home almost 800 to $1,200 a week less than what they were taking home prior to the passage of the previous bill.

In 2016, the governor signed AB 1060 requiring Ag employees to receive overtime compensation for overtime hours worked beyond the eight hour work day or 40 hours in a week. The stated goal of the legislation was to reduce poverty for farm workers.

This bill has had a really impactful negative impact, especially for farm workers across the state, but specifically in my community and the district I represent because I have the top three food producing counties in the world and we produce more food for the nation and the world than any other state- county in the state.

Regardless of where you on the legislation, it's becoming clear that the take home pay for farm workers has in fact declined since the Ag Overtime Law took effect. While several factors have contributed to this, the bottom line is that the agricultural industry is suffering and the ag employees simply cannot afford to pay.

Ag employers simply cannot afford to pay overtime at the higher rate. There's no doubt that the ag industry is suffering. Specifically in California. I'm honored to represent the top three food producing counties in the and farmers don't get enough water to grow the food and their crops. Their price is everything.

They have to increase in the inflation and the regulatory burdens that keep rising with every requirement. And someone would ask why farm worker labor- pay being affected? It's really the only thing that the farmers can control. They can't control the low ultra low carbon fuel standards. They can't control the replacement cost of equipment.

That's regulated by this body or CARB, they can't control the impact and sigma that has on their farmers. They have gone from- Some farmers have gone from $100 an acre foot of water to $1,000 acre foot of water. I talked to a grower the other day.

Because of the area that they're in, in the Tule River area and the Tule area on that basin, their cost for water has gone up to $350,000 annually. They don't have any control over those costs. Those are regulatory policies that come out of this building or from the California Air Resources Board or the Water Board.

But what they can control is the wages that are paid out to workers, it's the only thing under their purview. They want their workers to have those excess hours they used to get paid 60 hours of straight time pay during harvesting.

And if you take 60 hours times $20 an hour and reduce it from 60 hours to 40 hours and pay $20 an hour, that's a significant loss in the farm workers pay. Agriculture in my district is not about prod- is- is not just about producing food that we can eat and keeping the food supply from foreign distributions.

It's also a way of life and creates many jobs, thousands of jobs in my community. The labor is one of the few areas, as I mentioned, that farmers have the way to control cost and keep food costs down.

When Oregon and New York saw that California required overtime compensation for agricultural workers, those states followed us and did the exact same thing.

However, the Democratic govers- governors and legislators of those two states also understood that ag employees would need help by affording agriculture, employers would need help by affording overtime costs and workers would not receive the real benefit of the overtime law.

So working in a bipartisan manner, those states under Democrat leadership applied a tax credit to accompany the overtime law in an effort to support actual real world use.

The tax credit offered under the bill means that that the farm workers are creating a dollar for dollar tax credit on the time and a- the time and a half time, not the regular wages but on the overtime wages.

This would be in a form of a payroll tax credit and employers would receive that they would receive in a periodic tax payments on their EDD or Employment Development Department re- reports that they file on a quarterly basis.

If an employer is paying $20 an hour for the normal wages and $30 an hour for overtime, then the overtime portion of the tax credit of the $10 would be available, not on the regular wages. Just to be clear, the tax credit only applies to the overtime wages to the farm workers, not the straight time.

It would not apply to management, administrative slaff- staff or mechanics. Only to those employees under Wage Order 14 and only credited to the employer after they have worked the wages and earned those wages and the wages by the employee have been paid like they've been paid. This is not before any wages or anything goes out.

In no way does SB 628 make changes to the farm worker overtime law that was passed, 1066, and it supports opportunities for farm workers to earn overtime by making it more likely for employers to afford the overtime pay. In my district, thousands of acres of ag land is being lost.

I see growers going out of business and jobs disappearing. I drove back a beautiful three deck- three generation farm just the other day on the way to Easter up at the ranch. And it's been replaced by hundreds of acres of solar plants. You can't eat solar plants. You just can't. And you have to have ag land in production.

Our farmers are struggling. We know that by the data that's received from the Department of the Farm Bureau or, excuse me, the Secretary of Ag here in the State of California, the reports that were put out. Our farm workers are struggling because their pay has gone down over the last six years since SB- or- AB 1066 was passed.

This is a common sense solution that provides wages for our farm workers to increase almost back to the normal capacity, capacity of which they were, and gives our farmer, our- our growers, a way to be able to pay partially for these increases.

With me here today to testify on SB 628 is Michael Miller with the California Association of Why- Wine Grape Growers and Lupe Gonzalez, a farm worker from Napa. Ms. Gonzalez requires a translator, so I would ask for additional time for the translation, if that's possible, Madam Chair.

Absolutely. Thank you, Senator. The first witness may step forward. You have two minutes. Is that Ms. Lopez? Ms. Lopez is gonna go first. Okay, thank you.

Okay. Mi nombre es Guadalupe Gonzalez.

Good morning my name is Guadalupe Gonzalez.

Soy tro vajadora Agricola desdoce unse anos en Los Campos De Napa, California.

I am an ag worker from the Napa Valley for about 11 years now.

Y estoy aqui para apoyar el SB 628.

And I'm here in support of SB 628.

El cual el es un ah, no para nosotros nos a los trabajadores agricolas seria es muy importante porque es un fondo que se le llegaria.

Which for us is very important as it is a fund that will be provided to our employer.

Al empleador y este como tal a nosotros los trabajadores.

As to which will translate to us as workers.

Ya que nuestras horas han sido reducidas.

As our hours have been reduced.

Nuestro cheque es más pequeño.

Our checks are smaller.

Y ha impactado grandemente.

And this has gravely impacted.

A nuestro bolsillo nuestras familias.

Our pocket and our home, our life at home.

Tenemos que pagar rentas a biles.

We have to cover bills, rent.

Aseguranzas.

Insurances.

Todo.

Everything.

Pagamos cuidado de niños.

We cover for daycare.

Y es un poco, no podemos sostenerlos con el pago ahora reducio.

It's become very difficult as the income has tremendously decreased.

Muchas familias optamos por buscar otro trabajo, saliendo de nuestro trabajo de nuestra jornada, normal.

A lot of families such as myself have opted for looking for a second job.

Y es un part time, ahora regular.

And it's just a part time with regular page- with regular wage.

Por eso para nosotros los trabajadores del campo es muy importante, si este bill SB 628 llegase a ejercer, podria mejorar un poco nuestro diario vivir.

Therefore, this would be a very incredibly important bill for it to pass through as this would tremendously impact and increase our quality of life.

Para poder sostener nuestras familias.

So we can support our families.

Somos trabajadores que trabajamos desde arduamente.

We are workers who work very hard every day.

Y pienso que que sí sería de mucha ayuda para nosotros.

And I believe this will greatly help and impact and have a positive impact on our households.

Gracias.

Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. My name is Michael Miller with the California Association of Wine Grape Growers. I want to thank the author for her leadership, the committee analysis, and the committee for considering the bill. In 2024, when describing the ag industry in the United States, the Biden Administration described what is a, quote, wake up call.

The industry isn't such a problem in California. There's no doubt that the wine industry is at a historic low.

One only needs to drive down Highway 101 from Salinas to Bakers or to King City or from Bakersfield to Lodi on Highway 99, and you're going to see vineyards that have been ripped out, jobs have been lost, communities impacted because of the decline.

In both Oregon and New York, when the Democrat governors and legislatures in both states considered the need for overtime pay for ag workers, they recognized that the farmers, if they were going to provide the hours, they needed help in providing the wages because the farmers just could not afford the wages.

If the states did not help the growers on that, the workers would suffer. So Democrat Governor Kathy Huckel in New York stated the following in her 2022 State of the Address. She said, only new farm. She's our new farm employer. Overtime credit is one of the great initiatives that aim to help alleviate the challenges of rising costs.

This was to help growers pay the cost of wages. That is why it is so disheartening to see those in opposition to this bill have the gall to describe this bill as, quote, harmful.

In describing this bill as harmful, opponents expressed concern that a public investment in increased wages for ag workers might reduce a public investment in other priorities, such as infrastructure and energy. For a group that claims to represent the interests of workers, that assertion just feels wrong to me.

Research will reveal to every member of this committee and every staff member that the ag industry is on the decline in California and that farm workers have been losing take home payments since the overtime law took effect. In September of 2024,

Governor Newsom stated this about our farm workers, investing in their well being is investing in California success. We agree wholeheartedly with that. That's why we are sponsoring this bill with the Farm Bureau.

Sir, your- your time is up.

I'll wrap up. Okay, thank you. If you support overtime and want overtime wages for ag workers, please vote yes on this bill. And please consider signing on to SB 620 as a co author. Our workers, our industry needs your help. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Anyone here speaking in support of the bill? These are just me toos. So very brief. I see there's a lot of folks in the room. State your name and affiliation at the podium.

Madam Chair and Senators Carlos- Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the American Pistachio Growers, California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Food Association and the Rice Commission, Western Tree Nut Association, all in support.

Thank you. Just like that.

You guys can come up. Go ahead. Thank you.

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

Tim Schmelzer representing Wine Institute, in strong support.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. John Norwood, on behalf of the Almond Alliance, in support.

Hola, mi nombre es Gabriela y soy trajadora de Napa, California. Gracias.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Gilberto Ramirez San Diego, que soy trabajador agricola en Napa California y apoyo la propuesta del Senado SB 628, gracias.

Hola, buen día, mi nombre es Melvin Reyes y soy trabajador de Napa.

Hola, mi nombre es Jasmine Hernandez soy trabajadora agrícola de Napa y apoyo a la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Hola, buenos días. Soy Marcos García vengo del Valle de Napa apodando apoyando SB 628.

Hola, buenos días, mi nombre es Ramon Reyes soy trabajadora agrícola de Napa California y estoy apoyando la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Hola, buenos días. Soy Manuel Guevara y venimos apoyando el Senado SB 628.

Hola, mi nombre es Gerardo Reyes y soy trabajador de Napa California este y estoy- estoy apoyando la propuesta SB 628.

Hola, buenos días, mi nombre es Rafael García y estoy apoyando SB 6- 628.

Hola, mi nombre es María Alejandra Gomez Soto. Soy trabajadora agricultura de Napa estoy apoyando la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Mi nombre- Mi nombre es Salvador Cruz Guzman soy trabajador soy trabajadora agrícola de Napa y apoyo a la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Can we pause? What we're going to ask is.

Hola, mi nombre es-

Disculpe un momento, señor, estamos buscando un traductor porque-

The Senator has asked for some translation so she can hear people's names and- and where they're from. So are you. Oh, no, I'm good. Are you okay? Okay. Okay. Alright. Good.

Oh, we're good. We're- We're perfect.

We're good. Okay. Thank you.

Hola, mi nombre es Jose Manuel Escobar y soy trabajador de Napa, y apoyo SB 628.

Hola, mi nombre es Leticia Maribel Quintero soy trabajadora de Napa y apoyo la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Hola. Buenos Dias. Mi nombre es Norma Ramirez Garcia soy trabajadora de agricola de Napa California y apoyo a la propuesta del Senado de SB 628.

Good morning. Melissa Hurtado, State Senator, District 16. Representing a lot of the farm workers in the Central Valley. In support. Mi nombre es Melissa Hurtado soy representante senadora del Valle Central distrito 16 representando mucho de los agricultura en el Valle Central en apoyo de esta ley, muchas gracias.

Thank you senator.

Hola, buenos dias, mi nombre es Adriana Guzman Gonzalez y este soy una soy trabajadora agricola de Napa y apoyo la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Mi nombre es Jorge Renderos. Trabajo para vino Parks flora y apoya la SB 628.

Mi nombre es Sonia Gutierrez soy trabajadora agricola de pinguinos loay apoya la propuesta SB 628. Gracias.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Diego Herrera trabajo para vino farra en la agricultura y apoyo la propuesta SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Rosalba Vazquez soy trabajadora, agricola y de Napa y apoyo la propuesta del Senado del SB 628.

Hola, buenos dias. Soy Miguel y apoyo Napa apoya la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Hola, buenos dias, mi nombre es Jaime Calderon soy trabajador de Napa y apoyo a la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Hola, buenos dias. Este mi nombre es Lucas Ronda Martinez soy trabajador de Napa y apoyo de la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Armando Preciado. Trabajo para vino farms en el condado de Napa y apoyo a la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Muy buenos dias, mi nombre es Freddy Quiche trabajo para vino farm y apoyo la propuesta del Senado SB 628, gracias.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Samuel Garcia soy trabajadora agricola de Napa California apoyo la propuesta del Senado SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Susana Castellanos trabajo en los fieles de Eduardo y apoyo a la propuesta SB 628. Gracias.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Luis Chiche, trabajo agricola de pinos lunay apoyo a la agricultades del Senado SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Manuel Garcia. Trabajador en Napa y apoyo propuesta SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre Leonardo Sanchovalos trabajo para la para para vino farms de Loray y Fenwhich. Apoyo la propuesta SB 628.

Buenos dias, mi nombre es Eduardo Gutierrez soy trabajador de rabino paz en Dubai y el apoyo a SB 628.

Ben Ebink, on behalf of the California League of Food Producers, in support.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Fresno County Board of Supervisors, in support. And thank you for the measure.

Good morning. My name is Sandra Sanchez. I work for Dryden Nursery and I support SB 628.

Good morning. Melissa Koshlaychuk on behalf of Western Growers in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Tricia Geringer with Agricultural Council of California, in support.

Good morning, Madam Chairman and members of the committee. Brian Little, with California Farm Bureau requesting- respectfully requesting your support for the reasons articulated by your first witness this morning. Thank you.

Thank you. Is there anyone else in support of the bill? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses? Thank you, Singh. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Sara Flocks from the California Federation of Labor Unions and we are opposed to the measure. First though, I wanted to take a moment to thank all the workers who came up.

We know it's hard for people to take a day off of work and travel to Sacramento and come and speak. So we appreciate them being here. In 2016, this legislature passed AB 1066 to provide overtime to farm workers.

It undid a shameful legacy in this country of farm workers being excluded from the protections of the federal Labor Standards Act.

So in California, we decided that farm workers should get paid overtime for all of the hours they work like every other worker in the state and that employers should pay for that overtime like every other employer in this state. It had a reasonable phase in that is now has reached its end.

The author and the proponents say that as a result of this law, farm workers hours have decreased, that they have less in take home pay. This is not a result of the law. This is a result of employers, if- if this is true at all. Lowering the hours that workers work.

They have control over working conditions, wages, everything that a worker has in take home pay. And this is an industry that can afford it. It is a mature industry in the state. According to CDFA, in 2023, the ag industry had 59.4 billion in cash receipts. That's a 1.4% increase over the previous year.

In 2022, exports were at 52.6 billion, which was a 4.4% increase in exports. They can afford to pay farm workers for the hours that they work to feed the nation. So what this bill will do will say the taxpayers of the State of California need to subsidize employers to do what every other employer does.

Your time is up.

So that drains funding from the general fund. That takes away from every other priority of the public. So all we are asking is that ag employers do what every other employer in the state does. We urge your no vote.

Thank you. Are there any other MeToos in opposition to this bill?

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU joining in opposition.

Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates in opposition.

Kristin Heidelbach here on behalf of UFCW Western States Council in opposition.

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

Anyone else here in opposition to the bill?

Okay, we will move to the dais. Members. Senator?

So I would just like to respond to the witness that was opposed to the bill. I- I- I have a famous saying. I could agree to disagree without being disagreeable. I- I- I don't think this industry can afford it.

When you look at ag and if you actually work and go to the ag farms, they run an unbelievably small margins and there's so many different ways that they can lose their crops, weather, fruit flies, and so they might have a robust crop, but then have three years later where they're out actually lose their crops based on weather, fruit fly, anything else that's out there.

This is an industry that is an important industry to protect in California and they do run on small margins. And so when you hear the workers come forward and say they're losing wages, that's a reality. The end of the day, they're coming in here forward and thank you for coming here. You're losing wages.

And I think this is a good compromise to say, look, we want to keep our workers working in order to make this work and have more robust agriculture industry in California. I think doing this tax credit will actually turn into more economic activity in California and will help grow our economy.

And I came in late in the legislature and if the Senator from Bakersfield would, as this moves forward, add me as a co author to this, I would love to do this because this is an industry that does need our help. Again, I appreciate the workers because you help feed the world and you work hard.

You're one of the hardest workers in California and this is one of the most important industries in the State of California. We need to support that industry. So with that, I also say I don't want to profess that I know more than- than the Senator from Bakersfield whose entire district is predominately oil and- and ag. Am I missing something?

I just want to ask you, am I right? They run on small margins, these farmers, and they're really just trying to make ends meet. And the weather or the fruit fly, there's so many different variables that can really hurt this industry from being robust as it- as it has been in the past. Is that- Is that accurate senator?

It is absolutely accurate. When we had the rains, which we really do need water as we're not getting surface water deliveries to the Central Valley. When we had the rains, it destroyed. One- One farmer was telling me they lost almost $10 million worth of crops.

One of the largest organic growers that conformed to the organic policies in the State of California lost several acres of crops because of the water and the way that we can't, we can't control the water when it rains, but we- we need the rain. So we're not complaining. But there are several things.

We have one of the most incredible. They're sumu. They're the big oranges with the tops on them. They're called something else, but they're labeled under sumu. When the water gets in the stem of that, it destroys the entire product. And so a lot of them lost that particular product to go to market. And that's a substantial loss.

So it is a very volatile industry. It is a very good industry, but it's also a very volatile industry. And it depends on what crop you're growing. But you are absolutely right that they operate on very, very small margins.

And when you look at the organic growing where California is going, because of policies in a state to eliminate pesticides, you can't have weeds within a crop. And when you're spraying a non organic farm, you just get one sprayer out there to, you know, spray the weeds. When you have an organic farm, you can't do that.

And the labor intensity of getting weeds out of the field is very costly. And so we are complying in the Central Valley, changing and transitioning over to organic farms using more labor. Labor is intensive and it is one of the very few things that we have the opportunity to control as far as cost.

We have no control over the cost of water, over Sigma, over all those things that I already discussed before. Even with technology to replace engines so that we can keep the same farming equipment, they don't allow us to do that. They require that we buy new equipment. And those equipment pieces for farming is upwards of $500,000.

And that's a significant impact to the- to the changes in the policy for farming as well.

And- And so I would just conclude by saying when we have a quorum, I would like to move the bill. When we have a quorum, again, I would commend the author for bringing this forward. I- I look at this as a- as a- as a great compromise.

I could agree to disagree without being disagreeable, but I do think this is an industry that can't afford it and we need to do what we can to keep agriculture the giant that it is in California.

And again, when we look at the workers coming forward asking us to do this, I think it's something that we should do and it will be a win, win for the State of California. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Strickland. And we'll make note that you are going to move the bill when the time is right. I- I just wanted to say to you, Senator Grove, I appreciate you bringing this bill forward and attempting to try to figure out ways to improve the lives of- of working people, particularly farm workers.

I was part of the great boycott back in the- in the day and have fought for many years to address the needs of- of working families, particularly our most vulnerable. I represent Los Angeles.

We have, you know, 5 million workers and- and about 800,000 to a million who are in low wage jobs where we struggle to make sure that employers do pay the overtime pay. And that is why, you know, it was so important for us to ensure that these workers had that basic right.

We fight to make sure those employers pay. And if we set a precedence here with this kind of a tax credit, then, you know, those employers from all so many sectors will also want that benefit and then how do we sustain it? So I- I do know that, you know, employers should pay overtime.

They absolutely have to make adjustments to ensure that those laws are- are paid and that any overtime from additional labor traditionally creates additional profits. And in many sectors that I have had the opportunity to work directly with workers, you know, labor creates profit and that's where the overtime pay comes in.

I- I also appreciate, though, the education that you shared about the industry and the challenges and- and the margins that you laid out. And I want to work with you on a way to make sure that all workers are paid fully for their labor and that they do have a living wage.

And we talked a little bit about, you know, how we might continue to work on this down- down the line. And I see that, you know, the retaliation to right now.

And my- my heart really goes out to the agricultural industry industry as we see tariffs and what the president policies are doing to California's economy across a number of sectors, but particularly in this one, you know, our trade partners imposing additional tariffs and backing away from relationships that we have had for years, you know, it's- it's- these are self inflicted, unfortunately, by- by this president and his advisors.

You know, but I think in California, we- we do need to have some serious discussions about how government can provide support to our workers and industries impacted by technology and by climate change and, you know, all of the things that- that you lifted up. But I don't think this is the bill to do that.

This bill would just transfer that cost of doing business onto the rest of California. And we know how fragile our economy is right now. So I am not supporting this bill today, but really want to recognize your efforts and ensure that we continue to work together on this issue to support these families.

And I want to say thank you to all the workers who came out and spent their time with us. Would you like to close, Senator?

Absolutely. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, colleagues, California is considered a leader in the industry, a leader in many industries across the nation. Everybody says California leads. The Governor touts that it's its own nation state. The legislative- My legislative colleagues and I often call California a leader in several, you know, whether it's the tech industry, the film industry.

California is a leader in the- in the agricultural industry. And there are two other states that are superseding the way that we lead on making sure that our farm workers are taken care of.

Both Democrats, states that realize that there's an issue with making sure that there is some way to offset cost for labor in the farming industry. These other states, New York and Oregon, are not even center of the road Republican states. They are Democrat states just like California.

And they have come to the conclusion that this is the best policy to make sure that these workers get the hours that they need to compensate for the- the bill that was passed to offset the overtime.

Every farm worker here, in the thousands of letters that we've received have showed that when you take a 40 hour work week for somebody who works 20 hours, $20 an hour for a 40 hour work week, that's $800. Prior to the 1066, it was 60 hours of work week and it was $1,200.

That's $400 a week out of their pockets. That's $1,600 a month. That is a significant impact to those that are here today testifying and actually begging you guys to pass this piece of legislation. I can tell you that California also leads in the film industry and this is similar to that tax credit California.

And I hope, ma'am, based on what you said about tax credits, will hold true when the film industry comes before this committee and says we need this tax credit to continue to pay for offset of wages. That's the only thing we're asking for.

California leads in a lot of things, but it definitely leads in the agricultural industry and food production. It actually leads in the film industry. We allow the film industry to have a tax credit in the State of California because we need that industry here.

Well, the film industry can't put food on your table, but the people in this room can. And so this is the same type of credit that we're asking for. I have a- have a assumption, and I probably shouldn't say it, but the opposition will probably stand strong in support of the tax credit for the film industry.

And I believe they have in the past and so it's just ironic to me that we won't protect those that put food on our table and make sure that they have the wages that they need. We are not making an amendment to 1066, the overtime law that is still in place.

And every hour of overtime that the agricultural workers, our farm workers can get, especially during harvest season, so they can keep those wages will be offset by a simple tax credit. It's a simple bill, it's a win, win for both the worker and the farming community. And frankly, it's a win for the State of California.

The Governor said it best, which was quoted by one of my lead witnesses when the Governor said, "farm workers are the backbone of California's nation leading agricultural industry and play a critical role in ensuring the stability of the state, nation and the world's food supply. Investing in their well being is investing in California's success."

So the Governor agrees we should invest in farm worker wages or farm workers and their ability to have success. Like I said, the film tax credit people that are going to be here before us, there's already a bill in play.

They're not going to put food on our tables and they're not going to lead the world in making sure that we have the top three or actually top six food producing counties in the nation, the world, frankly. And so I just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I ask you if you would please consider the people who came here. There were many others that wanted to come. We did receive letters from them. And this will impact the entire state in a positive way. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. We don't have a quorum so we are going to hold this bill over and while once our colleagues come, we will move and take action on it. So thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for your consideration. I would like reconsideration when the vote is taken. I know the vote is going to fail. So I would like to petition for reconsideration. Is there a requirement for me to come down here and do that or will that automatically be granted?

I'll move for reconsideration if that.

Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Strickland.

Senator Strickland.

Okay, we're going to let the room empty out and shuffle and then we'll start with you, Senator Limon.

Okay, so we are going to move ahead with File item number five, SB 642. Senator Limon, you may proceed.

Thank you very much, Chair and colleagues. This year marks the 10th anniversary of the passage of the California Fair Pay Act, a historic bipartisan measure to address gaps in the Equal Pay Act. Over the last decade, we have seen the gender pay gap continue to persist for women, with women of color experiencing the largest gaps.

SB 642 makes reforms to the California Equal Pay act to ensure workers can effectively enforce their rights by harmonizing the statute of limitations with other wage statutes and allowing workers to recover for all lost pay. The Bill strengthens the California Equal Pay act by revising outdated gender binary language and clarifying the definition of wages.

This would make state law consistent with federal law which defines wages broadly to include, for example, stock, stock option, profit sharing and bonus plans. 2 also revises the definition of pay scale to mean a good faith estimate of the expected wage range.

In 2022, the Legislature passed SB 1162, which required companies with 15 or more employees to include a pay scale for all job posting. The legislation did not provide any limits on the range of pay scale. This has led to some employers posting extremely broad pay ranges.

For example, one job posting gave a salary range of 90,000 to 900,000 Dol strengthens much needed pay equity and pay transparency laws in California. With me today, I have Sonia Smollett with the California Employment Lawyers Association and Jessica Stender with the Equal Rights Advocates to testify in support of the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. Your witness. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members, my name is Jessica Stender. On behalf of Equal Rights Advocates, a proud co sponsor of the Bill. While California has made very important progress in strengthening our pay equity protections, the gender pay gap exists. And it really harms both women, but also families and broader communities and the economy.

Women in California are still paid on average just 79 cents to the dollar of their male counterparts. This translates into much lost earnings throughout the course of a lifetime. It's $354,000 less in wages just over the course of a 40 year career. This gap gets even worse for women of color.

Black women in California will earn on average $1.5 million less than white women throughout white men throughout their career. And for Latinas, this gap in earnings climbs to more than 2 million do over the course of a career.

This not only deprives women of funds for basic needs, but also the ability to put away savings for retirement and other needs. The Bill will strengthen the law in several important ways. The other witness will cover some of them. I just want to highlight.

It addresses one of the major contributors to the wage gap, which is a lack of pay transparency. The Legislature, as you heard, addressed this issue by requiring pay ranges in job postings.

This will ensure the law has the intended effect by requiring employers to include good faith estimates they reasonably expect to pay in those job postings of the wage ranges. It also ensures the law reflects the realities of our current workforce by replacing opposite sex with another sex.

It would thereby make the language consistent with the already existing statutory language applicable to race. It would also make it the same as the definition under the Fair Employment and Housing Act. Finally, I just want to note that the clarification of wages, including other forms of compensation, is an issue we've seen a lot.

We often see women getting the same base salary, but then getting less in equity or other forms of compensation. So it's critical that our law include all these other forms of compensation to get all at all the ways that pay discrimination can manifest. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And you have two minutes as well.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Sonya Smallets. I'm an employment attorney and a Member of the California Employment Lawyers Association. As part of my practice, I represent women who have been subjected to discriminatory pay practices and I'm here to testify in support of SB642.

SB642 is designed to help remedy persistent wage based pay gaps, in part by increasing the statute of limitations for people to bring claims. And this is a really important change because it often takes employees a long time to learn that they are being paid less than their male peers.

I've spoken to many women who've told me that they suspect they're being paid less. But I'm a lawyer. I can't bring claims on their behalf unless they have evidence. It often takes a long time to find that evidence.

I've spoken to women who finally learned they're being paid less than their peers when a colleague, after years in the job, a colleague came forward and trusted them enough to share that information.

Or a woman who was promoted to manager and in so doing learned the salaries of her direct reports, her former peers, and learned that the men were being paid more even though she was the one who had been selected for promotion.

Or a woman who was offered a transfer to the same position in a lower cost locale and as part of the process learned that the male incumbent who had less experience than she did was being paid more.

So the issue here is once the employees have that evidence, they are often too late to recover all the wages that they have lost. This Bill addresses that problem in two ways. First, it increases the statute of limitations to bring claims, making it more consistent with existing discrimination and other wage statutes.

Second, it makes clear that the continuing violations doctrine applies to Equal Pay act claims as it does to other discrimination, harassment and other claims in General.

And what the effect of these two changes would be is they would let employees pursue claims and recover all of the wages they've lost, not just two or three years, as is the case under existing law.

SB642 says an employee should not lose the right to be paid fairly and equally just because it takes them time to learn that they're being paid unlawfully. I respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you very much. Is there anyone here in support of the Bill? Me toos. Please state your name and affiliation.

Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association. Proudco sponsor. Also asked to provide support for California Women Lawyers, Consumer Attorneys of California, Fund her and Tech Equity Action. Thank you.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU California In support.

Kristin Heidelbach, UFCW Western States Council. In support.

Katherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. Proud co sponsor.

Good morning, Chairmembers. Jp Hanna with the California Nurses Association. I'm proud to support.

Okay, anyone else here in support of the Bill? Okay. We'll move to opposition. Are there any opposition? Witnesses? Please step forward. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in an opposed unless amended position.

We're very proud to take part 10 years ago in helping to strengthen the Equal Pay act and want to thank the author and her staff and the sponsors for recent amendments to the pay scale provisions of the Bill. Our outstanding concerns are twofold. One is the piece about wages.

Completely understand that we do not want employers using other forms of compensation as a workaround to the Act. However, we just want to be very careful and include some language making it very clear that we are not redefining wages for broader purposes of the Labor Code, as that would trigger additional obligations, other provisions of the Code.

And then the second piece on the statute of limitations, specifically on the continuing violations provisions. We understand this is a modified, slightly different continuing violations provision than is an existing case law.

And so we have some concerns about that and what that would practically mean as far as investigating claims and our General concerns around extending statute limitations and situations where evidence may have faded, you know, memories fade. People who made racial decisions may no longer work at the company.

So we are continuing to work with the author's office and sponsors. Middle East. Some of these are kind of thorny issues and taking some time to work through, but really appreciate the continued conversation. So thank you.

Thank you. I don't see another opposition witness, so we'll go to Me toos. Anyone speaking in opposition as a Me too. Name and affiliation.

Madam Chair, Members Dan Chia, on behalf. Of the Civil Justice Association of California, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Ryan Allain On behalf of the California Retailers Association, respectful opposition Thank you.

Okay. I think that concludes oppositional testimonies. Okay, so we'll move to the d. Any of Members, any questions? Comments? We thank you. So we have a motion from. We have Members so we can establish one. Okay. Right. We'll give you an opportunity to close and then we will establish a quorum. Please proceed.

And I just want to thank you. Thank the Committee for the work. This. You know, I appreciate the comment that was made that these amendments are actually taking a lot of time in going back and forth, just the amendments that we've took so far.

So I expect that this will be, you know, if the Bill moves forward and goes through the process, it will continue to try to kind of clarify some of these pieces. And so we look forward to working with folks.

But we do believe that this is really important to be able to clarify that we've learned from previous legislation and we're trying to ensure that the legislation that has been previously passed is as effective as it was intended to be. And so we feel like this is the right time to do this. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Okay, let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum and we have a motion from Senator Cortese. So assistant, call the roll

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have a vote of 2 to 1. The Bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you.

Madam Chair, I would like to move the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With a vote of three to zero, the calendar is on call.

Mr. Chair, I'd like to move file item three, SB536 by Archuleta. We already heard that. Right.

[Roll Call]

Madam Chair, I'd like to move file item four.

I'm sorry. We're going to take a vote of three to zero, and this Bill is going to go to call. I thought you did. I'm sorry, not yet.

Okay. Sorry.

Okay, so then we'll. You moved. File Item.

File item 4. SB 628 by Grove.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With a vote of 1 to 2, that Bill is on call.

Madam Chair, I don't know if this is appropriate just because we're moving around. I don't know if it's within the rules, but if SB628 does not get the affirmative vote, can I notice reconsideration right now?

We'll wait until the vote is, until everyone has voted, and then we can take them.

But. But. Okay, so. So I can't do it now. Okay. I was just saying, cuz. Moving around a lot today. Okay. All right.

So procedurally not until we've taken a vote. So. Thank you, Senator Hartado. We will ask you to come forward. We're ready for you. File item number six, SB668, and you can proceed when you're ready.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Members, I want to thank you first of all, and your Committee staff for their assistance on this Bill. At the outset, I wanted to state that I will be accepting the Committee amendments as outlined in the analysis.

I stand here before you today proud to present SB668, a targeted common sense measure that supports injured workers across California by addressing a growing and dangerous gap in our workers compensation system. At the heart of this issue is failure to keep up with the real cost of care. And let me be clear.

The Director of the Division of Workers Compensation has said he cannot act without legislative authority. And that's why this Bill is not just helpful. It's necessary. SB6068 does not set new prices.

Instead, it requires that the Department of Industrial Relations conduct a review of the medical legal fee schedule every two years, using the Medicare Economic Index as a guide. It leaves discretion with a Director to adjust fees based on need and economics. This approach is not new.

A similar recommendation was made by the State Auditor in 2019, and AB404 took a similar path with strong support from the California Society of Industrial Medicine and surgery. In short, SB668 delivers the structural fix that the Director has asked for, and the system desperately needs it.

I respectfully asked for an aye vote, and I believe we have here to testify and support Dr. Jacob Rosenberg with the California Society of Industrial Medicine and Surgery. Thank you. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. We need this Bill because the Director of the Division of Workers Compensation can change every fee schedule that there is. Interpreters, durable medical goods, surgery centers, even copy services. But he can't change the medical legal fee schedule, and that's resulted in problems in the past.

The medical legal fee schedule only controls the fees for qualified medical evaluators. And qualified medical evaluators are necessary to make sure that injured workers receive proper treatment.

They determine when injured workers are able to return to work, what their work restrictions are with their permanent disability is what limitations they have and what treatment that they still need to get. So between 2006 and 2021, there were no changes in the fee schedule, and we went from over 3,000 qualified medical evaluators to under 2,000.

And that resulted in significant delays for injured workers getting treated and for getting their claims settled and for returning to work. And so it was a problem. The fee schedule was Revised and in 2021 through regulations. The Auditor's report came out in 2019.

It still took an additional two years, and we lost a lot of other qmes in the meantime while we had to go through the regulation. So it's important for the Director to have the ability to raise the medical legal fee schedule.

This Bill, we accepted the amendments because our intent was always just to give him the ability to do that and not to mandate that he does anything. We. We just want him to be able to look at the situation and determine Whether he needs to raise the medical legal fee schedule to keep the supply of QMEs intact.

Right now, we don't need that. But if he doesn't get this ability, then we won't be able to go forward. We don't know whether it'll turn out like the last time. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any MeToos in support of the Bill? Please step forward. State name affiliation? Okay. Seeing none. We'll move to opposition. Is there any opposition on this Bill? Witnesses about me toos? zero, I saw someone hide behind. Are you opposition? Sorry, this is opposition. Perfect. Are you opposite opposition witness? Yes. Okay. You have two minutes.

Wonderful. Thank you. We appreciate the Committee. We appreciate the author. My name is Laura Curtis. I'm with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. We are registered in opposition as well as some of my colleagues.

But we do note the the amendments that were provided by the Committee in the analysis and that the author is willing to take those amendments. Our concerns were, in fact, that it was not permissive. And so we will take those back to our Members and have them review the amendments in order to determine our position. But really appreciate everyone taking a look at that. So thank you.

Thank you. Are you a witness or Me too?

Oh, yeah, me too. Sorry. Okay, me too. We align our same comments. Appreciate the amendments, and that will take us neutral. We just want to double check with our Members on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Also appear on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation and the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities. Thank you.

Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers were opposed to the Bill in print, but we'll reevaluate our position based on the amendments. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. We will turn it to the dais. Any Members want to come in? Senator Strickland,

I just want to say to the author, thank you for working with the opposition today. I won't vote on it, but I'm probably going to vote on the floor for the amendment. I just want to hear from the opposition, but I want to thank the author for working to take those amendments to remove the opposition.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you so much for working with me once again. And of course, I'll continue to work with the opposition if any additional concerns come up. I appreciate your comments today, Mr. Vice Chair. Excuse me. And with that, I'd respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion. Please call the roll

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0. That Bill is on call and we'll take it up when the Members return.

Audience we're going to go to File item number 9, SB238 by the chair as she's walking forward. Witnesses and supporter might want to come up and Madam Chairs, please open when you're ready.

Thank you so much. Vice Chair Appreciate it. Good morning. I am pleased to present SB238. This is a Bill that will bring long overdue transparency and accountability to how employers use artificial intelligence and surveillance in the workplace.

Let me start with Luis as an example in this he was an Amazon worker from the Inland Empire and he describes the toll that constant monitoring took on both his body and mind and how every moment he was tracked and every break scrutinized and he was not alone.

Most workers have no idea they're being tracked or how their deeply personal data is being collected, stored and used. This isn't hypothetical. Research shows these surveillance practices are directly linked to increased psychological stre anxiety and lower job satisfaction across a number of industries. According to the Urban Institute, nearly 7 in 10 U.S.

workers are subject to electric monitoring, yet few are told what's being collected or why. A 2023 report by ExpressVPN found that nearly 80% of employers now use digital tracking tools to monitor performance. This goes far beyond cameras.

Workers are being monitored through wearable tech ID badges with sensor microphones and GPS logging everything from location to tone of voice to their body temperature and bathroom use. Let's be clear, Black and brown workers, particularly in warehousing, retail and delivery jobs, are disproportionately impacted by this level of surveillance.

These systems, when unchecked, reinforce racial and gender disparities in hiring, discipline and promotion. SB238 changes that. It requires employers, including public agencies and contractors, to submit an annual report to the Department of Industrial Relations listing all workplace surveillance and IE tools in use.

These reports must be publicly posted within 30 days, giving workers, regulators and public long overdue transparency to address concerns. SB238 protects sensitive information. It does not require disclosure of technical specifications, proprietary security protocols or raw raw footage.

It only details such as the type of tool used and what data is collected and whether workers and consumers can opt out. The definition of surveillance tool is narrow and targeted.

We try to make sure that it applies to tools that actively monitor workers behavior or biometric data, excluding passive IT systems like email servers or firewalls, unless they are used to track worker activity. The Bill gives the DIR flexibility in its implementation as well.

We want to require that Department to publish the disclosures, but does not dictate how that information must be Analyzed, allowing a phased out, phased rollout and prioritization of high risk tools. With me today is Evon Fernandez with the California Labor Federation here in strong support of the Bill.

Witnesses in support. Thank you. Hello. Good morning Members of the Committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation in proud support of SB238. Members, when you think of surveillance, I ask what comes to mind. I assume many may picture a camera or a microphone, but as the Senator mentioned, today's tools are so much more powerful than this.

Today, employers have access to seemingly military grade equipment such as wearable trackers, heat sensors, retina trackers, and in some parts of the world, even RFID chips that implant into your hand. Surveillance hardware and software have become increasingly affordable.

And because of this, employers are now eager to monitor every corner of the work site and is why they have required in some industries for workers to install keystroke monitors, a very effective form of productivity management that they believe helps with determining work product. With every inch of the workplace under the eye of the employer.

Workers simply do not have adequate protections from being washed and tracked at home. And that requires transparency. As the Senator had mentioned, workplace safety and workplace health is very much dependent on transparency, both within the public and for workers.

So being sure that these tools that are being used in the workplace are shared publicly and posted in the DIR's website that are made available is very valuable and important. And because of this, we strongly urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Other witnesses in support.

Christopher Sanchez on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Senators Coby Pizzotti on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians and support. We appreciate you, including state government as well. Thank you. Thank you.

Any witnesses in opposition?

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition, I want to state that, you know, as a General matter, we are not against providing notices to workers about some of these tools.

And there is a Bill on that topic being considered right now in the other house that we are having discussions with the supporters on that as well.

Some of our concern here is really the breadth and the detail of the notices that would be going to DIR and the publishing of all of that information online that is of small particular concern to industries like financial institutions and others where they have security specifically to prevent things like theft or fraud.

We have been having conversations with the author's office on that and I really appreciate the work they are putting into talking with us on that issue. And finally, we do have some concern, I think, about the Burden of on dir.

California, of course, has millions of businesses, and our understanding is that every single business, including state and local, would be subject to this requirement. And that is quite a lot of resources for DIR to utilize at a time when their resources are vital. And we know that they are understaffed and underfunded at this time.

So again, continue to work with the author's office on that as well. So thank you.

Other witnesses. Opposition.

Mr. Chair, Member Scott Govenar, behalf of the Construction Employers Association, also filling in for the National Electrical Contractors Association and Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors Association and a few other construction groups. In opposition.

Courtney Gladfelty on behalf of California Alliance Of Family Owned Businesses. In opposition. Thanks.

Ben Ebbink On behalf of the California League of Food Producers. In opposition. But appreciate the continued continued conversation. Thank you.

Matt Easley on behalf of Associated General Contractors, California, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Dell with the California Credit Union League and respectful Opposition. Appreciate the ongoing conversations.

Ryan Allain, on behalf of the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Okay, Members. Yeah. The Bill will be moved. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

I just want to say we have been working with the opposition. We will continue to do so. You know, this Bill does not require any disclosure of any security codes, source codes, passwords, system architecture, proprietary security details, only descriptions of how tools function and what they collect. So I just wanted to emphasize that.

And as I say, we will continue to work. I want to say that this is also just about making sure that workers have fairness and dignity and know what of their personal likeness. Conversations. Actions are being monitored. As we're integrating this technology into the workplace.

We have to make sure that that level of privacy and transparency is clear for every Californian worker. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

The Bill has been moved by Senator Cortese. Clerk, please call a roll

[Roll Call]

Madam Chair, that's 2:1. The Bill will remain on call. Madam Chair, which Bill would you like to bring up next?

We'll do SB75.

Okay. Audience, this is file item eight, SB75. Madam Chair, you may open.

Thank you again. Colleagues, good morning. I'm proud to present SB75, which creates a structural pathway for formerly incarcerated individuals to secure meaningful employment in the skilled trades, a critical gap in our workforce.

As chair of this Committee, I know firsthand the need for a labor force, a labor force that is inclusive, a labor force that is skilled and a labor force that is supported and protected. Yet our re entry system, our rehabilitative system, continues to fail.

Justice involved individuals offering few opportunities for sustainable employment, industry networks and successful reintegration into our communities. As someone who's worked closely with vulnerable populations, I want to highlight the urgency particularly for women and particularly for women in custody.

Incarcerated women face a 70% chance of experiencing the highest levels of unemployment in our society and they are most often the only breadwinner in their households. Despite being a growing segment of the incarcerated population, women are consistently underserved.

And I want to say in a disparate way, when you compare to many of the programs in our male rehabilitative centers, lacking access to education, job training and mental health resources undermines our communities and our families and certainly these women that is unacceptable in a state that claims to lead on justice and equity.

These women are not just individuals in custody. They are our mothers, our caregivers, our neighbors, our community anchors. When we fail to invest in their rehabilitation, we are failing the families, their communities and our shared future. I had the opportunity to see and meet with folks in Norway firsthand.

We learned our California plan from them and how we need to really integrate rehabilitation into our carceral programs. And they have a motto that they share every with prison guards, to administrators, to the residents themselves. And they say courts are for punishment, prisons are for creating good neighbors. I think we need to adopt that.

And this is what this Bill is about. Making sure we're creating good neighbors who can sustain themselves and contribute to our communities in meaningful ways. SB75 isn't just about the job placement. It's the long term economic mobility, the public safety and the workforce.

Equity this Pilot this Bill calls for a pilot that includes a comprehensive evaluation of employment retention, recidivism, reduction and cost savings with a goal of building a scalable model for statewide expansion. This is a practical, data driven approach that strengthens our workforce and ensures rehabilitation is real in the lives of our most vulnerable.

Not just a promise with me I have today Michelle Chambers who will be speaking in support of the Bill and I ask for your aye vote enthusiastically and respectfully.

Witnesses in support thank you for being here.

Thank you so much for having me. Good morning Mr. Chair and Committee Members. My name is Michelle Chambers and I am the policy and advocacy manager for A New Way of Life in Los Angeles, California.

A New Way of Life provides safe housing, legal and family reunification services for formerly incarcerated women to help them get back on their feet. We have houses in East Los Angeles, South Los Angeles, the community of Watts, North Los Angeles, community of Compton, City of Compton and Long Beach.

I share these communities with you just to give you an idea on why it's important imperative that I'm here today to represent in support of SB 75. This Bill not only addresses the immediate needs of individuals, but it also fosters long term social societal benefits.

Research has consistently shown and results have proven that employment supportive measures significantly reduces recidivism rates, which in turn enhances community safety and promotes economic stability. According to the Department of Justice, a prison reform study, the most critical crucial factor in reducing recidivism or the likelihood of reoffending is providing individuals with opportunities for education, training and employment.

And that is exactly what SB75 does, exactly that. We invest in programs that. Excuse me. Investing in programs that empower formerly incarcerated women helps break the cycle of incarceration and allows them to reintegrate into society as productive Members. This approach not only uplifts individuals, but strengthens families and communities as a whole.

Women's incarceration can be attributed to several key factors, including changes and sometimes in drug laws, increased enforcement of existing laws, socioeconomic challenges that disproportionately affect women. Additionally, there's been a growing recognition of domestic violence. The nexus to stagnate this trend is employment.

These jobs will provide stable financial Independence, social reintegration, community contribution and positive steps towards self sufficiency. Programs focused on workforce development tailored specifically for this demographic can make significant strides. Outcomes not for G's just in, not just for these individuals, but for their families and communities as a large.

SB 75 is a Bill that all 180 of our residents so desperately need for a new way of life. Thank you for having me today. Thank you for authoring this Bill and we respectfully ask for. I vote for SB75.

Thank you for being here. Other witnesses in support?

Just a me too. Jessica Stender on behalf of the National Task Force on Trades Women's Issues. In support.

Darby Kernan on behalf of redf. It's venture capitalism that invests in employment, social enterprises that invest in people that have been left out of the workforce. We support this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Any witnesses? Opposition seeing none. Members, any questions, if I might? I just asked the chair, have you already identified some of the nonprofits that you're going to work on this pilot project and how does that process work?

Well, we have not and that will be part of the work once the Bill is passed. To sort of build that through our prison system to make sure that we have a process that mirrors what we're doing on the men's side in particular, because there are similar programs that exist.

So this is the first time that we've attempted to do this in the state, believe it or not, after so many years of having a carceral system, particularly on the women's side of our rehabilitation center. So we want to work very closely with them and of course, with those employers and those unions that will provide opportunity.

The other question I have is the three counties that were picked, how did you decide on those three counties?

We looked at where we saw the most sort of incarcerated populations and also areas where we have very strong union and apprenticeship programs existing and tried to see how we could set these pilots up for some really good lessons learned in infrastructure with the hopes that this will become a model that we can use everywhere, certainly in every part of our state.

Our formerly incarcerated individuals, particularly women, find an almost insurmountable challenge of finding good jobs and landing strong careers. So we want to make sure that we do it and we do this right and we do it in a way that we can model it for other parts of the state.

It works, we know, for our vulnerable communities that have just been locked out of opportunity and not been incarcerated, we think that this is a. And for those who've been released and who have experienced incarceration. But this is an opportunity to begin that process earlier so that folks have a better chance of success when they get out.

Okay, well, based on the testimony I hear today, I'm supportive. I think that we do need to work with those who have committed their time, deserve to have a life after that, and help them get the tools they need to get back up on their feet. And I commend the author.

I'm looking forward to see how the pilot project works and see if it's a model that we can use. And so for those reasons, I'll be moving the Bill in support of the Bill.

Thank you and look forward to working with you on that.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is four. Zero remains on call. Madam Chair, the next item we have is file item 10, SB464. Would you like to open?

I will. Thank you again, colleagues, I am proud to present SB464. This is a priority Bill of the California Legislative Black Caucus that advances the goals of the Reparations task force.

In 2023, the task force released a final report laying out policies to address the enduring harms of slavery and systemic racism in California, including significant workplace disparities, particularly for black LGBTQ plus individuals. While California has made progress on pay equity reporting, the report also makes clear that we need more complete picture of our workforce demographics.

SB464 includes transparency by requiring anonymized pay data to be published on the Civil Rights Department website and include sexual orientation as a demographic category. The Bill also expands reporting to include employers with 100 or more employees, a sector that accounts for about 14% of jobs statewide and historically provided upward mobility for communities of color.

Without this data, we're missing critical insight into how the LGBTQ workers and public sector employees are faring and where we're falling short on equity and where there are opportunities for improvement. Although California has invested in programs to elevate black Californians, particularly into some higher paying sectors and roles, we can, we can't improve what we can't track.

And that's why this transparency measure is so important. SB464 strengthens our ability to measure progress and guide policy decisions that support equity and opportunity. And we know that this data already reveals some serious gaps.

We also know in our society today, in the 21st century, in the year of 2025, that diversity, equity and inclusion is under attack and increasingly being criminalized at the federal level. And so California has to stay vigilant, right?

We have to evaluate the progress of black Californians and the workplace and to continue building real pathways for all in that community that repair the harm and create a road to repair.

And with me today, I'm happy to say we have Taneicia Herring with the California NAACP and Mariko Yarasharo with the California Employment Lawyers Association witnesses in support.

Two minutes each. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Committee Members. My name is Taneicia Herring, serving as a Government Relations Specialist for the California Hawaii State Conference of NAACP, and I am proud to express our support for Senate Bill 464. SB 464 addresses the long standing pay disparities that continue to harm black workers and other marginalized communities across California.

By extending employer pay data reporting requirements, specifically breaking down wages by race, ethnicity, gender, job category and hours worked. This Bill gives us the tools we need to track progress and hold employers accountable. As the California Reparations Task Force Report clearly outlines, Black Californians are earning just 72 cents for every dollar earned by white Californians.

And it's not just pay. Our communities remain severely underrepresented in promotions and leadership, holding only a fraction of Executive level roles statewide. SB 464 is a direct response to these inequities. It takes seriously the recommendations of the Reparations Task Force by advancing economic transparency, strengthening enforcement, and beginning to repair historic and systemic harm.

The task force, also called the Legislature to ensure that this data includes our LGBTQ community and it is extended to public sector employees. SB 464 takes a step in that direction. At a time when the Federal Government is rolling back workplace diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, California must lead with courage.

SB464 is a necessary step towards a more just and equitable economy and the future where all workers are valued and paid fairly. And for these reasons we respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Next Witness in support.

I am not Mariko, but I am Jessica Stender on behalf of Equal Rights Advocates Testifying in support in addition to ensuring equal pay for equal work, another key strategy for closing the gender and race wage gap is addressing occupational segregation, which is the phenomenon whereby women and people of color are concentrated not just in broader fields that are lower paid, but also even within lower paid companies positions within companies.

Therefore, a critical strategy to closing the gap is ensuring that women and people of color are adequately represented at all wage levels. And that's what this Bill helps to address. You can't fix what you can't see. And by providing a high level view on groupings of employees within companies, these pay data reports help bring patterns to light.

And they incentivize employers to make changes to hiring pay promotion practices that ensure better representation at all wage levels. And we know that this kind of transparency works. In countries with pay data disclosure laws, the pay gap has shrunk.

And in the US many companies have voluntarily chosen to publicly disclose their pay data, acknowledging where there were areas for improvement and sharing plans on how they plan to do better. They did not disclose this data in shame, nor were they sued because of the data they shared, they committed to doing better.

The State Worker Census released last December confirmed that the gender pay gap for public employees remains wide in California, with a nearly $14,000 difference between each gender's median salary. This was actually an increase from the prior year. One of the primary reasons for this pay gap is that men hold higher paying jobs within the state than women.

Extending pay data reporting to the public sector will ensure that we have the data we need to understand these trends and combat these trends of occupational segregation within public employment.

This Bill will shine light on the systemic issues that contribute to the gender and race wage gap and ensure that both public and private employers have accountability not just for equal pay for equal work, but also to make necessary changes to ensure people of color and women are represented at all wage levels.

10 seconds where they are typically underrepresented. For these reasons, we respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support

Mariko Yoshihara on Behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and strong support.

Thank you.

Monea Jennings on behalf of the Greater Sacramento Urban League in full support. Thank you.

Thank you for being here.

Catherine Squire on behalf of the California Commission on the Status of Women and. Girls in support thank you for being here.

Any witnesses in opposition.

Hi, Good morning. Eric Lawyer, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. I'm also on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, Rural County Representatives of California, the California Special Districts Association and the League of California Cities. We definitely understand and sympathize with the author's intent with this Bill. However, we are enriching respectful opposition.

Public employers are subject to laws designed to ensure that personnel decisions are based on merit and are not based on discriminatory bases regarding gender, gender identity, sexual orientation or other criteria besides an individual's ability to perform their job.

We're concerned that the Bill imposes a new administrative burden on county human resource officers whose efforts are needed to help local agencies fill vacancies and respond to the needs of their employees.

Additionally, some of the data elements required under this Bill are not currently available in Human Resources Information Systems, commonly known as HRAs, leading to unknown costs and potential implementation challenges.

Finally, we have concerns that the data may not provide an accurate assessment of pay disparities due to discriminatory practices regarding gender, race, ethnicity, but rather could depict differences in seniority among the public workforce who typically receive annual pay increases. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition Our concern is with the proposed subdivision I2, which would mandate the publication of the private employer pay data reports. This is an issue that has been discussed in this Legislature previously.

Our big concern here here is what does the data show versus how will it be used if it is published online?

The EEO itself, which is the report that these California reports are modeled after, has very distinctly says that these reports are not intended and do not show pay disparities between employees who are similarly situated in the summer of 2022. At the time, the Legislature was considering a similar provision that was eventually struck when it reached the Assembly.

There was a report from the National Academy of Sciences that reviewed these data reports. California participated as an expert in that study. And it did show a lot of issues with these reports.

For example, the breadth of the categories, the different kinds of employees that fit, for example, in professionals among different industries, the breadth of the pay bands, and went through a lot of recommendations about how to better improve these reports.

And then again, really, I think doubling down on our consultation concern, which is that they do not show actual pay disparity. But our concern is that if they are published online, you will have media, you will have attorneys who will hold them up as showing that, and that's not what they are.

There was a similar reveal proposed a number of years ago. A plaintiff's attorney in Sacramento was on record in the business Journal saying that they would troll that Internet website, right, looking for litigation to file based on this kind of information.

So our concern here again is that if we were going to talk about these paid reports, I think it's worth considering that National Academies of Studies Sciences study and some of the recommendations in there, for example, maybe sharing data among peer groups that's anonymized something along those lines rather than simply publishing the data reports as they are now online. Thank you.

Thank you. Other witnesses in opposition identification purposes only.

Ben Ebbink on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition only to the public disclosure. Disclosure piece. Thanks.

Courtney Gladfelty on behalf of California Alliance. Of Family Owned Businesses in Opposition. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Frank Xu. I'm with Californians for Equal Rights Foundation. I'm here in strong opposition against SB464. All right, thank you.

Steve Fomer with Californians for Equal Rights in opposition.

Thank you. Dan Chia for the Civil Justice Association of California. Respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Morning, Mr. Chair. Chris Micheli on behalf of the Los. Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. And respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Emily Dell with the California Credit Union League and respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Koshlaychuck, on behalf of Western Growers. We'D like to align our comments with. Those mentioned by Cal Chamber and opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. Ryan Allain. The California Retailers Association also line with the chamber in opposition. Thank you. Thank you.

So now it's up to any questions from the Members, please. Senator.

First of all, I just want to say I appreciate the author bringing this forward. And you know, I'd say, hopefully this is a Bill that survives and gets signed into law.

What I'm a little bit concerned about, and sometimes I think my comments come in part from the longevity of my career to this point, you know, going back into local government. After eight years on the San Jose City Council, I joined the County Board of Supervisors, and I was there for 12 years.

But shortly thereafter, we had a big celebration, a big ceremonial celebration at the board to celebrate the 50th anniversary of something called the Commission on the status of women. 50th anniversary. And so we, we got a ledge file, just like an analysis document here. What was that all about 50 years ago? It was about this.

It's about what this Bill is trying to accomplish. Equal rights, equal pay, regardless of gender. And for some of these issues that come up, I've reached the point again in my career where I don't want to wait anymore or kick the can down the road or send things off to another study.

That said, I come from a business background. I completely, totally understand the concern about opening up private sector data.

I also served in the public sector, where in an era of redevelopment where people oftentimes turn down those opportunities because they didn't want to open up private sector books even to get, you know, money subsidies, they wouldn't do that. It's certainly something that should be protected.

But I did not hear one person come up in opposition and say, not this, but this. We're with you on the, on the, on the outcome you're looking for, and here's how we would do it, and here's how we could do it while protecting our data and protecting our privacy.

And no, nobody's, nobody's come after now, what is it? It's close to 60 years since the first proposal of the Equal Rights Amendment. And is this where we're going to continue to go? We don't want to cooperate even though we appreciate the outcome. We need better collaboration than this.

And so my hope is, I'm certainly willing to move the Bill today and supportive of it, as I said.

But my hope is that private sector interests come forward and say to the author, who I found to be extremely collaborative, and I've been with her on panels and discussions with the business community, always willing to work through things, you know, to come forward and say, here's how we can protect our interests and still we think, achieve this outcome and get into a real discussion.

And then for once and for all, you know, wouldn't it be nice if California, at least, if not the country, but California could put this issue to rest. And I'd be the first one to stand up and thank and congratulate the business community for taking on that kind of leadership and saying, here's how to best do it.

That said, I don't mean to chastise people. I just mean. I do mean to, you know, comment a little bit on some frustration over the years. That's all. But thank you again, the author. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

So that bill's been moved by Senator Cortese. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to thank the good Senator from San Jose for his comments and for especially the witnesses who testified today. And, you know, I agree. If not now, when I said this in Committee yesterday, and if not us, then who? I don't have the esteemed long career that you have.

I'm almost three years in, but certainly I'm a black woman in America, and it's long overdue. We have to work these out. We don't have time to waste. We have other major important issues to tackle, and we saw that in Los Angeles in January. We have so many other issues to tackle.

I am open and I appreciate the conversations that my team has had with the oppositions, but I want us to get to a resolution. This is a part of the reparations task force.

1100 page study of over 400 years of oppression, wanting to open up, ensure that all communities have the opportunity to be fairly represented in our workforce. And we can't face what we don't see. And we have to measure that.

Not to penalize, not to undermine, but to be able to correct, to figure out ways to improve, to achieve the community that so many Californians are expecting us to have, not just today, but in the future. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Clerk, please call the roll on file.

[Roll Call]

That bill's three to one. It's on call, Madam Chair.

All right, we are going to reopen the file here and begin with file item number one. No, no. The consent calendar. That's right. SB521 is on consent. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. At a vote of 4 to 0, the consent calendar is still on call. We'll move to file item number three. SB536, Archuleta.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 4 to 0. That Bill is still on call. Now moving to File item number 4. SB628 Grove

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 1 to 3, and that Bill is still on call. Moving to file item number five. SB642, Limon.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have a vote of 3 to 1. That Bill is on call. Moving to File item number six. SB668, Hurtado.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 3 to 0. That Bill is on call. Okay. And I think we have caught up. We're going to actually move File item number nine. Just kidding. We're moving now to file item number nine. SB238, Smallwood-Cuevas.

[Roll Call]

We are all caught up. And we have one more file item number, two more files, item numbers that we're waiting on. That's right. I'm sorry, we have two more. And we're going to hear file item number one now. We're waiting on Senator Wiener. And then we will reopen the file and finalize it, please. Okay. Senator Durazo, you are presenting SB294, Senator Reyes's Bill.

Okay. Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for the opportunity to present SB 294, the Workplace Know Your Rights Act, on behalf of Senator Reyes. SB 294 will serve as a safeguard and empowerment for workers in California by educating them on their labor and civil rights under state and federal law.

The bill will protect families by ensuring a worker's emergency contact is noted should they be arrested or detained by state or federal law enforcement. Since President Trump's inauguration, the federal government has enacted a wave of executive orders that aim to weaken civil and labor protections.

This upending of existing protections creates uncertainty for workers and employers in the workplace, as they are unsure which laws apply in which context. Employers are unsure about what laws to follow and workers feel that they must remain silent, which makes them further susceptible to civil and labor law violations.

SB 294 will ask the Labor Commissioner's Office to create a template for employers to annually inform their employees about their rights, state and federal, to ensure equal and just treatment under the law. Now more than ever, it is imperative that we protect workers' rights and create certainty for employers so that everyone knows their rights under California and federal law.

I would also like to note on behalf of the author, she would like to thank Committee staff and the Chair for their work on this and that the office is committed to reviewing the concerns raised in the analysis and working to address them in Judiciary Committee.

This bill is being sponsored by the California Labor Federation, SEIU California, the Central American Resource Center, and is a Latino Caucus priority. Here to testify in support is Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions and Kim Rosenberger with SEIU California. Thank you.

Thank you. Witnesses in support. Thank you. Two minutes each.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are proud to co-sponsor SB 294, which will educate workers and employers of labor and civil rights under state and federal law to promote adequate, just, and equal enforcement.

California workers, unions, and advocates together have fought tirelessly to ensure that the state has the best and strongest worker protection laws in the country. However, as mentioned, the federal administration has enacted a wave of executive orders that have weakened civil and labor protections, making it difficult for employers to know how to best comply with existing law and for workers to understand their rights.

In addition, the federal administration has started mass layoffs of federal workers and the gutting of federal agencies tasked with enforcing federal labor and civil rights laws, such as the Department of Labor, the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, and most recently, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health.

Apart from dealing with the significant impacts, our state agencies' chronic understaffing makes health and safety law enforcement incredibly difficult. So given these enforcement challenges at both the state and federal level, a worker's understanding of labor laws is critical so they can speak up or report when there are violations on their workplace.

One of the best ways to prevent violations is to empower workers to protect themselves whenever possible. Not only does this help reduce the burden on our understaffed agencies, but it helps protect workers from harm by preventing it altogether.

Ultimately, when workers are not aware of their fundamental labor and constitutional rights, it is much more likely that those rights will be violated. And SB 294 will be a powerful educational tool to help workers understand their rights, secure them in the workplace, and then feel empowered to enforce them if necessary. Thank you so much, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you for being here. Next witnesses in support.

Thank you. Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU. We're proud to co-sponsor SB 294 to enhance protections for all workers across the state. This bill is a critical step forward for ensuring that both workers and employers are well informed. We take a lot of time and effort to pass really important laws.

And the most important part is that the workers, the people, they have to know what those laws are. And this is that next step. This is especially important in light of recent federal efforts to roll back legal protections. California labor law is stronger. It's the strongest in the nation, and we need to have our workers know the protections afforded to them, placing them if they don't know it, they place themselves at risk of exploitation or abuse.

This confusion is particularly dangerous for vulnerable populations who may be intimidated into silence or worse, endure egregious labor and civil rights viol without understanding the legal remedies offered to them. As a union, SEIU has seen firsthand the impact of workplace raids. These operations have frequently violated employees' due process rights and underscore the urgent need for greater awareness of constitutional protections in the workplace.

ICE often detains workers indiscriminately during raids, regardless of immigration status. Without knowledge of basic constitutional rights, such as the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable seizures, the Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, workers are are more susceptible to violations.

SB 294 addresses these urgent concerns and this legislation empowers individuals to recognize and assert their rights and help prevent unlawful practices in California. For those reasons, we strongly support this bill. We're proud to co-sponsor, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you.