Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. We will go ahead and get started as a Subcommitee in order to facilitate the goal of the hearing as much from the public. Within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings.

Commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed. Reminder for our witness policy. For each Bill we will have to take two main witnesses in support and two main witnesses in opposition. Each primary witness will get up to two minutes each for additional public comment.

We ask that you state your name, affiliation and position on the Bill. One note I'd like to make is that item number 13, Assembly Bill 1442, has been pulled by the author.

We are going to go a bit out of order and I see Assembly Member Rodriguez here and go ahead and call her Bill up AB 1424 if she is if you are ready, thank.

Thank You Chair and Committee Members. I am pleased to present AB 1424, which seeks to protect the health and safety of employees and persons incarcerated inside our state correctional facilities. California continues to face wildfires, heat waves, severe storms and floods. Many California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation facilities are located where extreme weather and natural disasters are not uncommon.

In fact, a study showed that CDCR is highly susceptible to climate hazards because they are located near remote areas and have an aging infrastructure and population. A UCLA report identified eight facilities that were prone to excessive heat and revealed that 24 California State prisons sit within five miles of fire hazard zones.

As we know, California is prone to wildfires and wildfire smoke poses significant health risks such as lung and heart disease, shortness of breath, and worsening asthma symptoms. Incarcerated people are especially vulnerable to extreme weather conditions because they are entirely reliant on CDCR for preparedness, response and recovery.

AB 1424 will ensure that CDCR implements climate resiliency measures inside their facilities and requires Cal OSHA to submit a rulemaking proposal to the standards board by December 12026 related to extreme temperatures.

This rulemaking proposal must consider maximum and minimum indoor temperatures, installation of adequate H Vac systems, protocols for medical intervention, indoor temperature monitoring, and the investigation of heat related illness incidents among workers. When the Department of Industrial Relations adopted indoor heat Standards and Guidance last year, CDCR workplaces were exempted.

Extreme heat mitigation efforts are long overdue for the workers under this Bill. Inside CDCR, there are nurses, doctors, maintenance workers, correctional officers, and school teachers that need extreme weather protections.

Speaking in support of this Bill Today with me are Leonard Brown, organizer for WorkSafe, one of the Bill sponsors, and Nicole Marquez, Health and Safety Program Director with the National Employment Law Project.

Good afternoon. Chair Ortega, Assembly Members of the Labor and Employment Committee. I'm Nicole Marquez, the Health and Safety Program Director of the National Employment Law Project. NELP. NELP is a national nonprofit advocacy organization focusing on enhancing the rights of workers, especially marginalized workers.

I have over a decade of experience in in health and safety as an attorney and worker advocate and I'm here today to speak in strong support of AB 1424. Let me be clear. As our state has recognized, working in extreme heat can be life threatening.

Still, common sense protections can and do mitigate those dangers for millions of workers. Throughout California, workers engaged in agriculture, manufacturing, construction services and logistics are all protected by outdoor and indoor heat standards with one egregious exception and unjust exception.

If this work is done inside CDCR facilities, including those that incarcerate children, incarcerated workers who do substantially similar tasks and duties inside CDCR walls are denied basic labor standards like occupational health and safety protections and as a result are at risk for long term health consequences and even death from wholly preventable heat related illnesses.

As of 2023, there were more than 94,000 people incarcerated in California correctional facilities with Latino and black people who are systemically targeted and significantly overrepresented. Just over half of CDCR budget goes to operate its facilities and significant amounts of the day to day work of those operations is performed by people incarcerated there.

Physical labor, including janitorial, laundry, maintenance, foundry and steam work, which Leonard will talk about, is commonly done by incarcerated workers. And while incarcerated workers may earn very low wages for this work, the ACLU has estimated that approximately 76% of imprisoned workers say they are required to work or face disciplinary consequences.

Brutal conditions working inside also actively condition workers to expect and demand less from their bosses and work environments. And so for these reasons, I strongly encourage you to urge you to pass AB 1424. Thank you.

First of all, I just want to thank the community for having us here. My name is Leonard Brown and I'm the community organizer with WorkSafe. I'm also the new elected VP of National Cost and National Council of Occupation Safety and Health. And also I discharge parole tomorrow.

I did 32 years and certainly not something I'm proud of, right? But I've held several assignments jobs inside of various different institutions, particularly old corporate corporate institutions. I work textile PI textiles, sewing, making garments and CAL FIRE nomax suits. Those facilities don't have any ventilation we had fans, we had like about six fans in there.

Trying to keep the place cool. But at the same time you have, you have these ovens that they bake the letters, the silk screening ovens to dry the ink. And you got these ovens running and then you got 96 bodies in there. Times their body heat. So it's like, you know, it would get.

Sometimes it would get so hot in there, you know, you know, they tried to open up the roller doors to let air in, but that just let the heat in from the outside because cork in the central valley gets hot.

And then another experience I had working at Saddle, which is also in the central Valley, and I was production cook and we worked with steam kettles, 150 gallon steam kettles. And those kettles put out a lot of heat.

You know, you gotta stand over the kettles, the sturdy kettles, you know, making the meals and the, you know, trying to cool, trying to cool down. A main kitchen that has 16 kettles and it has numerous of steam ovens, you know, steam ovens too, is. Yeah, we'd have to step outside. It was. It'd be.

It was hotter inside of the kitchen and then it would be outside. And the outside temperature, you know, the Central valley would often get to 100 plus. So, you know, trying to stay cool is just. Yeah, you're welcome.

Do we have additional witnesses in support? You could stay there if you want to do it for me. Okay, yeah. Just real quick.

Yeah. Here on behalf of legal services for. Prisoners with children, one of the Bill. Sponsors in proud support. Thank you. Thank you.

Do we have seen no other witnesses in support. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Well, do we have any questions from our Members? oh, that's right. Sorry. oh, support. Okay, come on in. I knew it was going to fast.

Name an organization. I'm Bernice Singh. I'm with All of us or None and Legal Services for Prisoners with Children. I support.

I'm Nedric Miller. All of us are non Sacramento and LSPC definitely support.

My name is Tamir Watson. I strongly support this.

Hello, my name is Sam Brown. I'm the founder Director of the 10P program and we're in strong support of this legislation. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Coby Pizzotti on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians also in strong support. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon. Ashley De La Rosa with the Dolores Huerta Foundation in support.

Hi there. Kelly Groth. Let us contribute initiative in support.

Good afternoon. Hasmi Kigamian, Staff Attorney at the Sustainable Economies Law Center. And we fully support. Hi. Hope Williams with the Sustainable Economies Law Center. Strong support.

Okay. Seeing no other witnesses in support, before we move, we. We are going to take a minute to establish quorum.

[Roll Call]

Quorum is Established, Assemblymember Kalra

First I want to move the bill. And I want to thank Senator Rodriguez for bringing this Bill forward. These kinds of issues have been issues that this Committee and this body, in terms of indoor heat standards are working on for many, many years to get OSHA to move on it.

They finally got them to move on it, but of course, and unfortunately exempted those that are working in the conference. Department of Corrections. And so this is critically important, incredibly needed. All work is dignified. All workers deserve dignity. And I thank you for seeing that and for leading on that. Thank you.

Do we have a second? We have a motion. And a second before we. As for closing a statement, I just would like to also repeat or echo the comments of my colleague. Thank you for bringing this Bill forward.

I have visited some of these facilities, and that is one of the things that I've discussed is the unbearable heat that happens inside of these places where it feels like you're inside an oven. And so thank you for bringing this Bill forward. And with that, would you like to close?

I just want to take a moment to thank everyone who came here to support our witnesses and our sponsors and for your comments. We agree. We obviously. We very much need it, and we're grateful and request your aye vote to move this forward.

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is out. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Members.

Okay. We will now return to file order item number one. AB 1340. Assemblymember Wicks and Berman.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 1340 provides rideshare drivers, known as Transportation Network Companies, or TNC drivers, with the choice to join a union and negotiate for better wages, benefits and protections. It has the potential to empower more than 600,000 workers, giving more Californians the right to unionize than any other legislation in recent state history.

And why are we here today? As this Legislature is no doubt aware, under the 2021 ballot measure, Proposition 22, rideshare drivers are considered independent contractors under California law and currently do not have access to worker protections such as workers compensation, sick leave or overtime.

As independent contractors, rideshare drivers are not covered by the National Labor Relations act and therefore have no right to organize or collectively bargain with rideshare companies. Can independent contractors join a union?

While Prop 22 required that impacted workers rights to collective bargain be approved by a 7-8 vote from the Legislature, the language was severed from the initiative by the courts. Although California's First Appellate District largely upheld the language of Prop 22.

It ruled that the measure unlawfully defined an amendment and thus cannot limit a Legislature's ability to enact legislation related to rideshare workers collective bargaining rights.

Neither the State of California nor the Proposition supporters appealed this ruling, so as a result, there is no limitation in Prop 22 that prevents the state Legislature from passing laws related to rideshare drivers ability to join together in a union and collectively bargain for better pay, benefits and protections.

Additionally, antitrust law recognizes that states have authority to pass laws that further state policy, providing an exception under a doctrine called state action immunity.

AB 1340 meets the legal requirements of the State Action immunity doctrine because it furthers state policy to encourage and protect rideshare drivers, freedom of association and ability to join together to negotiate improvements, and it provides for the necessary state oversight or supervision of the organizing and collective bargaining process.

I want to acknowledge, as this Committee analysis outlines, that there are still issues in this legislation that must be clarified and resolved. I am committed, as always, to that work and my door is always open to all stakeholders who want to improve upon this proposal.

With AB 1340, California is putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of workers to raise the bar in the ride share industry and create a model for equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector.

With the strength of a union, workers can build a fair and substantial economy that works for everyone because we know that when workers stand together, they are one of the most powerful voices for justice in California.

With me today is my joint author, Assemblymember Marc Berman, and testifying in support is Janice Jackson, a rideshare driver and member of SEIU California Gig Workers Union and Dr. Enrique Lopezlira, Executive Director of the UC Berkeley Labor Center. Also available here to answer technical questions is Kimberly Rodriguez from SEIU.

Thank you very much Mr. Berman.

Thank you Mr. Chair and colleagues. I'm proud to join my colleague, Assembly Member Wicks and hundreds of thousands of rideshare drivers in California in presenting this important Bill AB 1340. AB 1340 is a straightforward.

It provides rideshare drivers the opportunity to have a seat at the table in deciding the future of an industry for which they are taking the risk, getting on the road and working long hours every day.

Fundamentally, this is no different than so many other industries where the workforce already has the ability to choose if they want to organize and collectively bargain. But as my colleague mentioned, Prop 22 changed those rules. So AB 1340 uses our state's authority to give power back to rideshare drivers.

Again, this is about giving rideshare drivers an opportunity, an opportunity that is already available to so many others who are also working hard for a living. And with that, I respectfully request an aye vote on AB 1340.

Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes, please.

Oh, I'm sorry. Hi, I'm Janice.

Can you pull the mic a little bit closer?

I'm nervous a little bit.

You're great. Doing great. You're doing great.

Good afternoon, everyone. My name is Janice Jackson. I live in Sacramento and I've been driving with Uber for over about 10 years. Before I drove with Uber, I drove city buses for 25 years until it took a toll on my body. At first, when I began to drive with Uber, it was very good.

The pay was very well and the time was flexible. But over the years since I've been with Uber, it has changed considerably. A lot. What a lot of people don't know is that as a driver, we push really hard to make our ends meet.

Me, I don't own a car, so I rent a car from time to time with Uber and it costs way more. And I have to work 12 hours a day, seven days a week. In order for me to make that pay, I have to pay like $416 a week to keep the car.

When I'm off sick, I miss those days and I have to take away from my Social Security to pay for the car to keep it going. Drivers like me also have been deactivated with no warning. Passengers call in and say whenever I've been accused of being under influence.

And one time before, I was accused of just taking off the platform, period. Once I was deactivated for 2 whole days because I couldn't find the passenger. So they got really upset about it and there was no defense for me, no one to fight for me.

All I can do is just wait for Uber to let me back in. We couldn't just find--excuse me, you guys I'm still a little nervous. So let me see, where am I at?

Uber mentions they speak about taking money out from the passengers for medical, but it's never given to the driver. For most of the drivers, they're not receiving it. So we don't know for sure where all the money is going. And for these reasons, I do support AB1340 and hopefully that you guys will vote.

Thank you. And you did great. Thank you.

Thank you.

Do we have additional witness?

Thank you to the Committee, especially Chairwoman Ortega, for the opportunity to present some of our recent research we believe is relevant to the bill before you. My name is Dr. Enrique Lopezlira. I'm the Director of the Low Wage Work Program at the UC Berkeley Labor Center.

A recent study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center and the Center for Wage and Employment Dynamics analyzed data from over 52,000 trips and more than 1100 drivers across six major ride share and delivery platforms in five major metro areas. About 60% of the trips analyzed were by California drivers.

This is the first comprehensive study to examine all major platforms and account for all types of earnings and expenses, including costs drivers usually have to cover themselves like payroll taxes and benefits.

More importantly, the study accounts for all the time drivers spend in a shift, not just driving a passenger, including time between rides and time returning from dropping off a ride. The results were striking. After accounting for these extra costs, California Gig Transportation drivers employee equivalent net earnings were just $5.97 per hour.

Without tips, only about a third of the state minimum wage. Even with tips, earnings only rose to $7.63 per hour, still less than half the minimum wage. Rideshare drivers in California earn less than drivers in other metro areas like Boston, Chicago and Seattle.

Even after including Prop 22 adjustment payments but excluding tips, nearly half of all passenger trips in the study were by full time drivers working 32 hours or more per week. And almost 80% of all passenger trips were by drivers working at least 20 hours per week.

This confirms that most of the driving is done by workers who rely on these jobs as a major source of income, not just a side hustle.

These findings make clear that gig drivers are not earning a living wage and lack access to basic benefits, which reinforces why they need the right to collective bargaining. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Hello, my name is Luis Funes. I've been a ride share driver for four years and I am in strong support of AB 1340.

My name is Joseph Augusto and I'm a ride share driver in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've been a driver for about 10 years. I have 25,000 rides that I've done and I'm a strong supporter of 1340 and urge you people to support it.

Hi, my name is Hector Castellanos. I'm driving for Uber and Lyft for about 10 years. I'm living in California and I'm strongly urged to vote yes please on AB 1340. We're really struggling right now. Thank you.

My name is Armando Martinez Corona. I worked for over 30 years. I'm 90 years old. I before start working, still working because due to my bills get food on my table.

But $5.97 doesn't help much and even I have to pay my insurance, my car and always have to be up to date with the documents. Any person working for the minimum wage is $30 an hour, very little. We've been insurance too much.

Thank you. Thank you.

I encourage you to help us. Thank you. This protection.

Thank you. Gracias. Just a reminder, please just state your name and position on the bill or name, organization and position.

My name is Nicholas Cavlar Jr. I'm from Stockton, California. I've been a Lyft/Uber driver going for nine years. Last two years I've been doing it full time. I urge you to support it. It's just been not the same. So I support AB 1340. I hope you too.

Thank you.

Buenos, mi nombre es Fidel Flores. Tengo nuevo anos trabajando en Uber y Lyft y vivo en Fontana y este lo que vamos a hacer con la ley muy bueno, gracias.

Gracias.

Hello, my name is Natasha, I live in Irvine, California. I am part of SEIU Workers Union and I support AB 1340. Thank you.

Thanks.

Hello, my name is Ernesto Cortese and I support AB 1340 and I'm living in Southgate. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm Jesus Guerrero. I've been an Uber and Lyft driver for nine years and I've been working full time and I support AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Mike Robinson and I've been a lyft driver for 10 years and I strongly support AB1340.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Desa Pidavi. I'm driving for Lyft/Uber for three years. I strongly urge you to vote yes for AB 1340. Thank you.

My name is Francisco Magdaleno. I joined for Uber and Lyft. Nine years on Uber and seven years and a half for Lyft and I strongly urge to vote yes on AB 1340. Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Mi nombre es Joel Fernando trabajo para Uber por siete anos y este necesitamos su soporte.

Buenos tardes, mi nombre es Martina Esmeralda llegara y estoy con soy Uber driver por aproximadamente cinco anos. Ah, soy miembro de ese EU y este ahi estoy pidiéndoles que por favor, voten por la proposición AB1340 la necesitamos. Gracias.

Buenos tardes, mi nombre es Jesus Ibarra vengo de Los Angeles California y he trabajado para cinco anos, por favor, voten a la 1340 lo necesitamos, gracias.

Buenos tardes. Soy Vitelio Francia vengo de la ciudad de Lancaster he trabajado por ocho anos vente y por favor, restricción encarecidamente que nos ayuden a la AB 1340.

Buenos tardes, mi nombre es Glenda Callejas y vivo en Novato, he sido conductora de transporte para Uber y Lyft durante nuevo anos y soy parte de la Union de California Gig Workers y le pido a encarecidamente que bote si el arte en AB 1340.

Buenos tardes, mi nombre es Eric Callejas yo he trabajado para un vivir por ocho anos, por favor, apoyen la promoción AB1340, gracias.

My name is Paramji Singh, I drive for Uber and Lyft for 11 years and please support us and AB 1340. Only hope for helping us.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Harbinder Singh, I live in Sacramento. I've been work with the Lyft and Uber for one years and I part of the SEIU California Gig Workers Union. I strongly urge you to vote yes on AB1340

Hello everybody, my name is Mahindra Sherge I was driving both Lyft and Uber in 2019. Uber was suspended my account because one lady complained me she was asking me follow her but I was following the GPS she complained me she gave me a sexual harassment.

In 2019 they were suspended my account. Now I am driving only lyft so I support AB 1340 please support us. Thank you.

My name Enda Singh, I live in Sacramento. I drive lift and uber like three years. I support AB 1340.

Good morning. Hi, my name is Guruvinder Singh, I live in Roosevelt. I've been a rideshare driver for eight years. I was part of the SEIU California Gig Worker Union. I strongly support the AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Harlajan Singh Longia. I work with Uber and Lyft six years. I support for AB 3040.

Mi nombre es Jose. Vivo en North Hollywood, Los Angeles. Condujo paralísimover durante un ano y cinco meses. Le pido encarecidamente que apoyen la AB 1340. Gracias.

Hola, buenos tardes. Mi nombre es William Tablante. Yo vivo en Los Angeles, California. He estado trabajando para las aplicaciones ya dos años que es Lyft y Uber y les pido el apoyo de la AB 1340. Muchísimas gracias.

Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Gabriel Beltrán y trabajo para Uber y Lyft por 10 años. Quisiera que nos ayudaran a realizar esta unión para tener con que darle en la cabeza. Gracias.

Hello, I am Mohammed. I live in Roswell. I have been a driver, a ride share driver for Lyft for almost a year. I'm here to say yes on AB 1340. Thank you.

Hola, mi nombre es Pedro Aviles he estado trabajando para Uber por diez anos y soporta la AB1340.

Emanuel Duran, from the Inland Empire County California. I've been an Uber driver for over six years and I strongly encourage you to vote yes to AB 1340. Thank you.

Mi nombre Emilio Lizarraga vengo de San Bernardino y apoyen AB1340.

Buenos tardes. Soy Luis Murillo vengo de Fontana California he manejado, sigo manejando para Uber y Lyft desde hace ocho anos, por favor, les pido que apoyen la ley AB1340.

Buenos tardes, mi nombre es John Diaz soy conductor de Uber y Lyft, tengo de Los Angeles y solicito por sus buenos oficios apoyando la ley AB1340, gracias.

Hello, my name is Ophelia Rosas, I'm from Adelanto, California. Please support 1340. I'm driving for Uber only for around 7 years. Please support for a change for a life for my family and everyone. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Arnulfo Vega. I come in from Huntington Park, California. Yo apoyo la haber a trece cuarenta, por favor.

Hi, my name is Patricia Ubarta. I drive for Uber. I'm from Harbor City, California, LA County. And I've been driving Uber for around seven years and I strongly say yes on AB 1340.

Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support.

Thank you.

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

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Good afternoon, Chair Ortega, members of the committee, thank you very much. John Finley, on behalf of Uber Technologies Incorporated. We are here in respectful opposition of Assembly Bill 1340. As written, this bill would override the will of California voters, undermining the independence of tens of thousands of app based drivers and raise costs for millions of Californians.

Thank you. Seeing no other voices in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Great job.

Much appreciated.

Just a reminder, two minutes each for our witnesses.

All right. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Jose Torres with TechNet. We are respectfully opposed to AB 1340. Prop 22 was approved by voters just a few years ago as it codified app based drivers as independent contractors and Prop 22 was upheld unanimously by the California Supreme Court just last year.

The bill would conflict with the voter's intent under the proposition and it would upend the framework of Prop 22 by effectively reimposing an employment style relationship and bargaining process that was meant to be avoided through passage of the proposition. Especially when this bill only targets a specific industry within the sharing and gig economies.

As such, the bill could destabilize a transportation service that Californians rely on every day. As such, we asked that you vote no on this bill today and I thank you for your time.

After six years of uncertainty imposed on this industry and these workers, we were hopeful that the legislature would be able to move on to real discussions about how to reduce unnecessary costs California imposes on rideshare customers and how to improve the quality of work offered at a moment's notice to any Californian seeking flexible work.

AB 1340 is in conflict with Proposition 22, which 10 million and 60% of California voters approved in 2020 and has been supported by the overwhelming majority of drivers both then and now, and was recently upheld by the California Supreme Court. That decision reaffirmed what drivers across California consistently tell us.

They overwhelmingly value the flexibility and independence of app based work. AB 1340 further targets a single sector of the gig economy and would create a bureaucratic patchwork that could raise costs for riders, reduce service availability and hit low income communities the hardest. The very riders who depend most on affordable, reliable transportation.

California should be focusing on expanding flexible work opportunities, not limiting them, especially during a time in which many are advocating for more flexible work arrangements across the economic, across the economy. Uber remains committed to working with the legislature on solutions that protect what drivers value while improving their experience. That includes innovations in benefits, safety, and earnings protections.

We respectfully urge your no vote and welcome the opportunity to continue collaborating on policy that respects both the will of the voters and the future of this important platform work in California. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing, oh, okay.

Hello. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of Chamber of Progress, in opposition.

Hello. Malcolm McFarland II from Lyft. Respectfully opposed thank you.

Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Respectfully in opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, I will now turn it over to our members. Questions, Comments? Yes, Assembly Member Lee.

I want to thank the authors for bringing the bill forward. I think it's vastly important and necessary. You know, in 2020, during the pandemic when I was still first getting elected, the only way to actually make ends meet as I was going through the campaigns was doing gig economy work. And it was terrible, especially doing it during the pandemic.

And I remember especially since in the same time Prop 22 was sold to voters as saying, if you allow these workers to organize, to be classified as employees, your rides, your goods depending on these apps will go up.

But I am already seeing right now and everyone knows that the rides are already more expensive even this year, every single year getting more and more expensive and you still prohibited them from organizing. So why is it now that they're still getting more and more expensive, yet these are not even trickling down to the workers?

And that's why I think it's so important that the, as the authors have talked about in the court rulings that it allows. The courts have allowed us to go and give these workers the ability to go organize.

I think there are so many workers right now who are starving to at least have the chance to organize, to collectively bargain, and they should ought to be given that chance. So I really appreciate you bringing this bill forward. I have been so trying to help even my local gig economy workers organize and get closer and closer to this goal.

And so I'd love to be added as a coauthor, joint author, whatever it is you want to have me as I'd love to have this bill move forward and I'd love to help it and I would love to move the bill today. Thank you.

Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. And I do want to thank the authors and sponsors for bringing this forward. I have a question to the authors regarding the question that we don't have the ability as a legislature to delve into this because the voters and the courts have already spoken on this. Can you please answer that?

You go, sure.

You sure?

No, no, you go.

So polite.

I thought we had a plan.

Yeah.

So thank you for the question. And as my joint author mentioned in her opening remarks, the bill invokes the doctrine of state action immunity, which allows the state to pass laws that immunize the state's regulation of their domestic commerce in ways that would otherwise violate the federal antitrust laws.

So there's a required two part test for the state action immunity. One, it must further state policy. Two, it must provide for the state oversight or supervision.

Here AB 1340 meets this test since it, one, provides that it is the policy of the state to encourage and protect rideshare drivers, freedom of association and ability to join together to negotiate improvements. And that such action will benefit the state's economy and outweigh any anti competitive effect of the labor agreements. And two, create state oversight via the Labor and Workforce Development Agency to oversee the organizing and collective bargaining process and enforce the law.

So, you know, I think it's pretty clear that this is definitely falls under the jurisdiction of the legislature in the state and that's why we brought the bill forward.

And just to add to that too, the court severed the seventh, eighth piece of this too. So we feel very confident about our legal ability to do this.

Appreciate that. Thank you for that response. You know, this is an issue that's very near and dear to a lot of us. I think a lot of us have a lot of battle scars over much of what's happened over the years.

And I think these ride sharing companies, when I was in city council made a lot of promises and they crushed the taxicab industry. They made a lot of promises then to the drivers.

They made promises that were actually straight up lies for the voters, including that they were going to provide health care and better wages and they spent over a quarter $1.0 billion to do it.

And so at the end of the day, we saw quite a few of the folks that are the faces of California, the faces of California workers that are just trying to get by and are finding it harder and harder.

By the way, those of us who try to use those services I think can notice how much more expensive they've gotten as well. And so when we look at what we can do to help lift up these workers, I think giving them the opportunity to speak for themselves.

If you notice, for most of them they say, I work for Uber, I work for Lyft. Right? Like you can talk about certain kinds of relationships, legal relationships, but the eyes can see what the eyes can see and the amount of control that these companies have over the workers exists in a very real way.

And in that context we want to give these workers self determination and a voice more than anything else. Now when I over the years, both with SEIU and with Rideshare Drivers United and many others, we've tried our best to give a voice to the drivers.

And I appreciate both of you for leading that effort in trying to continue in that work. And so there's still as mentioned, some details to work out. I haven't had time to sit down formally to have conversations on some of the details. We've all been a little busy on our respective legislation.

But I would ask that you take the opportunity to speak with and to whatever extent you can work with Rideshare Drivers United. I think that they they've been an effective voice over the years.

I think they would be able to add to some of the context in addition to the to California Gig Workers Union as to what's happening on the ground. And as to other details, we'd love to continue to work and I'd be happy to be to join on as a coauthor.

Thank you.

Seeing no other comments, I would just like to add, you know, this is a again, we've been able to do this for farmworkers, we've been able to do this for childcare providers. We should be able to do this for gig workers. Independence and flexibility. Thank you. But let's keep it down.

Independence and flexibility should not come at the expense of low wages, no health care, no voice on the job. With that. Would you like to close.

I want to appreciate the comments from my colleagues here. Would love to add you all on. Appreciate your good work, Chair, not just in this committee but for a lifetime of advocating for these things. So thank you for that. This bill is really about giving workers choice. That's what we're talking about.

The choice to unionize, the choice to fight for better wages, to fight for health care, to fight for their livelihood, to fight for stability which everyone should be entitled to in this great nation, especially California, the fourth largest, economy, fifth largest economy in the world. We should be able to have all of those things.

I know we're in the first committee in the first house but appreciate my colleagues leadership, the conversations, the advocacy from all the drivers who are here. They have been at this work for years and years and years and appreciate the conversations with opposition. We will continue to do so and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Do we have a second? A motion was made. I need a second. I take that as a second. Okay, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

[ROLL CALL]

That measure is out. Thank you. We will now hear items 2 and 3. Assembly Member McKinnor, whenever you are ready.

Are you leaving on my. We're matchy-matchy. I'm waiting. I'm sorry. They're waiting for. To exit. Can I ask for my witness?

Okay, no worries.

Thank you.

I guess I could just get started. I can get started. So I'm gonna hold you guys up.

Madam Chair and Members AB288 will protect a California workers right to organize and collectively bargain by authorizing the Public Employment Relation Board to respond or remedy a claim that is not remedied by the National Labor Relations Board NLRB by their statutory deadline Members.

Okay.

It is no secret that workers across this nation are under attack by the current Administration.

DOGE is taking a wrecking ball to our federal workforce, making it more difficult for our veterans to receive their benefits, more difficult for our seniors to access their Social Security and Medicare benefits, more difficult to protect disabled students, and more difficult to fight hunger and food insecurity.

The Federal Government is also attempting to take a wrecking ball to public and private sector employees fundamentally right to join a union and collective bargain for wages, benefits and safe working conditions. How exactly is the Federal Government doing this?

Well, on March 282025 the NLRB Member Gwen Wilcox was removed from the National Labor Relations Board, making the board lose its quorum and effectively preventing the NLRB from being able to make any decisions or take any actions that would allow a worker to join a union and collective bargain.

That's right in the middle of all the federal chaos. This Administration is actively working to prevent any worker, public or private, from being able to join a union into the foreseeable future. This is unacceptable and frankly, it is un American. California will not sit idly by.

Idly by as its workers are systematically denied the right to organize due to employer or federal inaction. A.B. 288 respects federal labor law, but affirms that if California workers are unable to get a remedy at the federal labor California can act to protect a worker's fundamental right to organize.

The right to join a union and bargain collectively is essential to the state's economic security and the human dignity of to of all California workers. AB 288 ensures that California workers can continue to exercise this right even in the face of one of the most anti worker Administration in our nation's history. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB288 and today I'd like my witnesses to introduce themselves. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I am testifying here because California workers constitutional rights to organize are under attack and we need our California officials to act. My name is Cesar Diaz and I am a Teamsters Member at Amazon.ksbd air hub. When Amazon came to our community, the company promised great jobs with superior benefits. Years later we are still struggling.

Everyone works overtime just to make ends meet. We want to be treated fairly and to have the American dream. That's why we organized a union. We have a first amendment right to organize and strike. But when we exercise our constitutional rights, Amazon breaks the law and the government has not had our back.

Me and my co workers have repeatedly gone on strike over Amazon's unfair labor practices. Federal law and the Constitution are supposed to protect us against retaliation. But when Amazon illegally penalizes strikers, it took over two years for the NLRB to rule in our favor.

Even after that, Amazon still refuses to comply with the NLRB orders to restore benefits that were taken from strikers. When we organized our union, Amazon wouldn't even acknowledge us. To this day management acts like it's a non union warehouse. We are still waiting for the NLRB to act. How many years must workers wait for a resolution?

When justice is delayed, justice is denied. But you can do something about it right now. Pass this law AB 288 and force Amazon to respect our constitutional right to organize in California. One thing Amazon can't stop is our movement.

Every day more and more Amazon workers in California are joining the Amazon Teamsters and the fight for a union at this company. We need you to stand with us and stand for good jobs in California like they promised. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. My name is Vanessa Valdez and I'm an Amazon driver in the City of Industry. I've been delivering for Amazon for six years. But when my co workers and I organized a union with the Teamsters, it was the first time that I felt like I had a voice. I was exercising my constitutional rights.

I was fighting for myself, my kids and my co workers. Amazon plays games with its drivers. It says Amazon on my packages, on my van, on my uniform. The one place it doesn't say Amazon is on my paycheck. That's because Amazon has created middlemen that it falsely claims our employees Just so it can dodge its legal responsibilities.

Amazon pretends we don't work for them, but the company has been willing to break any law and spend endless money to try to stop us from organizing a union. We unionized in November and are still waiting for Amazon to follow the law, respect our constitutional rights and negotiate a union contract.

In a separate case, the NLRB is trying to hold Amazon accountable as the employer of its drivers. But Amazon is trying to block even a hearing on the issue by claiming the NLRB itself is unconstitutional.

We have a constitutional right to organize and strike, but our government has been unwilling or unable to force companies like Amazon to respect our rights for years. Well, I think it's past that time, Jew. Our state representatives stand up to these corporate bullies and protect our right to organize once and for all.

Amazon and other corporations have figured out how to drag out the NLRB process so that workers leave or give up before their cases are resolved.

We need California to step in and make sure that when workers exercise their constitutional rights to unionize in this state, our voices are heard and our families can get the good jobs that we deserve. Stand with workers, Send a message to union busters like Amazon. Defend our right to organize in California and pass AB288. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there other Members of the public here wishing to register a statement of support? If you can just name organization and your position.

Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions We're a proud co sponsor of the measure.

Janae Roberts, Teamster Amazon worker from DCK6. And I support.

Leah Pensler, Teamster Amazon worker, DCK6 in support.

Consuelo Mercado with DFX4 and I Support .

Amazon, Teamster warehouse worker, DCK6. I support this.

Matt Broad with the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. We're proud to co sponsor as well. As Unite Here, machinists, ATU, ESC and UWUA in support. Thank you.

Trish Teamsters Joint Council 7 and we. Support.

Sean Martinez, Teamsters Local 1932 and. Our international Brotherhood of Teamsters Amazon Division and support.

Kimberly Rosenberger with SEIU. Proud to co sponsor

Kristen Heidelbach here. On behalf of UFCW Western States Council in proud support.

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

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

Jeannette Zanipatin on behalf of the Coalition For Humane Immigrant Rights. And support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, a. Union of educators and classified professionals Also in support,

Alexa Chavez on behalf. Of UDW AFSCME Local 3930 in support.

JB Hanna with the California Nurses Association in strong support.

Good afternoon. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters and strong support.

Hunter Stern, IBEW 1245 in strong support.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. I want to start by saying we completely understand the uncertainty and everything happening at the federal level. However, we do have some concerns with AB288. The first is we have concerns that the Bill is preempted under Garmin preemption.

If the NLRA was to be amended and was to exclude certain workers, I think that's one thing. For example, the California has enacted labor rights for groups like agricultural workers who were excluded from the original statute. However, the triggers in this Bill for when PER would have jurisdiction are far broader than that.

For example, they include when there is a lack of quorum, no matter how brief. They also include when the NLRB fails to take certain actions within six months.

That six month period, from our understanding, is not something statutorily required by the nlrb NLRA and also does not take into account any actions that are happening by the regional offices. We also have some concerns about inconsistent enforcement.

There is a provision of the Bill, for example, that seems to authorize PERB to act not only in underneath NLRB precedent, but also its own precedent that actually is supposed to apply just to public workers.

And then finally, the Bill does include a provision that appears to say that this law could not be amended unless it passes something akin to strict scrutiny, which is a lever of scrutiny really only reserved for things like constitutional rights. And this Bill includes far more than that. So respectfully ask for no vote. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I will pass it to our Members, Assembly Member Kalra, thank you.

I'd like to move the Bill and thank our chair for her great work and would like to be added as a co author. Thank you.

Seeing no other Members wishing to speak, I also would like to thank the author, as she very eloquently mentioned, DOGE is taking a wrecking ball to our Federal Government. I never imagined that Elon Musk would have access to. To our Social Security information, to our health care information.

Things that we have always protected in this country are now under attack. So thank you with that. We had a motion. Did we have a second? Second secretary, please. zero, I'm sorry. Would you like to close?

Well, you know, I'm not gonna even. I was gonna address the our opposition. Have my expert. Can I do that?

Madam Chair and Members, Caitlin Vega with the California Federation of Labor Unions, sponsors of this measure. We understand the Chamber's concerns. As always, we're happy to meet with the chamber and talk through some of those issues.

Our position is that if workers are not able to get justice at the federal level, it cannot be the intent that states cannot step in and protect those workers constitutional rights.

And so we think that it is time, given everything that is happening and given the significant delays in getting workers who are fired for organizing returned to work, getting employers to the bargaining table, we think it's time for California to take this stand on behalf of its workers and help enforce the laws that we all believe in. Thank you.

Okay. And now, and also to the chamber, really, going forward, I would love, before we get here, for us to talk about any amendments you may have.

I don't know if you talked with my staff, but really I would love to sit down and talk with you guys, because as I start out the next eight years of my time here, hopefully, if God bless, I'd love to sit down to the table and work with people and make sure that.

That we come together and we bring what I call all these big brains in Sacramento together and come up with some solution that we all can be happy with.

Do you mind if I. I just want to say, yeah, we did meet with staff and very happy to sit down with you. I would love that.

I love that. With that. Madam Chair, you know, I had to do something. I couldn't sit idly by and watch this Administration tear up our workers. You know, we wouldn't even need this Bill if they. If they had a quorum in D.C. that the workers can go and they.

They can lobby with the National Labor Relations Board, but they don't have a quorum, so you can't even go there. So it is our responsibility in California to protect our workers. And with that, I ask for an aye vote.

Well, this has a strong aye recommendation from your chair. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That measure is out with bipartisan support.

Hello. Assimilate. How you doing? Not quite that. Ready when you are. Thank you, Madam Chair, Mr. Chair and Members. AB 746 takes a bold and innovative step toward reducing recidivism by establishing the Inmate Cooperative Program within the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the CDCR.

While rehabilitation is a key goal of the CDCR, many incarcerated individuals still face significant obstacles to successfully reentering. Low wages, limited access to job training, and a lack of economic opportunity leave people unprepared to build stable lives after their release. AB746 addresses these challenges by allowing incarcerated individuals to form worker Cooperatives inside a prison setting.

Through these Cooperatives, participants can build business skills, develop economic self sufficiency and gain real world experience that supports their long term success. Beyond incarceration, AB 746 also establishes the Green Cooperative Reentry Reserve which directs 40% of wages earned in prison Cooperatives towards seating community based Cooperatives.

These funds will support reentry citizens, crime survivors and system impacted communities and launching sustainable social beneficial businesses. AB 746 is about empowering incarceration people with the tools they need to rebuild their lives, reduce recidivism and strengthen communities within themselves. You guys, this is such a fantastic Bill. I am so excited about this.

I am, I'm so excited about this. This is a way, a different way in looking at how our incarcerated family and our community takes care of itself.

It's a way for them to be inside, learn how to form a cooperative or like a nonprofit and have a board of their own, take their wages, put them up, save them, invest and be self sufficient. When they get out where they don't have to come and ask anybody for anything.

Well they might have to ask people but I hope they don't like this is a way for them to be self sufficient. And so I respectfully ask for your aye vote but I'm going to let my witnesses introduce themselves.

Thank you very much and first witness, two minutes apiece please.

Hello. Good afternoon. I wanted to say Madam Chair but no to the chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Hope Williams and I am the Director of Legislative Advocacy for the Sustainable Economies Law Center.

I am also here on behalf of the Let Us Contribute Initiative Coalition led by incarcerated and formerly incarcerated peoples to incubate green cooperatives all across California. As the Executive Director of the Coalition, he is also an incarcerated person in San Quentin. Kelton O'connor asked us to read the following statement.

I have found a sense of purpose in policy work that will allow system impacted communities to to have the opportunity to become productive Members of society and do our part in a world that needs all the help it can get. Research shows that most jobs available to incarcerated people do not significantly reduce recidivism.

More importantly than wages and benefits, many individuals value the sense of purpose and meaning their work provides. Most incarcerated people or reentering citizens want to work and make a positive contribution. Yet many remain unemployed due to the lack of available jobs. Assembly Member McKinners

AB 746 addresses this issue by expanding access to meaningful dignified employment, therefore reducing prison unemployment and improving one's readiness for the job market. AB746 deserves your support because it not only opens new revenue streams for the state, but also invests in the creation of green businesses and low income communities.

Green jobs offer a powerful rehabilitative strategy for all stakeholders. Healing the planet is healing work and everyone deserves the opportunity to take part in that restoration both for their communities and for themselves. So on behalf of Kelton O'Connor, we respectfully ask for an aye vote on AB746 and thank Assemblymember McKinner for her leadership on this transformative issue.

Thank you. Next witness please.

Good afternoon Vice Chair Flora and Members of the Committee. My name is Hasmik Geghamyan and I'm a Staff Attorney at the Sustainable Economies Law Center. We are proud co-sponsors of AB746 and are deeply grateful to Assemblymember Mckinnon for introducing a Bill that puts labor, public safety, and community repair at the heart of California's economy.

AB746 expands the existing CDCR labor programs by creating the Inmate Cooperative Program to support worker cooperatives inside state prisons. Through this program, incarcerated workers will be trained in financial literacy, teamwork and Democratic decision making. They'll write bylaws, build business plans and learn to co govern real enterprises. All necessary skills that support successful reentry.

This model works at Argentina's maximum security unit 15 in Mar Del Plata. Prison cooperatives reduced recidivism to nearly zero by fostering ownership, dignity and real economic opportunity. Similar models have succeeded in Puerto Rico, Italy, India and beyond. AB746 directs 40% of prison cooperative earnings into the Green Reentry Cooperative Reserve.

The Reserve will Fund grants, loans and technical assistance for crime survivors and system impacted entrepreneurs to launch cooperative businesses in green industries critical to California's future. By voting aye on AB746, you're supporting an evidence based approach to reducing recidivism and strengthening public safety. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in support of AB746? Name and organization please.

Hello, Kelly Groth. Let us contribute initiative proud co sponsor and strong support. Thank you.

Leonard Brown with Work Safe. I strongly support it. As I say, having done 32 years of incarceration, it's a hand up, not a handout. Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon, my name is Christina Navarro. I am chief Stewart and Local 11 unite here Local 11 and I support. Thank you.

Juan Munoz, Political Coordinator, unite here Local 11 in support.

Amy Heinzhaik, also for Local 11 and strong support. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Jesse Garner, San Francisco State University. Strong support.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB746? Come on up. Seeing none. Bring it back to the Committee. Any questions from Committee Members?

I'd like to move the Bill. And I love Rooker Cooperatives. I'm going to sound like a broken. Record, but I would love to co author this Bill.

Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions from Committee Members?Seeing none. Madam, would you like to close?

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That bill's out. Assemblywoman Pellerin, come on up. She'll be presenting file item-- I think number 10 and AB 1104.

There go my glasses. Where'd they go?

Right where my feet were? I do need them for reading. Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and Members. Over the past few years, the solar industry has faced two major policy shifts that have had significant effects on the adoption of solar, especially for small businesses, nonprofits and everyday Californians.

The first change was the transition to the net billing tariff, which took effect in 2023 and made solar less financially viable unless paired with battery storage. The second was passage of AB 2143 in 2024, which rightfully required prevailing wages to be paid for certain solar projects that are connected to the net billing tariff.

While well intentioned, these two changes have introduced new challenges for businesses that were interested in installing renewable energy systems. As a result, there was about an 85% drop in solar applications statewide per PG&E and state data based on new applications.

And while AB 2143 did not explicitly say that solar project owner must register as an awarding body, it's been interpreted to be that way because when a project is classified as a public work, someone has to take on the legal responsibilities of an awarding body.

Under this interpretation, private solar customers like a bakery or an animal shelter are being treated like public agencies. Being an awarding body comes with a long list of responsibilities: registering the project with Department of Industrial Relations, filing compliance paperwork, maintaining certified payroll records, and more.

In essence, private entities that simply want to install solar are being required to manage complex public works compliance systems they aren't equipped to handle.

AB 1104 corrects this misinterpretation. The bill will expand opportunities for businesses to access renewable energy by clarifying that business owners of solar projects are not an awarding body and are therefore not subject to complex public works requirements. To be clear, AB 1104 does not roll back prevailing wage requirements set by AB 2143.

Solar contractors will still be fully responsible for registering as public works contractors, paying prevailing wages and meeting apprenticeship requirements. The bill simply clarifies that those labor compliance responsibilities lie with the contractor, not with the business hiring them.

Additionally, AB 1104 enacts a limited expansion to the definition of independent solar producer, allowing more business to business solar transactions to occur without being regulated as a public utility. This will ease the adoption of solar and create more grid reliability, especially during power safety shutoffs. AB 1104 is a clarifying fix, not a loophole.

It protects solar workers and makes clean energy more accessible to Californians who want to do the right thing and help the state reach its renewable energy goals. And with me to testify in support are Pete Scudder, representing Scudder Solar Electrical Energy Systems and Angela Lipanovich who is representing commercial solar customers.

Thank you very much. First witness, two minutes apiece.

Thank you Council for hearing this today and appreciate your appreciate your time. My name is Pete Scudder. I'm sponsor of this bill. I also own Scudder Solar and Scudder Roofing. I have been a roofing business for 42 years and a solar business for 20 years. My business is located in Monterey County and I employ over 100 amazing people.

I'm here today with many of my industry colleagues to ask you to support Assembly Bill, Gail Pellerin's AB 1104. This bill protects prevailing wages, apprentice standards and will help small business choose solar energy, creating more solar industry jobs. Under the current law, AB 2143 requires private entities that want to install solar panels on their business.

The daunting task of registering with DIR as a public agency. These requirements coupled with the increasing liability and potential penalties are scaring many small businesses to stay away from solar altogether. This decline in commercial solar energy is causing the loss of many high paying jobs. The solar industry is experiencing 85% drop in new commercial applications.

Not to mention it is creating a significant setback in the California clean energy goals to be carbon neutral by 2045. There is a quote from one of my commercial solar clients-- Here's a quote from one of my commercial clients, Scott Delucchi, CEO of the SPCA of Monterey County, "Registering our project with the DIR was a nightmare.

Navigating and understanding the online registration system was impossible. I was unable to get past the initial steps. I was not able to speak with a live person or tech support and my multiple messages sent to the email link provided were either ignored or returned several weeks after I sent them and were not helpful.

As I explained to our solar provider, I felt like I needed an advanced public works degree to get through the process." This story is not unique. Recent energy policies like AB 2143, NIM 3.0 and other solar killing bills have devastated the solar market. Personally, I had lay off over 45% of my solar workforce.

These jobs declining are industry wide. Please support AB 1104. The bill protects prevailing wage scales and abrasion standards. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Next witness, two minutes.

Good afternoon. I'm Angela Lipanovich. I worked as a clean energy attorney for about 19 years, almost exclusively with solar contractors, developers and customers. I also helped start our local CCA 3CE, serving as its general counsel for the first year.

I'm here speaking on behalf of commercial solar customers and the business community in general, including the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce and the Monterey County SPCA. Small businesses and multifamily property owners simply don't have the capability or the time to manage a full public works project.

Last summer, the DIR first announced its interpretation of Public Utilities Code 769.2 to require that every small business and multifamily property owner is an awarding body subject to full public works requirements when purchasing solar. This means that their utility bill credits for solar energy production are now categorized as public funds.

These small business and multifamily property owners are often too scared to proceed with buying solar once they understand what's required, especially including their role managing and taking on liability for their contractors, wage and hour violations, and the potential loss of their solar interconnection agreement with the utility.

All of the data on California's commercial solar market shows that it is in significant decline. We hired a data scientist with a PhD to analyze the state's distributed solar generation data set. She also requested information directly from PG&E on pending commercial solar applications.

She found that since 2022, PG&E's data reported that 85% drop in commercial solar interconnection applications and the corresponding data by the state shows a 93% drop. AB 1104 offers a critical policy fix to the recent declines in the commercial solar market while maintaining labor standards and ensuring the enforcement thereof. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support?

Kim Stone, Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association, in enthusiastic support.

Good afternoon. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of Pear X Infrastructure, in support.

Good afternoon. Ian Seronello, 11 years solar designing, and I'm in support.

Good afternoon. Irita Rapecian on behalf of Schneider Electric, in support.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of 1104? Seeing none. Opposition for AB 1104. Come on up.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members. Scott Wetch, on behalf of the State Association of Electrical Workers, who are the sponsors of the aforementioned bill that has been maligned here today. It was a solid bill.

We appreciate the Committee's work to ensure that the provisions that would have gutted prevailing wage were removed from the bill, and also the amendment that makes it clear that a joint liability applies to the owners of these systems if in fact wages, hours and working condition laws are not met. We appreciate that work.

So we really have no major opposition to the labor provisions in this bill that have been significantly improved by the Committee. But I do want to make sure the Committee is aware that we're very much opposed to this bill. We'll be bringing our concerns on the remaining issues to the Utilities Committee.

But the Committee Members should be aware that there is an over-the-fence provision here. Basically, under existing law, if you generate power as a private citizen, you can provide that power to up to two other meters on your property and you can also do it to one adjacent property owner.

So if you own a small farm, you can provide it to your neighbor. This bill will allow somebody to build an unlimited piece of generation and wield that power through their own distribution system to an unlimited number of other customers, creating basically an unregulated utility without any of the safety protections and guardrails.

The legislature has never approved an over-the-fence provision coming close to this and for those reasons will remain opposed in the other committees. But for the purposes of the labor provisions, we have no problem with those. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition?

Yes, Mr. Chair. Hunter Stern, IBEW Local 1245. I'd like the Committee and the author to understand that the provisions of 2143 did not go into effect until the beginning or the end of 2023. So most of the information that you heard here today is not accurate.

And I appreciate and I share the comments that Mr. Wetch made on the other issues. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Name and organization, please.

Carolyn Veal-Hunter on behalf of Pacific Gas & Electric, also opposed. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other in opposition? Seeing none. Bring back to the Committee.

Yeah, I just wanted to invite in a second the author or the witnesses in support to if they want to respond to any of the arguments made by the opposition because I've just only very, very briefly been able to talk to the author about this.

But in reading the bill too, I am a bit confused about what is definition of small in the sense and I understand wanting to be able to have a true mom and pop landlord provide maybe generate energy generation on their own property or adjacent properties.

But I am quite confused about what is the scope you're thinking about because there's no definition of what small is in this bill.

So if you want to respond some of the points made by opposition and kind of more about your envisioning when you say protecting small businesses or small things, I don't see any definition of what small means in this case.

Is that in regards to the over-the-fence provisions that--

In this bill in general, right, because I know a lot of your arguments about this Bbll are about protecting small business and generation. But I don't see this in the sense of either as a company size that we're talking about whether it be employers or physical size or about how much energy you generate.

And I know of course we're not in the Energy Utilities Committee which you're going to work on these things, but I didn't see any of those provision address to define what was small. But I know narratively speaking you're talking a lot about that.

So that's why I just wanted to ask if you want to respond to some of the concerns brought from the opposition and also just--

Okay. Well, yeah. And first of all, I want to say that we are not maligning AB 2143. It's just the simple fact that the interpretation of that bill and at no point was I ever trying to undo prevailing wage, that has always been in the bill.

And I am so grateful to the Chair of this Committee, Assemblymember Ortega and her team, who helped us draft the amendments that were adopted in just a few days ago to clean up those provisions. But as far as that definition of small, I'll let my expert witness respond to that.

Well, the small businesses, majority of all solar commercial systems are under one megawatt for the most part. So when we, when I we discuss small business, we're talking about most projects that are under one megawatt. There are some businesses that go larger than that.

But if you look at what the Small Business Administration would classify as a small business, that would be the parameters we would stay within. But most, just for the record, most of the, most of the solar projects, commercial projects, are under one megawatt. They're very small.

They're the mom and pop shops, the SPCA, the small people, the smaller business who want to have the ability to put solar on there without going through these ominous regulations. And I'll let Angela talk about the over the fence condition.

Well, I would just add also to the one megawatt, our solar data scientist actually found that 98% of all commercial solar is under one megawatt. So I might get her number a little bit wrong there. But like Pete said, that just puts you, you're a small business if that's the biggest solar system you need.

Just to clarify though, I know it's not in this version of the bill we're seeing today, but as you move to second committee, is that we're intending is to limit it to generation of one megawatt?

No, originally we had come in with a proposal that that could be one way to address the problem that's happening. And then I think we took that out and just made it a blanket.

And we are still working on the concept of the over-the-fence and how to best to define that. And we're absolutely happy to continue conversations with IBEW to thread that needle just so.

I think that the current law regarding the one on site and then one adjacent, we're looking at expanding that but not taking on a huge amount of parcels and property.

And if I can just add something to that, because I have worked in the industry for 19 years and I've done-- When I first started out, there wasn't such thing as a third party financed project where somebody came owned the system and sold you electricity to your, you know, the user of the property.

And we've come a long way since the definition of solar energy provider was created in 2008. And solar transactions, solar technologies have advanced significantly. There are versions of this happening all over the place in different ways. I think updating the definition of solar energy producer will kind of bring it up with modern times.

So I think that also we were intending there to be placeholder language to limit how many end customers there would be in such a transaction. So we didn't intend for it to be unlimited. We intended for that to be a placeholder so we can get the discussion going.

Yeah, I was gonna say in this version of the bill, I didn't see any limitations like that. And to the point of just my concept-- Look, in my concept, I was a strong supporter of 2143 when it came through the first time.

I do believe the solar industry is maturing and does need to deserve a lot more attention and quality skill work from our tradesmen and union workers to make sure that the solar industry is successful. And I think I understand your intent of this.

It's just not so clear to me in reading the bill because I do think that, you know, running a line down to two houses on your block is different than running one house in a data center like in my district. So there are very different energy demands. And if the Chair allows, just see if Mr. Wetch has any other comments, just because I know you've been darting back and forth.

Well, the-- Thank you. The original bill would have repealed prevailing wage for projects up to one megawatt. So the original bill absolutely did eliminate prevailing wage. As far as the small size goes, this referring to a one megawatt array as being small. Let me put it into perspective.

If you lay that out on the ground, that's four to five acres, okay, that's three and a half football fields is what one megawatt looks like. It's not some small little array.

And that's why like the building codes, the OSHA standards, everything are different when you get to larger systems. On the over-the-fence provision, that's basically deregulating the energy system. That means no consumer protections.

That means that the CPUC safety division, which oversees all the distribution system and transmission system in the state of California, doesn't have any oversight. That's why this legislature has never expanded beyond just the one adjacent property. And that's why we will oppose any expansion of that.

Thank you very much. Would you like to close?

Only two of you left here. Okay. Well, again, just to reiterate, it was never our intention to repeal prevailing wage. That is absolutely something I feel very strongly about and wanted to make sure that was codified in this bill. And as far as the over-the-fence provisions, those-- we are continuing to have those conversations.

We would love to sit down and talk about a possible expansion of that, but that it is not going to be an endless amount of folks that could be coming onto that. So I respectfully asked for your aye vote.

Thank you very much. I would just say why is like the easiest bills I thought were going to be easy today are like all of a sudden turn into this, right? But I kind of agree with my colleague. There seems to be some things we need to clear up moving forward.

I am going to support this bill today and I'll move it. But there's some things that need to be clarified clearly. So let's just make sure we work on that.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, please call the roll. Wait a second.

Yes.

All right, so we don't have a second. We're going to just hold this Bill for a little while and if we get some other Committee Members to make a second, then what? We'll take the vote then.

Okay, thank you very much. I'll wait. Thanks.

Do I have a motion for the consent calendar? Second perfect.

[Roll Call]

The consent counselor is on call and we are looking for colleagues to come present.

Mr. Lee.

I'm going to start... I'm going to start with AB 858, if that's alright, Mr. Chair.

Absolutely. Ready when you are.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and colleagues. AB 858 ensures that hospitality workers will have rehiring protections after declared state of emergency, such as pandemic or natural disaster. The bill does two things. Expands rehiring protections to include hospitality workers affected by a state of emergency, which would sunset in December 2027, and extend the COVID rehiring protections December 2027. Often after natural disaster occurs, the state and federal government steps in to support those displaced by disaster.

But workers in the hospitality industry often suffer the economic consequences long after disaster relief agencies are gone. The lingering economic impacts on tourism can mean that workers face eviction, bankruptcy, or long term unemployment. The Labor Commission has cited numerous employees for violating existing rehiring laws, which is why these protections need to be extended. I'd like to introduce two witnesses to speak today. Imelda Campos, who is a former employee at the Luxe Rodeo, and Matt Broad representing Unite Here International Union.

Thank you very much. First witness, please.

Mr. Chair of Members, Matt Broad here on behalf of Unite Here International Union. We are proud to co-sponsor AB 858. Like Assembly Member Lee said, AB 858 builds upon existing right to return laws by ensuring that workers who lose their jobs due to declared states of emergency, such as wildfires, have the right to be rehired when their employers resume operations.

This isn't just a matter of fairness. It's about recognizing the indispensable role these workers play in our communities. As we all know, the recent wildfires in Southern California have been devastating. The Eaton Fire alone destroyed almost 10,000 structures, left 20,000 people homeless, and claimed at least 17 lives.

In the aftermath, many hospitality workers found themselves unemployed, with no guarantee of returning to their work. Regrettably, we expect to see more of this with increasing frequency, given how much we see natural health disasters and emerging public health crises. So despite enforcement challenges we hear all the time about, labor law, particularly in this Committee, our recall and retention rights are some of the best enforced labor laws in the state.

We're seeking to build on that success by covering more types of state emergencies through 2027. This is a modest and important bill to protect our hospitality workers. With me today is Imelda Campos, who's come from Southern California to testify in support of the important bill, as well as Juan Munoz, who will be translating for her. We urge your aye vote.

Thank you very much.

[Spanish]

Thank you very much. And to the translator, that was about four minutes, so. Yeah. Bullet points.

Sure. So, good afternoon. My name is Imelda Campos, and I worked at the Luxe Rodeo Drive for over 27 years as a housekeeper. That job was my livelihood and almost like my second home. I was a dedicated employee and treated every guest with care because I believed hard work meant job security.

But when the pandemic hit, the hotel closed. And like so many others, I was laid off. Sandra Pellecer, my colleague in the audience, was also laid off from her job as a cook at the Standard Hotel in West Hollywood when her hotel closed during the pandemic. As a mother of two sons and the primary caretaker for my family, the pandemic was one of the most difficult times we've ever faced. One of my sons who helped support us was laid off from his hospitality job too. And then not long after, my other son was diagnosed with leukemia.

That news turned our world upside down. And since then, other disasters have hit the hospitality industry that have slowed down our recovery, like the fires in the nearby Palisades this year, which reduced banquet business and occupancy in many hotels. I'll just say at the end, AB 858 offers that hope, not just to me, but to the many workers who are still waiting for the opportunity to go back to the jobs that they loved. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in support of AB 858? Name and organization, please.

Mr. Chairman. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, proud to co-sponsor the measure. Urge support. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Christina, and Local 11 Unite Here, and I support. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Sandra Pellecer, Local 11, I support here. Thank you.

Amy Hines-Shaikh with Local 11. There are 32,000 folks in Los Angeles, Orange County, San Bernardino, and Riverside in strong support. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hope Williams, Sustainable Economies Law Center, strong support.

Hasmik Geghamyan, Sustainable Economies Law Center, strong support.

Thank you very much. Anyone in opposition to AB 858? Come on up.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and Members. Sure someday Assembly Members will show up. I'm Julee Malinowski-Ball. I'm here on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association in opposition to this bill. CHLA represents over 6,000 lodging establishments around the state.

You know, as we heard, AB 858 would extend the employee recall and retention provisions in law put in place at the height of the COVID 19 pandemic. Thousands of hotels were closed. Hundreds of thousands of workers were sent home. This was unique, unprecedented. But more importantly, it's over. 858 wants to unnecessarily prolong these provisions and inappropriately, we think, extend them to the states of emergency. This causes a whole host of issues. The Cal OES website, looked up, has 56 existing state of emergencies on the books today.

This bill has no limiting language describing a state of emergency that might have impacts on employment nor timing of the emergency or any other limiting scope. This creates huge liabilities for our members. Post-pandemic, despite the 56 state of emergencies, workers remain highly sought by lodging institutions throughout the state.

Staffing is frankly one of our biggest problems today. If you want a job in a hotel, you can get a job in a hotel. But AB 858 actually would slow that employment process down, that hiring process down. Accidental violations actually add up to very large penalties, in fact, in the millions.

A number of hotels continue to hover on the edge of delinquency and even a minor violation could impact a hotel's ability to remain open. Closed hotels employ zero people. And finally, this goes beyond the agreement of how these statutes got into place in the first time. CHLA removed its opposition.

Based on the statutes that are in place today, we think this goes back on the agreement. AB 858 is an inelegant solution looking for a problem and creating a costly and legal liabilities. It needs to sunset as previously agreed on. We ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. I align my comments with my colleague from CHLA. I also want to emphasize that not only is this extending the Covid presumption and creating a new... Sorry. Covid recall rights and creating a new state of emergency related right, it also includes two overlapping presumptions that if a worker was separated due to some sort of reduction in business or reduction in force, it would both be presumed that that was due to a state of emergency and due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

I also want to note that by reverting back to discussions of state of emergency, this is more closely mirroring AB 3216, which was vetoed by Governor Newsom in 2020. And part of that veto message does read that tying the bill's provisions to the state of emergency will create a confusing patchwork of requirements in different counties at different times. It also emphasizes that the hospitality industry and its employees have been hit hard by the economic impacts of the pandemic.

And so where we have scenarios like the pandemic, like states of emergency, it's important to remember, as was noted during 3216, that also really impacts the economics of the Hotel and Lodging Institute and the potential penalties imposed by this bill. And we join our colleague in saying that this was intentionally supposed to sunset, and we should honor that agreement. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anyone else in opposition? Come on up. Name and organization.

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

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

Marlon Lara on behalf of the California Restaurant Association in opposition. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Kaitlyn Johnson with Political Solutions on behalf of California Travel Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sabrina Lockhart on behalf of the California Attractions and Parks Association in opposition.

Thank you very much. Any questions from the Committee? No, wait. Would you like to close?

I would just like to say is that I remain engaged with as... I remain open to talking to the opposition and clarifying some of these things. You know, I think Covid was one of those ground, those wake up calls to us that it really changed society and we want to do right by the workers. And if we need to figure something out and clarify things, I'm always happy to talk about these things.

But I do really believe that we need to look forward, future forward, especially as there is talks of the federal administration that will strip us of protections of the next big disaster, next pandemic or anything like that too. We have to be future oriented and thinking about even the disasters that we just suffered this year. So I respectfully ask your aye vote, and I continue to work with everyone on this bill. Thank you.

We need a motion and a second. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Motion is do pass to Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we are now going back to item number four, Assembly Member Gipson. Where's my agenda? Whenever you are ready.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 291 seeking to establish a credential educator apprentice program. This program would address the persistent teacher shortage crisis as well as the lack of diverse diversity in the field through an innovative approach offered by an apprenticeship model program.

As the Learning Policy Institute has stated in a recent report and I want to quote districts offer districts often hire unprepared, inexperienced and substitute teachers, increasing class sizes and cut courses altogether.

Students of color and those of low income backgrounds bear the blunt of the consequences as teacher shortages are more are most severe in schools serving more of these students.

The data will show from the from this report in 2022 and 2023, fewer than half of our new math teachers and schools serving the largest and the greatest concentration of high need students are fully qualified for their positions.

And for the 20232024 school year, the CTC data dashboard shows that for three years consecutively provisional internship and short term staff permits were issued at increasing numbers. This indicates this indication that a tremendous reliance by schools on educators with extremely limited preparation is apparent.

It is time that we create an innovative process with a strategic outlook that will help encourage teachers that are qualified and the pool to be part of this teacher pool in our schools across the State of California.

We must do this by strengthening the preparation process, providing financial incentives to enter the profession and requiring professional support that will ensure our educators have the tools necessary for our children to succeed. That's why Assembly Bill 291 is important. We, we believe it's a focus in that particular area here with me to provide supporting testimonies. Representative from Children Now in support thank you so much.

Good afternoon Chair and Members. Jessica Sacco with Children Now, a nonpartisan whole child research policy and advocacy organization dedicated to promoting children's health, education and well being in California. We are pleased to sponsor AB291.

California's teacher shortage as well as its lack of diversity is the result of systemic barriers including the high cost of preparation as well as the lack of support early in an educator's career.

We believe that by establishing a pathway to becoming a credentialed educator via an apprenticeship program, a well known model for transforming high skilled high need professions, can reduce the cost of preparation and provide the apprentice with a living wage while learning on the job.

Compensation combined with the structured mentorship are key components of apprenticeship program which will ensure apprentices have strong support, supervision and guidance during the preparation process and early years of teaching from seasoned teachers. We recognize and appreciate California leading the way through recent budget investments in supporting the development of new and innovative apprenticeships.

AB291 adds to these investments by providing both flexibility of operational and program design for the educator apprenticeship to be developed to meet local needs in collaboration with labor partners, school districts, higher education institutions, with oversight and support from the state through the Commission on Teacher Credentialing and the Division of Apprenticeship Standards.

It is also important to note that the provisions of AB 291 are entirely permissive and there is no state mandate. Rather, AB291 outlines a pathway to design a local apprenticeship program with accountability and standards that can meet local needs.

Research shows that student outcomes improve when they have access not only to well prepared educators but also educators who reflect their critical identities. And while more than half of our students in California identify as students of color, our educator workforce does not reflect that same diversity.

We believe the time is now to be innovative to equip and support our teacher workforce that feels prepared to meet the needs of our students. Thank you for your consideration and support of AB291.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Madam Chair Members Jael Dantas with Full Moon Strategies on behalf of a Western Governor's University in support.

Thank you Madam Chair Members Tristan Brown with CFT Union of Educators and Classified Professionals. Do you mind 10 seconds for a tweener position? We're very excited and want this to be the model for the state.

We have been negotiating with a little bit of language that I think we're all comfortable with to make sure that each apprenticeship program is a bilateral agreement among labor and management at each site.

So with those forthcoming we're very excited, in fact to the point of jazz hands to make sure you know how excited we are about this. So thank you.

Thank you for your tweener statement.

Annie Chow with the California Teachers Association, same tweener position. Really excited to hopefully get some language in to make sure that teachers are adequately supported.

Good afternoon. Israel Solis, President, Los Amigos De La Comunidad and a 31 year veteran educator and a teacher of teachers. I strongly support this. I'm also a Board of Trustee at our local Imperial Valley College. I see the need especially now with RTK and I think that there's a lot of great teachers out there in TK that this would be great for.

Thank you. Do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Thank you. It's been moved in second. Any comments from the dais? Seeing none. Would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you very much to the Committee and to the Committee chair. We must do everything we can to address the teacher shortage in the State of California. Our. Our children absolutely deserve this. And we believe that this is a very creative but innovative approach.

And I'm very grateful to have the stakeholders who have already spoken thus far and looking for our continuous conversation collaboration to strengthen this Bill that it can in fact be a model for the State of California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much.

Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

The measure is on call.

Thank you very much.

Okay. Assembly Member Solache, item number five.

So we're done. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. I am proud to present AB338, the workforce investments for Los Angeles and Ventura Wildfire Recovery. I command the chair and Committee staff for their work and thoughtful analysis.

This legislation requests 50 million from the General Fund for the California Workforce Development Board to allocate to Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and the Economic Development Collaborative for the workforce recovery in Los Angeles and Ventura impacted by the 2025 wildfires. We have also submitted a budget request for this proposal.

These funds would support urgent workforce economic recovery strategies, provide relief for displaced workers and ensure the workforce necessary for rebuilding in Los Angeles and Ventura impacted by the 2025 wildfires. The Los Angeles and Ventura wildfires have devastated the region's economy, including workforce disruptions and employment insecurity.

Thousands of jobs have been lost and more than 1500 businesses have been destroyed. Lost economic output in billions. Recent reports estimated up to 8.9 billion. The Palisades and Eden fires alone. Economic impacts to Los Angeles and Ventura County areas of Southern California have ripple effect across our entire state.

Given the magnitude of this disaster strategy, economic recovery investments are called for. Mitigate economic hardships, protect employment opportunities and ensure the workforce necessary for rebuilding. Our region is still responding to disasters in the early stages of recovery. AB338 and the budget request are priorities to ensure equitable recovery.

This investment works in alignment with the ongoing recovery efforts to shore up a labor force and create high skilled living wage jobs for those that need them. Providing the resources to rebuild our region and helping rebuild lives for those who have lost livelihoods.

Here in support I will introduce Kelly Lobianco, Director of Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunity and Bruce Stisley, President of the CEO Economic Development Collaborative.

Thank you so much. Good afternoon Chair Ortega and Members of the Committee. My name is Kelly Lobianco and I'm Director of the Los Angeles County Department of Economic Opportunities. First, I would like to thank Assemblymember Salache for advancing this important and timely Bill.

I am here today on behalf of the County of Los Angeles to voice Strong support for AB338. As the county's Economic Development Agency, we experienced the gravity of the devastation and moved swiftly to support impacted workers.

In the last three and a half months we distributed 19.1 million in immediate cash grants to 1300 businesses and 2300 impacted workers, knowing relief was needed right away and thanks to our Governor, Board of Supervisors and many public and private partners, we worked in coordination with Secretary Knox and the Employment Development Department to secure 20 million in National Dislocated Worker and Additional Assistance grants with 14.2 million managed by the county.

This will support 1,000 impacted workers. We are grateful to have secured these relief funds for short term response, but more is needed. As you heard about the scale of the devastation. AB338 would allow us to scale these efforts and move beyond immediate relief for dislocated workers and into recovery for the region.

It builds the pipeline for a resilient, trained workforce that can sustain the rebuild while ensuring workers gain meaningful long term employment. AB338 will help fill the workforce need and extends the reach of our response in the following ways.

It expands training opportunities for sectors with known workforce shortages for the recovery and rebuild, especially health care, social services and skilled trades. It allows us to target workers from industries most disrupted by the fires, including hospitality, early care and education, transportation and the arts.

It supports efforts to expedite credentialing and certification, enabling workers to pivot quickly into high demand recovery related jobs. It offers supportive services and stipends that increase access to upskilling opportunities for all of those impacted. And it provides flexibility to subcontract with local workforce boards, ensuring coordinated and place based solutions.

It's worth emphasizing and I'll just be very, very quick to close this out. It's worth emphasizing this is not just about putting people back to work, it's about doing so in a way that builds equity and economic mobility.

We also this this Bill also allows us to meet people where they're at through localized job centers where they will be able to provide in language services, culturally responsive outreach and supportive services incitements. We want to make sure no one is left behind in the recovery. This is not a short term fix, it's a long term support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Chair Ortega Members Bruce Stenslie President and CEO, Economic Development Collaborative in Ventura County We're a regional workforce and economic development public private partnership. We're a 501c3 nonprofit. We're very much dedicated to a triple bottom line attention to broadly shared economic prosperity, equity, inclusion, happy to say those words.

And environmental stewardship for a sustainable quality of life, which is what we think this is about. My perspective on this Bill is shaped by a couple of things.

One, my current experience in responding to the impacts of this fire, but augmented by experience from Thomas fire years ago, the Hill Woolsey fires, all in the last five or six years. So we've been through this and we understand what it takes.

Also, I'm a former Director of the Los Angeles City Workforce Board, the Ventura County Workforce Board, recognizing very specifically that the fate of Ventura County is tied to economic recovery regionally. So this is very much a labor shed workshed that we share and it's hugely important for both of us.

While the mountain fire in Ventura County did not cause the scale of devastation that we saw in Palisades in El Tedeno, what happened in Ventura County was an exacerbation of impacts to our most vulnerable workers still reeling from COVID put more directly, we had devastating disruption and loss of work for agriculture and food system workers, retail and hospitality specifically.

These sectors comprise some 33% of all jobs in Ventura County. But they only pay about half of the median wage of Ventura County. These are the most impacted workers. What's more to the point, we recently completed regional analysis of Ventura County and six counties above us, five counties above us.

Some 40% of all households live below a living wage. But only 25% of the jobs in the region pay a living wage. This investment, this Bill does several things that address those disconnects.

Provide the career ladder training to help workers in the sectors impacted by wildfires to gain the skills such they can compete for jobs and living wages, including the specialty jobs and all the reconstruction recovery going forward. Invest in the strategies that support our homegrown growth of industries and occupations paying a living wage. And last comment.

Expands on the essential worker and family supports for economic mobility. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Thank you. Theresa Brown, Legislative Analyst on behalf of the California Community College's Chancellor's Office.

Max Perry on behalf of the City of Camarillo. Also in support.

Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. And support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Member Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium. We really appreciate the Assembly Member adding in child care and in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I will move it over to. No comments. Did we have a motion and a second? Yes, we did. Secretary, would you like to close, please?

I actually would love to, Madam Chair. You know, this is the first Bill that I introduced and not only because the importance of it, but really bringing these dollars specifically to local communities.

When I got the first letter of support by the City of Camarillo and Ventura was a sign that, you know, local dollars matter to our communities. The Workforce development boards know their communities. These are folks that work in our communities all the time.

And I can't think of a better group than our Los Angeles County partners here in Ventura that these are going to go directly to the recovery of la. I know we've seen so much, you know, efforts have happened throughout the last couple of months, but the fact that we're going to bring these dollars directly to the recovery and.

And I couldn't think of any better one to do the work. And just thank for your support today and looking forward that we impact these families that have lost literally everything in our community. So thank you for your support and I respectfully ask for an aye. Support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

That Bill is on call. Thank you. Thank you so much.

All right. I'm going to do Assembly Bill 611.

Thank you. Whenever you are ready.

Today I am presenting AB 611, which will require newspapers to give 120 days notice before selling the local media outlet. This notice will give the newsrooms and the community an opportunity to approach the owners and attempt to keep the outlet locally focused. Keeping local news local is critical and we're losing that. Now.

Conglomerates, private equity and hedge funds are buying up local newspapers. With only 10 companies now owning over 50% of all daily newspapers in the United States, national corporations owning local news has consequences. The newsroom staff get reduced and with layoffs and firings send experience and expertise out the door.

The reporting becomes reliant on syndicated news from around the country and the world with little focus on the local community beyond salacious crime, house fires and local sports.

And that change in focus from expert level reporters finding stories that matter to the community, shifting to cheaper syndicated stories with no connection to the community hurts all of our districts. This shift results in reduced awareness by voters of local issues, Reduced voter participation and increased polarization within national politics overlaid all local politics.

And that is not good for democracy. The Bill seeks to push back on this trend by giving the people in the newsroom and the community advance notice about a potential sale. And with me today in support is Maya Chupkov with Common Cause and Jesse Garnier, Chair of the Journalism program at the San Francisco State University.

Chair and Members of the Committee, Good afternoon. My name is Maya Chupkov and I'm speaking today on behalf of California Common Cause, the lead sponsor strongly supporting AB611, the Keep News Independent Act.

The Independence of community newspapers in California is at risk, and with it, our ability to access the trusted local information we need to participate meaningfully in our democracy. Hedge funds and corporate chains are quietly acquiring legacy newspapers, slashing staff, cutting coverage, and leaving communities uninformed and disconnected.

Over the last decade, the 25 largest newspaper companies have gone from employing just over 15% of all journalists in the US to now controlling 40% of the industry. These are not media companies. These are financial firms. And their business model is to extract value, not provide public service.

AB611 is a simple but powerful step in the right direction. It requires legacy local newspapers to give 120 days notice before selling to a hedge Fund or corporate chain. That gives independent buyers the chance to step in and make a competing offer to keep the paper rooted in the community it serves.

Sellers still have full freedom to sell. All the Bill requires is that they notify the public in advance if the buyer is not independent. Transparency is not red tape. It's a way to allow communities a shot at saving something vital to democracy before it's gone. We've seen what happens when these sales happen in secret.

Journalists are laid off, local coverage disappears, and Civic engagement suffers. AB611 gives communities a fighting chance to keep community news in community hands. The Bill is pro democracy and pro transparency. We respectfully urge your a vote on AB611. And thank you, Assemblymember Lee, for your leadership. Thank you.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair Ortega. Committee Members, many of us united over the last five years to fight off a deadly virus that threatened our public health of our communities. Today, our divided country confronts another toxic contagion viral disinformation and manufactured malicious propaganda harming our informational public health.

Robust, independent and trusted local news is an essential defense a vaccine against this infection. I am Jesse Garnier, Chair of the Journalism Department at San Francisco State University. I deeply support the fundamental goal of AB611 helping immunize our communities against disinformation by preserving local news and local jobs.

By keeping news outlets locally owned and operated, AB611 rightly targets profit driven consolidations and private equity acquisitions that weaken our informational immune system. Representative Lee's Bill seeks to inoculate our media ecosystem by focusing on local independent ownership, which is crucial. Healthy local news requires local voices with community trust.

Like any vaccine, a patient must be strong enough to survive it. Any efforts to keep news local must also support building capacity and capability.

Solutions like loan guarantees, state backed financing like that from the I Bank, Small Business Finance center or targeted tax relief could assist potential buyers and sellers during, to, during or leading up to any mandated notice period. Solutions like these could sustain, threaten publications, preserve local jobs and strengthen local offers.