Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate labor and Public Employment Retirement Committee will convene in 30 seconds. Good morning, everyone. We are getting started here, and it looks like we have a good Senator Grayson in the room. And we don't have enough. We have a quorum. All right, well, we have enough Members for quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

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

Oh, he beat me to it.

Thank you, Mr. Laird.

We served together.

That's. But we served when you. Where you used to require a second.

We're not dating ourselves here, but we will move the consent calendar. We have two items on consent. That's SB581 and file item number 11, SB693. Assistant, please call the roll on the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 3 to 0. The calendar is on call. And, Senator Grayson, you may appreciate and proceed when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I am pleased to present to you SB301. This Bill would prevent cities and districts contracting under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, also known as CERL, from amending their contracts in a way that excludes certain groups of employees.

In recent years, I have been working to ensure that worker protection measures adopted in the Public Employee Retirement Law, or PERL, are also adopted in the county employee Retirement Law, where appropriate. And this measure continues my efforts in this regard.

So in 2019, in the City of Placentia, they identified and exploited a loophole when it ended its contract with the Orange County Fire Authority, a 1937 act agency, they established its own fire Department and Placentia Fire and Life Safety Department as a cost cutting measure.

So later that year, the city petitioned CalPERS to amend its contract to exclude all new firefighters from pension membership. And as a result, firefighters in the newly formed Department were denied access to CalPERS pension benefits. In response, the Legislature passed AB 2967 in 2020, closing this loophole with CalPERS.

However, similar protections do not currently exist for employees covered under seril. This remaining gap could allow a city or a district to potentially exclude specific classes of workers from pension participation. So SB301 actually addresses this issue by prohibiting selective exclusion of employee groups under CERL contracts.

It ensures parity between CERL and parole and Also protects the retirement security of all public employees. And with that, through the chair, I would like to introduce my witness, Doug Subers, with the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you, Senator. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Senators, good morning. My name is Doug Subers. I'm here on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, who represent 35,000 professional firefighters and emergency medical services personnel statewide. We're pleased to sponsor and strongly support SB301.

And I'd like to thank the author for continuing to work with us and this Committee on creating consistency between the two statutes that govern both the public employee retirement law and the county employee retirement law. Senator Grayson did a great job of describing the issues before you.

So I would just note that there are a relatively small number of cities and districts that have membership within the county employee retirement system.

And so this measure will create that consistency that should they stop a contract with another jurisdiction providing services and stand up their own, you know, Department or agency, they want to be able to exclude those employees and keep their other employees in the retirement system. We think it's an equity issue that's important.

If employees in a local government jurisdiction are going to get a defined benefit pension as they deeply deserve, it should be available to all employees at the agency. So for those reasons, we'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Is there another fitness in support? Okay, so we will go to me toos. Anyone here wanting to speak in support of the Bill, please step forward. State your name. Affiliation. Okay, seeing none. Is there any opposition to this Bill? Opposition witnesses to this Bill? See none. Any me toos in opposition? Okay, we move the Bill.

Thank you. We have a motion and would you like to close?

Senator, respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. .

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3 to 0. The Bill is on call. We'll take it up when the Members return. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. And I want to also just clarify in terms of our agenda today. File item number three. That is SB 527 was pulled from this hearing by the author this morning.

So we won't hear it today. And Senator, you have a second Bill? We're ready to hear it.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. Good morning, Members. Again, I am pleased to present SB487, which ensures that Peace officers and firefighters injured in the line of duty will receive compensation awarded to them through a settlement or judgment.

When a peace officer or firefighter is injured on duty due to a third party's negligence, they are eligible to file a workers compensation claim. This claim covers medical expenses and under the labor code, Section 4850 guarantees their full salary for up to one year.

After that, they may receive state disability benefits at two thirds of their base salary for an additional year. However, after two years, no further income support is provided if the disability persists. In addition, a workers compensation Injured officers and firefighters can pursue civil lawsuits against the at fault party to recover losses not covered by workers comp.

Currently, under existing law, an employer may seek reimbursement from the injured employee's civil recovery, often leaving the injured officer or firefighter with little to no compensation after the employer's claim is satisfied.

SB487 ensures that injured peace officers and firefighters receive at least two thirds of that at fault parties liability insurance limits when both the employee proves their total damages exceed the net amount left after the employer's claim is satisfied and the availability liability insurance limits are insufficient to fully cover both the employer's claim and the employee's proven damages.

The two thirds minimum ensures a fair share of the recovery, recognizing the employee's personal damages, attorney fees, and the cost of pursuing civil litigation.

SB487, as amended, strikes a balance to maximize the compensation that an injured peace officer and firefighter receives while still allowing public agencies to recover a portion of the funds they paid out in workers compensation. With that, through the chair, I would like to introduce my witnesses, Attorney Megan Bartlett and Deputy Kiana Lewis.

Thank you so much. Please step to the podium. You have two minutes each.

Good morning. Thank you for having me. My name is Megan Bartlett and I'm an attorney who represents public safety officers and firefighters throughout the State of California. My practice is dedicated to representing fire firefighters and public safety officers who have been injured in the line of duty at the hands of a third party.

I pursue the civil claim against the at fault parties on behalf of the injured officers in order to compensate them for the damages they experience as a result of the injury.

The problem this Bill addresses is that an officer injured on duty by a third party often receives little to no compensation for their injuries because the current law allows the employer to be reimbursed before the officer.

Workers compensation will cover some of their losses, but there is a lot that is not covered, for example Loss of overtime, any loss of promotional opportunities, loss of pension benefits and pain and suffering. These damages aren't speculative. They're real, calculable and currently unrecoverable.

Commonly, the at fault third party does not carry enough insurance to cover both the employer and the officer's losses. Under the current system, the entire settlement can be claimed by the employer, leaving the injured officers with little to nothing.

These amendments to the Labor Code remedy those situations by guaranteeing that the injured officer receives a portion of the available recovery while ensuring that the employer still has a right to a portion of the recovery as well.

On the whole, when you look at the total number of workers compensation cases involving public safety officers, those with third party fault are a small percentage of those cases. But when those cases do occur, it can have a very severe impact on the lives of those officers.

The language in the amended statutes is not without similar precedent and is modeled after Code of civil procedure section 3040, which governs health insurance reimbursement rights while ensuring that the injured individual receives a fair portion of the insurance money available.

Another example is Government Code Section 2252, which governs CalPERS reimbursement rights in severe injury cases where where the officer has to medically retire. That statute guarantees a portion of the recovery to the injured employee. Our injured officers deserve to get their fair portion. Thank you for your time and support.

Good morning. On July 19, 2022 while working uniform patrol, I was struck, run over and pinned beneath a fully equipped patrol vehicle caused by a drunk driver. I remained trapped under the vehicle for approximately 25 minutes before the Fire Department arrived and used specialized equipment to extricate me.

As a result of this horrific incident, I sustained multiple fractures and ligament damage in my foot. Both of my knees required surgical intervention, and my back needed multiple procedures. Surviving such an impact is nothing short of a miracle. However, survival has come at a steep cost. Following the collision, my life changed drastically.

I went from thriving in extreme physical activities to needing help with the basic daily tasks such as using the bathroom, showering, or even getting a glass of water. These visible injuries told only part of the story. Behind the scenes, I endured profound personal losses. I was forced to cancel once in a lifetime trips and personal events.

I needed help getting food and groceries, resorting to delivery services, and I relied on others to drive me to and from medical appointments for months. All of these changes were noticed by my colleagues. Professionally, the impact was also significant. Being unable to work in a full duty capacity directly impacted my eligibility for specialty assignments and promotional opportunities.

After a year of surgeries and rehabilitation, I returned to light duty only to be informed that my absence would delay any advancement consideration. Additionally, because I was restricted from working overtime, I experienced a financial loss estimated at around 50,000 for just one year.

Despite my recovery and returning to duty, I carry an unspoken stigma because of my incident. While I've worked hard to regain my physical and professional footing, there's a lingering perception that I am less capable due to the severity of my injuries and the time spent away from full duty.

This perception, whether conscious or not, places me at a disadvantage when it comes to fair consideration for promotional opportunities and specialized assignments impacting my financial earnings. This traumatic incident has affected air every area of my life, physically, emotionally, mentally, financially and professionally.

The consequences of one person's reckless and illegal decision has and will continue to shape my future in ways I could have never imagined.

Thank you. Thank you.

You're over time.

Thank you so much. Thank you so much. Is there anyone here also speaking in support Me toos? Please state your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Shane Lavigne. On behalf of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, the Sheriff Employee Benefit Association of San Bernardino County and the California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, all in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Doug Subers On behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Okay. Any other support? Okay, let's move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none. Any me toos in opposition? We'll move to the dais. Thank you, Senator Strickland, we have a motion. Senator Grayson,

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, I wanted to say to you before you said that, but I wanted to say I appreciate your efforts. Thank you so much. I really do appreciate your efforts on this Bill.

Recognizing that the workers are entitled to these three party settlements and judgments, I could not help but think about the other workforces that might be also important in this Bill. Bill and how we look at transportation workers, maybe school workers, healthcare workers who might find themselves in similar situations.

In your research, did you see any other sectors included in these kinds of policies?

Not in this particular section. That is a great other Bill, to be able to run. But when it comes to public safety, maybe a little different provisions and code sections than what you would find in other public employees. So with that would definitely consider having a conversation with you about that.

Well, let's definitely do that. And I again I appreciate you bringing this Bill today and I will support it. And we have a close and we have a motion by Senator Strickland. So let's call the roll on file.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 3 to 0. That Bill is out. On call. On call. Not out. On call. More Members. That's speaking for the Members. Thank you. All right. All right, we still have our quorum. Let's go to File item number five, SB617. I see Senator Arreguinis with us and we have witnesses.

I'm sorry. In Labor Committee A witnesses testify from the podium. So once the Senator has presented, you can approach and you each will have two minutes. Please proceed.

Well, thank you very much, Madam Chair and Mr. Vice Chair and Members, I'm proud to present SB617, which amends the State Warrant Act. SB617 require that information in a layoff notice for impacted workers provide information on services that they are eligible to receive through their local workforce development board.

And those of you that have served in local government know that we get these letters whenever there's a layoff of a significant number of workers that indicate the classifications and the number of employees whose positions are being terminated.

This simply amends the law to include information about dislocation services that can be available to workers who are unfortunately laid off in the subject of a WARN act notice.

As noted, current law mandates that certain employees notify stakeholders of mass layoffs, including local workforce development board, 60 days before mass layoff occurs via the Worker Adjustment and Retraining notification letters. This notification requirement would be expanded to ensure that local workforce development boards are notified if an employer plans to issue such a letter to better inform them.

To better inform impacted employees about potential services offered by a local workforce board. In California, nearly 70 companies have given notices of layoffs expected to happen this year across various industries. And certainly with the broader economic climate, it is anticipated that there may be more companies that may issue layoff notices.

With the current nature of our rapidly changing economy, we must take every step to ensure that impacted workers are protected and informed about the services available to them and their families, including seeking other employment opportunities to help them get back on their feet.

617 is a straightforward Bill that lets workers know that they are supported by mitigating the effects of sudden job losses and ensuring effective communication between employers and local workforce development boards. You know, I just want to also add that it's not a significant burden on employers.

They are already required under state law to have to issue these notices if employer chooses not to not to coordinate with the Workforce Development Board, they can still issue a notice that provides the information about what dislocation services are available.

So with me here to testify and support the Bill is Latoya Reed-Adjei, interim Assistant Director, and Javier Contreras, Rapid response coordinator of the Alameda County Workforce Development Board.

Thank you, Senator. Please approach the mic and as mentioned before, you have two minutes.

Thank you so much for having me this morning. My name is Latoya Reed-Adjei. And thank you so much. Committee Chair Smallwood-Cuevas, Members of the Labor, Public Employment and Pensions Committee and the broader community. I'm the Assistant Director at the Alameda County Workforce Development Board, a Department within the Alameda County Social Services Agency.

I'm a supporter of a just economy where everyone can thrive, and most importantly, an advocate for those on the margins of our very wealthy economy. I'm here today to share with you the importance of Senate Bill 617. In today's economic climate whereby companies are laying off workers in the triple digits, we're seeing that locally in Alameda County.

It's really important that affected workers have the resources available to them to help them navigate this transition. Workforce development boards are positioned to be a system of navigational support which can be the difference between languishing in the labor market and thriving in it.

Being laid off is a precarious moment in time for people within their lives and they experience a lot of panic and anxieties. What's next? That uncertainty can cause people to spiral. We know that the best employment outcomes are tied to human connection. That's exactly what we would like affected workers to experience with this Bill.

Senate Bill 617 achieves this by requiring employers to be transparent about their next steps with laid off workers and allows the workforce Development boards, therefore to and other systems of support connected to the workforce boards to bridge affected workers toward a safety net of helping professionals.

It eliminates the guesswork about what will be provided to affected workers and about how businesses plan on working with us at the local Workforce Development Board so that we can be that bridge of support. For these reasons, I urge you to support Senate Bill 617. And thank you, Senator Ewin, for championing this effort.

We want to thank you so much for your time this morning and, you know, for listening to why this is the right step in the right direction.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Good morning. Chairman Smallwood Cuevas, Senators of the Committee and Committee Members, My name is Javier Contreras and I am a rapid response Coordinator with the Alameda County Workforce Development Board. Thank you for the opportunity to speak in favor of SB617.

As a rapid Response Coordinator, I've helped workers affected by job loss layoffs return to work as quickly as possible by supporting them and accessing programs and services that can assist in their transition to new employment opportunities.

This includes helping them enhance their skills through training and connecting them with resources that support both financial and emotional well being during the challenging time. My work as a Rapid Response Coordinator is deeply personal.

In April 2010, I was laid off by New United Motors Manufacturing NUMMI as an American automobile manufacturing company in Fremont, California after 25 years in the industry.

When this happened, NUMMI and the New United Motors Auto Workers Union collaborated with Alameda County Workforce Development Board to create a re employment center to provide re employment and retraining services to 2,000 affected workers. Turning the union hall into a career center. This was pivotal and supported many in navigating their next steps, including me.

I was concerned about how I was going to pay my rent, car payments, medical insurance and my kids going to school. I never thought I would be facing a layoff after 25 years of my life dedicated to a company. This re employment center was the navigator support of.

I needed to calm my fears just like I have now. Now I get to help those impacted by the what I help. Excuse me. Impacted by what I lived through as a rapid Response Coordinator. I've seen too many laid off workers struggle to navigate unemployment without being aware of services and support available to them.

Mr. Contrera, over time if you could wrap up please.

Okay. SB 617 will close the information loop for dislocated workers by ensuring war letters spell out employers plans to collaborate with the Labor Workforce Development boards to offer these resources and list a functioning email and telephone number of employers to contact during so created a gateway for work.

I'm sorry we have many bills to get through. But I appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Thank you for that. Is there anyone here speaking in support of the Bill? Please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Chair Members of the Committee, Roman Vogelsang with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the California Workforce Association and support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, I think that's it for support. Let's move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none. Any me to in opposition? Move to the Dias. Is there any comments or questions? Thank you so much. Would you like to close? Senator? Okay, well, thank you. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0. The Bill is on call. Thank you. Okay, take care. Okay, we are going to move to file item 6 and 7. Senator Richardson, you ready to proceed? We've got SB703 and SB826.

Well, good morning, everyone. I don't know about you, but I feel like I slept here. It's been a long week. It's been a long week. Let me first start off by saying thank you to the chair and to the Committee staff for working with my team as we were bringing forward SB703.

We always want to make sure that the legislation is relevant and on point and best fits with California law. So thank you for all of your efforts and your support in doing so. And with that, I do accept all Committee amendments that have been presented to our team.

That being said, SB 703, the Fair Trucking Accountability and Transparency Act, represents a critical step in ensuring that our state's trucking industry operates in a fair legal and transparent manner. The misclassification of workers as independent contractors is a long standing issue in the trucking industry, particularly at our ports.

Studies have shown that while 82% of port truck drivers are labeled as independent contractors, more than 80% of them are actual misclassified employees. The misclassification strips workers of essential protections, forcing them to shoulder operational costs unfairly, and creates an uneven playing field where companies may undercut protections of labor law.

The Legislature has established important accountability measures over the years. However, enforcement has been the challenge due to a lack of data. Ports collect some information on trucking companies accessing their facilities, but they do not, excuse me, collect specific data needed to determine whether a trucking company relies on employee drivers or misclassified independent contractors.

This gap in data collection leaves us both with our workers and responsible businesses vulnerable. It also hurts our community. I live in the San Pedro community where we see thousands of trucks day after day after day.

And oftentimes the misclassification and the lack of resources and support can in fact impact the safety of those drivers and the residents that are around them.

SB703 addresses this problem by requiring ports to collect and report key information that will enable regulators to identify non compliant actors and hold them accountable, while ensuring that businesses play by the rules and are not unfairly disadvantaged. Misclassification does not just harm workers, it also harms the broader economy and environmental consequences.

When trucking companies fail to comply with labor laws, it deprives the State of revenue needed to support essential services. Moreover, misclassification of drivers often struggles. Often the drivers struggle to afford cleaner, more sustainable vehicles, which undermines California's climate goals.

I've been working closely with the opposition, and frankly, I want to commend the Trucker Association for working with us day one on this very important Bill. Should the Bill advance from Committee today, I remain fully committed to continuing working collaboratively with all stakeholders as the Bill moves through the process.

Here with me today to speak on the importance of SB 703 is the sponsor, Shane Guzman. Guzman. Excuse me. On behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council, as well as Elmer Lizardi with the California Labor Federation, thank you. Thank you, Senator.

You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Shane Gusman, on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council to sponsor and proud supporter of this Bill.

We would also like to thank the Committee and Committee staff for working with us and making some important clarifications in the Bill so that it works better, and also the stakeholders, the trucking Association in particular, for working with us.

And we also share the commitment to continue working with stakeholders to make sure we get a Bill that works for everyone.

But that does get to the heart of what we're trying to do, which is protect the workers, particularly the drivers that service our ports, to make sure that the companies they work for are following the law and not exploiting them.

As the author said, this is about those drivers, but it's also about the companies that they work for and the companies that are doing the right thing so that they're not unfairly pitted against companies that are cheating in the workplace.

Also, there was a Bill passed last year that created significant penalties for cargo owners joint liability if the trucking companies that they hire are misclassifying their drivers. This information that this Bill provides also helps those cargo owners identify which trucking companies they should hire and not hire so that they can relieve themselves of that liability. So with that, we urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Thank you. Good morning. Chair Elmer Lizardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions. We are very proud to support SB703. 3.

As mentioned, the trucking industry has increasingly moved to a reliance on drivers misclassified as independent contractors, especially in port trucking, even though state and federal courts have resoundedly found drivers to be employees, including in almost 450 Labor Commissioner decisions for over $50 million in unpaid wages and damages.

And in addition to the systemic wage theft, worker misclassification further burdens drivers by leaving them without a safeguard net, by exempting them from workplace and safety protections from workers compensation, paid sick days, overtime and reimbursement for their equipment and gas trucking.

Trucking companies force misclassified drivers to shoulder this company business cost and lease and maintain a big rig truck, an obligation that is nearly impossible for low wage immigrant drivers to afford.

And this often leaves drivers so indebted to the Boss that they end up owing more in truck and operating costs at the end of the week than they have earned in wages despite working full time. California is taking significant, significant steps to end this misclassification.

But employees are actually getting more and more sophisticated and finding ways to avoid compliance with layers of some contracting and other tactics.

So with this Bill, by ensuring that ports collect specific information on trucking companies entering their facilities, California can help stop this endemic misclassification in the trucking industry and ensure that drivers are adequately protected and compensated for their hard work. Thank you. And we respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of the Bill, please step forward with your me too's name and affiliation. Okay, moving to opposition. Is there an opposition witness? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Committee Members, Chris Shimoda, on behalf of the California Trucking Association, want to first thank Senator Richardson, her staff and the authors for meeting with us. We've made a lot of great progress on the Bill.

While we are still opposed to the Bill in print today, we're discussing actively a couple of minor issues and hope to get a resolution and remove opposition soon. So thank you very much.

Any other opposition witnesses? You have two minutes.

I just wanted to say Jacob Brint with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Okay, you're meeting. You are oppo. Me too. Okay, then. Anyone else? You two opposition. Okay. Seeing none. We'll move to the dais. Any comments? Okay. A Senator, it looks like I'm gonna offer you a chance to close, but we don't have folks here to make a motion, so we're going to.

After your close, we will hold until our Members return, but you may go ahead and close.

I respectfully ask for you to make a motion and an aye vote. Thank you very much. Thank you.

We'll move on to File item number 7 826.

Thank you very much. Again, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee, I want to thank you for your due diligence. From the time when we brought these legislative ideas forward, everyone has been very receptive in working with me and my team and I'm. I'm very grateful for that.

With that being said, let's go through a little introduction about this particular Bill. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach, which compose of the San Pedro Bay Port Complex, constitute the largest maritime gateway in the nation.

In fact, 3/4 of all West Coast 20 foot equivalent unit which we call TEU's volume and we make up more than 30% of all domestic containerized imports traveling through the south through San Pedro Bay Port Complex. As many of you know, California seaports have increasingly come to rely upon automated forms of information and operational technology.

This digital dependence introduces vulnerabilities that in the event of a cyber attack, could cause severe consequences and long term damage. Furthermore, the use of such automated technology could lead to negative workforce and economic impacts.

A little bit on the background as noted in the analysis, a previous Bill that was signed into law, AB639, a Cervantes Bill in 2020 directed the Labor Workforce and Development Agency and the California Workforce Development Board to oversee a stakeholder process to support the development of findings and recommendations on how best to mitigate the employment impacts of automation at the Port of Los Angeles and the Port of Long Beach.

Upon completion of this process, the CWDB brought forward several recommendations. One of the recommendations called for research on addressing the port's most pressing challenges. SB826 brings forward an issue requiring further study. How do we mitigate the national security, cybersecurity workforce and economic impacts of automation at California seaports?

Given our current climate surrounding tariffs, ports would be a tempting target for some of our adversaries. What does SB826 do? It initiates an identical process as AB639, but focuses on the recommendations on how best to mitigate the these security risks.

It authorizes the CWDB to contract with the University of California, Los Angeles, the Labor center to facilitate implementation and authorize the UCLA labor center to Commission an expert research and testimony to supplement the stakeholder process.

It also requires, upon completion of the stakeholder process, but by no later than July 12027 the LWDA and CWDB report its findings. Finally, it provides that these provisions shall only remain in effect only until January 12029 as on that date this would thereby be repealed.

And in conclusion, what I would say is when I worked in Congress, I served on both the Transportation Committee and on Homeland Security and we are certainly vulnerable. We don't talk about it because part of being vulnerable is you don't want to expose your vulnerabilities.

But certainly when you consider the activity of the ports, if a port is shut down, we lose on an estimate of a minimum of $1.0 billion a day. And so if there were any interruptions, this would cause significant havoc and potentially harm also to the workers as well. With that, I'll pause for the witnesses.

Thank you, Senator. You have two minutes.

Chair and Members Marvin Pineda, on behalf of the International Longshore and warehouse unions, Locals 136394 sponsors of SBA 26. For the past 90 years, the IOWU has represented Longshore workers along the West Coast, including California's coast. The IOWU Members load and unload cargo ships, trains and trucks with all vital goods that American citizens demand from overseas.

These goods includes finished consumer products, but also medical supplies, food, critical manufacturing components, military goods, and other necessities to sustain our modern way of life. In most recent times, some employers have begun implementing robotics and artificial intelligence in cargo handling operations.

Consequently, according to news reports, the maritime industry is experiencing a surge in cyber attacks, with some governments reporting a 900% increase over the past three years. Our workers have seen some of the operations being controlled out of state, which is alarming.

Cyber criminals, whether individuals acting in concert or as state actors, use various methods to target ships, ports and terminal operators by using malware, supply chain breaches, compromising software updates to cause operational disruptions, financial losses, and even damages to physical assets.

Examples of some cyber attacks include Maersk in 2017, the Port of Lisbon in 2022, and the Port of Seattle recently in 2024. Our own experience, forged over the past 10 years of working alongside this equipment has demonstrated to us that these vulnerabilities are not only real, but are expanding and could cripple our economy.

And we've seen examples where some of the equipment is being operated controlled by technology that puts our workers at risk. So it's a serious threat. As Senator Richard mentioned, any disruption at the port will impact the entire state. And for those reasons, we respectfully asked for an aye vote.

Thank you. Anyone else speaking in support? Metoos and support, please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Elmer Lizardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Thank you. Anyone else? Okay, we will move to opposition. Any opposition witnesses here today? Any me toos in opposition today? Okay, we will move to the D. And do we have a motion? Okay, we don't. So, Senator, again, thank you.

We will take this up with our motion when we get our full body here, and we'll ask for your clothes, and then I vote thank you so much.

Thank you. I spilled a little water here, so I'm going to clean up for your next person.

Thank you.

For the audience, we're moving to file item 12 and 13 by the Chairwoman. Madam Chair, do you want to open? Which Bill would you prefer? Okay. Members, this is file item 12 SB366. Madam Chair, you may open.

Thank you so much. Mr. Vice Chair. Thank my witnesses who are here with us today. I am pleased to present SB 366 which calls for a comprehensive study on the economic and workforce impacts of artificial intelligence. AI is no longer on the horizon. It's here. It's transforming industries across the board from agriculture to aerospace.

This isn't a question of if AI will reshape California's economy. It's how deeply and how fast. And yet the state is flying blind in the midst of a budget crisis. We cannot afford to overlook one of the most powerful and fast-moving forces reshaping our economy.

SB366 is about making sure we understand AI's impact before it undermines our already fragile economic foundation. AI is likely to reduce labor demand in key sectors which could further destabilize revenues at the and local level. And why does this matter?

Essentially, fewer workers means fewer income tax, less consumer spending, less sales tax and greater reliance on public services. All of which will strain the state's budget. The state relies heavily on personal income tax making up a bulk of our General Fund.

And we know that in volatile times of of our S and P and capital gains tax, we rely heavily on those income taxes helping to stabilize our economy. So if AI displaces or shifts workers and drives down wages, we know that that means that that will be the same result in our income tax revenues.

They will fall and the demand for public services certainly will go up. And that creates a recipe for deeper volatile Vol about volatility. SB 366 helps California get ahead of this disruption. In 2018 the Little Hoover Commission projected that AI could impact up to 11 million Californian jobs by 2030. 11 million.

And reshape over 400 billion of our economy. These aren't abstract numbers. They point to the serious fiscal implications we must be ready for. And to do that we need real time data. We need to understand the impacts intimately.

And SB 366 directs the UCLA labor center to identify which sectors are most vulnerable, how job quality and income are shifting and what those changes mean for the state and local revenues. The goal is not to slow down the innovation. We know AI is here. We know it is integrating in to our industries across so many sectors.

But we have to be prepared for any unintended economic consequences that may come with it. California's economy is already marked by a boom and bust cycle. When people lose stable income, those cycles grow more extreme and extract and extended people. People are in need of stabilizing this economy and they are the stabilizing force.

And when they're replaced or displaced, the entire system becomes more unpredictable. And we're not saying that AI isn't going to create jobs. We know there will be new job creation as this new technology online. This Bill is not debating whether we should or whether we shouldn't.

It's simply saying California should have a plan as the shifts and transitions happen in our economy. Everyone, legislators, businesses, workers need to understand the fiscal impact of this technology. This is about future proofing the California budget. It's about safeguarding these workers in our community and working families.

And with me today to speak on this issue is Brian Justy, Senior Researcher analysts with the UCLA labor center and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Good morning Chair and Committee Members. My name is Brian Justie. I'm a Senior Research analyst at the UCLA Labor Center. Artificial intelligence has been one of the most discussed and debated topics over the last several years, yet too much of this discourse remains informed by speculation on the part of both its skeptics and its proponents.

SB366, however, provides an exciting and urgent opportunity to engage with this topic concretely in a way that will produce novel primary data using mixed methods and bring this entire issue back down to earth, better informing policymakers and stakeholders shaping our collective future.

To date, there's been countless studies onto the current and future impacts of AI, yet none that I'm aware of have engaged the topic in the way that SB366 dictates.

By focusing on how AI will impact state and local revenues in particular, we will be able to determine a more robust connection between emerging technologies and broad socioeconomic sustainability than other existing studies have been able to do.

The research mandate underlying this Bill offers an alternative to the counterproductive and zero sum narrative that pits labor against new technology. I speak with workers across different sectors every day in my position at the UCLA labor center, and workers are not at all anti technology.

In fact, they will readily share many examples of how certain technologies have improved their professional and personal lives. Rather, many workers do express real concerns over how the current technological landscape and workplace AI in particular, is all too often fundamentally undemocratic in nature.

SB 366 will enable the labor center to deliver data driven findings that will reframe this debate and ensure that California remains An innovator in not just technology, but democratic technology. You. Thank you.

Next witness. And support any other witnesses for identification purposes. In support any witnesses in opposition. See? None. Madam Chair, I just had one. Just quick question. Me personally, I support the concept of the Bill. Is there a reason why you picked the UCLA labor center to conduct the study?

I'm just telling you what I kind of feel going through the Labor Center on AI would be kind of biased from my standpoint. Is there a non biased group that could do this study instead? You know, when we talk about AI, I know conservatives like to use, for example Hoover Institute or Heritage Foundation.

If I did a study, is there any other entity. That's the only concern I have with the Bill. That it might be a biased study?

Well, one. UCLA is a publicly funded institution with I would say global influence in terms of their research and credibility of their research. And we have often used the UCLA labor study in the state Legislature on issues related to work. Because of their expertise in this space and in this field.

You know, they have been helpful in doing studies around our ports and looking at automation. You heard earlier there are other areas that industries are asking their efforts to look at challenges that are facing them.

But so I guess I would say they are a reliable source with a field of in depth of expertise on issues related to restructuring industries, impact on workers and understanding. Where are the opportunities to see the holistic impact of transition and restructuring and how best for the state to understand those revenues.

I think they have a track record in that we've relied on that evidence to do really important policy here at the state. And so I trust them to be able to do that work. And I know, you know, you mentioned Little Hoover and others.

I, you know, I, I'm not sure where they fit into having a specificity exclusively on work and workplace issues and particularly workforce issues. But this research institution has over many, many decades.

Okay. Madam Chair, would you like to close? Is that.

Absolutely. Well, I appreciate the question and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

We're, we're, we're short on Members to do a motion and we'll bring that up when, when the time comes.

Well, thank you, sir.

Thank you, Madam Chair. File item 13, SB469. Would you like to open on that Bill? Sure.

Pleasd to present SB469, which will establish the Public Infrastructure Task Force of California. In response to over 1 trillion in federal infrastructure investments, this Legislature took steps to make sure these dollars reached all Californians, especially our disadvantaged communities.

In many ways, we saw those Investments as an anti poverty strategy where we could multiply investments ensuring that we built critical infrastructure, but at the same time built lives out of need and disadvantage and into self sufficiency.

One of those efforts that focused that is SB150 and it directed the Labor and Workforce Development Agency, the government Operations agency and the transportation agency to bring stakeholders together to recommend ways to promote equitable hiring, local workforce goals and high road contracting. The result was a push for enforceable contract terms that deliver measurable benefits to underserved communities.

Labor, community and industry leaders emphasize the need to expand the skilled workforce and to prioritize good paying jobs for historically overlooked communities. SB469 builds on that work by creating a task force to help make sure these investments open real opportunities for underrepresented workers.

The task force will bring together state agencies, local contractors, community expertise, workforce expertise to review public infrastructure hiring practices, recommend strategies for recruiting and retaining underrepresented workers, and removing barriers to employment that will support contractors as well in meeting contract compliance requirements.

As California continues to invest in infrastructure, this task force will ensure that our most disadvantaged communities are part of that progress.

The you know, this is a strategy that has been used in many communities in Southern California, from San Diego, you know, all the way up to Sacramento, where we are intentional about finding ways to measure how we are bringing disadvantaged communities into opportunity, recognizing that that is an overall savings to everyone when we're able to move folks, you know, out of a subsidy and into a career.

And certainly with the tremendous amount of investments that Californians make in, you know, building roads and highways, climate, resilient infrastructure, we need to be very intentional that those are also opportunities to bring folks out of poverty and into self sufficiency.

I think, you know, the more we do that, the more we're able to have a stable economy that is able to meet the demands of the future and investing in other places because we're moving folks into opportunity for self sufficiency and building stronger communities.

With me today is Brian Justie again with the UCLA Labor Center who will speak more on this Bill.

Sure. Thank you. Good morning again, my name is Brian Justie, senior research analyst at the UCLA Labor Center. California leads the nation in protecting workers but discriminate. Excuse me. California leads the nation in protecting workers from discrimination, but lacks sufficient capacity to ensure these protections are enforced at scale.

The establishment of the California Public Infrastructure Task Force is a significant step forward in addressing the root causes of systemic discrimination and the lack of access to good jobs and ensuring more just outcomes for working class Californians, the UCLA labor center has conducted considerable research into the benefits of incorporating community based organizations like unions, worker centers and local advocacy groups into public service Administration.

Initiatives like these demonstrate how a community driven approach enables the state government to more directly and productively interface with California's diverse constituents and ensure that no one falls through the cracks of a well intentioned but poorly implemented policy.

Further, engaging community based organizations as mandated by SB469 effectively enables the state to ramp up capacity for enforcement and compliance, providing ongoing technical support to contractors and subcontractors on public infrastructure projects regarding their non discrimination obligations.

Given the federal attacks on workplace equity initiatives, it is more important than ever that California invest its political capital in protecting and expanding its commitment to underserved and marginalized communities. Without an intentional and bold approach like the one modeled in SB469, we risk leaving our most marginalized workers behind.

Once again, I urge you to seize this opportunity to build a more inclusive and democratic economy in California. Thanks.

Thank you for being here. Any other witnesses in support? Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. Madam Chair, would you like opposition support? Support. I'm sorry, Other witnesses in support?

On behalf of the Ellis Baker center, we support. My name is Rakim. Thank you for being here.

Thank you. Any me toos and support? Okay. Any opposition seen? None. Madam Chair, would you like to close?

Thank you. Thank you very much Mr. Chair. And I, I, I appreciate the, the comments. And, and it speaks to a study that the UCLA center did almost 20 years ago on this strategy.

At the time when this, the City of Los Angeles was looking to build a new police station, a new hospital and a few other projects and you know, implemented a strategy that could bring disadvantaged communities and local communities into opportunity through, through policy.

At the time that that research was done, for example, black workers represented less than 2% of the construction industry. At the end of that project, over 2,800 black men who had, were in the safety net had come out and gone into the building and construction trades through that handful of projects that that policy covered.

That was a model and now it is the way that the city and the county and the airport, our metro all do this work because it helps to multiply the dollars. I think this would be a benefit to the state.

It would be a benefit to every community in this state that is poverty and wanting to see the best for its residents. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this Bill.

So Madam Chair, we don't have enough Members to move the Bill and we'll move the Bill once we have them here. Thank you. Thank you. If there's any authors that have bills in the Labor Committee, please come down to the Labor Committee and present your Bill.

Well, look at you. You're right on time. Perfect timing. We are now going to move to File item number nine, SB845. Senator Perez, you may proceed when ready.

Great. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First, I want to thank the Committee staff for their work on SB845. SB845 will implement key components of the Master Plan for career education as well as recommendations provided by the California Youth Apprenticeship Committee in order to expand youth apprenticeships.

California's education and workforce frameworks are leaving many students behind, especially low income, black and Latino and English learner youth who enroll in college at lower rates and face barriers to completing a four year degree. While 62% of high school graduates enroll in college within a year, only 34% of Californians hold at least a Bachelor's degree.

At the same time, 30% of future jobs will require training beyond high school, but less than a four year degree. Career education provides specialized training for jobs that are essential for upward economic mobility. However, our career education system is not meeting the needs needs of students and workforce demands.

When students struggle with the transition from education to employment, it can reinforce existing racial and generational wealth disparities. Additionally, our system is failing to address the state's declining workforce in trade industries, a problem that will only worsen as more workers reach retirement age.

California voters recognize the importance of career education as highlighted in a recent survey by All for Ed, where three quarters of voters believe it is very or extremely important for K12 schools to provide career connected learning and develop partnerships with colleges and employers to address these issues.

SB845 expands access to career connected learning across the state by strengthening hands on learning opportunities, removing barriers to industry participation and connecting students with high demand careers. All efforts that are guided by the Career Education Master Plan and the recommendations of the California Youth Apprenticeship Committee.

Doing so will provide a strong foundation for preparing students for career success, which is essential for building a more inclusive economy. Joining me to testify in support of the Bill are representatives from our co sponsors, Roman Vugelsang with the California Workforce Association and Ryan Gensler with Career Wise USA.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning everybody. Roman Vogelsang with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Workforce Association, a co sponsor of this measure. We are here to support and voice our strong support for Senate Bill 845, which represents a powerful step forward forward in preparing California students for success beyond high school.

Only about 30% of California youth earn a four year degree and many face barriers that make traditional higher education out of reach. Yet we know that success shouldn't depend solely on a college degree. SB845 offers a real solution by expanding youth apprenticeship opportunities that combine hands on work experience with academic learning.

This Bill updates outdated career technical education standards, strengthens coordination across agencies, and for the first time establishes clear definitions and pathways for youth apprenticeships. Based on the California Youth Apprenticeship Committee, it empowers students starting as early as 10th grade to develop 21st century skills like communication, problem solving and teamwork while earning credit. Aligned with higher education standards.

SB 845 also encourages meaningful collaboration between educators, employers and labor leaders, ensuring that our students are learning skills that directly match the needs of California's workforce. By investing in accessible, high quality work based learning, we're giving our students more than just an education. We're giving them a future.

I urge you to vote aye on SB845 to build a stronger bridges between education and employment for the next generation of Californians. Thank you so much.

Is there another support witness? And you have two minutes as well.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning Committee. Thank you Senator Perez for this wonderful opportunity and happy National Apprenticeship Day. This is a day we use to celebrate the powerful impact of earning while learning and it's a privilege to be here with you today. My name is Ryan Gensler.

I'm Executive Vice President for Career Wise USA and we're committed to bringing youth apprenticeship to all 50 states by 2030. We're creating real world pathways from education to career. And with nearly a decade of experience and thousands of success stories, we are reimagining the American dream by connecting schools, employers and communities.

We are in strong support of Senate Bill 845. Careerwise has seen solid data that shows the ROI for both the employer and the apprentice. Employers report higher productivity to wage ratios than traditional hiring practices. Supervisors are reporting increased managerial skills after supporting youth apprentices.

In Colorado, apprentice graduates were making nearly $5 an hour more than the household average earnings of those five years older than they are. And on average, apprentices who gain full time employment in New York are earning 6% more than entry level workers that have a bachelor's degree. Mind you, these are high school apprentices.

We've been working with schools and workforce boards and nonprofits across California. And while they're able to get small pilots started, we've heard the following concerns time and time again. Major barriers include complex regulations, employer liability and compliance concerns, and challenges integrating apprenticeships into high school graduation requirements.

We've seen similar challenges in New York, Indiana, Colorado and across the country, but have been able to work through them with greater interagency coordination, similar to the reforms recommended in Senate Bill 845. In addition, California currently lacks a regulatory framework and infrastructure to make youth apprenticeship placements efficient for employers and youth.

An essential part of scale SB845 directly addresses these barriers. It establishes clear frameworks for implementing youth apprenticeships in high schools. Eases employer burdens by allowing schools to manage liability insurance.

Sir, you've gone over your time time by eight seconds. Could you please wrap up

and makes apprenticeships count toward graduation credits. We respectfully urge your aye vote on Senate Bill 845.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here speaking in support of the Bill, please step forward. Me to. Name and affiliation only. Thank you.

Good morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the County Of Kern, in support. Thank you.

Kami Peer with Next Gen Policy, a. Co sponsor of the Bill and strong support.

Thank you. Any more support? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses on this Bill? Okay. Seeing none. Any me toos in opposition? Okay, we'll turn to the dice. Thank you. Senator Strickland is moving the Bill. Any other testimony? Would you like to close Senator? Thank you. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 4 to 0. The Bill is on call.

Excellent. Thank you all so much.

Okay.

We have more Members here now, and so we are going to take motions on some of the bills that we went through. Through earlier. Do we have a motion on File item number six, SB703.

So move.

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

[Roll Call]

I move file item number seven.

Okay, thank you. We have a. On the file item number six, we have a vote of three to one, and that Bill remains on call. We have a motion from Senator Laird on File item number 7. SB826.

[Roll Call]

Let's see. With a vote of 3 to 0, that vote is on call. Now we will move to File item number 12. Do we have a motion on SB 366? I would so move. Thank you.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 3 to 1. That Bill is on call.

Then I have a very lucky motion to move item 13.

Lucky 13. Senator Laird, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3 to 1. That Bill remains on call.

[Roll Call]

So we are going to take recess for about 10 minutes and come back once we have authors in the room. We are waiting on Senator Ashby and Senator Hurtado. Come forward. You may proceed.

Okay. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of this Committee, I want to first and foremost thank the chair, Smallwood-Cuevas, for recognizing the urgency, agreeing to bring stakeholders. Stakeholders together. SB801 is about course correcting in a way that protects jobs, pay, small businesses, and rights.

While we may not do a vote on this measure today, we appreciate the chair's offer to still hear the measure, commit to stakeholder meetings, and move toward a solution that works for all. But before I speak on SB801, I want to share something personal.

And I understand that some people may not necessarily understand why I'm pushing for this or why it matters. And I want to be able to share with you why. When I think about long hours and tough jobs, I think about my parents.

My mom worked a graveyard shift and would come home just as my dad was heading out to his first job. He worked 12 hours and then moved on to a second job. It was those extra hours, those sacrifices that allowed them to put a down payment on a duplex.

It made them not only homeowners, but now it also made them landlords. It gave them stability, a path to security and a way to build a future. If it weren't for that opportunity, I don't know where they'd be today. And if it weren't for that stability, I don't know where I would be today.

Because a daughter of ag workers who wasn't even expected to graduate high school is now a California State Senator working for the very families who remind me of my own. And let me be clear, this is not an effort to go backwards.

I deeply respect the work that Assembly woman former Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez did to push forward essential protections for farm workers. The work was desperately needed. It was a move in the right direction and I believe we must build upon this effort.

We must ensure those protections work not only for the workers but also for the employers, because in ag communities they go hand in hand. SB801 is a Bill, is an important Bill that seeks to ensure an important tool in our wildfire Mitigation toolkit is available in our battle against increasing wildfires.

In recent years, wildfires have been growing in size, duration and in destruction. Here in California, growing wildfire risk can be attributed in part to accumulating vegetation overgrowth, a warming climate, and expanding development in the wildland urban interface.

And at the beginning of this year, the devastating fires that burned large swathes of Los Angeles provided a grim reminder of California's vulnerability to large scale natural disasters. Presently, sheep and goats have been deployed to grace flammable vegetation in targeted regions of the state.

Their grazing has served an integral part of California's efforts to reduce the buildup of vegetation that can fuel large scale wildfires.

But California's successful targeted grazing efforts, which depends on a viable sheep and goat ranching sector, may be in jeopardy due to a steep rise in the minimum wage ranchers must pay the herders who shepherd the livestock around the clock. Historically, herders were exempted from California overtime laws and paid a minimum monthly wage.

But in 2016, California enacted AB1066, entitling farm workers to overtime pay when they work more than eight hours a day or 40 hours a week. In 2019, when AB 1066 began to be phased in, state regulators determined the law, which applied to anyone employed in an agricultural profession, over rode herders long standing overtime exemption.

As a result, the monthly wage for sheep and goat herders in California skyrocketed from 2,189 in 2019 to 4,820 this year, with employers also required to provide food and housing. In comparison, the federal minimum monthly wage for H2A herders this year is 2058.

Many of California's sheep and goat ranches have operated for multiple generations and have provided valuable wildfire mitigation services to communities across the state. Unfortunately, their services may disappear if we can't find an equitable solution to this mounting problem. Today I am joined by two witnesses very familiar with this important issue.

I have Andrew Kinison, deputy chief of the Kern County Fire Department, who is responsible for Kern's County's wildfire mitigation efforts. And I have Andree Soares, President of the Star Creek Land Stewards in Merced County. If you can please come up to present.

Thank you, Senator. And I just want to reiterate that this is for testimony only. No vote will be taken today as you opened your statement. Thank you. Thank you so much. And you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Andrew Kinison. I'm the Air and Wildland Deputy chief for Kern County Fire Department. As you may know, we're one of six contract counties with CAL FIRE in the State of California protecting 1.6 million acres of state responsibility area.

Of that 1.6 million acres, the vast majority is classified as either a high or a very high fire hazard severity zone. As we move to treat 500,000 acres in the state every year in order to tackle that type of acreage, a lot of effort has been placed on the prescribed fire. Use of prescribed fire.

One conversation that we've been pushing is further use of prescribed grazing, because prescribed grazing is one of the most environmentally friendly and safest methods to treat large acres, especially those that are in and around residential areas and affect businesses.

There are certain areas of the state where, although they may need a prescribed fire, it may not be advantageous because of smoke impacts or just the safety of burning that close to communities. Prescribed grazing is the important tool we are looking to employ in these areas. So with that, thank you.

Good morning. My name is Andre Soares. I'm a sheep and goat producer representing the California Wool Growers Association. And part of what I do with my animals is provide targeted grazing services for fire prevention. SB801 is a vital piece of legislation aimed at protecting the tools in your toolbox.

As the Senator mentioned, in efforts to mitigate wildfire, many private municipal entities depend on sheep and goats to provide grazing services to control fire fuels and overgrown vegetation. This method of management greatly reduces use of fossil fuels and heavy machinery and potentially harmful herbicides, all while sequestering carbon beneath their hooves.

If you've seen it happening, you know, if you haven't, Seen it, you should. In particular because of your seat in government. One of the oldest entities in the state to be using this effectively is the East Bay Regional Parks Fire Department.

They started using this method to reach difficult and treacherous terrain after the Oakland fires in the 80s. Point is that they learned and have now a highly sophisticated grazing program and committed teams. They've learned to live with wildfire, less of it, and have been successful in preventing the major devastation of that fateful day of the Oakland fires.

Grazing is part of that team. When AB 1066 was applied to the range sheepherder job classification, there was a severely disproportionate and we believe unintended consequence resulting in requiring those employers to pay these specific employees 24 hours a day, seven days a week. No other industry has been impacted so drastically.

These employees that come to work with us come year after year. They love their jobs, they appreciate the opportunities. They're able to take their money that they earn here in California, build homes, businesses back in their home states. 99.9% of the jobs filled by this job classification are H2A herders coming mostly from Peru.

There is no domestic source for this labor in California and most of the western states, which is why this federal H2A program is here. There's only about 300 workers at any given time employed in these jobs in the state.

It's highly regulated at the federal level, including annual evaluation, consideration and adjustment if needed of that monthly minimum wage.

You're overtime. So please write wrap up.

Thank you. These wages as mentioned were our raise our sheep. Her minimum wage increased by 436% for this job classification between 2000 and 2025. We appreciate your future consideration. Thank you.

Thank you. Any others here in wanting to give a Me too. And you could please state your name and affiliation.

My name is George Hay. I'm representing the Kern County Wool Growers Association and Hey Brother Sheep in support. Thank you.

Good morning Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Bryan Little with California Farm Bureau in support. Thank you.

Okay, we see support. Is there opposition that would witness that would like to speak? You have two minutes.

Thank you. Chair Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions.

We are opposed to SB801 which would roll back the progress the Legislature made with AB 1066 Gonzalez in 2016 by exempting sheep and goat herders from the Phase in Overtime for Agricultural Workers act, ensuring that this group of workers would not receive the same overtime pay protection required for other agricultural workers.

Agricultural workers, labor and physically demanding jobs, often risking their health and safety to fulfill roles that most people refuse. As mentioned, sheep and goat herders provide a perfect example of this, given that many of these employed in California are foreign workers from South American countries like Peru who are on temporary work visas.

When AB 1066 was signed in 2016, it included a reasonable timetable to phase in overtime pay for farm workers until 2022 and then an additional three years to comply until 2025 for smaller employers.

As mentioned in the analysis, goat and sheep herder employers have the special exemption from labor laws that allow them to choose not to pay herders the minimum wage for for all hours worked and can instead pay no less than the monthly minimum wage. That means the goat and sheep herders are already exempted from these important labor protections.

SB801 would create a very dangerous precedent by exempting sheep and goat herders entirely so that these essential workers would have to continue to work often 247 hour shifts for less pay Members. Tomorrow is May Day or International Workers Day.

It commemorates the struggle for workers rights and honors the lives lost during the fight to ensure the eight hour workday that we are all now privileged to enjoy but must never take for granted. On the eve of that celebration, we must not take steps that reverse our progress in protecting workers from all forms of exploitation.

Herders, like all agricultural workers, are essential and moving forward, the least we can do is uphold their right to fair pay. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there anyone else here speaking in a. Me too. In opposition on the record. Okay. Seeing none. We're going to move to my statements. Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't realize my mic wasn't on.

I wanted to say to the Senator I, I know how important this is to you and you have come and talked to me intensely over this week about this Bill and I know how important it is is to, to your district.

You know the blanket exemption is not an appropriate solution and I really appreciate you saying your respect for this law and also, you know, the need to really work on this.

And so I look forward to further conversations to address this and for pulling your Bill today to allow stakeholders to come to the table and to figure, figure out some solutions as so much of the agricultural industry, as you pointed out, because of the tariffs and other pressures, are finding it tough but recognizing how valuable and important the workers are and how we must value that work.

So I appreciate that and looking forward to further conversations. Oh yes, please.

And I don't, I don't want to preempt your Comments, nor do I disagree with them. I just want to offer the author my assistance going forward in trying to, you know, balance the interests because in my own very urban county, otherwise known as Silicon Valley, and Senator Laird can more than attest to this, having having represented the South County, the agricultural portion before me, you know, it's difficult to apply wage standards when there's commodity markets involved because you end up, it's almost like a tariff basically in those kind of situations.

And many of us up here are opposed to that kind of, you know, economic activity. But it's harder to understand, you know, the details of, in a non commodity situation like, like this. I get it that it's important to people and yourself, but I just wanted to offer any assistance just as an individual Member.

I don't have any special standing here on this Committee and I know the Committee staff is going to be working with you, but I'm also happy to attend stakeholder meetings and, and try to help, you know, come to some solution in the future. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator. Senator Strickland, you.

Yeah, sure. Thank. Madam Chair. I, I just want to say I think this is a common sense measure as is, but I'm hoping that you get to a resolution so we can get the, you know, majority on this Committee to vote yes so we can move forward.

I think it's an important measure and I'd love to help you in any way possible moving forward. Hopefully we can get this done.

So thank you very much. Senator, would you like to close?

Yeah. I just want to express again gratitude for your willingness to work with us on this particular issue. I think that's the one thing there's many things to love about you, but I think where we absolutely connect 1000% is our passion for jobs, good paying jobs for people. And that's all that I'm asking.

I'm not trying to, believe me. I've seen firsthand how difficult it is for someone to work two jobs. I saw my father doing it, I saw my mother working graveyard shifts, 12 hour shifts. And I think that there's room for balance. And this is really all about perspective.

I don't really see it as, I think there's an opportunity to build upon the work that has already been established and done. And it's just about people coming together to do good to ensure that those good paying jobs remain.

And so I appreciate your time today for hearing our witnesses today and I look forward to working with all those that are interested on this issue. Thank you.

Thank you. And with that we are going to recess at this time and we will reconvene for our last item shortly. I would say probably in it. We'll give it 15 minutes. Thank you.

Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will reconvene. I see that Senator Ashby is here. She may proceed at the podium when ready.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, and your staff. A long haul over the last couple days. So I cannot express my gratitude deeply enough to the chair and her extraordinary commitment to this topic and to the women in the State of California and particularly this population that we are seeking to address today.

I thank you from the bottom of my heart and your Committee staff. The lumps and bumps of the Legislature, but have led us, I think, to a really good spot. And I am proud to be here to present this Bill to you today, SB850.

I am going to do a very truncated presentation because we've all spent a lot of time on it and because your Committee staff have put together a new set of amendments, but I believe you all have them. We will be accepting proudly those amendments to this Bill, the ones that were presented to me just, just most recently.

And also thank you for all the other iterations that, that led us to this point. There are a couple things I want to say on the record here because there are some changes I'm going to make to the Bill in Appropriations. They are the same changes that I mentioned yesterday in Public Safety.

But I want advocates to know that those changes are still forthcoming. We will remove the 100 unit construction project and we will remove the thermal cameras and any reference to the two remaining in the Bill. Then will be the piece that we have spent so much time discussing here, which is a pension component.

The Correctional Peace Officers Association, which is the sponsor of the Bill, seeks to, to hold accountable the folks who work in the institutions. And we have, I think, crafted a Bill that will allow them to do that, meaning if a person commits a sexual assault while working in the prisons, their pension is on the line.

They will lose it. The second piece to the Bill is also to protect in the women's institutions any opportunity, so there would no longer be solo shifts. The third component is to mandate the installation of cameras, these cameras. This is previous legislation and previous court orders, but the installation of the cameras has been delayed several times.

This Bill would mandate that it gets done by 2028. And then the final piece would allow women who are incarcerated to be asked to ask a lieutenant on duty for an opportunity for respite. Those four pieces remain intact with modifications as specified by this Committee.

And I do want to note that one of the other things that we amended today is the spousal exemption to include both current and former spouses who would have a vested right to some form of the pension. We want to protect them as well. So those are the components to the Bill.

I am honored to put this forward. Grateful for the work of the Committee. Do have an expert witness with me. This is Gavin Mchugh on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, sponsor of the Bill.

Thank you, Senator. You may proceed. You have two minutes.

Madam Chair and Members, Gavin Mchugh, on behalf of the California Correctional Peace Officers Association, we are pleased to support Senator Ashby's Senate Bill 850. We'd really like to thank you, Madam Chair, and your Committee staff, Senator Ashby and her staff for all the work and Members of the Committee getting something worked out on this today.

CCPA wants to be part of the solution to address and prevent the rare but serious cases of sexual abuse involving correctional staff and those held in custody by the Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. We believe SB850 as crafted will be a positive step in that direction and will hold those accountable who are responsible for these acts. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any more witnesses in support? Okay, me toos. Any me toos in the room supporting this Bill? Okay. Any opposition? Any opposition witnesses? You have two minutes.

Yes, Good afternoon. It's afternoon time. Thank you all so much again for holding this hearing and this really important intimate topic. Many. We've all met each other. I'm Katie Dixon. I'm with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners. I'm a community advocate. I'll skip some of that other stuff for time too. You know, our working group.

We also thank the Committee Members and the chair. We again, we thank Senator Ashby. We love you being in this space and wanting to address this issue with us. We stand in solidarity there. We want you in a space. We want everybody in the space.

And we also appreciate just the opportunity to meet with the staff, meet with the offices. We're still looking forward to that group meeting. Again, a lot of us going to be out of town next week, but we looking forward to that. With that, we are still in opposition of the Bill.

And right now the main topic I want to land on is the provision of the Bill that revokes the pension for the officers. You know, the way it is written right now, we feel like this is really going to be unimpactful. We are concerned about the standard and the implementation of the Bill right now.

Considering the incredibly low conviction rate for these abusive officers, we really feel like the Bill will be unimpactful at best and just marled in litigation at worst. You know, we don't have enough money for that right now.

To give a sense of this issue, in 2023, there were 1363 Priya reports of staff sexually abusing incarcerated people in CDCR facilities. However, in the five years between 2014 and 2018 at CCWF, only three officers confirmed to have committed sexual abuse were even referred to the District Attorney office. Of those three, only one was actually charged.

We went through a year of court hearings for this person to be convicted of 64 out of the 90 accounts. And this officer was accused of assaulting dozens of women's over many years. In the 10 years between 20.

Your time I'm sorry is coming is over. ... wrap it up.

I am. Only six abusers were referred to the District Attorney office and they were dismissed by the DA on only one was convicted and he because he pleaded to a misdemeanor. You know we are still here willing to work with the office. That olive branch and that invitation is still on the table. And that's. That's it. We, we, we want you to come to the table and just work with us.

You bet. You made my commitment.

We appreciate you. Thank you so much. And thanks to the staffers as well.

Other. Are you a witness in opposition? You have two minutes. Yes.

Thank you. Good morning, Committee chair and Members. My name is Tatiana and I'm here today as a community advocate and also uplifting the voices of the voiceless, here to Express opposition to SBA50.

Respectfully, as someone with lived experience as an advocate and with lived experience in the criminal legal system, working directly with incarcerated communities, I understand the need for accountability. But this Bill is not about accountability. It's about expanding the power of correctional officer unions while pretending to address abuse. Let's be clear.

SB850 creates new staffing mandates that will worsen existing labor issues. Inside CDCR facilities are already struggling to staff critical roles, especially for programming and mental health care. By requiring additional staffing to avoid solo shifts, this Bill will pull limited resources away from the services incarcerated people rely on to heal and return home to their families.

We don't need policies that protect institutions at the expense of people. We need solutions that address the root causes of abuse, such as staff culture, lack of accountability, and the code of silence inside of CDCR. This Bill does none of that. It creates more jobs for COs, punishes people selectively, and also diverts resources away from real rehabilitation.

I respectfully urge you to oppose SBA50 and thank you so much for your consideration and your time and again. Look forward to working with Senator Ashby and her office on this issue. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay, we have heard. Are there any MeToo oppositions? Please step forward and state your name and affiliation.

My name is Rakim Naylor, and on behalf of the Ella Baker Center on SB 850, we oppose this Bill heavily, SB850.

Thank you.

Emily Wonder. On behalf of Sister Warriors Freedom Coalition. Opposed unless amended, but we look forward. To working with the author.

Thank you. Okay. Seeing opposition. I'll come to the dais. Senator Laird,

Thank you. Let me appreciate the work that has gone on here because I know that it was really hard, but I think it's important to address some of the concerns that were raised in the testimony. And one of the difficult things if you are in the legislative process, is there is an entire situation.

And bills sometimes don't address the entire situation. They address what we can do in the moment. And that's what this Bill does.

And I sit on the Rules Committee and we confirm the major leaders of the prison system and we have worked hard to hold them accountable to different things that are going on in that process, such that we don't do this for almost anybody else.

We will continue to have regular zooms or phone calls with the secretary and other people to check in and make sure that there's a sense of the pressure that we feel on. On many different issues and to extend the voice that. That there was concern with. And this, it's interesting because I think the.

The word that was used by the first witness was impactful. And Nana, this is very impactful because I. This is as much about prevention and much about people knowing that their pension is on the line.

And it will just take a few cases for it to spread throughout the system and people to know that everything is at risk. And that is a step forward over the current situation. And this is really a major step because there are almost no places in state government that people forfeit a portion of their pension.

It is a vested right. And the fact that this could go back to the time of an action related to conviction or confirmation of that action is something that doesn't exist for almost any other job category within the pension system within the State of California. It does exist for certain corruption cases that that has happened.

So I think this is a major step forward and I hope the conversation does continue.

But it is something that needs to reflect itself in places, not just in the legislative process, but in the budget process, in the confirmation process, and in other ways that we, as a Legislature, providing oversight and policy direction will make sure that there are conversations and actions, actions that are taken.

So I salute the chair for working this out. I salute the author for doing this. And I recognize that this is a piece of what we have to do. This is a major piece compared to what existed before and what we thought could be done. So at the appropriate moment, I will be happy to move this Bill.

But I just wanted to make sure those comments were on the record.

Thank you so much, Senator Laird. Thank you, Senator Laird. Senator Strickland.

I want to thank the Chairwoman and her Committee staff. I want to thank the Senator, the good Senator from Sacramento, for bringing this forward. And I also want to thank the CCPOA for being part of the solution. I think this is exactly the legislative process.

And I have good faith in the Senator from Sacramento to come to a compromise and make sure that we move forward. But I want to thank her for bringing this forward. And I concur with the comments from my Senator from the San Jose area, I believe Santa Cruz. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you. And I believe that the Senators already moved the Bill.

Thank you so much, Senator. And I wanted to just say I want to thank you, Senator, for working with Committee and your team, working with our team to, to address these concerns. You know, when I came my first year in the Legislature, there was a case where one prison guard raped 10% of the women's prison.

One guard raped 10% of the prison. And that doesn't happen alone. That does not happen alone. And I, you know, I know we talked about, and the Senator talked about impact and being impactful, but for women that are facing sexual violence, that word isn't enough. Right? This is important. This is an important step.

But when you are faced with sexual violence, it's not enough. And we have to go farther and address the root causes, as one of the witness stated, the code of silence and the staffing culture and deal with the demons that allow this type of these types of heinous actions to happen.

We do need to punish CDCR staff who sexually abuse people that are in their care. And we have to create very strong incentives for these crimes to not happen in the first place and provide the protections that our women deserve.

I do believe that this is a step because when you hit people in their pocketbooks, maybe it'll help them keep their buckle on. Maybe it will help them think about what they're doing. And these provisions of a full pension forfeiture. And I've worked in labor for many years, no union wants the pension touched.

It's One of the things that unions will fight to keep pensions protected. So when we say pull full pension forfeiture, these amendments are serious and they apply to all of the future CDCR employees.

So when you come to get a job, you know you will not have a retirement if you rape, if you sexually assault the people in your care, and that starts January 12026 to say that they can lose their entire pension, including all the vested amounts.

Also, the provisions would apply upon conviction pursuant to our other government codes and is applicable for existing CDCR staff. The amendment, you know, we don't want to punish families. These are bad actors. And that was raised. So these amendments now include those former spouses in the spousal exemption provision, but the individuals will pay. I think the.

My hope for this and when we first talked about this Bill was to say, let's take it all, let's take it all. But then we found that we had some roadblocks in doing that. I think we have looked at every aspect that will allow us to make sure that California holds the line on this issue.

And we know that this compromise came about through some intense conversations. And I like to say if we don't struggle together, we're not doing. We're not trying our best. If we're not, we're not. We're not doing something right. But we have a long way to go on this. This is not the end.

And, and you, you and I will continue to work on these issues, issues as you raised. And we want to also make sure that the voices of those most impacted are included.

I heard from some of the witnesses about this transfer issue and that when I visited some of the prisons, women told me that, you know, people will be transferred and when they're transferred, they can be assaulted. That's not in the jurisdiction of this Committee.

But I think as we think about these issues, as I say, we have a lot of things to address here. And so I look forward to working with you and with that, I'm looking forward to supporting this Bill moving forward. And I. Do we have a comment from Senator Cortese or we have a motion. All right. From Senator Laird. Would you like to close?

Yeah, I just. I just want to. Normally, I would just respectfully, ask for an aye vote, but I think it's really important that I, as the author, say that I echo everything that the Chairwoman just said.

I know we're on the same page on this, and if there was any frustration, it was just she and I both wanting to make it as strong as possible. Language to really create the best possible scenario. And the other thing, too, some of the advocates. In no way is this one Bill the answer to the whole problem.

But there are five or six other bills moving through this space right now, at least one other from the state Senator from Los Angeles, who we both support as well. It's a great Bill. We're hoping that if we put enough of these things together, we can begin to make a dent.

And if we don't, we'll keep working on it. We'll keep at it. And I am more than open to talking to the advocates as we move forward. And if you're going to be gone next week, we'll find a different date. We'll figure it out. I thank you very much, the Committee, and to the Chairwoman herself.

I thank you for your deep and dogged perseverance on this issue. Thank you for giving me the chance to keep working at it. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Assistant.

[Roll Call]

That Bill has a vote of four to zero. It's on call. Thank you.

Okay, we are going to lift call and we are going to start with the consent calendar.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With a vote of four to one, that Bill is out. Okay. That concludes our Committee today. If you would like to comment on any item, you may submit that testimony in writing. Thank you, and see you next time.