Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Okay. Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will begin in 30 seconds.

All right, everyone. We are getting started and our second installment of our Labor Committee. We're hearing Assembly bills today, and I wanted to just make a quick announcement that Items number 4 and 6 have been pulled by the authors.

So, it looks like we may have just a few items to get through. And I see we have an author here, which is wonderful. So, yeah, let's start as a Subcommitee and we will invite Assemblymember Nguyen to join us. And that is File Item Number 1, AB 374.

Yeah, we do the podium.

Oh, perfect. Okay, thank you. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm proud to present AB 374, an important bill that makes sure classified school employees, like custodians, bus drivers, and food service workers receive clear, detailed pay stubs that show their hours worked, pay rate, and leave time. Currently, some employees get the information, others don't.

The Bill creates a fair, consistent standard across school districts and community colleges. We're in active conversations with school employer groups and have agreed in principle to a few key amendments, such as allowing flexibility to report leave time separately, accommodating districts with shared or complex payroll systems.

We haven't finalized or adopted any amendments yet, and discussions with oppositions are ongoing. We're continuing to meet to work through the remaining concerns. It is, at its core, AB 374 is about respecting the people who keep our schools running, giving them access to basic, reliable information about how they're paid.

Here to testify in support is Carlos Lopez from California School Employees Association and Adara Clark-Gunn from San Juan Chapter 127.

Thank you very much. And you are both support witnesses. You have—each have two minutes.

Hello, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and Vice Chair Strickland. My name is Carlos Lopez with California School Employees Association. I'm mainly here today for technical support. I mostly want to give my time to Adara.

Good morning, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas, Members. My name is Adara Clark-Gunn, and I'm a Data and Compliance Technician for Special Education for San Juan Unified School District. I'm also the President for our Chapter, 127. I have been a part of the San Juan family for over 17 years, a K-12 student turned employee.

I'm here representing the California School Employees Association, speaking in favor of AB 374.

This Bill, as proposed, would ensure parity for classified public school employees with their private sector counterparts by providing them with critical details necessary to decipher their paychecks. I can personally attest to the frustrations experienced by our classified employees, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck when something goes awry with their monthly compensation.

The headache of attempting to investigate the issue typically begins with a frantic email from the employee requesting immediate support.

This then escalates to a ticket to Human Resources, which is then directed via a ticket to Payroll. A personal visit to the Payroll Department, and several emails later, you are given an explanation of where things went wrong via email in the form of a high school algebraic problem and a promise that your check will be ready for pickup in two weeks because we just missed the cutoff for a revolving check.

I'll emphasize the intent of the Bill, which is to increase the transparency of the total compensation employers are providing their classified employees with public tax dollars. Overpayments and underpayments could be more easily mitigated by the employee and/or the employer with clearly detailed pay stubs.

Overpayments and underpayments cost districts and employees. This Bill would help reduce large overpayments and ensure that district funds are being spent appropriately. Without this required parity, a sense of distrust between employees, their employers, and the public will be perpetuated and continue to stymie the educational field's ability to recover from our staffing shortage.

Although the opposition will state that this requirement may be cost prohibitive.

Your time is nearly up. I think two seconds over, so.

Okay, thank you.

Okay, thank you. Well, we're going to—we're going to pause right there. We're, we need to—we need to establish a quorum real quick, and then we'll go back to testimony, so, hold on one second. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you very much for your patience. Do you want to close? I'll give you one second to just finish your thought because I think I, I interrupted you.

Oh, I just want the—we have an obligation to employees and taxpayers to be as transparent as possible with how public education funds are being allocated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other witness here in with "Me too," in support of the Bill? Please step forward.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Tristan Brown of CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, here in support—actually as a co-sponsor. So, thank you.

Good morning. Elmer Lazardi, here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Hi, my name is Emily Chamali, on behalf of the State Superintendent Instruction, Tony Thurmond. Proud to sponsor this Bill.

Madam Chair and Members, Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division, Safety and Legislative Board, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no more support witnesses, we'll move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness? Okay, two of you?

Thank you. Yes. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, in respectful opposition. And let me start by saying we wholeheartedly agree with where this Bill is trying to go. We just have so far to meet that intent without a lot of unintended consequences.

So, yes, we want to make sure school employees have this critical information that they can find this, regardless if it's wages or leave time.

But the list goes on and on about unintended consequences that could create less accurate information actually going out to employees when we talk about hourly wages, particularly for our salaried employees. We would have just three months to implement this and have to redirect staff mid school year to make all of these systematic changes.

We're not sure how to address districts that have separate reporting systems for leave time and payroll and how to marry those up to meet one of the requirements of the Bill. And then, also, we'd have two different systems, one for classified, one for our certificated or teachers.

So, we're not sure how we would be able to maintain two separate systems or if our certificated positions would have to get part of this classified system. So, again, a lot of implementation issues to work out. We have really appreciated the conversation since January.

We're just nervous that time is running out and we're not making enough progress. So, for these reasons, we remain opposed, and I'd also like to express my opposition for my colleague with the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, also in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Kristal Padilla with the Community College League of California. We don't have an opposed position, but an opposed unless amended position. We want to echo access concerns as community colleges use county offices of education for payroll processing. Our classified employees are monthly salaried employees.

And requiring this into an hourly rate is going to cause a lot of confusion and transparency issues because it's not factoring in longevity pay and other special pays, as mentioned in the analysis. So, we respectfully request that total hours is added to total hours or hourly pay rate.

The Labor Code 515 is removed because it does not apply to the employees in scope and that payroll period is changed at payroll reporting period. But again, we look forward to working with the author and the sponsor on this Bill and making it workable for community colleges. Thank you.

Okay, anyone else here to speak in opposition of the Bill? These are just "Me toos". Your name, affiliation.

Good morning, everyone. Michelle Gill, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, echoing my comments with my colleague at AXA. Thank you Assemblymember and same comments and concerns we carry also. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses, we'll come to the Members. Senator Laird.

Let me just ask, in whatever combination you wish to do it, is how you'd respond to some of the concerns and whether you still believe you can work to address some of them moving forward.

Yes, thank you, Senator, for that question. And I as mentioned, we've been in conversations, and I think this Bill being introduced led to the fact that we should have these conversations. I grew up working in jobs where I always had a pay stub.

I've always had the opportunity to be able to see how much I was getting paid, how many hours I've worked and how that was calculated and if I took any time off.

I want to say that you all have also had jobs where you would take a look at your pay stub to see if it was accurate or not. The fact that there are some employees—your bus drivers, your custodians—that don't have this, and it's not even all of them.

We're talking about a small percentage of areas based off of the school and zip codes. This shouldn't be just to certain schools or certain areas or certain zip codes. This should be all across the board. And we're being very flexible in working with them.

We are not even asking for merit-based compensation, longevity pay, or bonuses to be calculated by the hour. That's just not how those work out. But you know, the more we have these conversations, we just want folks to be able to have an opportunity to see.

I think you're just restating the need for the Bill, which I totally agree with. But the question is whether you think you can work through these issues with.

Absolutely, absolutely. We've been very flexible and as mentioned, we have been in conversation about how do we work through some of these issues that are being brought up. And as we have—as mentioned before—we're very flexible. We just want to see this get done.

Well, I agree with the purpose of the Bill and I agree with the statement you just made about everybody deserves to have that pay stub.

I also ran an agency of 19,000 people, so if somebody came to me and said, by the way, we want to switch the way 4,000 people in your agency are paid, it's a battleship. It doesn't switch like, easily. So, the question is just whether you can address those implementation concerns.

And I know better, having had this Bill last week where there was this monstrous amount of disinformation, I know better than to automatically accept what is said. But if conversations have been going from January to June, that's a long time without resolving it. And so, I'm really—I'm prepared to move the Bill.

But I want to know that you're seriously going to address those implementation concerns.

Absolutely. I mean, at the end of the day, it's about these individuals being able to have a pay stub that they can look at, and whatever way we need to make sure they get it, whether it's online, whether it's a document.

No, you're, you're going back to litigating why we're all for this Bill.

But the question is whether these implementation things you can truly work out. I'm done. My point is made.

Yes.

Yes. Yeah, those were—and Senator, I want to say those were some of the things that were brought up early on. And we've worked through many of those. And as more issues come up, we've, we've worked with them, we're in conversation and working with them to make sure that we answer, you know, whatever questions. How do we get this done?

At the end of the day, that's how do we get this done? And we are willing to work with them to make sure it gets done.

Thank you. Senator Durazo.

Thank you. Thank you very much. I agree and I liked hearing why you're proposing this Bill. So, I think that's a good thing for you to remind us something as simple as having a pay stub.

My question is, since you've been working on it for six months, is there a particular obstacle that you need help to get through so that you can reach what you, what—we don't want unintended consequences, whatever—but make reach the goal that you've set out.

So, is there something more particular that we could be helpful in getting you to reach the goal?

Thank you, Senator, and I think it's a conversation that we have to have, have to have with opposition and seeing if we can get there.

I think the idea behind different programs all across the board, you know, mentioning longevity pay, some of those areas in which we have to sit down and try to figure out if there is an opportunity to be able to address those or not.

But what I'm hearing is that you're offering your assistance in trying to be able to help us. There you go, she Volunteered you, Madam Chair. There you go. Well, and we'll definitely reach out because, you know, many hands make this work. And it sounds like, you know, Senator Laird also agrees with this, too.

But there has to be a right approach to this, and I completely agree with that.

I sit on the Local Government Committee. And now that I know there's a precedent set that the Chair takes over all negotiations. When I'm on the Local Government Committee, I will suggest that to that Chair.

Well, thank you, Members, for this conversation and volunteering all of our efforts in this endeavor. But I think we, what you're hearing here is Assembly Members that we support the Bill. You know, we're prepared to move the Bill today. And we are really stressing the importance of continuing to work. And that's where you started.

You started saying—with your comments saying—I will continue to work with opposition to get there. And then, we'll make sure you get Senator Laird and Senator Durazo's cell phone numbers, in case you don't already have those. Would you like to close?

Yes. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Knowing now that this Committee is a hands-on Committee and is willing to do what they can to get my bills, I think I'm only going to run bills that run through this Committee here. I respectfully ask for your "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. We do have a motion from Senator Laird.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of four to zero. It's on call.

Thank you.

And when you get my phone number, if it doesn't have a 323 area code, you've got the wrong one. Madam Chair. Madam Chair, while you're having the next people come up, I would be happy to move the three remaining items on consent.

Thank you, Members.

We have a motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, 4 to 0. The calendar is in call, and we see Assemblymember McKinnor is here. We will move on to File Item Number 3, AB 596. Please begin when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to present AB 596, a bill that protects worker and health and safety by ensuring employee—employees—have the right to wear a face covering in the workplace, unless doing so creates a clear safety hazard.

During COVID-19 Pandemic, Cal OSHA adopted an emergency regulations that gave workers the option to wear a mask even when not required. These protections provide important reassurance and help limit the spread of airborne illness. However, these regulations expire on February 3rd, 2025, leaving workers vulnerable to employer restrictions on masks.

We are already seeing similar restrictions emerge in other states. AB 596 simply restores this important protection. It ensures no employer can prevent an employee from wearing a mask or respirator on the job, unless it will interfere with their safety. This Bill maintains a practical balance between individual health and workplace safety.

Importantly, this measure does not impose new cost or or mandates on employers. It preserves a right that was already in place and that many workers relied on.

In response to concern raised by the opposition, we are taking amendments to clarify that employers may require individuals to momentarily remove their face covering for identification purposes, unless doing so would create a safety hazard. This change addresses security concerns while preserving the core health protection of this Bill.

This Bill helps California remain a leader in worker protections and public health preparedness. With me today in support of the Bill are Tim Steed from the Orange County Employee Association and Elmer Lizardi from the California Federation of Labor Union.

Thank you. Witnesses, you each have two minutes.

Thank you so much. Madam Chair and honorable Committee, my name is Tim Steed. I'm the Assistant General Manager at the Orange County Employees Association. OCA is the union that represents over 18,000 current and former public servants in 27 different jurisdictions in Orange County.

We represent public health nurses, social workers, public works workers, city workers—a lot of workers. Until recently, under the COVID Safety Standard, workers were allowed to wear a mask at work unless it presented a safety hazard.

This Bill would codify just that portion of the COVID Safety Standard and allow workers to wear a mask at work if they choose. Our members and other workers might have many reasons to wear a mask at work. It could be they themselves are immunocompromised. They could have a loved one at home who's vulnerable to illness.

Maybe a worker needs to wear a mask because of a air quality issue such as wildfires, etc. Or they just don't want to get sick from a coworker. That's why we approached Assemblymember McKinnor to carry this Bill so that all workers have the freedom to wear a mask at work if they choose.

So, we ask for an "Aye" vote from this Committee. Thank you for your time.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Elmer Lazardi here with the California Federation of Labor Unions. We're proud to co-sponsor AB 596 to ensure a worker's right to protect themselves from illness, air pollution, and wildfire smoke by wearing a mask in the workplace, as mentioned.

During the—in the Pandemic, combined with increasingly frequent wildfires, all these issues have highlighted the importance for proper personal protective equipment and its efficacy on protecting workers from both respiratory virus exposure and the immediate and long-term health consequences from smoke inhalation.

And that's why the Bill is important, because we will know that we're going to continue to see wildfires in the future, and we know that we will continue to see viruses spread, regardless of whether or not we're in a State of Emergency.

We help represent workers in a vast number of industries, and that includes teachers, performers, and musicians. And every worker deserves the right to protect their own health and safety, regardless of occupation.

It is also important to note that as we continue to struggle with health and safety law enforcement, one of the best ways to prevent violations is to empower workers to protect themselves whenever possible. Not only does it help reduce the burden on our understaffed agencies, but it helps mitigate harms on workers by preventing them altogether.

Ultimately, workers know their bodies best and protecting their own health and longevity with something as simple as a mask should continue to be an option for workers at every work site. And this Bill, AB 596, will ensure that we have that option moving forward. Thank you so much and we ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. Are there any other support, "Me Toos" in the audience? Please state your name and affiliation.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jp Hannah with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Okay, we will then move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness? You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Robert Moutrie, California Chamber of Commerce. And I'll be very brief. First, I want to say that we agree with the importance of mask concerns around Covid concerns around, you know, empowering workers to do this. That's, that's not where our opposition comes from to this Bill.

Our opposition is very narrow, and we've talked to the Author's office and staff about it, to really focus on mirroring the COVID regulation more closely. The Author correctly cited that substantive portions expired in February of this year, and we particularly have asked that one substantive portion, which was in that regulation, should be reflected here.

Notably, and I'll read from it, that regulation had an exception for, "During specific tasks which cannot be feasibly performed with a face covering. This exception is limited to the time period in which such tasks are actually being performed."

So, we're in talks with the Author just to make sure that that exception, which was in the COVID regulation and is very limited, is carried forward here, but understand the concerns and appreciate staff analysis flagging the, the similarities to the code regulation. Thank you.

Okay. Are you an opposition witness or you a support—just a "Me Too?"

No, an opposition witness. Okay, if I could have my two minutes. Thank you so much. My name is David Bollog. My opinions are my own and those I surveyed about this Bill.

When the demanded practice of wearing a facial covering during COVID happened, the mantra was that I wear my mask to protect you from me and you wear your mask to protect me from you.

The CDC 2024 suggestion on facial covering webpage says, "When worn by a person with an infection, masks reduce the spread of the virus to others." 2024 update no longer has the false claim that mask protects the wearer, as 2020 and 2021 had.

Because of the nature of my day job, I have annual extensive training of respiratory hazards and mitigation through the use of respirators. When COVID happened, I couldn't believe that people actually thought that any of these surgical type masks or facial coverings would actually protect anybody from anything because they do not seal around the face.

The mandating of wearing masks during COVID left a visceral response to many and seeing people in facial coverings still triggers PTSD responses in others.

I ask you to think of having a business and you are selling a product or a service where there would be a certain portion of the population that would be turned off by having a salesperson or worse yet, a waiter wearing one of these facial coverings with the thought of the original excuse of mandating wearing these facial coverings being the protection of the other person.

A customer may not be being comfortable being served by someone who might be sick. It would send a certain aspect of clientele away from that business. Nowhere in this legislation, the analysts, or hearings on this Bill is it mentioned about this being a problem with employers not allowing employees to wear a mask at work.

I'm curious and I hope a Member of this Committee will ask the Author or her witnesses, has there been any incidents where an employee was not allowed to wear a mask at work? Was the Author's mother even stopped from wearing a mask while working? I've never heard of such a thing.

And I would be surprised and find if the Orange County, who was a witness on this originally, prohibited wearing a cover, a facial covering.

Your time's up. Please wrap up.

Okay. The response I had from a lot of people that I questioned about this, and this is no insult to you, Assemblymember, was, this Bill is stupid, why is it even necessary? Thank you.

Any other opposition "Me Toos" in the audience, please step to the mic.

Apologies, Madam Chair. Tristan Brown with CFT, juggling committees, couldn't make it to support. We are in support, not opposition.

Thank you very much. Okay, seeing no opposition "Me Toos." Any—folks on the dais, any questions? We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

Yes. I, I know that one of the witnesses spoke about my mother. So, I'll just tell you, the Senators, my story about my mom. She has severe allergies, and she worked for KCT, for a television station. And my mom was wearing mask way before COVID and before masks were a thing. And so, she can't smell anything.

She can't smell flowers or perfumes. And so, she really needs her mask at work. She wasn't stopped from wearing it, but there would have been a real health problem if she would have been asked not to wear this mask.

And so, I think this is a very important Bill for people, especially people who have allergies like my mom. And with that, I ask for an "Aye" vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Assisstant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

This Bill has a vote of four to zero. It's on call. Thank you. Thank you. I see our next Assembly Member assemble. Member Pellerin. Our last Bill of the the morning. AB 1104. Proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. In 2022, the Governor signed AB 2143, which rightfully required prevailing wages to be paid for certain solar projects that are connected to the net billing tariff. Since the Bill went into effect in 2024, many businesses have run into administrative challenges with registering as awarding bodies.

Being an awarding body comes with a long list of responsibilities. Registering the project with the Department of Industrial Relations, filing compliance paperwork, maintaining certified payroll records, and more.

Though it was not the intention of AB 2143, private entities like a bakery or an animal shelter that simply want to install solar are being treated like public agencies and by having to manage complex public works compliance systems that aren't equipped that they are not equipped to handle.

While AB 2143 did not explicitly say that the solar project owner must register as an awarding body, that statute has been interpreted in this way because when a project is classified as a public work, someone has to take on the legal responsibilities of an awarding body.

AB 1104 corrects this misinterpretation by clarifying that business owners of solar projects are not the awarding body and are therefore not subject to the complex public works requirements.

To be clear, AB 1104 does not roll back prevailing wage requirements set by AB 2143, and solar contractors will still be fully responsible for registering as public works contractors, paying prevailing wages, and meeting apprenticeship requirements. This Bill simply clarifies that those labor compliance responsibilities lie with a contractor and not with the business hiring them.

So with me to testify and support is Angela Lipanovich, who represents the solar customers and the Santa Cruz County Chamber of Commerce. Thank you.

You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Committee Members. I'm here on behalf of Commercial Solar Customers, the Santa Cruz Chamber of Commerce, Scudder Solar, and the Monterey County spca. I've worked as a clean energy attorney for nearly two decades advising small businesses, nonprofits, and property owners across the state.

From the start, Assemblymember Pellerin made it clear that she would not back any Bill that undermines prevailing wage and state apprenticeship requirements or their enforcement. AB 1104 honors that commitment.

What it does is clarify a narrow but crucial point of law that small businesses and multifamily property owners are not awarding bodies under public works laws when purchasing a solar system.

This clarification matters because under current interpretation, these private entities like bakeries, animal shelters, and independent retailers are being treated as if they're public agencies running complex construction projects. They are expected to entertain a bidding process. They have no idea how to manage, enforce labor codes. They don't understand and take on legal liability for contractor compliance. They don't have the training, infrastructure, or expertise to do any of this, nor should they.

Once business owners realize that they may not only be held accountable for a solar contractor's public works compliance, but that they also may lose their NEM or MBT utility rate for their system, they simply back away out of confusion Fear and sheer lack of capability. In many cases, this is contributing to a steep decline in commercial solar.

Since 2022, California has lost an estimated 4,500 solar jobs. Commercial solar applications with PG&E have dropped by 93%. Local clean energy hiring and business energy resilience are all suffering. AB 1104 strengthens labor enforcement by removing unqualified parties from the enforcement process. Thank you. Was that it or. zero, sorry.

It remains the responsibility of licensed contractors and state enforcement or enforcement agencies. This Bill removes a harmful barrier to solar adoption while continuing to protect the rights of California workers. Thank you.

Do you have another witness? No. No, no. Okay, so then we'll move to support MeToos. Please state your name and affiliation and support for the Bill.

Morning, Madam Chair. Members. Richard Marcuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association in support. Thank you.

Ellie Fenton, intern at Stone Advocacy here on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Chris Maurer on behalf of Pearl Ex in support.

Okay, that looks like all of support witnesses seeing no more. We'll move to opposition. Is there opposition witness? You have two minutes.

Good morning. Chairmembers. Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers and the Coalition of California Utility Employees. We are no longer opposed to the Bill.

The author has addressed our previous serious labor concerns and other committees as far as restitution for workers goes and the scope of the Bill and how large these projects would be. So due to that being addressed, we are neutral. Thank you.

Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council. Echo. My colleague from IBEW and just say how nice it is to see support for workers from some organizations that typically don't always take that position. So I look forward to them doing that in the future. Thank you.

Thank you. So next we're moving to me twos if you want to.

Yes. David Pog, member in good standing in the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18. Because my representative stated that he's neutral, I am also. Thank you.

Thank you. Don't see any other opposition witnesses Members comment?

Yes, I had one question and it got answered because I read the floor analysis in the Assembly and saw that the electrical workers were in opposition and was going to ask what happened. That got answered. That's great.

I moved the Bill so we have a motion and I just want to say I also am supportive of this Bill. I think contractor accountability is incredibly important. Important particularly in this space because we've heard so many horror stories. And having another clarification I think is really important.

I also want to say we want every home right to have solar. But that means we have to ensure labor standards and see where and how we can continue to embed labor and community benefit standards in our renewable energy space. So with that we have a motion from Senator Laird. Let's Would you like to close Assemblymember before.

We just want to thank the Members and this Bill has no registered opposition now and passed on consent in the Assembly. And I respectfully ask for your aye vote with that.

We'll please take the roll on file item number seven.

The motion is do pass to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. [Roll Call]

Okay. We have a vote of 4 to 0. The Bill is on call. Thank you so much. Thank you. Okay.

Seeing Senator Cortese, we're going to lift call and we'll start with our consent calendar and work our way down the file.

On the consent calendar which today is file items number two, number five and number eight. The current vote is four to zero on the consent calendar. Senator Cortese. Cortese, Aye.

Okay, we have a vote of 5 to 0. The consent calendar is out. Moving on to file item number one. AB 374.

On file item number one. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Senator Cortese. Cortese, aye.

We have a vote of five to zero. That item is out. Moving on to file item number three. AB 596 McKinner.

On file item number three. The motion is to pass as amended to the Committee on appropriations. Current vote is four to zero. Senator Cortese. Cortese, aye.

With a vote of five to zero. That bill is out. We will move on to file item number 7. AB 1104.

On file item number 7. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Energy, Utilities and Communications. Current vote is four to zero. Senator Cortese. Cortese, aye.

We have a vote of five to zero and that bill is out.

That concludes our agenda for today. The Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement is adjourned.