Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, everyone. The Senate Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement Committee will begin in 30 seconds.

Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will commence. We have a lot of folks here with us this morning. And out of respect of all of the witnesses and authors and presenters, we want to make sure that we keep the room level, noise level down so that we can hear the conversation.

We also want to be clear that we're going to really expedite the me toos, so folks will only be able to say their name, position, and affiliation. We're going to keep witness statements to two minutes because we want to make sure that we get through the file on time and, again, respecting everybody's opportunity to be heard.

We have many items on the agenda today, but we are going to start in file item order. File item number one. I see Assembly Member Wicks and Berman with us. We will begin with AB 1340, and we will start as a... Oh, we have a quorum. Thank you, Senator Laird. We will establish a quorum. Okay, well, let's do it. Thank you.

All right. [Roll Call]

We absolutely did. Thank you, Senator Laird. We thank you for that. Please call the roll.

Today the consent calendar has three items. AB 845, AB 1309, and AB 1510. That's file item 7, 9, and 12. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3 to 0. The calendar is on call. We've got a quorum. We're cooking with gas. We will start now with our first file item. Assembly Members, please approach. You are co-presenting today. Okay. Please proceed.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Very excited to be here. We have a lot of special guests with us today, so we're excited to have their energy in the room. AB 1340 provides rideshare drivers, also known as transportation network company or TNC drivers, with the choice to organize, join a union, and collectively negotiate for better wages, benefits, and protections.

It has the potential to empower hundreds of thousands of workers, giving more Californians the right to organize than any other legislation in recent state history. The purpose of AB 1340 is very straightforward. As the text of the bill states, its aim is to provide transportation network drivers the opportunity, the choice to self organize and designate representatives of their own choosing in order to bargain collectively with transportation network companies.

The goal is to facilitate the prevention or prompt resolution of disputes between transportation network companies and drivers and to improve the working conditions of transportation network drivers and therefore the services provided to the general public.

My joint author, Assembly Member Berman, and I are honored to stand shoulder to shoulder today with California's rideshare drivers as they continue in their journey to secure greater rights that have been, for many years, been too elusive for them. We believe, as I know many of you do, in the principle that all work has dignity, that all workers, regardless of how their labor is classified under the law, deserve to have a right to organize and raise their collective voice.

Through that voice, they can advocate collectively for better wages, fairer worker conditions, and for greater financial certainty and stability. With AB 1340, we are putting power in the hands of hundreds of thousands of Californians to raise the bar in the rideshare industry and to create a model for equitable and innovative partnership in the tech sector.

Because we know that when workers stand together, when they organize together, when they have their collective voice, that's better working conditions for them and their family and their children and in their lives. I'm excited to be joined today by Assembly Member Berman and everyone here and the hundreds of thousands of workers across this state.

This has been a long, long journey for many of them. They this is a newer model of employment that we've seen in recent years in California and globally. And we have an opportunity here to do the right thing and give them the opportunity to actually collective organize and to make better choices for them and their families.

Our witnesses today after Mr. Berman speaks is Jesus Guerrero from Los Angeles, a member of SEIU's California Gig Worker Union, and Nick... I'm going to say your name wrong. I apologize. Nick Cabalar from Stockton, a member of SEIU California Gig Workers United, who's also joined by Matt Lege from SEIU California to help answer any questions. And with that, I will let Mr. Berman speak now.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. And I'm pleased to join my colleague, Assembly Member Wicks, in presenting this important bill. As was already stated, AB 1340 simply provides rideshare drivers a seat at the table in deciding the future of an industry for which they are the ones who are taking on the risk, getting on the road, and working long hours.

Fundamentally, this is no different than so many other industries where the workforce already has the ability to choose if they want to organize and collectively bargain. We've heard from countless drivers about their love for the work they do about the desire to organize in order to better their job and their industry. It may sound cliche, but these workers are literally driving this segment of our economy. So I want to invite everyone to join us in uplifting their efforts and respectfully request an aye vote. Thanks.

Thank you for that. Do you have support witnesses? They can step to the mic. And you have two minutes.

Hi. My name is Nick Cabalar, and I'm from Stockton, California. Thank you for... Thank you, Committee Members, for listening to me, to drivers, at today's hearing. I've been driving since 2016 for Uber and Lyft, and I've completed 21,000 trips. I like driving because it's great to meet so many people from different backgrounds and cultures.

In February of this year, I was deactivated from driving at the airports. I had a rental car at the time because my car was in the shop. The rental license plate wasn't properly installed in the front, and unbeknownst to me, I was written up by SFO. By the time I was notified by Uber about my infraction, less than a week later I had also received a notice that I was immediately and indefinitely suspended from driving at any airport.

For many drivers, getting rides at the airport provides the most consistent income and it's most reliable way to get paid, especially now that rates are lower and lower. I'm losing about 30% of my income because I don't have the option to drive at any airports anymore.

If I had representation and support of 800,000 rideshare drivers in California, I know that my rights to a fair process would be respected. But currently, there is little to no recourse when it comes to the deactivations. I've tried to appeal to no avail. This is the experience of rideshare drivers.

We are at the mercy of these companies like Uber and Lyft, and our livelihoods hang in the balance. What happens to me wasn't right. Drivers deserve to be treated with dignity. AB 1340 is a pathway to obtaining justice in winning a real voice for the drivers. I'm asking you vote in favor of AB 1340 and stand with the rideshare drivers. Thank you for your time.

Thank you very much. Is there another witness? You have two minutes.

Hello. Thank you, Committee Members, for taking the time to hear driver stories today. My name is Jesus Guerrero, and I'm from Los Angeles, California, and I drive for Uber and Lyft for eight years. This is my story. Two years ago, I was in an accident while driving for Lyft in which I suffered injuries that required me to get physical therapy for pain. I received no support from the company and had many difficulties trying to get in touch with them for any support.

I text them, I emailed them, and I called them and no answer. Not being able to drive my car left me with devastating economic consequences. I couldn't make my car payments, I was behind on my bills, I almost got evicted from my home. Even now, I struggle while working 12 hours a day and only making about $120 a day. The money I make is not enough.

When I first started driving, it did not feel this way. I was able to make more money working less hours. I would like these companies to be transparent with us about where the money they are charging the riders goes. Cases like mine happen all the time to gig drivers, and guess who paid for all the treatment.

The state. Because I had to go to the hospital, I got treatment, and I got medicine. So I don't think it's fair. That is why we're asking for support and having a union that will back us up and support us when we need it. We need a voice. Thank you, and please vote yes on AB 1340. Thank you.

Thank you very much. It looks like we're going to have a lot of me toos in support of this bill, so let's start to line up and let's please keep it to your name, affiliation, and position.

Yes. Good morning. Francisco Magdaleno. I work for Uber nine years and four months, and Lyft eight years...

Just your name, sir. Just your name, affiliation, and position. And you are support?

Support. I support it.

Thank you.

My name is Joseph Augusto. I'm an Uber and Lyft driver in the San Francisco Bay Area. I've been driving for about 10 years and have over 25,000 rides. And I strongly urge you to support AB 1340. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Hector Castellanos. I live in California. I'm an Uber and Lyft driver since 10 years ago. I'm part of the Gig Workers Union, and I'm strongly urged to vote yes on AB 1340.

Hi. My name is Mercedes Bate Puerto, and I live in Burbank, California. I have been a rideshare for driver for Uber and Lyft for nine years, and I'm part of the SEIU Gig Workers Union. I strongly urge all of you please to vote yes on AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Harry Melendez. I come in from Santa Monica, and then I have been driving with Uber for six years, and then please support AB 1340.

Hello. My name is Vitelio Francia. I come from Lancaster. I have been working for over at least for 11 years, and please, I ask to be for support AB 1340. Thank you.

Hi. Hello. My name is Maria Zamora. You are driving the Uber and Lyft. Working for three years. I manage a little. It's no complaint for my rim for this a little money for this junior for...

Thank you, ma' am. Ma' am, just need to know you support the bill.

Thank you for today. Thank you.

Gracias.

Good morning. My name is John Mejia. I've been a gig Uber and Lyft driver for over 12 years. I'm from the San Francisco Bay Area, and I'm really in support of AB 1340. Thank you very much.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Maria Sigaran. I'm from Los Angeles, California. I've worked for Lyft for the past 5 years. I strongly urge you to vote for the bill, AB 1340. Thank you.

Morning. Morning. My name is Daryush Khodadadi-Mobarakeh. I live in San Jose, and I've been a rideshare driver for 11 years. I'm a part of the SEIU Gig Workers Union, and I strongly urge you please to kindly vote yes on AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Dorothy Mene. I have been Uber driver for 10 years, more than 10 years. I came from Palm Springs, California, and I asked you please support the AB 1340 law. Thank you.

Good morning. I'm Janice Jackson, and I'm from Sacramento. And I'm wanting you guys to support AB 1340 for gig workers. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Jeremiah Powers. I've been working for Lyft for six years, and we live in Pasadena. And we courageously urge you to vote yes for AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Luis Funes. I am a Lyft driver for five years, and I am for AB 1340. Thank you.

Hi there. My name is Paramjit Singh, and I driving 11 year Uber and Lyft. And when I start, they take the 25%. Now it's 60%, and I work 12 hour shift.

Sir, we just want to know, do you support the...

Yes, I support. And please help us. Please say yes. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Marco Blanco. I live in South Gate, California. I work for over 10 years, and I urge you please vote on AB 13. I drive over 10,000 drivers. Please help us out.

Good morning. My name is Ramona Villarreal, and I strongly urge you to please vote for AB 1340 to help our families like us that, you know, we actually need your help. Thank you.

My name is Jesus Acobo. I work for Uber and Lyft eight years, and I hope you can help. Pray you to pass AB 1340. Because I'm a disabled person, but I don't get no Social Security. I work 12 hours a day. Thank you.

[Translated] My name is Jose Abrigo. I'm from Huntington Park. I work for Uber and Lyft for the last 8 years. I ask that you support AB 1340 so we can have a union.

[Translated] My name is Arnulfo. I'm from Los Angeles, California. I have worked for Uber and Lyft for 9 years. Please support AB 1340. And we are the economy. We move in the economy, going to the airports and doing a lot of things for California.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Esteen. I'm a registered nurse and also Vice President of Organizing for SEIU 1021. We urge you to support AB 1340 and pass the legislation. Drivers deserve to right to organize like all other workers.

Good morning. Thank you for having us. My name is Margarita. I'm coming from Los Angeles, eight years with Uber and Lyft, and I urge you and please beg you to pass AB 1340 so we can have a decent life. We work 12 hours a day, no days off, and we struggle and please say yes. Thank you. God bless you all.

[Translated] Good morning. I'm Louis Maria Moringo from Fontana, California. I've been driving for Lyft and Uber for eight years. I'm asking you please to support AB 1340 to stop being exploited by these companies.

[Translated] Hi. My name is Joel Perez. I'm from the San Fernando Valley. I've been working for Uber and Lyft for seven years, and we want your support for AB 1340.

Thank you for all. My name is Davinder, I'm from Sacramento. Want support for 1314. Just all I want. So how much I get for per mile and per minute? Right now we get like 59 cent per minute.

Sorry, I just need your name and support.

15 cent per minute.

Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Ibrahim Jalloh. I live in San Francisco. I've been driving for both Lyft and Uber for about 10 years. Been deactivated for more than one year and a half. I'm about to be evicted. If you see injustice and you can, I mean, do something, you cannot do something, you become complicit. So, please, we ask for your power to use your power to make our life for the better. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Rita Ramirez. I'm from Los Angeles. And I'm asking you to please vote for the proposal AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Celene Pineda, and I've been working for Lyft for two years in the City of Wilmington. And I urge you to strongly support and vote on AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning, everybody. My name is Pamba. I work for Uber. I'm here to support this bill, and I want you to support this bill. If you know, if you want to know why we are asking this, we have a lot of, a lot of technical problems that we can present you physically. Thank you.

Hi. Greetings. My name is Nicole Moore. I'm President of Rideshare Drivers United. We have a little different position, which is we support with amendments. We need this bill to be absolutely strong. We've sent our seven suggestions for how to strengthen it.

We know that these companies mop the floor with us all the time. We need the strongest bill possible to ensure that we have the right to strike for a fair contract and that we can fight to get our full labor rights and not destroy our union under 1340. Thank you very much.

I just want to remind everyone, just your name and your position and organization.

Okay. Good morning. My name is Teresa Mercado. I drive for Uber and Lyft since seven years, seven years ago. I am, I support the AB 1340 if amended. Thank you.

Hi. My name's Patty. I'm from Harbor City, LA County. I've been working for Uber for over seven years, and I'm here for to ask you guys to support AB 1430. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Yasha Timenovich. My organization is Rideshare Drivers United. I do support if amended.

Hi. Eshall Wright with Rideshare Drivers United. I'm a rideshare driver, and I support if amended.

My name is Ed Carrasco. I'm from La Mirada, Los Angeles County. I've been a rideshare driver since 2015. I support AB 1340 with amendments.

Hello. My name is Sid Segovia. Thank you all for your service to our state. I support AB 1340 with amendments. Thank you.

I'm Jason Munderloh with Rideshare Drivers United. I support with amendments.

Hi. My name's Taje Gill from Orange County, California. Been a rideshare driver since 2017. I support AB 1340 with amendments that it's not controlled by the, by the company unions. Thank you.

[Translated] Good morning. My name is Martha Guevara. I'm from San Bernardino County, City of Barstow. Please say yes to AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Estevao Vega, and I'm working for Uber for three to five years, and I say yes for the Proposition 1340 please. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Aaron McCann from Modesto, California. Been a driver for a year and a half with Uber. And I'm a member of Rideshare Drivers United, and I support AB 1340 with amendments.

Hello. Chase Golding from the Baldwin Hills, West Adams neighborhood in Los Angeles. Here with Rideshare Drivers United, support if amended.

That's my neighborhood. Welcome, brother.

Hello. My name is Cecilia. These are my children. I drive for Uber for nine years now. It has allowed me to be a stay at home parent, a disabled veteran, and I support AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Derrick Boutte, SEIU 1021 Vice President for East Bay region, and I vote in support.

Good morning. My name is Anthony Mills, Bay Area Representative, SFUSD. I support the bill.

Good morning. My name is Nicole Termini Germain, and I am the Vice President of Representation for SEIU 1021. These drivers deserve rights, respect, and dignity and absolutely better wages. I urge you to vote yes in support of AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning. My name Sadiq Amiri. I've been with rideshare company for over five years, and I support bill AB 1340.

Madam Chair, Members. Sara Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

My name is Davinder Singh. I live in Sacramento, so I support AB 1340.

Hello. My name Gurwinder Singh. I live in Sacramento, and I support AB 3040.

Hello. My name is Harbhajan Singh. I'm living for University California. I work with Uber and Lyft six years. I wanted to union and I went to support for AB 3040. Thank you.

Hi. Good morning, sir. My name Darshan Singh, Folsom, Sacramento, two month Uber driver. Thank you for supporting. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. Carlos Lopez with the California School Employees Association in support.

My name is Louis Shepherd. I've driven for Uber and Lyft for eight and a half years, and I support the bill. Please stop the bullying.

Hi. Hi. Morning. My name is Taj. I support AB 1340 for the bill actually. Thank you, guys.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Dora Mejia. I live in Los Angeles, California. I work in Uber Lyft for eight years. Please support in 1340. Thank you.

Hi. My name is Severo Aviles, and I'm from San Fernando Valley. I've been driving for Uber for 10 years, and I have 25,000 rides. Please support AB 1340. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Devins Baker. I'm a rideshare driver for about eight years, and I support AB 1340 if amended.

Hi. Good morning. My name is Eugene, and I've been driving for Uber and Lyft for 7 years. And I hope you guys please support AB 1340s and stop autonomous vehicles and robo taxi. They're taking the jobs away from most of the drivers. We have no leverage. Thank you. Every job they take away...

Hello. Hello. My name... My name is Ofelia Rosas. I am driving for Uber and Lyft. I have six years ago. Please support the AB 1340. Thank you.

Hello. My name is Sergio Lopez. I work for Uber more than 10 years. I hope you support the 1340.

Okay, it looks like...

I am Manuel. I drive Uber Lyft for 7 years. We need your support because we need a fundamental rights. We don't have anything. Thank you so much for your help.

Thank you. Okay, looks like that is the last word on support. Okay, we are going to move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses today? Please step to the mic. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas. My name is Nick Johnson, Director of State and Local Policy for Lyft, and we respectfully oppose Assembly Bill 1340. In our view, this bill directly contradicts the will of 10 million California voters who, through the passage of Proposition 22, affirmed the importance of maintaining independent contractor flexibility while simultaneously providing enhanced benefits to tens and thousands of drivers operating in the state.

Lyft supports public policy proposals that guarantee driver Independence and flexibility along with benefits. This was and remains the goal of Prop 22. Lyft believes it is important to pursue these goals in an objective manner based on market realities that maintain rider affordability and driver earning opportunities. We have collaborated with drivers and bipartisan legislators around the country to support legislation that achieves this balance.

In our latest economic impact report, we found that 89% of California drivers supported a policy in which they would remain independent contractors and keep their current flexibility while also receiving some employee benefits. 90% of those drivers indicated that a flexible schedule was very or extremely important to them.

Prop 22 gives drivers guaranteed minimum earnings during engaged time and requires companies to provide insurance coverage of $1 million for medical cost and lost income due to injuries or illnesses sustained sustained while driving. Prop 22 also provides drivers who average more than 15 hours of driving per week a stipend to help with health insurance costs.

Additionally, Lyft has built on top of Prop 22 structure through our Drivers Earning Driver Earnings commitment. Our commitment guarantees drivers on our platform will earn 70% or more of rider payments each week after external fees and costs. Lyft's goal is to serve and connect.

It views itself as a critical part of both California's transportation infrastructure and the economic health of its cities. 87% of Lyft riders said that Lyft improved their access to transportation and 51% used it to get to form of public transit. Additionally, lower income riders were significantly more likely to use Lyft for commuting to work, school, job interviews, and healthcare related trips.

Mr. Johnson, your time is up.

And we oppose the bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Senators. Thank you very much. My name is John Finley here representing Uber Technologies Incorporated in respectful opposition. As written, this bill would override the will of California voters, undermining the Independence of tens of thousands of app based drivers and raise costs for millions of Californians.

Echoing the comments from my colleague from Lyft, we are supportive of measures that would maintain driver flexibility. AB 1340 proposes several changes that are in direct conflict with Proposition 22, which was passed overwhelmingly by California voters in 2020 with nearly 60% of the vote, and which was recently upheld by the California Supreme Court in 2024.

That decision reaffirmed voters' intent to protect driver Independence, a model that drivers overwhelmingly support. If passed as written, AB 1340 would fundamentally alter the way platforms such as Uber operate. By targeting a single segment of the broader gig economy, AB 1340 risks destabilizing a service that Californians rely on every day.

It will drive up costs in a state already struggling with affordability, disproportionately hurt low income communities, and ultimately reduce driver earnings as demand falls. Rather than adding cost and complexity, we believe that the Legislature should be working in partnership to expand opportunity and affordability for both drivers and riders.

We're committed to working with you and others to find a balanced solution that protects flexibility for drivers while improving the experience for riders. We respectfully urge your opposition to AB 1340, but welcome the opportunity for collaboration with all engaged stakeholders. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay, let's see. Are there any me toos in opposition to the bill? Please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

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

Good morning, Chair and Members. Jose Torres with TechNet in opposition.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress, also respectfully opposed.

I think that looks like the end of our me too opposition. And I want to say, we don't have Members here on the dais to have comment or make a motion at this point. So I will just say, you know, this is a very important bill. It creates an opportunity to figure out ways to integrate technology driven industries and worker rights in a way that helps to lift so many working families and sets a model for how new industry and its workforce can come together to build standards in their future.

That's why I'm supporting this bill and urging this Committee to support the bill. I also want to say if the NLRB, which we know the federal government is attacking workers at every end of our Constitution, including the right to organize. And if the NLRB and the federal government cannot adapt to address the needs of this modern workforce, then California certainly needs to fill and stand in the gap. It gave me great comfort to hear that industry wants to work towards solutions and the collaborative. I think they use the term collaboration, which that's the only way this can be accomplished.

I think we can all step toward doing the right thing in the State of California and showing the rest of the nation that we understand the importance of these workers having rights, having the opportunity to have voice on the job, having the opportunity to have some control over their wages and working conditions. Because we know that is what the value of union representation is and does. And so for that reason, I'm proud to support the bill. When we have our Members back, we will take this item up and be able to help move the process forward. Would you like to close?

Well, your close was better than mine could have been. So appreciate your leadership, not only in this Committee, but for years, standing up for work workers. Obviously, you get this, I think, better than anyone else. I would just say, you know, as these workers represented today, there's widespread support amongst the drivers for this.

I, too, am enthusiastic about the word collaboration being used by the companies. I welcome the companies to the table. I think that's important to have that. I would also say this workforce, these are folks that are on the precipice of feeling the most crunch of our housing crisis, of our affordability issues, of the cost of living, the cost of groceries, the cost of gas, the cost of all these things.

And so for them to be able to have basic representation, basic ability for job security is really critical in this moment in time. So respectfully ask for an aye vote when your Committee Members join. And I don't know if Mr. Berman wants to say anything else. And thank you very much.

Thank you very much. And I will say, because I didn't mention it, I know that there were some folks that talked about supporting when amended, and I want to just encourage that conversation to continue with all definitely holders and parties. Thank you. All right.

Okay, we're gonna move because we have Assembly Member Berman here, and he's ready to take up file item number two. We'll give the room a chance to settle down, Assembly Member. So let's give it a couple minutes. This is going to be file item number two, AB 538.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 538 continues the Legislature's commitment to prevailing wage and ensures that workers are paid what they are rightfully owed. Existing law allows the public to request certified payroll records to ensure compliance with prevailing wage requirements on public works projects.

While the process for requests made to the Division of Labor standards enforcement is clear, statute does not provide guidance on requests made to the award—awarding—agency of the public works project.

There have been an increasing number of instances where the awarding body has not provided payroll records, simply because they do not have the records in their possession at the time of the request. In response, AB 538 would establish a process and timeline for awarding bodies to receive certified payroll records from the contractor.

Importantly, this Bill would not place additional liability on the awarding body if the contractor fails to provide these records. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. And I'm joined today by Matt Cremins, Director of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers.

Thank you. Mr. Cremins. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Cremins, here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 538, which, as the Assemblymember mentioned, seeks to provide some statutory clarity as it relates to the existing process that the public utilizes to get certified payroll records.

I think it's really important to start with existing law around this topic, which clearly outlines an awarding agency's obligation to, at a minimum, know what's occurring on their project and also respond to inquiries from the public on their projects.

So, under existing law, awarding bodies are required to take cognizance in ensuring that laws are being properly followed on their projects, and they are also required to ensure the Labor Commissioner is made aware of suspected violations.

Additionally, under existing law, there are only three entities who can go directly to a contractor to get certified payroll records, with one being an employee, two being the awarding agency of the project, and the third entity being DLSE.

Further, existing law establishes a process for the public to receive copies of certified payroll records, but only provides that the public may only go through the awarding agency or through the Division of Labor Standards to get those records.

Recently, labor compliance entities have noted increasing instances of awarding agencies rejecting records requests simply because they do not have the record on hand at the time the request is made. And in many instances, awarding agencies are directing the public to go to the contractor directly for the record, which I would note is a violation of existing law.

So, with that being said, AB 538 would simply clarify that when the public makes a lawful request for a certified payroll record from an awarding body, the awarding body must, at a minimum, make an attempt to retrieve the record for the public.

It's important to note, as the Assemblymember mentioned, that this Bill would impose no additional liabilities on awarding agencies, should they not be able to get the record from the contractor. Rather would simply have them notify DLSC of the contractor's failure to respond. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses, let's move to me toos. Is anyone here speaking in support of the Bill? Please step forward.

Madam Chair and Members, Mike West, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, in support.

Aloha. I'm Mitchell Bechtel, on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers, in support.

Looks like that is the end of the support. Let's move to opposition. Anyone here—witnesses in opposition to the Bill? Please step to the mic. You, warning, you have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities. With the utmost respect for the sponsors and the author, we must regrettably be opposed to the Bill. The Public Records Act requires public agencies, and in this case, the awarding agencies, to provide responsive non-privileged documentations. That's within their custody and control.

There is no statutory or case law requires such agencies to contact third parties, even those that have done previous work with them. This is not only not a violation of laws the sponsors have alleged, but represents really a good faith effort on behalf of responding parties.

The Labor Code, which the sponsors are apparently referencing that they're being in violation, literally informs the requester to go to the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement as an avenue of inquiry.

And so, this Bill essentially is duplicative, it's somewhat unnecessary, and places local agencies as really an advocate on behalf of the requestor in really an inappropriate manner and is definitely collary to the Public Records Act. And so, both of these, the PRA and 1776, have very robust penalties associated with them.

And so, for those reasons we are respectfully, again, opposed.

Is there another witness?

I'll be brief, but yeah. Mark Stivers with the California Housing Partnership. We work with nonprofit affordable housing developers. Of course, we concur that prevailing wages should be paid and there should be robust compliance mechanisms. Our contractors are already reporting prevailing wage records to the Department of Industrial Relations. So, this seems absolutely redundant.

They should be able to get the—the labor folks should be able to get them from the Department, I don't know what, but then the—so, the biggest thing for us, though, is that it is a burden on the affordable housing developers. We are not public entities.

We don't have staff and lawyers who can handle Public Records Act requests go out and, you know, obtain all these documents. We have a very—our developers have very lean staff who are trying to get the next housing development done.

So, anyway, we are, for those reasons, opposed to the Bill, as redundant and cost burden on private entities as well.

Thank you. Okay, we will have opposition me too's—name, affiliation, and position.

John McHale, on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Eric Lehr, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Urban Counties of California, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Carlin Shelby, on behalf of the Nonprofit Housing Association of Northern California, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Kobe Pizotti, on behalf of the City of Rancho Cucamuma—Rancho Cucamonga—in respectful opposition. I'm sorry.

Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, in respectful opposition.

Apologies. Apologies for going out of order. Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support. Thank you.

Okay. Again, Assemblymember, welcome to the dais. I see we do have a Senator. Any comments, Senator? Doesn't look like we have any comments, so, would you like to close?

I hear concerns raised by the opposition. We've had conversations. We'll continue to have conversations to try to address any unintended consequences, you know, of the language, but think that this is important kind of transparency and enforcement of existing law. So, we're, you know, I think this is a pretty modest proposal.

I think there are a lot of folks that are—have problems with existing law, and I think that's what we're hearing from a lot of the opposition, but this wouldn't change that. It just helps people get access to the records that they already, under existing law, are supposed to have access to. Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And since we have a Senator, another Senator with us, we just need a motion on this Bill.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0. The bill is on call. And then we're going to move. Go back to file item number one, since we have another Member here. And we need a motion on AB 1340. Thank you.

[Roll call]

Call okay. Vote of 2 to 0. That bill is also on call. Thank you so much for your time. Member all right, so do we have.

Okay, we are waiting on authors.

If you have a bill up in Senate, Labor and Public Employment or Retirement, please make it to room 2200 for waiting on you.

Assembly Member Ortega has arrived. Wonderful. We know you have several bills, so we will take you next Assembly Member. And you want. Can we start with your bill file item number eight and then we'll do the others. Yes. Okay.

Good morning. Afternoon. Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and Members. I am pleased to present AB 1234, which will streamline the state's wage claim process and help workers who've had their wages stolen get their money back more quickly. We know that wage theft is a significant problem, and in California, workers lose an average of $2 billion annually due to unpaid wages.

Our wage claim process is broken. While the law requires that claims be resolved through the Labor Commissioner's office within 135 days, the reality is that it's taking on average of over two years and as long as nine years for workers to recover their wages that they have earned.

Even if workers prevail on their claim, they often receive only a portion of what was stolen from them. As of last year, the Labor Commissioner had a startling backlog of 47,000 wage claims. Each one of those cases represents an unidentified shortfall in a family's budget, a missed car payment, or even an eviction.

At a time when people are struggling to afford food. As inflation continues to rise, we cannot keep letting employers who steal from their workers off the hook. This is an effort to streamline the process and get wages that workers have earned in their pockets.

With me to testify is Executive Director Daniela Urban of the Center for Workers Rights.

Thank you. Assemblymember. You have two minutes.

Executive Director of the Center for Workers Rights. For over 10 years, I have helped workers pursue wage theft claims at the California Labor Commissioner's Office. I have seen firsthand how the delays in the process and the employer's ability to ignore claims leave workers struggling to recover their hard earned wages.

Last summer, we held monthly workshops to help workers file their claims and detailing violations and wages owed along with those penalties. Of the claims submitted in our first session on June 12024 not a single employer has received notice yet of the claim filed with the Labor Commissioner. These delays are not due to incomplete or missing information.

The problem is the Labor Commissioner process itself. The consequences of these delays are severe and real. For one of our workers who filed last summer, they continue to work for the employer, suffering ongoing wage theft violations and fear losing their job for enforcing their rights.

This system has not stopped bad actors from committing wage theft again and again. One of the biggest reasons for these delays is that employers have no obligation to participate in the process while cases sit unresolved workers face the consequences at the end of the process, often several years later.

The worst that happens is that the employer is told that they must pay the same amount that they were required to in the beginning, no extra costs or consequences for dragging out the claims. In civil suits, employers factor in costs of discovery motions, attorney's fees when deciding whether to fight a case.

None of those costs apply to the labor Commissioner claims, allowing employers to contest valid claims with no downside. AB 1234 reforms the individual wage claim process to reduce delays in workers seeking justice by creating efficiencies in the system and putting deterrence in place for employers who engage in wage theft.

The wage theft claim process is meant to be low cost, informal way of resolving wage theft claims and we want to keep it that way. But to make it truly efficient, we must stop employers from exploiting state resources to delay justice for workers.

AB 1234 is a necessary fix to ensure timely resolution and real consequences of for wage theft. I urge your support.

Thank you. Any other MeToos in support of the bill? Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair Members Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We're a proud co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you.

Scott Brent with the SMART Transportation Division in support. Thank you.

Morning Madam Chair and Members. Marty Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.

Good morning Chair and Members. Ken Wang on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, in support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, A Union of Educators and Classified Professionals, also in support.

Good morning Madam Chair Members, Mike West for the State Building Trades also in support.

Good morning Chairmembers, Bryan Miramontez with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Thank you. Okay, that looks like the end of support. Let's move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Please step to the mic. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair. Good morning. Chris McKayley here on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management, HR Professionals. As the Assembly Member knows from our early days on this bill in the Assembly policy Committees, our concern is with the 30% administrative penalty.

I thought it interesting that both the author and the sponsors used some terms like ignore, steal, even our term bad actor. The reason being is is that we don't see any distinction being made here between the intentional bad actor and those who are exercising their rights, if you will, the proverbial good actor.

You know, in particular I've cited before the Naranjo decision from last fall, the California Supreme Court that described statutory and civil penalties in these cases as designed to punish the bad actor, not go after the Good act.

And I would just close on this note in the Assembly Judiciary Committee and their analysis, they noted that if the purpose of this Bill is to encourage employers to engage in the process, then the author may wish to consider if the 30% penalty should be reserved for employers who refuse to participate or otherwise attempt to unreasonably delay the process.

We would like to see that as the approach in this bill. I should have started with this, but I want to close on. Wage theft is a significant problem, there is no doubt. But this bill we don't think is the right approach. And again we'd like to see that distinction between the good and the bad actor employer.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any other meet witnesses, please step forward.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, I do want to thank the author and her staff and the sponsors for the discussions we've had. I know we're waiting to hear back from them on some amendments that we have proposed to the of the Bill.

We absolutely support, I think the goal of this bill and the creation of a kind of default system, a default process that allows the labor Commissioner to close out claims faster when parties are not participating. I share my colleagues concerns about the 30% fee.

Unfortunately do not think the recent amendments, you know, differentiate truly between a bad actor and a not bad actor. Some other amendments we are just looking for are regarding into the timing of when the answer would be due and the content of the answer.

Adding some discretion for the labor Commissioner where there is some sort of default to request more evidence if only if they feel that is necessary before issuing a judgment. And then finally some improvements actually to the service process when service is coming from the labor Commissioner.

I know a lot of my Members are not really being properly served and sometimes that's actually the reason causing some of the delay. So hoping to work on those issues. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any opposition MeToos? Please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Good morning. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau in opposition for the reasons enumerated by the two primary opposition witnesses. Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning. Courtney Gladfelty on behalf of California Family Alliance of Family Owned Businesses. Thank you. In opposition.

Matt Easley representing Associated General Contractors of California in opposition.

Thank you.

Nick Chappie on behalf of the California Trucking Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Melissa Kosachuk on behalf of Western Growers in opposition and aligning our comments with the previous opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Ethan James with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Thank you. Okay. That looks like the end of me twos. We'll come to the dice or any Senator. Senator Cortese?

Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to make a comment.

I don't really have a question, and I know, unless the author corrects me, that this bill really came out of a lot of work that was done around informational hearings in the past where there's been tremendous frustration, I think, frankly, by all parties in terms of unfilled vacancies and other issues that have been a systemic challenge around enforcement.

And again, we've had folks, at least, you know, in our House and the Senate, across the spectrum in terms of their alignment with business or labor, come forward, you know, requesting and pushing for change and audits and any number of things in the toolbox.

So I say that because there needs to be a shake up here, supporting the Bill because I've spoken out on that before. And again, I think others have. And to those who are here from the business community, it's not surprising that some business interests would take an opposed position.

But I would suggest, again, certainly welcome the author to push back on me, that this is less about targeting anyone in the business community or any particular interest in the business community. As we know, beyond a vast majority of businesses are compliant and respond to the current rules and regulations and the laws that are on the books.

It's a problem, really, of us all figuring out how to get after those folks who are abusing the system in a way that either takes some pressure off of the, you know, off of, off of the rxecutive side of the operation here through legislation or come up with something else.

And I think it's again, in everyone's interest to do that. So, you know, my vote is not a vote, you know, to target business interests or, you know, to point fingers at folks that have operated a clean operation. And again, most have.

But I certainly want to back up this author who's really kind of made a living the last couple years trying to correct this problem. And I appreciate that. So I'll be an aye vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Cortese, for that. And I. I just want to echo those comments and appreciate the author's work, not just on this bill, but the work that you've done over your time here. The hearings, the conversations, the side meetings, the midnight emails, text messages.

And, you know, for me, it's about workers being made whole, but it's also about level playing field for those employers who do pay their workers, who don't rob their workers, who treat their Workers with dignity and respect and, you know, appreciating the comments of the opposition. But when you have a violation, you are a bad actor.

And we've got to figure out a way to move the process forward to bring some remedy and some relief to the workers. You're right. A broken system helps no one. And we know this system is very broken. And we need to look at all kinds of different alternatives, creative alternatives to address the problem.

So I appreciate your leadership and I know that you also are working with opposition on this to, to figure out some of their. Their concerns and welcome your closing.

Yeah. In regards to opposition, we're happy to continue having those conversations. And in closing, I actually would like to quote the opposition and their statement about the fact that wage theft is a huge problem in the State of California. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you so much. We'll move the bill. We have a motion from Senator Cortese.

[Roll call]

Vote of 2 to 0. That Bill is on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. That's right, we're going to move—we are going to move to file item number five. It is AB 672, and you are presenting for Assemblymember Caloza.

Yes, I will be up here for several of my colleagues today. Good morning. I am here on behalf of Senator Caloza. AB 672 requires public employers to notify PERB when they file an action in court and it grants PERB the right to intervene as a party in those instances.

This Bill resolves a conflict of interest by requiring outside judges to hear requests for injective relief from trial court employee actions. With me today is Sandra Barreiro from SEIU California.

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California, and I'm available to answer any technical questions.

Thank you. I don't see any other witnesses. Let's move to support. Please state your name, affiliation, and position.

Hello. Brian Marion of State County Municipal Employees. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Scott Brent, SMART Transportation Division, in support.

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

Okay, looks like that is the end of support me toos. Let's move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition me toos. Any opposition me toos here today? Seeing none. Do we have any comments? Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay, that vote is on call with a vote of 2 to 0. We will now move to file item number 11. That is AB 1336 and that is Assemblymember Addis, and you'll be presenting for her today.

Yes, today I'm here on behalf of Assemblymember Addis to present AB 1336, the Farm Worker Heat Illness Prevention Act. Despite existing law that subjects employers to penalties for violations of heat illness prevention standards, the ongoing prevalence of violations show current enforcement protocols are not enough.

In just one year, the number of suspected and confirmed farm worker heat-related deaths increased by approximately 130%. Farmworkers also face a climate of fear when it comes to reporting workplace violations or injuries, particularly given the intentional fear mongering and actions of the New Federal Administration.

AB 1336 will prevent heat-related illnesses and deaths among California's farm workers by incentivizing agriculture employers to comply with heat illness prevention standards. It does so by creating a rebuttable presumption that a heat-related injury arose out of the course of employment, when the employer fails to comply with the state's heat illness prevention standards.

AB 1336 will create a strong economic incentive for employers to respect farm workers' basic rights and provide them access to drinking water, shade, and cooled down rest places. My witnesses today are United Farm Workers President, Teresa Romero, and Jason Marcus, a Workers' Compensation Attorney.

Thank you. Witnesses, please step to the podium. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Committee. Teresa Romero, President of United Farm Workers. With increased fear and intimidation among immigrants farm workers, the need for this Bill has also increased. I'm before you, again on this Bill as last year, and will continue to be here until farm workers don't die from preventable deaths.

Every farm worker who dies from outdoor heat has a name. Maria Isabel Vazquez-Jimenez. She was 17 years old. Her life and needless death inspired change. In 2005, we worked with Governor Schwarzenegger to enact the first outdoor heat regulations in the United States. Cold drinking water, shade, rest breaks. Simple, decent, yet strongly opposed and weakly enforced.

As more farm workers died, we sued the State of California twice. What we quickly discovered is that Cal OSHA's enforcement is limited because it is nearly impossible and no amount of money can monitor more than 60,000 farms in the State of California for the basic standards in outdoor heat regulations. This Bill encourages employers' compliance.

It doesn't change the heat regulation. It doesn't add additional worker compensation benefits. If a farm worker suffers a heat illness injury or death at work and the farm worker proves that their employer was in compliance, then the injury becomes eligible—eligible for the rebuttable presumption under the Bill.

However, if the employer proves compliance, then this Bill will not apply. And I want to repeat that. The Bill doesn't apply to employers who are in compliance with existing outdoor regulations. Climate change is making working outdoors in the heat extremely dangerous.

Can you please?

Every employer.

Your time is—your time is up. Can you please close?

Yes, I just—they prevent farm worker heat illness, injury, and death. Saving a life, even if one, is worth of your continued consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I, I was—Jason's not here, so he could.

Okay. Then move to me toos, in support of the Bill. Please step to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, in support.

Mitch Steiger, with CFT, also in support.

Okay, looks like that is the end of our support. Let's move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses here? Please step to the mic. You have two minutes.

Sorry, I think one of my colleagues is supposed to go first, but I don't see them, so I will go first. Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. This Bill, of course, was heard last year in the Legislature as well and was vetoed by the Governor.

I think we share a lot of the concerns of the Administration about conditioning a workers comp. presumption on compliance with standards that are set and enforced by another regulatory division. Further, I just want to address, for a second, the piece about, you know, if an employer is in compliance, you know, the Bill doesn't apply, and I completely understand that.

But is the way I read the Bill, even if there was a tiny violation of a record keeping requirement, some sort of notice requirement or something like that, this would trigger the application of the Bill and therefore, you could have a violation, again, that is very small in nature or not actually tied at all to the injury at issue, and it still does trigger the presumption.

So, I think there is a little bit of a causation issue within the Bill on that point. So, thank you.

Good morning again. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau, also in opposition.

Adding to the comments offered by Ms. Hoffman just a minute ago, it's important to remember that the Governor vetoed this Bill last year for what we thought was good reasons, primarily that the Cal OSHA Appeals Board doesn't have the expertise to understand whether or not an employer has been in compliance with the Heat Loss Prevention Standard.

Also, it's important for you to know that Cal OSHA is standing up extraordinary efforts right now, creating an entirely separate enforcement function dedicated to agriculture, and one of the major issues they'll address is going to be heat illness with more than 50 staff in seven or eight different offices scattered across the state.

So, the Agency is already making huge efforts to try to address this issue, and I think this Bill is redundant and unnecessary. And we urge your opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. That is the end of witnesses. We will take me toos—name, affiliation, and position.

Madam Chair, my colleague, Laura Curtis, from the American Property Casualty Insurance Association asked me to re express their respectful opposition to the Bill. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers. We represent California's fresh fruits, veggies, tree nuts industry, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Taylor Turfo, on behalf of California Citrus Mutual, California Fresh Fruit Association, African American Farmers of California, California Cotton Ginners and Growers, Nisei Farmers League, Strawberry and Walnut Commission, and Western Tree Nut Association, in respectful opposition.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Jason Schmelzer, here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation, in respectful opposition.

Thank you. I think that's the end of opposition. We will move to the dais. Comments?

Yeah, I have to run over to Education, but I want to move the Bill and I would otherwise have some comments because I think it's a good Bill and I think people in the room know why I think it's a good Bill because I've talked about it in the past extensively in terms of having this kind of response to heat illness.

And the only other thing I'll say is the idea that a farm worker is suffering from heat illness and it's not at least a rebuttable presumption that that happened in the fields is ludicrous to me given what's happening. But I'll pause there, stop there, and just make the motion, if that's okay.

That's absolutely okay and thank you for the motion. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Can we call the roll?

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of 2 to 1. The bill is on call. Thank you, Assembly.

Thank you. That concludes my afternoon here.

That's right. We appreciate you briefing with. Okay, before we move to the next file item, we're going to lift call for Senator Strickland, and we will start with the consent calendar.

[Roll call]

Okay.

We have a vote of 4 to 0. The calendar is on call. And then we will move to File item number one. That's AB 1340.

[Roll call]

We have a vote of 2 to 1. That bill is on call. Moving to file item number two. That's AB5, three.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 1 on that bill. It's still on call. File item number five. AB672 on file item number five.

[Roll call]

We have a vote of 2 to 1 on that bill. It remains on call. And then we'll move on to file item number eight. That's AB 1234.

[Roll call]

That bill has a vote of 2 to 1. It is on call. Okay, so we are good. So we will. All right, there we go. File item number three. Assemblymember Solace is with us. You will proceed when ready.

Madam Chair. I love that smile. I'm happy to see you as well. So, with that good morning, and thank you to the Chair and Senators, I am proud to present AB338, our workforce recovery for Los Angeles Aventura wildfires.

AB338 outlines the workforce recovery priorities to ensure a skilled and sufficient workforce to meet the scale of rebuilding urgent economy recovery needs. Los Angeles Aventura Wildfires have devastated our region's economy, including workforce disruptions and employment insecurity with a ripple effect across our state.

The economic toll is in the billions in property damage and loss of economic output has 49,000 jobs. The jobs created and supported by AB338 directly align with ongoing recovery efforts and high demand roles needed to help workers who lost so much in the fires and very people that hired to help rebuild our communities.

Upon appropriation, AB338 swings and workforce infrastructure to rebuild our region, we are still at the beginning of the recovery. AB338 will help our region move beyond short term response and into sustainable economic recovery and rebuilding. I would like to introduce Mark Isaac Isadoro on behalf of the County of Los Angeles Department of Economic Opportunity.

Thank you and you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning. Chairmembers Mark Ysidra on behalf of the County of Los Angeles here in strong support of AB338. Our county has witnessed widespread destruction caused by the January fires, putting many of our residents at long term unemployment risk.

Though our Department of Economic Opportunity moved quickly to meet urgent needs by providing cash assistance to impacted workers and small businesses and launching a temporary employment and job training program, we know that there's still a lot of recovery that's left to do. AB338 enables us to move beyond short term response and into sustained recovery.

This bill strengthens the county's recovery by expanding high road training in key sectors, speeding up certification for in demand jobs, delivering on the ground support near fire zones, reducing barriers for low income workers through stipends and empowering local workforce boards through targeted subcontracting. It's worth emphasizing this is not just about putting people back to work.

It's about doing so in a way that builds equity and economic mobility. AB338 is a lifeline and in LA County our people need this investment now more than ever. Every dollar invested through AB338 brings us closer to a workforce that's more resilient, more inclusive and more prepared to fully rebuild after the January disasters.

We thank Assemblymember Solace for his leadership and we respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like we have another witness or Is this a Me Too in support? Me Toos in support. Please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Thank you. Chair Members Max Perry on behalf of the City of Camarillo. Also in support.

John Michael on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California in support if amended. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Elise Borth on behalf of the California Community Foundation in support.

Madam Chair Chris McKayley here on behalf of two clients, the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and the Society for Human Resource Management in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Members. Orquilla de Roy Reyes, an intern with Carol Gonzalez, on behalf of the Long Beach Community College District. In support.

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

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator, Rosanna Carvacho Elliott here on behalf of the Early Care and Education Consortium. In support and appreciate the author adding child care to the bill. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness or witnesses for this bill in the room? Seeing none. We'll move to opposition. Me Toos. Any opposition? Me Toos in the room. Okay, we'll come to the diary bill. Thank you. We have it moved. Would you like to close, Senator?

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, thank you for your time and attention to this important wildfire economic recovery. This bill is my first bill that I introduced to the Legislature. And so with there's no opposition and bipartisan support, I ask for your support as we help recover the communities of Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

Thank you very much. We will take this up once we have. zero, we do have a motion. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Sorry about that. We can take up a vote. Yes, we can. Assistant, Please call the roll.

[Roll call]

Okay, we have a vote of two to zero. We're on call.

Thank you, everyone. Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

That motion threw me off from Strictly. I was like, zero, okay, here we go. Strong. Yes. So finally got here. Thank you.

All right, we're.

Okay, I see we have Assemblymember Ahrens in the House. So, we are going to move to file item number four. That's AB 340. Assemblymember present when you're ready. Catch your breath. I think you...

I ran up the stairs.

We appreciate that.

Only for you, Senator.

We appreciate that.

I know your time is very valuable. Just one moment. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and Members. First off, I want to thank the Senate labor consultants for their work on this Bill. When employees discuss workplace matters, such as discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe these conversations are kept confidential.

However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed. AB 340 makes the communication between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential to foster trust and ensuring effective representation. This Bill does not apply to criminal investigations.

It merely codifies existing California Public Employment Relations Board decisions that prohibit public employees from coercing union representatives. AB 350 encourages employees to communicate fully and frankly with their union representatives about matters within the scope of representation. With me today is Randy Perry with PORAC, and David Mastagni, Jr. Legal Counsel for PORAC. Do you want to?

Thank you, Assemblymember and witnesses. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Senators, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on behalf of PORAC in support of AB 340. My name is David Mastagni.

As a Labor Attorney representing public employees for over 25 years, I understand the importance of AB 340 in strengthening workers' rights, by ensuring that public employees can communicate effectively with their union representatives without fear of interference.

This is a modest, balanced Bill that codifies existing PERB precedent, making it an unfair labor practice for public employers to demand disclosure of union communications about matters such as grievances, discrimination complaints, and disciplinary investigations. This Bill levels the playing field by making these protections universal across all labor statutes that PERB has jurisdiction over.

Addressing the concerns, it doesn't create an evidentiary privilege. It only codifies this prohibition against employer interference, and it makes it enforceable through PERB. It exempts criminal investigations. It doesn't apply in civil and criminal proceedings. It doesn't hinder workplace investigations. Peace officers subject to the same investigation can't even be the representative.

There are no restrictions on questioning any witness about the facts of an incident. The Bill merely prohibits employers from prying into union discussions which have no evidentiary value and are only used to inappropriately commandeer union representatives as the employer's agent for conducting a disciplinary investigation. Far from adding costs, this Bill reduces expenses by preventing unlawful interviews.

In conclusion, we respectfully ask for your a vote—yay vote. Thank you.

Next witness. Is there another witness? Oh, me toos. Okay, so we will move to me toos. Please state your name, affiliation, and position.

Kobe Pizzati, on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, in strong support.

Mitch Snyder with CFT. Also, in support.

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

Mari Lopez, California Nurses Association, in support.

Eric Barreiras, with the California Faculty Association, in support, and proud co-sponsor. Thank you.

Looks like our support me toos. We'll move to opposition. Is there opposition witness here today? Please step to the mic. And you have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senator. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed, which is consistent with our position on prior iterations of this Bill.

For one of which the veto message read, "I don't believe it is appropriate to put communications with a union agent on equal footing with communications with one spouse, priest, physician, or attorney."

Moreover, this Bill could compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigation to workplace safety, harassment, and other allegations, and that's really the area where we are very concerned, as being charged protecting school safety for students and employees. Two incidents I want to speak in particular to where this could interfere drastically with our administrative investigations, excuse me, which are subject to the bill's restrictions, one of which relates to the AB 218 childhood sexual assault investigations.

These are not acts often caught while being taken under. It is a long series of investigation for smaller acts that lead to criminal investigation, which, again, is critical to ensuring student safety at our campuses.

Additionally, on the matter of TROs, Temporary Restraining Orders, being sought against students with disability, we're seeing an increase in this action.

Our members have shared that by allowing administrative investigations to intervene earlier before a TRO is sought by a teacher or a classroom aide against a student with a disability, which does infringe on their educational rights to an equitable education. Again, these are serious consequences of this Bill.

And finally, because the way the Bill is written, we're not even sure how employers would know when they are or are not possibly infringing on this protected communication. So, for these reasons, we respectfully oppose.

I'd also like to share opposition on behalf of my colleague from the California Special Districts Association and the California County Superintendents who cannot be here today. Thank you.

Okay, we will move to opposition me toos. Please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning. Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Johnny Pinia, with the League of California Cities, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Community College League of California, also in opposition.

Good morning, Eric Larry, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, Urban Counties of California, Association of California Healthcare Districts, and the University of California, in opposition. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Michelle Gil, on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, in opposition.

Jeff Neil, representing the Orange County Fire Authority, also opposed.

Good morning. Kaylin Dean, on behalf of the California Hospital Association, in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Jason Schmelzer, on behalf of PRISM, in respectful opposition.

Okay, that looks like end of our opposition me toos. We'll come to the dais. I don't know. Does anybody have any questions? Comments?

I will do a courtesy motion.

Okay, so we have a courtesy motion from Senator Strickland. And I want to say to thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this, this Bill forward. And I'm supporting this Bill today and encouraging my colleagues to do so as well. And I do acknowledge the opposition's concerns and particularly the issue of misconduct investigation—sexual misconduct investigations.

And I know that you are working with the opposition on this. We certainly don't want to impede any investigation that is addressing the safety of our students. And we know that sexual misconduct is something that does plague many of our institutions and we would never want to see stay in the way of that.

And at the same time, the conversation and information exchange between a union rep and that worker is a sacred space.

I think the opposition listed the priest, the spouse, and I, you know, as a union organizer, I felt like I played those roles with many of the members that I represented, as they worked through the very difficult challenge of trying to make sure that they preserve their job and address any of the issues that they faced in the workplace, in terms of being represented and working through a disciplinary or other issues on the job.

So, you know, I know this is an important Bill and it's one that does need and deserve collaboration to figure out those points of disagreement. But I will be supporting the Bill, and I want to thank you for bringing it forward.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland and so, we will ask you to close and then we'll go to call the roll.

Thank you, Senator. I just want to, again, remind my talking points that this Bill does not apply to criminal investigations. And all it is doing is merely codifying existing Public Employee Board decisions and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of one to one. This Bill is on call. We'll take it up when our colleagues return.

And we have Assembly Member Elhawary with us on file item number 10. And that is AB 1331. Assembly Member, you may proceed when ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm here to present AB 1331, which strengthens workplace privacy laws to address the rise of invasive employer surveillance. We've been working closely with opposition and putting in work to make necessary amendments in the first house to ensure we were thoughtful in how we approached and thought about unintended consequences.

Employers today aren't just using cameras. They're using wearable trackers, facial recognition, speech monitoring and algorithmic surveillance to monitor workers at all times. In California, nearly half of our low wage workers are Latino. And in regions like the Inland Empire, warehouse workers are disproportionately black, Latino and immigrants.

And let's be honest, these are the same workers who don't feel like they can speak up because they're just trying to keep their jobs and provide for their families. This kind of monitoring isn't neutral. It increases stress, reduces job satisfaction and strips workers of their basic dignity.

AB 1331 will modernize our laws to protect workers privacy by prohibiting employers from constantly monitoring surveillance technology in employer designated employee only areas such as break rooms and cafeterias. Cameras are still allowed, but cannot be constantly monitored. With me testifying in support. Oh, okay. I was like, let me make sure he's here.

Is Ivan Fernandez with California Federation of Labor Unions. And also in support is Shane Gusman with the Teamsters. Perfect.

Thank you so much. Assemblymember, you have two minutes.

Good morning. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud co sponsor of AB 1331. Members, as you all know, the state of surveillance and surveillance technology has grown beyond the capabilities of just a camera and a microphone.

Today, employers have access to seemingly military grade equipment such as wearable trackers, heat sensors, retina trackers, and in some parts of the world, implantable RFID chips. Surveillance hardware and software have become increasingly affordable and available with every inch of the workplace under the eye of the employer.

Workers simply do not have adequate protections from being watched and tracked when eating lunch or even when going to the restroom. While there are existing privacy laws protecting workers from audio or visual recordings in restrooms in changing areas, current law focus primarily on camera and microphone technology.

There are two reasons why we must protect workers from being surveilled at all hours of the day. The first is that workers deserve a certain level of privacy at the work site, whether they're in the restroom or while they're on break.

The second is that while we all understand the the second is that we all understand the power of data and how valuable it can be for employers to control the workplace.

If an employer can track and listen to every single conversation throughout the workday and gather as much information as possible, they can exercise extreme amounts of control over the workforce and can put down any attempts by workers to exercise their protected rights to organize and file complaints by protected under labor law.

For example, Amazon has developed a centralized AI system that can detect union friendly phrases and behaviors in Amazon warehouses. Perceptics is a company that collects and analyzes these kinds of employee surveys and other information.

And they've said that they can create a union vulnerability index so employers can see which groups of workers are the highest are at the highest risk of unionizing. This is pushing surveillance from being used for safety purposes to towards full on invasive and oftentimes unproven methods of risk management.

AB 1331 enacts sensible worker privacy protections as noted by the Assembly Member. And it gives workers a break from the relentless surveillance and monitoring in the workplace so they can rest, talk and eat and organize without the Boss watching. For these reasons we respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co sponsor of the Bill. Also the Machinists Union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Utility Workers Union of America, Unite Here and the Engineers and Scientists of California all in strong support of this measure.

The use of this of surveillance in the workplace is not new for any of the unions that I mentioned. What is new is the development of technology to such a degree as the previous witness stated that they're monitoring every aspect of the worker throughout the day, sometimes beyond their workday.

And it creates not only a loss of privacy, a loss of autonomy for the worker, a workplace that is, you know, adversarial and a workplace that is unsafe. A worker that is constantly in fear of being monitored about what they're doing is not paying attention to the task at hand.

So where they're in safety sensitive positions or, you know, operating a forklift or working on that warehouse floor, it creates all kinds of dangerous situations when they're not, you know, absolutely concentrating on their work. The need for appropriate guardrails is paramount at the moment. More and more employers are using this.

Technology because it's becoming cheaper and it's becoming way more effective in terms of how deeply this surveillance technology goes. And so we applaud the author and Legislature for taking this on, and we urge your support. Thank you.

Thank you. We have Me Too in support of the Bill. Please state your name, affiliation and position.

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

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

Mari Lopez, California Nurses Association, in support.

Bryant Miramontes with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support.

Scott Brent, Smart Transportation Division in support.

Griselda Chavez with the Mesa Verde Group, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California in support of.

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

Good morning. Timothy Burr, on behalf of Athena, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that concludes support. Let's move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses? Please step forward. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. First, want to take time to really thank the author for all the conversations we've had on this Bill.

And I think if you watch the presentation on the floor and the speeches by her colleagues was a true testament to all the work she's really put into this Bill. And I appreciate that our outstanding concerns are largely centered on, you know, limits on review of footage and surveillance of the break rooms and cafeterias.

I think we respectfully disagree that an employee has the same right to privacy in those spaces where you could have other employees, sometimes hundreds of other employees in there at the same time. The case loss of supports us on that. There is a lower right to privacy there.

And that also depends really on the workplace itself, as the Bill does apply to every single workplace, with very limited exception in California, public or private of all size. Unfortunately, in those kinds of areas, our Members have seen a lot of incidents.

Incidents including workplace violence, theft of belongings of other employees, theft of company property, theft of property belonging to vendors, suspicious personnel, ongoing emergencies, or sometimes a panic button could be pushed in those areas.

So we have a lot of concerns about really the limited circumstance under which we could actually review that footage and the fact that we couldn't have ongoing monitoring. Absolutely willing to work on, of course, limitation on things like audio. But I think for us, video footage is very crucial.

Importantly, I do want to note, you know, of course, two years ago, this Legislature passed SB553 regarding workplace violence. The Cal OSHA regulations implementing that Bill actually call out that employers should be implementing engineering controls, including video recording and monitoring to, you know, improve and reduce instances of. Sorry, reduce instances of workplace violence.

And then finally, I know as it was noted in the analysis, we do have some concerns about situations where employers may require tools to remain on personnel at all times, such as badging, especially if that's used to badge in and out of a space.

That's technically a workplace surveillance tool, but it is required to be worn at all times for identification purposes. So again, continue will work with the author. So thank you.

Thank you. And there's another opposition witness.

Good morning. Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators respectfully opposed and very much do appreciate the conversations and the narrowing of the Bill to try and focus on the intent.

Regrettably, though, for many of our public agency employers, especially those serving vulnerable populations, or when custody or direct care is essential part of the work being conducted, we feel this Bill could be detrimental to the safety of employees and those populations in the school setting particularly.

This could create black spots or blind spots in campuses to the benefit of bad actors. Regrettably, and it really does, to my colleague's point, undermine workplace violence prevention plans and also comprehensive school safety plans put in place. Again, uplifting student safety.

Districts have reported instances of surveillance helping to break up employee on employee violence and also exonerating employees around against students claims through the surveillance footage.

We also want to make sure to highlight that there are numerous protections in law already to make sure that union Members have opportunities to discuss and have conversations with their colleagues, including government code Section 3550 saying that we shall not deter or prevent conversation and then also additional sections that provide significant penalties if found in violation of doing so.

And then finally, our Members have shared that the use of technology includes including surveillance is part of the bargaining process and included in side letters or side agreements. And we're afraid AB 1331 could unwind some of those locally bargained decisions.

So for these reasons, we oppose and my colleagues from the county, California County Superintendents and California Special Districts Association also share their opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have Me Too in opposition to the Bill. Please step forward. State your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair Chris McKealy on behalf of my clients, the Civil Justice Association of California and Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce. And then on behalf of my colleague, Laura Curtis, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, all in respectful opposition. Thank you. Madam Chair.

Good morning. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition for the reasons enumerated by the opposition witnesses. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Marlon Lara, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Michelle on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition.

Good morning. Vanessa Cajina with Hawaiian Gardens Casino respectfully opposed unless amended. We've had very good conversations with the. Author and with your Committee. Really appreciate that work, but we do. Need an exemption to be compliant with the Attorney General and the Gambling Control Commission. Thank you.

Good morning. Yarelie Magallon, on behalf of the California Travel Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also opposed to the Bill.

Good morning. Meghan Loper, on behalf of Commerce Casino. We also are opposing the list amendment and would echo the comments of our colleague from Hawaiian Gardens and appreciate the ongoing conversations with the authority.

Good morning. Emily Dell with the California Credit Union League at opposition.

Good morning. Kalyn Dean, California Hospital Association, in opposition.

Good morning. Chris Zgraggen with Capital Advocacy on behalf of the Security Industry Association and California Automatic Vendors Council in opposition.

Good morning. Alejandro Solis with California Cities for Self Reliance. We have an opposal, unless amended opposition position. Thank you.

Good morning. Jack Yanos on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance, respectively opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Shaun Tapeckian, on behalf of Casino Matrix. We are opposed unless amended.

Good morning, Eric Lehr, on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Chair Members Max Perry on behalf of the California Pest Management Association and the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce also in opposition. Thank you.

Jason Schmelzer in respectful opposition on behalf of PRISM as well as Mendocino and Humboldt counties. Thank you.

Good morning. Katherine Charles, on behalf of the Health and Fitness Alliance and the California Fitness Alliance in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Jose Torres with Technet and respectful, respectful opposition.

Good morning. Ethan James with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers Association in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Sarah Bridge with CMTA in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Johnny Pena with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Taylor Triffo on behalf of the California Grocers in respectful opposition.

Matt Easley representing Associated General Contractors of California in opposition.

Okay, that looks like that concludes our opposition. We will come to our dais. Senator Strickland, please.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Assemblymember, I represent Hawaiian Gardens Casino and the Attorney General Regs and Gaming just in General, this Bill would conflict and I'm urging you to really consider a carve out for gaming facilities for obvious reasons. I understand the goal of the Bill and I will be clear.

Even if you did the amendment, I wouldn't support the Bill. But I think I just want to be clear.

I don't want to be clear, but I do think that when we talk about gaming facilities and the trust in gaming facilities that you talk to the folks because the AG regs that you seriously consider the carve out for the Indian gaming tribes as well as the card clubs and the gaming facilities.

We're actually going to be speaking with the Department of Justice today to go over some of those regulations and be really thoughtful around how we can both work with the card rooms and better understand some of their concerns around potential kind of issues that might be going on in the break rooms that they want to be able to surveil, while also recognizing the importance of having spaces for workers to potentially organize.

So we are in the conversations and we'll continue to have those conversations and even plan to sit down with the card rooms to really kind of map out what that could look like. So thank you.

Because one of the keys, again, going old Vegas, is people worry about the legitimacy of gambling, you know, to make sure that, you know, you have surveillance, that there's no one hiding, you know, chips, cards, you know, there's a lot of things that they have to watch, right, to make sure that we have legitimate gaming facilities that people can have the faith and trust in.

So it's a major employer in my district. And again, thank you for moving forward. Again, I will give a courtesy motion for the Bill when it's ready, but thank you, Assemblymember. I appreciate your time and I want.

To say thank you. Thank you, Senator Strickland, for that. I want to thank you, Assemblymember, for bringing this. I have a similar Bill in the space around AI notification.

And I think as these technologies get more and more sophisticated, we have to have more sophisticated measures to ensure that workers are protected, safe environments for workers, consumers and businesses alike.

And I think that, you know, this is a testament to your leadership and the conversations that you're having and I know you will continue to have in this space. And that's why I'm supporting the Bill. Today we have a courtesy motion from Senator Strickland and I'm going to ask you to close before we move to the vote.

Thank you. You know, we talked a little bit about it, but our office has really been actively engaging with opposition, including Cal Chamber and many of the groups who are here today. We're committed to ensuring this Bill is both workable for employers and meaningful for employees in protecting their rights and dignity.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assistant, please call the roll on file, item 10.

[Roll Call]

Okay, we have a one to one vote. We will bring it up when our colleagues return. Thank you. All right, man of the hour, Assembly Member Kalra is with us.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. AB 692 will end the exploitative practice of trapping workers into debt agreements, also known as stay or pay, or debt traps, which oftentimes are disguised as basic on the job training, orientation, or other educational programs. Under current law, workers are protected from being forced to pay for employer-mandated training.

If they pay, then the employer must reimburse the worker for any costs associated with the required training. However, debt traps have created a situation where workers are locked into their jobs because they are being required to repay the cost of an educational course or some other benefit when they leave their job, are fired, or are laid off.

This has had a chilling effect on the workplace, discouraging workers from speaking out against unsafe or unfair working conditions for fear of being fired and forced to pay off the debt. This practice is especially prominent in the transportation, healthcare, retail, aviation, and tech industries.

AB 692 will end debt trust by prohibiting employer debt agreements that require workers to pay their employers a debt if they leave their job, regardless of how, and would void those agreements as unlawful contracts. To be clear, this Bill does not apply to government-sponsored loan forgiveness programs and does not prohibit employers from offering bonuses.

Additionally, the Bill exempts employers who cover the cost of tuition for transferable credentials from third party accredited institutions. Workers should be able to decide where they want to work and not be afraid to speak out without the fear of financial debt or retaliation.

I would like to thank the Committee Chair and staff for their work on the analysis. I would like to note that I'm committed to working with the chair and staff to find a solution to address the concerns around accelerated and expedited licensing programs.

With me today to provide supporting testimony are Mari Lopez, Legislative Advocate with the California Nurses Association, and Ivan Fernandez, Legislative Advocate with the California Labor Federation.

Thank you so much, Assemblymember, and good morning.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Member, Member. My name is Mari Lopez, Legislative Advocate for the California Nurses Association and proud co-sponsor of AB 692. For decades, CNA has seen a growing trend where employers use debt repayment contracts to lock nurses and other employees into jobs with substandard working conditions.

About 40% of new nurses have had to sign a Training Repayment Agreement Provision, or TRAP for short. In a TRAP, if a nurse quits, is laid off or terminated for any reason before finishing a minimum work period, usually two to three years, the nurse must pay the employer thousands of dollars for lead training costs.

Hospitals recruit new nurses into the stay or pay contracts with the promise of high-quality training, but it's a bait and switch where they only get or they're only getting on the job training with that any newly hired nurse receives.

Happening frequently with newly graduated nurses and immigrant nurses, employers use the threat of debt collection to exploit nurses as they get their first nursing jobs. Nurses in TRAPS are getting the worst shifts. They're understaffed and have the sickest patients. They're losing—they're scared of losing—their licenses because they are unprepared, understaffed, and patient care conditions are so unsafe.

But with the thread debt collection hanging over them, nurses are chilled from speaking out, from advocating for their patients, being active in the union, or simply finding better work. A recent study found that 1 in 12 workers are subject to a TRAP. They're not just in health care, but in tech and retail.

Pilots, computer coders, and truck drivers are also subject to traps. Low-wage workers at PetSmart have indebted for thousands to their employees as well. This Bill addresses the chilling effect and job mobility restraints of stay or pay contracts, clarifying the prospective relief is available for workers. I'm sorry.

This Bill addresses the chilling effect and mobility and the job mobility restraints of stay or pay contracts, clarifying that prospective relief is available to workers and expressly stated in statute that these terms are unlawful and void. We urge you to pass this Bill. Thank you.

Hello once again, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez, California Labor Federation, proud co-sponsor of AB 692. The member and my colleague have eloquently stated the provisions of the Bill and the current practices in the health care space.

I want to emphasize the need for this Bill in other industries, such as retail and transportation, since as mentioned previously, the issue of debt traps is broad and expansive. As noted, in 2022, workers at PetSmart filed a class action lawsuit in response to their employer forcing the workers to sign a training repayment agreement provision of $5,000.

Despite working conditions, workers were afraid to leave their jobs because of the impending debt lingering over their heads. Workers who did leave had their credit scores damaged after PetSmart sent debt collectors after them.

In the transportation industry, former cargo airline pilots reported that an airline company imposed a two-year work commitment for providing training that all airlines are required to provide. When one pilot decided to leave due to subpar wages, the airline charged them with $20,000 of debt for alleged training costs.

Coupled with the fact that market consolidation to so many key industries grows, workers have fewer options to avoid employer debt traps. No worker should have to choose to stay at a job with poor working conditions or face debilitating debt. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Please, if you're here to speak in support of the Bill, me toos, just your name, affiliation, and position.

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

Hello, Chair and Members. Danny Kando Kaiser, with Kaiser Advocacy, on behalf of the National Consumer Law Center and the California Low-Income Consumer Coalition, in support.

Griselda Chavez, with the Mesa Verde Group, on behalf of the Consumer Federation of California, in support.

Sorry, Madam Chair. I also wanted to record with support from the American Economic Liberties Project, the Student Borrower Protection Center, and the California Employment Law Association. Thank you.

That looks like the end of our support me toos. Let's move to opposition. Is there opposition witness? Each witness has two minutes.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, here on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management, the world's largest HR professionals organization.

Always appreciate the conversation with Chair Kalra on these bills. We have, in our discussions with our HR professionals across the country, we still think that this Bill will, in fact, adversely impact things like signing bonuses, retention bonuses, even on student loan assistance. Respectfully, the four requirements contained in subdivision B to Cap B, we think substantially limit that.

We also are concerned with this creating a new cause of action under the Unfair Competition Law. And in addition to enforcement by the Labor Commissioner, there's also a private right of action, not just for the worker, but even any prospective workers, their representatives, with a minimum $5,000 statutory penalty.

So, we look forward to continuing to work with the author and supporters. But at this stage, we respectfully request your no vote. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. I want to echo the concerns raised by my colleague from SHRM. And I really also want to address, I think, a lot of the claims in this Bill around training.

So as was mentioned, labor code Section 2802 and 2802.1 require the employer to either reimburse the employee or pay up front for any required training and really any other expense incurred in the course of employment. And that provision has historically been interpreted extremely broadly by the courts.

There is very clear case law specific to training, but then also very broad case law, even on things beyond training.

So I think a lot of the examples you hear today, say the PetSmart case, from my perspective falls, you know, squarely under that scenario where PetSmart required groomers to undergo certain training and if they left within a certain period of years to pay for the cost of that training.

I think from our side, we are struggling to see how labor code Section 2802 and 2002.1 don't already address those kinds of scenarios.

And our concern here is the unintended consequence of the breadth of the Bill would jeopardize the kinds of things that my colleague mentioned, like a hiring bonus paid out to an employee on day one where they may be then required to stay, you know, for a certain period of time.

Or I have members who are located in high cost areas. They offer things like down payment assistance for new workers to help them be able to, you know, take that job right in that area.

And, you know, of course, and I think it's understandable, you wouldn't want to give someone that assistance just to have them quit two weeks later. And so our concern is that employers won't offer those kinds of programs which are actually benefiting workers. Thank you.

Any opposition metoos, please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation and position.

Kalyn Dean, on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition.

Eric Will, on behalf of Rural County Representatives of California, in opposition.

Nick Chappie on behalf of the California Trucking Association in opposition. Thank you.

Marlon Lara, on behalf of the California Restaurant Association. Align my comments with testimony from the Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Good morning. Ethan James with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Hi. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of PRISM. Respectfully opposed.

Jean Hurst here today on behalf of The Urban Counties of California as well as the California State Association of Counties, also in opposition.

Hi. Molly Maula on behalf of the American Staffing Association as well as the California Staffing Professionals, in opposition thank you.

Alejandro Solis on behalf of CPCA advocates with opposing unless amended position. Thank you.

Rolando Chávez with Altamed Health Services with an opposal unless amended position. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, that looks like the end of the opposition. We'll come to the dais. Any members, would you like to comment comments on the Bill? I want to say thank you so much, Mr. Chair and Assemblymember Kalra, for this Bill.

And I appreciate you addressing my concerns, which and to help work through some of that, we have done a lot and I, in particular through BMP, have tried to create accelerated licensing programs to ensure that we have adequate health, particularly health practitioners in underserved communities.

We've invested a lot in that and want to make sure that that doesn't in any way have any impact or bearing related to this Bill. But appreciate your commitment to the work. Appreciate your commitment to ensuring that workers are made whole in this effort.

And I will be supporting your Bill today and looking for a motion,

A courtesy motion.

A courtesy motion. Thank you for the courtesy motion. I also will give you the opportunity to close. But I want to also confirm that you have some author amendments.

Yeah, there are often, you know, some of the opposition. We've had very good conversations with much of the opposition. One of the amendments I just want to put on the record has to do if an employee is terminated for gross misconduct, that there are certain situations they steal, they harass someone.

I think there are certain situations where we can agree that that wouldn't necessarily fall under this, shouldn't fall under the protections of this legislation. Some of the disagreement is I think some of the employer groups want it for if they're fired for cause. But that is just so broad.

But what we're committing to, and we've already put language in, is to amend it so that at the very least, if individuals are terminated for gross conduct, that they would not be eligible under the provisions of this legislation. So I just want to put that on the record.