Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Wow. And it's not Friday the 13th yet, but good morning. We are going to commence our hearing. We are have a lot of folks here who are turning out and will be in and out of our chamber today. So we are going to take our file out of order today and start with file 12 and 13. But before we get to that, we're going to establish a quorum. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Can I have a point of personal privilege just really quick?

You absolutely may. We were going to you next. So we have a quorum, so we will turn it over to you, Vice Chair.

Thank you. I would like to audience and everybody here to acknowledge Cory Botts. Cory's been a longtime member of the Republican Policy Caucus. He's been here a long time. This is his final hearing. He's been in the Senate Republican Policy Office in 2004. He was staff in the Labor Committee in 2005. He has 20 years of staffing Labor Committee.

He's had the pleasure of working with seven Vice Chairs. Ackerman, Wyland, Stone, Morrell, Ochoa Bogh, Wilk, and he said I was his favorite, Strickland. He's had 12 Chairs in his 21 years of service in the Senate. He's analyzed over 2,200 bills.

And before he came to the Senate Republican Caucus, he was Chief of Staff for Assembly Member Patricia Bates, who I served with and came into the Legislature with back in 1998. On top of that, he was a Senate Fellow for then Senator Chuck Poochigian, who has been a mentor of mine who represented Fresno. And ladies and gentlemen, we're all a family here. And this is his last hearing. Let's give Cory a big round of applause for his service to California. Thank you, Madam Chair, for that opportunity.

Thank you. Thank you so much. The favorite Senator. Appreciate those comments. And just wanted to say good to you, Mr. Botts, it's been a pleasure to sit on this dais with you and hear your comments in helping to staff your Member. I think we appreciate all of your dedication, your public service, particularly to this Committee.

Best of luck. All right, so now we're going to move to file item number 12. And I think we see Assemblywoman Hadwick is with us. We're going to move to your item first, and this is AB 889. We're going to do one quick piece of business before we come to you. We will adopt our consent calendar. Please call the roll.

Yeah. Okay. Madam Chair, I'd like to move the consent calendar.

On the consent calendar. On the consent calendar, which today is file items number one, AB 291 by Assembly Member Gipson. Item eight, which is AB 381 by Assembly Member Stefani. And then items 15 and 16, AB 1067 and AB 1398, respectively by Assembly Members Quirk-Silva and Valencia. On the consent calendar. [Roll Call] 2 to 0.

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0, and the consent calendar is on call. Assembly Member, you may proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Madam Chair and Members, I am here to present AB889. AB889 ensures fair, transparent and equitable fringe benefit contributions for workers on public works projects while maintaining a level playing field for responsible employers.

At its core, 889 strengthens the principle of annualization, which is crucial for ensuring that workers receive the full value of the benefits they've earned regardless of whether they work on public or private projects throughout the year. Under current law, some employers exploit exemptions to avoid fairly distributing their benefit contributions over the total hours our employees work.

This creates disparities in worker compensation and undermines prevailing wage laws.889 eliminates those loopholes and guarantees that every worker gets the full intended value of their benefits. For workers, this means more predictable and equitable benefits, whether it's health care, pensions, or other essential fringe benefits. Workers shouldn't be shortchanged simply because their employer shifts between public and private projects.

Annualization ensures that every hour worked counts towards their future security. For responsible employers, 889 ensures uniformity, clarity and fairness by requiring all employers to adhere to the same method for calculating benefit contributions. This Bill prevents bad actors from gaming the system and underbidding responsible contractors who follow the rules.

It strengthens compliance with prevailing wage laws and helps create a business environment where fair competition is based on skill, efficiency and quality work, not on cutting corners at the expense of the workers. Additionally, 889 provides reasonable flexibility for defined contribution pension plans, ensuring that workers have access to immediate and fully vested retirement contributions without penalizing responsible employers.

Importantly, it holds employers accountable by requiring clear documentation of benefit contributions, ensuring transparency and enforcement of the law. 8889 is about fairness. It protects workers, rewards responsible employers, and strengthens public works contracting. In California, I urge the Committee to support AB889 and ensure that every worker receives the full value of their hard earned benefits.

Here to testify with me today are Keith Dunn from the District Council of Ironworkers and Matt Cremens from Operating Engineers.

Thank you. And you both have two minutes.

Thank you. Madam Chair Members, Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB889, which provides some statutory clarity as it relates to public works annualization in an effort to prevent prevailing wage fringe benefit fraud.

I think it's important to start with some basic insights on how prevailing wages are paid and make clear that under prevailing wage law, contractors may meet their obligations by paying a combination of cash wages and fringe benefits. It's also important to note that paying fringe benefits on public works projects is not required.

However, if a contractor tries to claim a payment to a fringe benefit plan as part of meeting their prevailing wage obligation, the cost of those benefits must be converted into an hourly amount.

Contractors who work under collective bargaining agreements traditionally pay fringe benefits on every hour worked, which makes it very very clear to decipher whether an employee is receiving their full prevailing wage rate or not.

Other contractors, however, they may make monthly payments into a health care plan or quarterly payments into a 401k plan and these types of lump sum benefits are perfectly allowed and perfectly legal.

However, again the contractor must annualize these non hourly payments to convert it into an hourly rate in order to ensure that a worker is getting their full prevailing wage rate. The state adopted this principle of annualization of fringe benefits back in the year 2020. However, conforming regulations to specify how this process should work have never been enacted.

So with that being said, AB889 would simply conform state law with federal Department of Labor rules on annualization by specifying that annualization calculations must be made for all employer payments that are not directly made to a worker and it would additionally provide some enforcement teeth to help the Labor Commissioner actually be able to enforce our laws that we have on the books.

Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of co sponsors the District Council of Iron Workers, the State of California, as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council. Mr. Cremins did a good job of outlining annualization and why it's important. I will make it a little simpler.

Thank you.

Thank you Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of co sponsors the District Council of Iron Workers, the State of California, as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council. Mr. Crimmins did a good job of outlining annualization and why it's important. I will make it a little simpler.

Public works are paid for with tax dollars and there needs to be an accounting for to make sure that Contractors aren't gaming the systems.

You're going to hear from some opposition who I'm going to assume will say that there is no problem here and then we agree, but we need to have some oversight to make sure that those bad actors, and there are some that exist, aren't gaming the system.

This legislation flew through the first house with on consent and then decided at some point here that there was issues with this Bill. I would suggest to you that 49 other states have annualization. Everyone complies. There's no problems with apprenticeships. They can pay into the apprenticeship program for private and public works. There's no issues there.

All the apprenticeship programs that are qualified in the State of California can receive those benefits, but you have to pay them on public and private. You can't just do it on the public works. So again, Mr. Crimmins laid out the plan pretty well. We're asking for your support. We think this is a conformity Bill.

We also think that DIR should be funded a little more so that we do have those enforcement mechanisms. It's unfortunate that we have to come back to the Legislature to enact additional legislation when we have a Department that should be doing this already. And again, that's a different issue for a different day.

And we would love to see more enforcement at DIR are absent that. And we haven't done that for years and years and years. We're proposing this Bill which we think goes a long way to normalize and be consistent with federal law in 49 other states. So we would ask for your support.

You're going to hear from a lot of others who agree with me very soon. Thank you.

Thank you. And if we have folks who are in support of this bill, #MeToos. Your name, affiliation and position.

Madam Chair. Members Joe Cruz, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers, I want to align my comments with the previous speakers. We fully support the bill and respect and ask for an Aye vote.

Madam Chair and Members. Bob Giraud on behalf of the Painters and Allied Trades. Want to echo the previous witnesses in support of the bill.

Vincerew on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Clementine Ruk, on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 in support support.

Aloha, Mitchell Beck, on behalf of the District Council of Iron Workers in support.

William Gonzalez, with District Council 16 Painters and Allied trades hearing support. Thank you.

Carlos Flores, District Council 16 Painters and Allied trade and support.

Connor Gusman, on behalf of California Teamsters and support.

Mike Greenley, District Council 16 painters, knowledge trades and support.

Dustin Spurgeon, District Council 16 in support.

Randy Roas, District Council 16, Painters Allied Trades in support.

My name is Renee Palacios, business agent, Ironworkers local 433 and we support it.

Good morning. Mitch Ponce, Ironworkers 433. President of the LA Orange County Building Trades Council. We're in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Troy Aronson, business manager of the Ironworkers Local 118, Sacramento, in support.

Good morning. Raymond Davis, business agent, Ironworkers Local 118 in Sacramento in support.

How you guys doing? Good morning. I'm Francisco llanes, with Local 378, ironworkers and I'm in support. Thank you.

My name is George Pichila, Local 378 and I'm in support of this bill.

Good morning. My name is Adalberto Morales. I'm an iron worker also as a citizen. I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

My name is Juan Robles. Ironworker 378. I'm here to support.

Morning. Steve McCalli, union iron worker. I'm in support of this bill. Thank you. Have a good day.

Trenton Ledesma, Iron Workers Local 378. I support this bill.

Michael Provost, Local 378 in support.

Freddie Castro, out of Local 378. I support.

Greg White, Local 378. I'm in support of the bill.

Hello, I'm Kevin O' Mahoney with Labor Management Compliance Council. And I am support of the bill. Thank you.

Adam Cortese, Deputy Director, Work Preservation Fund Incorporated. A labor management Cooperative Committee in full. Support of the bill. Thanks.

Garth Forshberg, Work Preservation Fund, in support of the bill.

Jason Klein, Work Preservation Fund, in support of the bill.

Good morning. John Hershey, labor compliance officer for UA. Local 447, Labor Management Cooperation Committee in support of the bill. Thank you.

Frank Hewitt, business rep for District Council 16. I'm in support of the bill.

Joe Sanders, Painters Local 913 in support of the bill.

James Ashcroft, business agent, Ironworkers Local 378, Oakland, and support of the bill.

Tommy Sandoval, District Council 16, Painters Local 3 in support of the bill.

David Rumsburg, Iron Workers Local 378. Support of the bill.

Mario Mendoza, Iron Worker, 378. I support the bill.

Luis Lopez, 378 and I support the bill.

378 supporting the bill.

Armando Contreras, 378 supported me.

DeShawn Blake, 378 supporting.

Hector Palacios, 378 supported him.

Brian Gregory, Local 378, Oakland, California, supporting.

Stephen Brown, signatory contractor with Brown Steel Fabrications, supporting the bill for 378.

Ishma Jackson, I'm supporting a Bill for Local 378.

Randy Thomas, business manager, Boilermakers Local 549, standing in solidarity with the building trades in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

James Holland, business agent, Local 92, Southern California, Huntington Beach, in support of this bill.

Maurice Jones, Local 549, Journeyman, and I stand with this bill. I support it.

Jesus Perez, Boilermakers 549, Pittsburgh, California. I stand in support of the bill.

Marcelo Hernandez, Local 549. And support is.

Morning, Madam Chair. Timothy Jeffords, International Brotherhood of Boilermaker, standing in support of state building trades.

Good morning. My name is Rachel Shumake. I represent over 1300 Members in Contra Costa County for the IBEW and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Todd Schiavo with UA Local 447, Plumbers and Pipefitters, and I also represent the Sacramento Sierra Building Trades Council. I stand in support of this ill. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Davey with the UA Local 447, Plumber Pipefitters, Sacramento, and in support of the bill.

Dave Sprigg, Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 447, and I'm in support of the bill.

Good morning. My name is Tom Ayton, UA Local 447, and I'm here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Zach Noonan with UA Local 447, and I am support.

Okay, it looks like that concludes our support for this bill. We will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Please step to the mic. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Senators. Richard Marcuson for the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We typically, or I would say, somewhat unusually, don't disagree with much of the arguments today. The question that is left open is the treatment of the training contributions from journey workers. The idea of annualizing the training contribution for apprentices makes sense.

Apprentices receive a benefit from those training contributions. However, for journey workers, there is no direct benefit. It's kind of in a third pot of money. But apprenticeship programs utilize the journey worker contributions to support the training of the next generation of craftsmen in construction.

What is left ambiguous is our construction contractors required to annualize their journey worker contributions for training. The Bill is unclear, which is why the reliance upon determinations from DIR have been so important. Because in General, they have said that there is no direct benefit to journey workers and thus those training contributions don't need to be annualized.

We're very concerned. And this is not a union versus non union issue. All apprenticeship programs rely upon journey worker contributions. If those are required to be paid to the California Apprenticeship Council, it reduces the amount of contributions that can be used for workforce development.

Which is why we've asked for correcting very simple amendments that clarify that existing law that allows construction contractors to allocate their training contributions to the apprenticeship program of their choice. Who is authorized to dispense or to indenture apprentices in the County of where the work is being performed? We are opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you. There another opposition witness. You have two minutes.

My name is Matthew Easley. I'm here on behalf of the Apprenticeship and Trust Fund of the Associated General Contractors of San Diego chapter. We are also opposed. Unless amended with similar comments to weca.

We just ask that all apprenticeship programs in the State of California be treated fairly, both union and non union, when the consideration of these funds are in question. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other #MeToos in opposition to this bill? Please step forward. State your name and affiliation position.

John McHale, on behalf of Associated Builders and Contractors of California here in a respectful, opposed and less amended position. Thank you.

Okay. Don't see any other #MeToos. We'll come to the dais. Members, any comments or questions? Okay. Assemblymember, would you like to close?

We. We did attempt to have conversations with our opposition. I requested some language that the sponsors may take. That language was never given to me. So I do think this is a bill that will protect our workers. And so I strongly urge an Aye vote. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. And we have a motion. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Please call the roll on file.

Item number 12 AB889. The motion is do pass to the Committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0. The bill is on call and we'll take it up when the other Members return. Thank you. All right, so we are going to move to extending out of file order. We're going to file item number 13, AB 963. I see Assembly Member Petrie-Norris is here. You may come to the podium and begin when you're ready.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, Senators. And I want to start by thanking you and your Committee staff for accommodating the presentation this morning. Really appreciate your work and engagement on the bill as well. I am pleased to join you this morning to present AB 963, a good government bill to make sure that private corporations who are developing projects that are utilizing taxpayer dollars are in compliance with existing public contract and labor laws.

As you all know, the California Public Records Act is a fundamental pillar of good, transparent, and accountable government. A key principle of the CPRA is that government records shall be disclosed upon request unless there is an express legal reason to deny access.

Under current law, when a public agency undertakes a public works project, they must provide access to documents associated with that project, such as payroll records or bid documents. It's common for the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement or Joint Labor Management Committees to request access to those records in order to ensure that the projects are being executed in a way that is compliant with state law.

However, private entities do not currently have to provide similar relevant documents even when they are utilizing public funds and utilizing our tax dollars to do these projects. Private entities thus operate in somewhat of a gray space, affording bad actors an opportunity to skirt the law should they so desire.

AB 963 would close this loophole and allow the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, multi-employer Taft-Hartley trust funds, and Joint Labor Management Committees to request a limited scope of documents from a corporation or LLC that is utilizing public funds on a project.

I will also note that we've been having productive conversations with opposition on amendments to address a number of their concerns, including the time frame in which documents are required to be produced, clarifying the definition of public and private projects and thus the scope of the bill, and then the language around fines.

We will continue to work with them to fine tune the language in these areas and want to ensure that we do address their concern by really protecting the goal of the bill, which is to provide fundamentally transparency and oversight to ensure that the laws of the state are being followed when taxpayer dollars are being utilized.

So with that, I am pleased to now introduce my two witnesses. We're joined today by Mike Greenlee from the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 16 and by Mike West from the California State Building and Construction Trades.

Thank you. You both have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair and Senators. My name is Mike West, and I represent the women and men of the State Building Trades. First, I want to say that not all contractors are bad actors. In fact, the majority of them are in compliance with the law.

When a project is bid, competitively bid, everyone is working from the same set of plans and specifications and is required to pay prevailing wage. Occasionally a bid will come in so low that it comes to the attention of compliance groups. The developers don't want to see the numbers or acknowledge previous violations.

The bottom line is that a contractor not planning on going in the hole and not making a profit or skirting the specification and the only thing left is to not pay the workers the proper wage. Contrary to the opposition's claim, compliance groups are not out shotgunning requests for certified payroll hoping to find something. They already know there's something wrong and the certified payroll would eventually substantiate the violation compared to the hours calculated through monitoring the project.

Requests for certified payroll cannot slow down or stop the construction of a project. It is not a major issue for the owner or developer to comply with the request because, like other documents that pass back and forth between entities during construction, like RFIs, RFPs, and change orders, these documents live on a server somewhere and are easily accessed and sent by an administrative professional.

The workers on the job are not the only ones victims of wage theft. High road contractors employ estimators full time to review plans and specifications and submit bids on projects. When a low road contractor wins a bid with no intention of paying the proper wage, that's a hit to the honest contractor is paying wages and payroll taxes for his estimator.

Frankly, I'm getting worn out by the weak arguments of the opposition that it's inconvenient or it takes up valuable limited resource to provide proof that contractors are not cheating. You might as well say I'm okay with wage theft as long as I continue to profit from it and don't have to admit knowledge or provide documents to prove it. Also that this bill isn't necessary because they can submit payroll records online.

If a bad contractor is not willing to commit, is willing to commit wage theft, what makes anyone think they're willing to submit payroll records willingly? I have examples provided by Joint Labor Management Committees...

Mike, the time, two minutes is up. Do you want to close?

Yes, I'm going to wrap up. Just another minute.

We don't have a minute. Your two minutes is up. So just a couple seconds.

Very quickly. I have examples provided by President Chris Hannan of a project in LA. Total $9.5 million of stolen wages and he stated theft in the construction industry is common and 963 would assist compliance efforts, helping workers and honest contractors.

Thank you. Thank you. Next witness. I think you have 1 minute, 30 seconds.

Hi. My name is Mike Greenlee. I'm the political communication director for Painters and Allied Trades, District 16. I've been in the trades for 31 years. I've worked on a lot of these projects that this bill hopes to address. CPRA has worked well to hold public agencies accountable, but it does nothing to ensure the construction workers employed on projects built by private entities utilizing public funds are protected from wage theft, misclassification, and violations of state labor code.

Because currently there's no avenue to gain access to these records, as these entities are excluded from the California Public Public Records Act. If private entities utilize the people's funds to develop projects, then it's the people's business to ensure that those funds are being utilized in a correct manner and that workers are not being hurt in the process.

Assembly Bill 963 has been drafted to accomplish just that. This bill allows only Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, DIR, Multiplier, Taft–Hartley trust funds, and Joint Labor Management Committees established under the Federal Labor Management Cooperation Act of 1978 the ability to request an extremely limited scope of documents.

For contractors that take advantage of workers on projects such as these, it almost becomes a business model for them. We might catch them on one project and get hit. I've got $9 million on one job, $1.0 million on another.

But they're getting away on 10 other jobs doing the exact same thing. It becomes their way of doing business. They don't care if they get hit once because they've already made a profit on 10 more projects. That's why we need this bill to move forward to protect workers. I urge your yes vote.

Thank you. Okay. Who is here speaking me too In support of the bill?

Bob Giroux on behalf of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades District Council 36 in Southern California, 16 in Northern California, and James Williams Jr. In Hanover, Maryland, the International President, in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers the State of California, as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council of California in support, asking for your aye vote.

Vince Sugrue on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Clementine Ruch on behalf of the Sheet Metal Workers Union Local 104 in support.

Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers in support.

Matt Cremins, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, strong support.

James Thuerwachter with the California State Council of Laborers in strong support.

Good morning. Connor Gusman on behalf of the California Teamsters in support. Thank you.

Randy Rojas, District Council 16 Painters Allied Trades, strong support.

Dustin Spurgeon, District Council 16 Painters and Allied Trades, in strong support.

My name is Rene Palacios, business agent, Iron Workers Local 433. We support the bill.

Morning again. Mitch Ponce, Ironworkers 433, LA Orange County Building Trades Council. We are in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for your time. Troy Arntson, business manager, Local 118 Sacramento, in strong support.

Raymond Davis, business agent, Ironworkers Local 118, in support.

George Pichila, Iron Worker Local 378, in support of the bill. Thank you.

Francisco Yanez, Local 378 Oakland, in support.

I'm Alberto Morales, Local 378 from the Iron Workers. I'm in favor.

Juan Robles, Local 378 Iron Workers. I'm support.

Morning. Stephen Scally, Union and Iron Workers 378. I'm in support of the bill.

Morning. Trenton Ledezma, Iron Workers Local 378. I'm in support of this bill.

Michael Provost, Iron Workers Local 378, in support.

Greg White, Ironworker Local 378, and I support.

Freddie Castro, Iron Workers out of 378. I support.

Adam Cortez, Deputy Director, Work Preservation Fund Incorporated, a labor management cooperative committee, in full support. Thank you.

Garth Forsberg, Work Preservation Fund, strongly support.

Jason Klein, Work Preservation Fund, in full support.

Frank Hewett, business rep, District Council 16, in full support of the bill.

Joe Sanders, Painters Local 913, strong support.

Tommy Sandoval, Painters Local 3, in support.

James Ashcroft, business agent, Iron Workers Local 378, Oakland, in full support.

Mario Mendoza, Iron Worker Local 378, in support.

Signatory contractor, Iron Workers Local 378, in full support. Steven Brown.

DeShawn Blake, Iron Worker Local 378, in full support.

Ishma Jackson, IW 378. I'm in full support of the bill.

Hector Palacios, Local 378, full support.

378 Local, supporting the bill.

Armando Contreras, Ironworkers 378. I'm in support.

Luis Lopez, 378, and I support the bill.

John Hershey, labor compliance officer for UA Local 447 Plumbers and Pipefitters Labor Management Cooperation Committee. And because of how many times LLC has told me to kick rocks on a public works housing project, in strong support of this. Thank you.

Todd Schiavo, UA Local 447, and President of the Local Building Trades, speaking in strong support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Andrew Davie, UA Local 447, Sacramento Plumbers and Pipefitters, in full support of this bill.

Good morning. Zak Noonan, UA Local 447, in support.

Good morning. Tom Aten, UA Local 447. I'm here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Good morning. Dave Sprigg, UA Local 447, in support of the bill.

Good morning. Brian Gregory, Local 378 Ironworkers, full support.

Good morning again. Timothy Jefferies, International Boilermakers. Representing these 2,000 boilermakers in the State of California standing in strong support State Building Trades.

Good morning. Anthony Viscuso, Local 16 Heat and Frost Insulators, business agent representing almost 700 insulators also in support of this bill. Thank you very much.

Good morning. Rachel Shoemake, assistant business manager at IBEW Local 302 in Contra Casa County, representing over 1300 electrical workers in support. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Steven Booker, political director of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 617, representing 1700 electrical workers, and we're in full support. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Elmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good morning. Kevin Ferreira, Sacramento Sierra Building Construction Trades Council. We are in strong support as well. Thank you.

William Gonzalez with District Council 16 Painters and Allied Trades. We are here in support. Thank you.

Jimmy Holland, Boilermakers Local 92, Southern California. We are in strong support.

Carlos Flores, District Council 16 Painters and Allied Trades, and we are in strong support.

Randy Thomas, Boilermakers Local 549, in support of this bill.

Jesus Perez, Boilermakers 549, in support.

Thank you. We will now move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses? Please step to the mic. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the California Building Industry Association here in opposition. Would like to thank the the author of the bill. We have had productive conversations over the last several weeks, and we look forward to those continuing. I would also like to commend the analysis.

The analysis did a terrific job and I'd recommend everyone take a look at it and read it. Because a lot of the questions we've been asking, I think the analysis appropriately identifies and asks many of those same questions about will this bill, if enacted, actually achieve the outcome that the sponsors are looking for.

So even with that, we have been very willing and at the the table to bring amendments forward to try to get to a place of neutrality. The author, in opening statements, did a really good job of identifying kind of those areas that we've been working on. They are timelines, they are definitions, they are the fees and penalties, making sure those are reasonable.

The only other thing I would mention that really needs to be made clear is, under existing law, if a direct contractor does not receive this information from a subcontractor, they are not held accountable for not being able to receive that information once requested. Doesn't seem like we...

It seems to us that we should receive that same kind of consideration. We request the information, that is not provided. We have done everything under our power to receive it. We would like to see that existing law also apply to owners and developers. So again, we're opposed. But appreciate the work today and continue, look forward to continue to work on it. Thank you.

Graciela Castillo-Krings here on behalf of the California Housing Consortium. We are the developers of affordable housing, and we agree with the Assemblywoman that we do not want contractors that are breaking the law to get away. We agree that more enforcement is needed and understand that sometimes there is a lack of state resources and are willing to figure out a way of moving forward that ensures that whoever is actually breaking the law is held responsible.

But we don't think that it should be up to the developer who is trying to do everything they can to build affordable units to be held responsible for behavior that is not theirs. So we hope to reach an agreement with the Assemblywoman that removes our opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. Opposition me toos, step forward. Name, affiliation, and position.

Got it. Mark Stivers of the California Housing Partnership. And we're in opposition, but I'll align my comments with those of the previous speaker. Thank you.

Good morning. Natalie Spievack with Housing California. We are also respectfully opposed to the bill and want to align my comments with my two colleagues ahead of me. Thank you.

Good morning. Shira Spector for Stone Advocacy on behalf of the California Solar and Storage Association in respectful opposed against amend unless amended, sorry, position. Thank you.

Good morning. Matt Easley on behalf of the Associated General Contractors California. We are also opposed to the bill, but appreciate the conversations with the author. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we will come to the dais. Members, comments, questions? Sure. Senator Cortese, please.

I'm prepared to move the bill.

Okay, so we have a motion from Senator Cortese. We will come to you to close. Obviously, I don't know if you want to address some of the comments that were made in your close, but feel free to do so.

Yes. Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And let me start by saying this only applies to projects where taxpayer dollars are being utilized. When we are investing taxpayer dollars, we need to ensure that there is robust oversight and robust accountability so that the laws of this state are being followed on those initiatives.

The second thing I'll say is that this is absolutely not intended as some sort of gotcha exercise or a fishing expedition. And that's why we've continued to have conversations with opposition to ensure that we thread the needle and craft this bill in a way that will hold bad actors accountable while not being overly burdensome on the vast majority of developers who we know are doing the right thing.

But we also know there's countless examples of the fact that there are bad actors. So we need to ensure that the same public records information that's available when agencies or local governments are implementing projects, that we have that same transparency when public dollars are being used by private developers. So appreciate the engagement of the Committee on the bill, and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. And let's call the roll.

On file item 13, the motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of 2 to 1. When our colleagues return, we'll take it off call.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Members.

Okay. I see Assembly Member Lee waiting patiently. Thank you. We are going to move to file item number... We'll start with number 10.

AB 792.

AB 792. Yep.

Correct. All right, thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. AB 792. This is a simple bill that seeks to provide more stability and focus for interpreters employed by the courts. Currently, collective bargaining is divided into four regions for court interpreters, although they are represented by a single union.

The bill simply says that when more than one of these regions are in contract negotiations and the negotiations can be consolidated. The bill has been amended to address concerns raised by judicial council by specifying that the mutual consent is required for consolidated bargaining.

Consolidated bargaining can lead to more efficient and faster resolution so that both the courts and the union members can get back to meeting the real challenges of recruiting and building interpretation capacity to ensure that everyone has access to the courts. With me today in support is Ignacio Hernandez. If he is here right now, or he may be running, stuck outside.

He's stuck outside. The sergeants maybe can grab

Oh, there he is.

Okay, you've arrived. Wonderful. Please come know the mic. We do it at the mic and you have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Ignacio Hernandez, on behalf of the California Federation of Interpreters. We are the statewide associate, a statewide union of court interpreters and cover almost every county in this state. We are running into a big issue here in California. Courts are increasingly relying on independent contractors instead of employees.

Some counties have as high as 60% employees in some of the major languages, such as Spanish. And this has been an issue that we've been fighting. Santa Clara County is one of the major problems. We see it in other counties as well.

One of the challenges that back in 2002 the state adopted the Interpreter Act that created a regional bargaining strategy. Because we only have about 1,000 court interpreters in the state, it was the best way to maximize the ability of the workers to collectively bargain.

We are running into a situation now where regions are bargaining individually, but now they're getting prolonged. So we have multiple regions bargaining at the same time. The union is a single union.

The leadership is made up of working interpreters, and they just simply cannot use the resources to critically engage in this collective bargaining process when multiple regions are going on at the same time and having to negotiate. Southern California, Northern California, multiple courts, as well as judicial councils.

So this bill creates an avenue where we can do multi regional bargaining at the same time and bring everybody to the table.

It's more efficient and we think we'll bring better agreements so that we can really focus on bringing in more court interpreters into our courts and provide the services needed for those who are attempting to access our justice system. So for those reasons, we're the sponsors and we ask for support.

Thank you. I think that not another one witness, is that right?

Only one.

So we'll move to mee toos. Are folks here in support of the bill want to offer me toos? Okay. We can move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness on this bill? Okay. Seeing none. Opposition me toos in the audience. Okay. Seeing none. We'll move to Members. Members? No. Okay. Would you like to close Assemblymember?

Respectfully, after aye vote.

Thank you. We have a, we have a motion from Senator Cortese.Call the roll

On file item 10. The motion is due pass to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call].

Okay, two to one. That bill is on call. We will move to file item 11. And that's AB 58. I'm sorry, 858.

All right, thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I'm presenting AB 858. This Bill ensures that hospitality workers will have rehiring protections after a declared State of Emergency, such as a pandemic or natural disaster. The Bill does two things. Expands rehiring protections to include hospitality workers affected by State of emergency, which would sunset in December of 2027.

And two, extends the COVID-19 rehiring protections to December 2027. Often after a natural disaster occurs, the state and federal Government steps in to support those displaced by disaster. But workers in the hospitality industry often suffer the economic consequences long after disaster relief agencies are gone.

The lingering economic impacts on tourism can mean that workers face eviction, bankruptcy, and long term unemployment. The Labor Commissioner has cited numerous employers for violating existing rehiring laws, which is why these protections need to be extended. And I'd like to introduce my witnesses in support, witnesses in support, who are hospitality workers.

Wonderful. Please step forward. You have two minutes each.

[Speaking Spanish]

It fails to address all the concerns that have popped up since then, you know, because of the inability of employees to opt out of us having to contact them every time there's a position open. It is upsetting former employees for years.

"Hello. Good morning. My name is Xochil Suniga and I'm a housekeeper in the hotel in Long Beach."

[Speaking Spanish]

"So, I've worked as a housekeeper at the Hotel Maya in Long beach for three years. That job is my livelihood and like a second home. I'm a dedicated worker who takes place pride in caring for every guest and welcoming them to our city."

[Speaking Spanish]

"Because hard work should mean job security."

[Speaking Spanish]

"But since the start of this year, occupancy at our particular hotel has been very low. I'm lucky to get scheduled even once a week. And many of my coworkers haven't worked at all."

[Speaking Spanish]

"As a mother, as a mother who's the main family's provider, this has been incredibly difficult."

[Speaking Spanish]

"Right now, the law only protects our right to return to work through the end of 2025. But many of us are still struggling, especially given the wildfires that ravaged LA County, impacting us even more."

[Speaking Spanish]

"AB 858 would extend recall rights given workers, giving workers, like me a fair chance to return as business recovers."

[Speaking Spanish]

"This Bill is a lifeline. With the World Cup and Olympics coming, we deserve a chance to get our jobs back. AB 858 would prioritize workers with the most experience, many of us Latina women of color, who have kept this industry going."

[Speaking Spanish]

"We are not disposable. We are the backbone of California's hospitality economy and AB 858 gives us hope and stability when we need it the most. I respectfully ask for your aye vote on this. Thank you."

Thank you. Next witness.

Honorable Chair and Members, Amy Heinschaik with Wildcat Consulting, representing Unite Here Local 11, a co-sponsor of this Bill, along with Unite Here International and the California Federation of Labor Unions. Local 11 currently represents over 32,000 hospitality workers in Southern California and Arizona.

AB 858 would extend recall rights for hospitality workers through 2027 so that workers who were laid off because of natural disasters will have the right to return to their same jobs when business recovers and workplaces are reopened.

AB 858 by Assemblymember Lee will extend the rehiring rights for the enacted SB 93, which was enacted in 2021, and SB 723, which is enacted in 2023, for hospitality workers after a state of declared emergencies, such as a natural disaster or pandemic until December 31st, 2027.

SB 93 and SB 723 are two of the most successful pieces of legislation for jobs in the history of California. Around 90% of housekeepers, servers, bartenders, cooks, and cashiers at hotels, airports, and events centers were laid off during the COVID-19 crisis, which is hundreds of thousands of workers.

Today, the vast majority of those workers have been returned—offered a return—to those same jobs in an orderly transition as business reopened. However, this transition back to work is not yet complete and we saw new layoffs after recent natural disasters.

Some hotel departments have still not reopened from the pandemic and now the tourism industry has been very impacted by natural disasters like fires in LA and Orange counties. In Santa Monica, for example, air quality concerns have torpedoed outdoor dining. Mass cancellations of organized trips has crippled tourism businesses.

Perry's alone lost nearly $90,000 in cancelled events for February, and the relocation of the Genesis Golf tournament from the nearby Riviera Country Club has impacted local hotels. Hollywood hotels have experienced very low occupancy. Many banquets were canceled. Events were canceled at Pasadena Convention Center and Rosebowl because of the displaced people using those venues for shelter.

Entire business districts in the fire zone will have to be rebuilt. And the Topanga Ranch Motel was destroyed by the Palisades Fire. We respectfully request your aye vote and thank Assemblymember Lee for his leadership on this issue.

Thank you. Okay. Support me too's. Name and affiliation.

Ethan Nagler, on behalf of the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Matt Broad here, on behalf of Unite Here International Union, co-sponsors on the Bill. Happy to answer any technical questions. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members, Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions, proud co-sponsor. Support. Thank you.

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

Now, we're going to move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Please step forward. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. I'm Julie Malinowski Ball, on behalf of the California Hotel and Lodging Association. We're here today opposing this Bill. You know, these statutes were created during the COVID-19 Pandemic, as you heard. It was an unprecedented global crisis.

And applying the same exact statute to any future state of emergency in the State of California, no matter how limited or localized, is something that we object to. This isn't just a policy extension. It's a major shift in labor law that we think is inappropriate. States of emergencies are not COVID.

They don't have the same impacts on the workforce that the COVID Pandemic did. But even if it did, the current statute imposes burdens on employers and employees that haven't been talked about yet. So, the measure would essentially say that everything that we had to do during COVID we have to do now.

However, because the sponsors of this measure sought its inclusion, former hotel employees are stuck with the annoyance, truly annoyance, that we keep getting heard from them. Texts, mail, emails. Employers were left spamming former employees for these positions, even though they have told us countless times they don't want to be contacted again.

Now to the state of emergency and the impact on the tourism industry. We feel impacts on the tourism industry all the time. It could be a state of emergency. It could be a fire that didn't produce a state of emergency. It could be something that the Legislature did in a new statute that impacted how hotels do business.

We can't sit there and say for everything that happens that impacts the tourism industry, we need to have a solution. But again, states of emergency—there's 56 on the books today. Now this Bill is going forward. This Bill means that could potentially we could be forced to.

Your two minutes is up.

Yeah, yeah.

Yeah. We just think that the—it needs to be shrunk in terms of, you know, what a state of emergency looks like, the time frame, so on and so forth. But we do object. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Members. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, respectfully in opposition. I want to echo the concerns of my colleague and just raise several other concerns.

Under 858, as written, it presumes that if a worker is laid off for a non disciplinary reason, it would be presumed to have been because of COVID and an applicable state of emergency.

The burden would then be on the employer to show otherwise and then to follow a process that we believe delays hiring and unfortunately, takes away all discretion that this individual industry would have as far as who they want to hire for any open positions.

And any misstep, whether it be in paperwork or otherwise, could subject the employer to penalties of up to $500 per day for when that violation continues to occur.

I also want to just note on the state of emergency piece, there was a very similar Bill in 2020, that was actually vetoed by the Governor, that included similar language tying the recall rehire provision to states of emergency.

And that veto message noted that tying the bill's provisions to a State of emergency will create a confusing patchwork of requirements in different counties at different times and is echoed by my colleague.

Really emphasize that when we have conditions that are impacting tourism or are impacting local areas, that hospitality is one of the industries that's really the hardest hit at those times. And we believe that unfortunately, this can't get create a very onerous burden that will actually delay hiring. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we have opposition me toos. Please step forward. State your name, affiliation.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris McKayley, on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Marlon Lara, with the California Restaurant Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Jacob Brint, with the California Retailers Association, in respectful opposition.

Chloe King, with Political Solutions, on behalf of the California Travel Association, in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, looks like that's the end of opposition. We'll come to the dais. Members? Senator Cortese.

Just question for the author on what dialogue he's still having or not.

I just want, of all the things that have been said, for whatever it's worth, I'm not, I don't find too compelling the idea that, that the pandemic, just because it was global is more significant than some other declaration of emergency that might happen—earthquake, wildfire, whether it's in a, you know, typically in a particular county or region, it could actually have, I think, even more impact to employment, one way or the other.

Hotels housing people, for example, and needing more employees or less employees if, you know, they're sort of victimized by that.

So, I don't think that cuts one way or the other on a Bill like this that's really about the employment impact per se of, you know, of necessary layoffs or, you know, even, even temporary termination, which is, I think the direction the bill's trying to go.

The op, you know, the opt out at some point is somewhat of a compelling, you know, message, I think we hear from the opposition.

You know, how many times do they need to go back, and I don't know if there's been work done on that or what your thought process is on that, but, or if I didn't read the fine print.

But I'm just wondering what's your take on, at what point does that, does that option essentially expire because people moved on?

Well, Senator, I think it's a really good point you made that I think that just because the pandemic is different in scope or global, I don't think is necessarily just as harmful or detrimental to a community or tourism industry in general as, say, the wildfires that happened in LA or even major earthquakes or anything like that.

So, I think that's why it is compelling to put all together. We continue to have dialogue with the sponsors, with all stakeholders included. So, you know, some of the amendments are processed today are reflective of that where we want to make sure it's about the specific sites, right?

Because we're having large scale declarations that might not affect one part of the county if it's just the other half that's affected. I don't know if my sponsors want to talk anything about the technical things, but we continue to just have dialogue on things.

It's just this.

Sorry, you may, I'm sorry, trying to clarify what amendments but we, I just want...

Not, not related to what the Senator talked about.

Okay, got it, got it. So, thank you.

Yeah. Through the Chair. Matt, Matt Brod, here on behalf of Unite Here International Union. Just to clarify the amendment that Assemblymember Lee's talking about limited the scope of the, you know, the emergency and that was at the request of the opposition. They raised that in the last Committee in the other House.

And you know, we committed to addressing that and did address that. This is the first time I'm hearing about this opt out issue. Certainly something that we're happy to take into account if that's some, you know, a real issue.

You know, my initial sort of feedback to it is unless there's an obligation on the employer to keep going back to the employee over and over again, that's required by law or statute, if it's just that they're failing to remove asking the employee from a list, you know, that's something that an employer could do on their own to stop bugging an employee.

But if there's a problem here, we're certainly happy to address it within this Bill or consider how we might address it.

Thank you. I mean, I'm satisfied very much with the idea that sponsors willing to keep working on that. I don't know the exact solution or should we be trying to fashion that from the dais, but it just seems it's very similar to a records retention issue.

At some point, there just probably needs to be a cut off, you know, once due diligence has, has been conducted. That's my two cents. But I'm happy to move the Bill. I think it's going in the right direction.

Thank you, Senator.

Yeah, I, I appreciate that. And so, the conversations are still moving forward. I, I think the opposition mentioned something about spamming. I, I wouldn't use that term because we know there are some employees who do want to come back to work. But I agree with Senator Cortese.

Glad that the conversations are happening about those employees who might not want to be called back and they can opt out. Would you like to close?

Yes, certainly, on the aspect of the repeat contact is a new one raised by the opposition for me as well. But I do think it's important that we remember that we do want our laid off employees to get chances to get those jobs back. You know, you never know because, again, this is we're making—the employer is obligated to make the offer and wait for five business days.

They can make simultaneous offers and it's only five business days. Right? You could be in the middle of many things that are happening in life or the disaster still ongoing.

We want to be able to give that flexibility to our hard working men and women that work in hospitality. And especially, this Bill encapsulates that, especially when we have global or even very localized disasters, they can really reshape the entire landscape.

And tourism was one of the most hardest hit places and we want to retain that really high quality workforce that can come back and really rejuvenate the local economy. So, with that, I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion for Senator Cortese. Let's call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you.

Thank you, Assemblymember. This is a 2 to 1 vote. It's on call. So, I see Assemblymember Schiavo, she's—please come to the podium when you're ready. But we also want to recognize one of our future leaders, Carlos, who is here with us. Everyone say hello to Carlos.

Carlos is the son of our Committee staff and he's here observing today. So, we're glad to see you, Carlos. Welcome. Assemblymember, please proceed.

That's a nice way to start. Well, thank you so much, Madam Chair and Members. I have a really, really simple Bill for you today presenting AB 406, which will provide clarifying and technical changes for AB 2499, a Bill I authored last year. These are not substantive changes.

AB 2499 allowed for family Members of victims and survivors of domestic violence, sexual assault, stalking and other violence to take unpaid leave, and time off to address safety concerns to heal or support their family. AB 406 furthers AB 2499, by adding timelines that clearly delineate enforcement authority between the Civil Rights Department and the Labor Commission office.

Adds a sunset date to labor code Section 230 and 230.1, and aligns labor codes with the government code to correct permitted use of paid sick leave. These technical fixes will help survivors of crime and their families to take the leave that they need to heal without fear or concern of losing their jobs.

And I respectfully request deny vote.

Thank you, Assembly Member. Are there any witnesses. No. No witnesses. Okay. Any folks here in support of the Bill. Me too's.

Hi, Ashley Hoffman from the chamber. Just a thank you to the author. Some of the cleanup in the Bill was requested by my Members. So really appreciate her running this Bill. Thank you.

Thank you. Good to see you in support. Wow. See, we're going to go to opposition. Do we have any opposition witnesses. Seeing none. Any opposition me too's. Okay, coming to the dais.

Move the Bill.

Thank you. Senator Cortese has a motion. Call the roll.

Thank you. We have a motion. Would you like to close.

Respectfully request an aye vote.

Excuse me. On file item nine. The motion is Do Passed to the Committee on the Judiciary. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Strickland. Cortese. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Laird.

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 0. We'll take it out when the Members return. Thank you.

Assemblymember Chin is with us. Please proceed to the podium. Begin when you're ready.

Madam Chair, thank you so much for your time. I really appreciate your indulgence. Before I begin, I want to thank the Committee for all their hard work in making the Bill better. Taking time out of the busy schedule to meet with me regarding this Bill.

I'm here to present AB 1048, a straightforward but important Bill, that addresses a growing challenge in California's workers compensation system. Unauthorized payment reductions for medical providers who treat injured workers.

Currently, many providers are seeing the reimbursements reduced not because they agreed to it, but because of third party entities or silent network arrangements that apply discounts without the provider's knowledge or consent. These reductions often fall well below the official fee schedule and in some cases even below Medicare rates.

Unfortunately, current law does not specify and allow providers to dispute these reductions through the independent Bill review process, or better known as IBR, a process that created a resolve billing disputes between medical providers and claims administrators. As a result, providers have little to no recourse when their payments are unfairly reduced. This issue has real consequences.

In San Diego, for example, an orthopedic surgeon performed a carpal tunnel syndrome procedure with an expected reimbursement rate of $672.50. Instead, they received just $548.54, an unexplained discount she never agreed to. She's now the only physician in her four Doctor practice still treating injured workers. That may not be sustainable for much longer.

AB 1048 addresses this problem by clarifying that payment disputes involving unauthorized or contract based discounts are eligible for review through the IBR. To be clear, AB 1048 does not require the IBR process to review every contract. It simply clarifies that disputed payment reductions can be reviewed through the existing IBR process.

The Bill also does not modify or nullify existing arbitration provisions, but rather supplement any existing arbitration provisions. AB 1048 is a reasonable target solution that strengthens existing processes and supports both providers and patients. Here to testify on our behalf we have Dr. Basil Besh and also to answer any technical questions Diane Prohaska, thank you.

Thank you and witnesses, please use the mic. You each have two minutes.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association, I'd just like to really briefly thank the author for authoring this Bill and the staff for work with us on this. As the Senate Member said, it's a very straightforward Bill. We have had a conversation with the Department of Industrial Relations, DWC and they've been very positive.

Obviously they don't have a position on the Bill, but this is simply put, this just gives an option for providers to be able to get some relief when they have an issue with payments in the contract. But I'd like to turn most of my time to Dr. Basil Besh from our Association. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chairperson. Thank you for allowing me to address the Committee. This is really a transparency Bill. If a physician signs a contract that authorizes a discount, then they ought to be able to see that contract. What we've seen in practice is draconian discounts. And then when you say, well, what's the justification for this.

We're unable to get that contract. We have a group down in Los Angeles. When the California Orthopedic Association stepped in and said, show us the contracts. Turns out they were underpaid by half a million dollars. Imagine a small business being underpaid and then not being able to say, well, what's the justification for this.

So this is purely a transparency Bill. IBR is independent Bill review is already a mechanism that exists for Bill adjudication or disputes in billing. And they absolutely have the technical expertise. The same company that does independent Bill review does independent medical review. So they'll review the medical necessity of very complex surgical procedures.

So opposition claim that they don't have the infrastructure or the expertise to do this is really not accurate. They absolutely do. This is a simple process where we have a different group where they were getting discounted consistently. 15% asked the contract. 2 years, no contract produced. California Orthopedic Association stepped in.

Turns out the contract only justified an 8% discount. Had this gone through IBR, it would have been resolved within about three weeks. IBR would ask for the contract that says 8%. Now it allows a negotiation between the physician and the and the payer.

And I think really what this comes down to is access to care for injured workers. Right now we have an access to care issue. Because of all of this, you can't get work comp treatment at any of the major UC centers, Stanford, UCSF, UCLA, none of them except work comp.

Because none of them would put up with this kind of opacity around payment. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else in support of the Bill, Me too's. Please step forward. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Ryan Spencer, Path to California Medical Association in support.

Thank you. Okay, well, some more. Okay, one more support.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Don Schinske on behalf of the Western Occupational Environmental Medical Association, in support.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move to opposition. Opposition witnesses, please step forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on workers compensation in Prism. We are respectfully opposed to AB 1048 in its current form, but we do appreciate the multiple conversations that we've had with both the author and the sponsor over the past several months. With respect to the stated problem.

We just note that billing and payments in any large system of benefit delivery are very complex and somewhat burdensome for all parties involved. If you look at even state administered programs that are similar, there are very similar problems with networks, et cetera.

So we want to highlight a few issues as it pertains to workers Comp. One, Employers who are adjusting bills have a tough job. The state dictates reimbursement levels for specific medical services, but those aren't the amounts that are charged by medical providers.

We have to take those bills and then spend a fair amount of time and energy and cost adjusting them down to the appropriate amount. Per state law, employers also are required to pay bills quickly if they're electronically submitted. They're supposed to be paid in as few as 15 days.

That really puts us in a crunch to deal with this complex system of contracts and everything and get it right so errors are made. Much like every other system of medical delivery, there's also sometimes overlapping PPO contracts, but both providers and insurance companies and employers agree to those for a reason.

On the provider side, they do it to get volume of people coming in the door. So there are a reason that people sign up for these various contracts. Regarding the solution in AB 1048, we just want to flag our major concern right here is that we're not sure that IBR is the appropriate venue for a legal dispute.

What we're talking about here is interpreting for money the applicability of a contract, which we believe is the practice of law. IBR is not staffed by attorneys. We don't think that that's necessarily a good fit. We are, however, meeting with the author and sponsors on Friday.

We hope to reach consensus on some sort of solution that moves the ball in the right direction. But we are opposed to the Bill in its current form. Appreciate the time. Thank you.

Thank you. Chair and Members, Faith Borges, on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, which represents over 100 JPAs that provide benefits to cities, counties, school districts, special districts, and not for profit JPAs.

Thank you. Another witness. You have two minutes.

JPAs enter provider agreements to manage costs efficiently and AB 1048 effectively overrides these arrangements by routing contract disputes into IBR, a system as you've heard, not designed for nuanced contract interpretation. IBR reviewers are insurance and billing professionals, not contract law special specialists. Raising doubt about their ability to adjudicate complex contract disputes.

This Bill burdens the DWC and IBR vendors with expanded duties which likely generates new administrative expenses and delays. This also translates into delayed reimbursements, likely adding legal review costs and increase appeals activity due to opaque decision making standards. Our request of this Committee and of the author is your opposition to AB 1048.

Until there's a fiscal impact analysis that includes public entities, IBR's legal capacity and expertise to resolve contract based payment disputes is independently evaluated and proposed statutory updates explicitly preserve negotiated contracts and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. Without such measures, AB 1048 undermines contractual systems that deliver predictability and preservation of scarce public dollars.

We also look forward to the continuing efforts with this chair and appreciate his time. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move to opposition. Me too's.

Ashley Hoffman from the Cal Chamber and look forward to continued discussions. Thank you.

Please state your name and affiliation.

Laura Curtis with the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. Respectful opposition and look forward to continued conversation. Thank you.

Okay, so Assemblymember, we don't have Members, so we don't have a motion right now. It sounds like you're working with the opposition on this. And we will take the board Bill up once our Members return. You're welcome to close.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Really appreciate it. And I respectfully ask your aye vote when the time comes. Thank you.

Thank you. All right, I see. Assemblymember Ortega, please come to the podium when you're ready. We're going to take up file item number five first. The Assemblymember with us all afternoon. She has a total of six bills with us today, so begin when you're ready. No, we're going to do 13:29, File item number five.

Good afternoon. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators for the opportunity to present AB 1329 today. AB 1329 addresses the subsequent Injury Benefit Trust Fund, which is a very long name that does not adequately describe the program's importance.

The Fund was first created after World War II to help injured soldiers reenter the workforce, because someone who has a disabling injury is more prone to a subsequent injury. And employers are held responsible for injuries acquired on the job. Employers after World War II were less likely to hire injured veterans.

The Fund was created to spread the risk so patriotic employers didn't carry the burden of workers comp for any subsequent injuries. It has since been expanded to apply to all disabled workers. Currently, every employer in the state contributes less than 2 cents per one hundred dollars, in insurance premiums into the Fund.

The Fund then carries the risk and obligations of workers comp for any subsequent injuries to disabled workers. AB 1329 makes a series of thoughtful changes will reduce litigation costs, reduce medical legal costs and reduce the number of 100% disabled cases.

The cumulative impact will reduce employer assessments by 20 to 25%, while maintaining the lessons financial risk to employers who give previously disabled workers a second chance. Witnesses with me today, I have Jason Marcus representing the California Applicant Attorneys Association.

Wonderful. And you may step forward. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Members of the Committee again, Jason Marcus with the California Applicants Attorneys Association, or CAH as we call ourselves. We're a group of about a thousand attorneys up and down the State of California that represent California's injured workers. Want to respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 1329.

As the Assemblymember said, the Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust Fund is a critical program that the state offers through its workers compensation system to provide disability benefits to those most catastrophically injured workers in California System. The statutes have been in place since 1945.

They haven't been amended since 1959 and we do think that some changes need to be made. Last year in 2024, the Department of Industrial Relations through Rand Corporation obtained a study that looked at the Subsequent Injuries Fund and identified some potential issues for changes, three of those which are contained in this Bill.

First, it will bring the use of qualified medical examiners in claims under the fundamentals in line with existing law in California's workers compensation system. Two, it will set and make clear the evidentiary standards that are needed for claimants to access benefits from the Fund.

And third, it will take the definition of permanent disability as used in the Subsequent Injuries Fund statute and make it consistent with existing law as was reformed in 2004 and 2012 in the last major workers comp reforms. We think those stops changes will, as the Member said, save roughly 20 to 25% in assessments for employers.

Finally, I want to point out that we have reached out to the Administration to ask for their input and their feedback and their proposals on this Bill. And we have yet to hear from them. Thank you.

Thank you. Let's move then to. Is there another witness. Okay, we'll move to support Me Too's. Please step forward to the mic and state your name, position and affiliation. Any me too's in support okay. We will move to opposition. Is there anyone speaking in opposition to the Bill. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Members. Jason Schmelzer here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers Compensation and prism. SIBTF does have a long history in the State of California, and in the past it has served a very important purpose.

But the Fund has spun wildly out of control over the past decade, and we're opposed to the Bill and its current Fund form because we don't think it goes far enough to get that system under control. Not everything in the Bill, from our perspective, is bad.

I just want to be very clear about that, when I come up here. Total payments in the SIBTF grew from $13.6 million in 2010 to $232 million in 2022. There's two categories of main benefits. Benefit payments to injured workers.

Permanent disability grew from 11.6 million to 153 million, and then the administrative costs from 2 million to 79 million. These costs are played by every employer across the state. It's easy to say, you know, two cents per every $100 of payroll, but what we're really looking at is liability approaching $10 billion.

Those are funds that are paid by the State of California, local public, employers, private employers. Unfortunately, from our perspective, 1329 doesn't go nearly far enough to get this system under control. And we're opposed for that reason.

DIR Did Commission a study through Iran and, and AB 1329 frankly, doesn't scratch the surface in terms of what that report identified as problems and recommendations. There have been some indications, most recently in the governor's may revise, that more systematic, systematic reform is on the table, and we'd like to pursue that as an alternative. Thank you.

Thank you. Another opposition witness. You have two minutes.

Good morning. Ashley Hoffman, on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, also opposed, unless amended. Again, really appreciate the intent of the Bill and the need to address the SIBTF, but I would just echo the comments of my colleague.

We believe there are several recommendations in the RAND report that was commissioned by DIR because of the effect that this Fund is having not only on the state and local budget, but also really on the department's resources. And we believe more of those forms do need to be enacted.

For example, some adjustments to the underlying conditions that would qualify. And then also addressing a recent case law change that changed how PD is calculated for purposes of what payouts of claims those look like. And the impact again on not only the Department, but also the state budget and private employer. So thank you.

Okay. Any opposition me too's, please step forward and state your name and affiliation.

Good morning, Chair Members of the Committee, Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association. And oppose unless amended position. Thank you.

Okay, that looks like the end of opposition. Members comment, questions.

No questions.

Okay. Would you like to close.

At the appropriate time, we respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you. I think we have a motion from Senator Cortese.

Why did I call you Durazo. Cortese, Please call the roll.

On file item five, AB 1329. The motion is do Pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Yes. Senator Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Smallwood-Cuevas, aye. Strickland, no. Strickland, no. Cortese, aye. Cortese, aye. Durazo. Laird.

Okay, we have a vote of 2 to 1. We'll hold that on call. We're going to take up a little bit of housekeeping here on a previous bill. Can we get a motion on file item I?

I move item 14.

Thank you.

On file item 14, which was AB 1048 by Assembly Member Chen. The motion is to pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Again, this is on file item 14, which we just heard presentation on. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of 4 to 0 on that bill. It's on call and we will, while. We have our numbers.

Okay, we're going to lift call while we have a critical mass of Members here. So. One moment. Assembly Member on file, item number nine. Okay, let's start with the consent calendar. We have a current vote of 2 to 0. Please, Lieutenant, call the roll on the.

Consent calendar, which is file items 1, 8, 15 and 16. Current vote is 2 to 0. [Roll Call] Okay, on the consent calendar, we have a vote of 4-0.

It remains on call. File item number nine. AB406.

On file, item nine. Our current vote is 2-0. The motion is do pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay, that's a vote of 3 to 1. Bill remains on call. File item number 10.

AB792 on file, item number 10. The current vote is 2 to 1. Chair is voting Aye. Vice Chair voting no. The motion is due passed to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3 to 1. That bill is still on call. We're going to File Item number 11. AB858 on file.

Item number 11. The current vote is 2 to 1. The motion is due passed the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

Three to one. We're on call. Three to one. That bill remains on call. File item number 12. AB 889 on file, item 12.

The current vote is 2-0. The motion is do pass to the Committee on Appropriations. Chairs voting Aye. [Roll Call]

Okay, we have a vote of 3-0. That bill is on call. File item number 13.

AB 963 on file, item number 13. The motion is due pass to the Committee on the Judiciary. [Roll Call]

Okay. Current vote there is 3-1.

The bill remains on call. Okay, Assembly Member, thank you for your patience. We are going to move to File item number two, AB 339.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators, for the opportunity to present AB339 today. I would like to begin by thanking the Committee for their Work, and I will be accepting the amendments in the analysis. MMBA requires that local governments provide reasonable notice to local employee unions when they are contracting out bargaining unit work.

However, local governments inconsistently comply with the requirements to notify the union and negotiate the decisions or impacts to contract out work. AB339 would require local governments to notify unions of plans to contract out bargaining work, unit work 60 days before engaging in an RFP or RFQ process.

AB399 does not prohibit contracting out and AB339 will not prevent local governments from responding to emergencies like the LA fires because we have a very broad emergency exemption in the bill. Unlike the Federal Government, which has laid off tens of thousands of federal workers, AB339 is a step in ensuring that California has strong public sector workforce.

With me today testifying is witness Sandra Barrero with SEIU California and William Hugh, President of AFSCME Local 2428 from the East Bay Regional Parks District, which is in my district. 20.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members, Sandra Barrero, on behalf of SEIU California, we are the co sponsors of this bill. AB 339 reaffirms the fundamental right of unions to negotiate to protect jobs. To oppose this right is to be fundamentally opposed to unions.

The Trump Administration has already laid off more than 170,000 public employees to replace them with private contracts. And yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump Administration could continue to do so. This bill includes broad exceptions, not just for emergencies, but for any exigent circumstance.

It was intentionally drafted this way to give employers flexibility to avoid service disruptions. And the same applies to the meet and confer requirement. The existing interpretation of the meet and confer requirement in the MMBA is to only apply when reasonable. So only contracts that violate existing law could be impacted.

In an extreme circumstance, like a contract to replace laid off employees, the union would have to file at perb and PERB would have to make that determination. But again, that is existing law.

We already have RFP notification requirements in several contracts, including Los Angeles County, Santa Cruz, Santa Clara and San Francisco, which shows the concerns about this Bill aren't based on the policy. So with the broad exemptions in the Bill, it is no exaggeration to say that opposing our rights to protect jobs is to be opposed to unions.

And while I hope this isn't the case for the nonprofit employers, and while SEIU represents some nonprofit employees, the vast majority of this industry is not unionized. I respectfully urge your Aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness. You have two minutes as well.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair Small Cuevas and Committee Members. My name is William Daniel Huff, President of AFSCME Local 2428, representing over 600 workers, the East Bay Regional Park District, and for my day job, I'm a firefighter.

We strongly support AB339 based on our union's direct experience of having a minimum staffing model workplace where vacancies can land for years while union work is contracted out, often with little to no advance warning. We frequently learn about our work being contracted out with only a few days notice or even after the fact.

For example, we learned that there were several Members in our several workers in our IT Department that were on a five year contract and were not represented by us. Ashpe 2428 also has fuels reduction crews, a trail crew and park rangers among many other staff. They have year round employment benefits, retirement and a career path.

Over the past two years more than $900,000 of their work has been contracted out to one nonprofit alone and more to for profit entities. We learned of this contract by seeing it on the agenda for a board of directors meeting.

This alters our Members scope of work while making them and other workers uncertain if their responsibilities are also at risk of being changed.

Part of the rationale for allocating that nearly 1 $1.0 million sum to to not hiring more staff but contracting was a sense of urgency due to deferred maintenance and a backlog of projects, both which are the legacy of a minimum staffing model.

AB339 would ensure that employers cannot strategically leave critical positions vacant, then use contracting out as a way to solve a crisis of their own creation.

We have experienced this with long term vacancies at our agency, leaving budgeted positions such as heavy equipment operators, mechanics and information technology professionals vacant for years and then hiring contracted workers to complete the work, citing not enough personnel and again a sense of urgency.

In the past year we have all witnessed what a misguided attempt at government efficiency can lead to. Efficiency is not hollowing out the public sector and then giving the taxpayer the lowest possible bidder.

Efficiency is along the lines of AB339 which encourages labor and management to work together to plan for the future and the best way to utilize the taxpayers money while maintaining their trust. It's simply good governance. Thank you, thank you.

Any #MeToos in support of the bill please step forward. State your name and affiliation.

Vince Seguru, on behalf of the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in strong support.

Clementine Rook, on behalf of the Sheet Metal workers Union Local 104 in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Joe Cruz, on behalf of the California State Council of Laborers want to thank the authority and staff and the sponsors for working with us on some concerns that we had. We fully support our brothers and sisters. From AFSCME and SEIU on this one. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, Members, Chris Walker, on behalf of the California Association of Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors in support of the bill. Thank you.

Madam Chair and Members. Mike West, on behalf of the State Building Trades and support. Thank you.

Eric Larson. I'm a wastewater recycling plant operator. I work for East Bay Municipal Utility District. I'm also the President of AFSCME Local 444. We speak in support of the topic.

Good morning, Brian Mayor Montes, with AFSCME California proud co sponsor and support.

Hello. Meadow Darcy. I'm the Chief Steward of AFSCME Local 2428 and I stand in support.

I'm Patricia Wayo, with the San Mateo Housing Authority. I am the chief steward. Excuse me. And I'm in support. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee. Al Austin, political Director with AFSCME Council 57 and strong supporter of this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Lakeisha Young. I'm in support of this bill. I'm LVN of County of Los Angeles working at Twin Towers Correctional Facility. And I respectfully ask for your Aye votes. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Delora Harden. I'm a custodian supervisor with the Los Angeles County Department. I'm with 721 local and I strongly urge you to vote Aye on this deal.

Good morning. My name is Janet Beckles. I'm an LVN at Twin Towers Correctional Facility in Los Angeles. Also 721 local. I ask you to please vote Aye on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Sharonda Wade. I am a supervising children social worker with the Department of Children and Family Services. I also sit on the Executive board for SEIU 721, and we ask that you support this bill.

Hello, everyone. My name is Cynthia White, and I work for the Department of Public Health, LA County, and I am a SEIU proud union Member. And I ask that you support this bill. AB339. Thank you.

Hello. Good morning. Vertically challenged. Hi, my name is Samantha Lyle. I work for the Department of Children and Family Services, Los Angeles County. I'm an SEIU Member and I ask that you please support this bill.

About the opposite problem. Hi, my name is Alexander Kraft. I work in behavioral health services for the County of San Diego. I'm also on the Executive board of SEIU 221. And we respectfully request an Aye vote on this item. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Stephanie Jones. I'm Local 1. I'm sorry, again, I'll start over. I'm Tiffany Jones. I'm Local 1. I am also the chief of my Local 1 at City of Berkeley. I am the workforce development coordinator. So I see all of this happening and I strongly urge that you vote on this bill. Aye.

Hello. My name is Benjamin Sennis. I'm a human services specialist at San Diego County and a proud SEIU Member. And I ask that you support AB339. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Teresa Velasco, and I am a community health worker. I work for the Department of Health Services with Los Angeles County. I sit on the board of SEIU as an Executive board Member.

And we're here with our brothers and sisters of SEIU to say that we strongly ask that you vote aye on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning, everyone. My name is Tristan Kent. I am an electrical technician with the City of South San Francisco Public Works. I'm the Vice President of Local 829, which is in the San Mateo county region. I wanted to mention that my Members and their families strongly support this bill and are urging you to also.

I just want to mention that in this bill, transparency for these kind of items. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kyla Valenti. I'm the treasurer of AFSCME Local 829 and I'm an eligibility worker at the County of San Mateo. And I strongly urge your support on this bill. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Patricia Munoz. I'm a job sewer for local Tin Stanislaus County Health Service Agency. And we support. Support this bill. Strongly support.

Hi, my name is Marisa La Solis. I'm also from Local 10 Sans County Medical Assistant, and I support AB339.

Hello, my name is Jessica Probst. I'm an eligibility worker out of Madera County. I'm the current President of the Local 2703 in Madera and we're here in strong support of AB 339. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Mason. I'm an intern with AFSCME Council 57 and a student at UC Merced. And I urge you guys strongly to vote aye on this bill.

Good morning. My name is Dana Jensen. I work for Merced County Behavioral Health as a dual diagnosis specialist. I'm with AFSCME 2703 and I'm in support of this bill. Thank you.

Hello, I'm Gerald Phelps, union rep for. AFSCME Local 2703. I'm here in support of the bill. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Jeremiah Miller. I'm a union rep, business agent with AFSCME Council 57. I represent over 2000 workers in the Sacramento area. We are in support of government transparency and thus we are in support of a Bill. 339. Thank you.

Madam Chair Members. Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Fed proud co sponsor. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Members. Megan Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.

Madam Chair, Members. Louie Costa, with Smart Transportation Division in support.

CHP Hannah on behalf of the California Nurses Association in strong.

Chair And Members. Pat Moran, representing the Orange County Employees Association and support. Thank you.

Okay, that looks like the end of support. Let's move to opposition. Is there opposition witnesses? You each have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair Members. I'm Jean Hurst, here today on behalf of The Urban Counties of California in respectful opposition to AB339. Unfortunately, this measure will undermine our county's ability to provide much needed and much wanted services to our communities at a time when resources from the state and Federal Governments are declining.

First, we want to acknowledge that there is a workforce crisis in the public sector. Our counties are experiencing it firsthand and we are eager to work collaboratively with our labor partners on creative strategies to attract and retain professionals to meet our service obligations.

We do not agree, however, that delaying or otherwise deterring contracting with private, qualified private and nonprofit nonprofit sector partners is a helpful means to that end. Instead, AB 339 ties local agencies hands by refocusing efforts on meeting notification deadlines and participating in meet and confer discussions that are unlikely to be resolved in any timely way.

It's important to note that an administrative remedy is already available to recognize employee organizations when they believe a local agency is neglected to meet existing notifications and meet and confer requirements regarding contracting.

Failure to adhere to existing requirements under the MMBA and and related case law subjects a local agency to a potential unfair labor practice charge at the Public Employment Relations Board. Collective bargaining agreements in many instances already contemplate provisions around contracting out.

And again, when a component of a CBA is breached by the employer, the employee organization has the right to file a complaint with perb. There's no evidence that PERB is not vindicating the interests of recognized employee organizations. Quite the contrary.

We dispute that local agencies are inappropriately withholding public records from employee organizations and further disagree that local agencies are failing to comply with existing notification requirements. If either were true, there are already existing remedies for sponsors to address these issues. And for these reasons, UCC opposes AB339 and respectfully requests your no vote.

I've also been asked to express the opposition of The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, as well as the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness, two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Committee Members. My name is Wilfredo Cruz, Jr. I'm the Executive Director of Community Resource Project, a nonprofit that provides fundamental services to families and individuals in Sacramento, San Joaquin, Sutter and Yuba counties through programs in energy efficiency, health, education and career development.

We're also a Member of Cal Nonprofits, a statewide policy alliance of more than 10,000 organizations. And on behalf of Community Resource Project, and along with Cal Nonprofits, I must register a strong opposition to AB339. This Bill would negatively impact our ability to secure contracts and provide essential services to our communities.

By subjecting nearly every contract to new notice and meeting conferred requirements, this bill will create unnecessary administrative barriers leading to delays in critical services. These delays will create a lack of access for the most in need and are counterproductive, slowing down partnerships that local agencies have already identified as necessary.

We have experienced several of our government contracts being frozen just this year. Further delays pose a significant risk to the future of funding essential programs to provide life saving assistance to our underserved communities.

The timely and stressful relationship we have with our local agency has allowed US to, in 2024, help more than 2,500 families avoid power shutoffs and provide more than 20 or sorry 221,000 mothers, babies and children with nutrition and food services. AB339 creates redundant noticing requirements that threaten this work without providing a clear public benefit.

Nonprofits like ours have strong partnerships with local agencies because we are trusted, experienced and have deep local expertise. With the current federal funding challenges, local governments and nonprofits should have the flexibility to meet community needs, not have more barriers placed in their way.

Local agencies depend on nonprofits to promptly serve vulnerable Californians and fill gaps that the public sector is not always equipped to deliver. AB339 raises serious concerns for California's nonprofits, and I urge you to oppose it. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay, now we have opposition. #MeToos. Please step forward and state your name and affiliation.

Dixie Tammaniego, on behalf of the California Alliance of Child and Family Services in opposition. Thank you.

John Moffatt, on behalf of the American Council of Engineering Companies of California, in opposition.

John Mchale, on behalf of Lake County, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair Members. Jennifer Fearing, on behalf of the California Association of Nonprofits and San Diego Humane Society, in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Senators. Richard Markson, on behalf of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the California Chapters of The American Public Works Association in opposition.

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

Yeah. Julie Melanowski Ball on behalf of the Contra Costa Water District in opposition.

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

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

Good morning. Dylan Elliott, on behalf of the counties of Mendocino, Kern, Fresno, Merced, Placer and San Joaquin, all in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Jason Schmelzer, here on behalf of PRISM and Salsa in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Alan Abs, with the Bay Area Air Quality Management District in opposition.

Hi. Lily McKay, on behalf of Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District in opposition. Thank you.

Cassandra Mar, on behalf of the town of Apple Valley in respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the Board of Supervisors for the counties of Siskiyou, Nevada, Sutter and Butte, as well as on behalf of the South San Joaquin Irrigation District and the California Animal Welfare Association. All in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Jeff Neal, representing Contra Costa County. Also opposed.

Farrah Mc Daid Ting, on behalf of the County Health Executives Association of California in respectful opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association. Respectfully opposed. Also, on behalf of my colleagues at the Rural County Representatives of California and the Association of California Healthcare Districts, thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the cities of Bakersfield, Beaumont, Belmont, Foster City, Redwood City and Vernon, all in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good morning. Brendan Orpickey with the California Transit Association in opposition.

Good morning, Chair and Members. Doug Huston, representing the California park and Recreation Society. Respectfully opposed.

Good morning. Amber Rossow, on behalf of the Association of California Water Agencies in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Nicole Vordleman, on behalf of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and San Bernardino County in opposition.

Good morning. Molly Mallow, on behalf of the California Staffing Professionals and American Staffing Association in opposition. Thank you.

Okay, seeing the end of our #MeToos for opposition, we'll come to the D. Senator Cortese.

Thank you. First of all, you know, thank you to the author for the. The work on this and I know a lot of work just in the last couple of days to. To clarify some things. We heard that I think, at least on the support side with some of the witnesses like Mr. Cruz.

So I'm happy to see those concerns taken care of. I wanted to clarify something, especially since there's you know, some significant opposition coming from my own district, especially on the nonprofit side. Haven't heard that much from the business community or the organizations, the government organizations like CSAC, League of Cities.

But I think the concerns that they may have today are similar to ones that I had during my first term on the San Jose City Council when I had joined that council coming off of a pretty significant active business background, a labor friendly business background, but a business background nevertheless.