Assembly Standing Committee on Public Employment and Retirement

Good morning, and welcome to the Assembly Committee on Public Employment and Retirement. Before we begin, I have several announcements. File item 4AB1844 Ramos has been placed on the consent calendar. We've entered this morning. We welcome Rose Raspath, who is the Republican caucus consultant, for this hearing. Welcome, Rose.

Thank you.

For this hearing, will we we will be limiting substance testimony to two primary witnesses on each side of the bill, and each will have two minutes to speak. All others may only say their names, organization, if any, and position on the bill. As a reminder, primary witnesses in support must be those accompanied by the author or who has registered as a support position with the committee. And the primary witness in opposition must have their opposition opposition registered with the committee. All other support and opposition can be stated at the standing microphone would call upon to simply state your name, affiliation, and position.

For committee members, since our hearings are public and some have traveled far to be here, in respect for them and the author, please allow the author to complete their opening remarks regarding the bill before making a motion so that the public has an idea of what the bill is and what it is about and why it is proposed. If a motion is made during the author's opening remark, I'll simply say that the motion will be recognized at the appropriate time. For authors and their staff, you'll note that our hearing is public noticed as file order. Your staff should be monitoring, I can't speak this morning. Monitoring, this hearing to assist you with coming at the appropriate time to present your bill.

Finally, the assembly has experienced a number of disruptions to committee and floor proceedings in the last few years, but last year, it was great. We didn't have any of this. Because we seek to protect the rights of all who participate in the legislative process and can effectively deliberate on critical issues facing California so that everyone is absolutely clear, conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or impedes the orderly conduct of this hearing is prohibited. We will not accept such behavior or behavior that incites or threatens violence. To address any such conduct, I'll direct the individual to stop and warn them if they continue, they'll be removed from participating in this hearing or from the capital, and we'll temporarily recess the hearing if necessary so that the sergeants can restore order.

Hopefully, it won't come to that. Thank you. That was a mouthful. Members, oh, we don't have a quorum. In the absence of a quorum, we'll start as a subcommittee. And so we'll follow the order starting with AB 1582 Ortega. Good morning.

Good morning. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, for allowing me to present AB 1582 today. AB 1582 would prevent the University of California from continuing to disregard arbitration outcomes that resolve disputes related to UC contracting network in violation of collective bargaining agreements. For decades, the UC has contracted out service worker jobs and replaced them with cheaper labor. In 2020, AFSCME 3299 and UC signed a CBA establishing a general prohibition of contracting out of workers at UC.

Under the agreement, should UC decide to outsource jobs and disagreement and a disagreement arises, the outsourcing contract must be reviewed in an expedited arbitration. UC continues to violate these signed collective bargaining agreements by disregarding any arbitrator's decision UC doesn't like. To address this problem, AB 1582 bill makes it unfair labor practice for a higher education employer to circumvent or disregard an arbitrator's decision or refuse to schedule arbitrators in a timely manner. This bill also requires make-whole relief for a violation of these provisions to include the charging party's attorney fees and cost. Today, witnesses in support are Andrew Martinez with AFSCME Local 3299.

We also have Kate Howard, Counsel for AFSCME 3299 for technical questions.

Yes. You can start. Thank you.

My name is Andrew Martinez, and I work at UCLA as a senior custodian. On behalf of AFSCME 3299, the frontline service workers at the University of California, we support. For decades, our employer, UC, has contracted out our jobs and replaced us with lower paid people who didn't get good benefits.

Today, our collective bargaining agreements include an arbitration process as a way to settle disputes related to contracting out our jobs. The problem is that UC is ignoring this agreed on process and ignoring arbitrator's decisions. So, even if we win at arbitration, UC doesn't follow an arbitrator's decision and instead, make us do it all over again and again at our own expense and years of delay.

At UCLA, it took four years, three arbitrations, a court proceeding. That was for cafeteria workers who were contracted out by UC and shouldn't have been. This cycle of deliberate noncompliance makes a mockery of the arbitration system that both parties agree to honor. We are asking that you act so agreements and arbitration decisions mean something.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Next witness.

I'm really only here to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Are there any more—any support from the audience? Please step up to the microphone. Give your name, organization, and your position.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Marie Lopez with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Aaliyah Griffin with AFSCME, in support.

Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, in support.

Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC, in support.

Good morning. Jason Raveno, with Teamsters Local 2010, in support.

Thank you.

Good morning. Sandra Barrero, SEIU California, in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition?

Can I come up to the desk?

To the table, yes. You have two minutes.

Thank you. Appreciate it.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. We are respectfully opposed to AB 5082 which establishes a new unfair practice under here related to arbitration decisions. First and foremost, the university values the collective bargaining process and works in good faith with our labor partners to resolve disputes. Relating to contract for services however, this bill significantly alters the mutually agreed upon framework for grievances by imposing statutory liabilities and penalties that were never negotiated at the bargaining table.

A critical concern for this bill is how it transforms one localized arbitration decision into a system wide compliance trigger. Because you see such a large decentralized institution, a decision at one campus regarding a specific service could immediately freeze essential operations at another. Using broad language for the term same or similar services means a ruling at Davis, for example, could reclassify a good faith procurement decision at Santa Cruz as a repeat violation, especially a big impact to our medical centers, which must retain the flexibility to contract for services where allowed under policy to maintain continuity in patient care and emergency response. The threat of daily fines for these routine decisions creates an unacceptable level of operational risk for the university as well. The bill's penalty structure creates unpredictable financial exposure.

Penalties of a thousand dollars per day can be backdated to the date of the unfair practice charge filing. This means that the university could face massive fines even before a neutral arbitrator even hears the case, which, as we know, can sometimes take anywhere from nine months to eighteen months. So, in conclusion, this uncertainty created by AB 5082 would effectively force an across-the-board ban on contracting for services even where narrow exceptions are vital for serving our students and patients. So, for these reasons, we respectfully oppose to AB 1582. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witness in opposition? Please come to the mic. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dais. Are there any comments or questions from the dais members? Would you like, would you like to close?

I, when the appropriate time comes, I would respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. And, colleagues, AB 1852 is about respect. I'm sorry. 1850—1582. I am really—something's wrong with me this morning.

AB 1582 is about respect—respect for workers who make this state function every single day. Our public servants are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for what they've earned, a secure, reliable retirement after a lifetime of service. The bill reinforces that promise and strengthens the systems that, that they depend on. At a time when too many workers are being asked to do more with less, we have a responsibility to stand firmly on the side of labor to protect their future, not weaken it.

Let's be clear. When we protect pensions, we protect working families. And so, we'll come back to, to this when we get a quorum, but I think we may have a quorum. Madam secretary, would you like to call the roll?

[Roll Call]

So, we need a motion and a second before. We have a motion from Assemblymember Nguyen and a second from Assemblymember Garcia. Can you please call the roll? AB 1582.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Assembly member, you can now present AB 1818.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee for allowing me to present AB 1818 today. AB 1818 eliminates the antiquated code section in the Higher Education Employee Relations Act, HERO, that is no longer used for its original purpose. HERO was a statute passed in 1978 that allowed for workers at the California State University and University of California to unionize. At that time, the annual budgets for CSU and UC were appropriated line item by line item in the state budget, including how much the segments were to use for employee compensation. In this context, CSU needed a provision to allow for returning to the bargaining table if the state didn't allocate enough funds to pay their employees.

Now, however, the state budget allocates the CSU lump sum funding for which the segment has broad discretion on how to spend. Yet the CSU still uses this code section to cancel collective bargaining contracts and force unions back to the bargaining table whenever it decides the state did not provide enough funding. This creates an imbalance that disrupts the purpose of collective bargaining. AB 1818 seeks to remove this unnecessary code section to restore balance in the collective bargaining process so that both parties involved uphold their end of the of their agreements. Here to testify with me today is Jason Rabinowitz, secretary general of the Teamsters Local 2010 and Ernesto Torres, vice president of Teamsters Local 2010.

You may start. You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members. I'm Jason Rabinowitz, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local 2010 proudly representing over 26,000 workers in California education, including 1,100 skilled trades workers across 22 CSU campuses whose work makes the CSU work every day. AB 1818 will eliminate outdated and problematic statutory language that CSU has exploited to avoid its basic collective bargaining obligations that every other employer and public sector follows. To bargain in good faith with the unions that represent its workers and to honor duly negotiated agreements with those unions. Unfortunately, CSU's conduct under the existing language has resulted in significant harm to public workers and disruption to public service.

In 2025, CSU failed to honor and implement contractual raises with Teachers Local 2010 and other unions despite receiving full funding from the legislature. Alone among public employers in California, CSU gave no raises to any workers, staff, or faculty, except for huge raises that they gave out to already overpaid executives. Their actions caused real hardship for CSU workers and their families and also resulted in the Teamsters being forced to wage an unprecedented week long strike across the system, significantly disrupting services to the students and the state. AB 1818 would prevent these problems in the future by simply requiring CSU to do what every other public employer does, bargain in good faith with the unions and honor its agreements with workers. We ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Next witness.

Good morning. Good morning. My name is Ernesto Torres, Teamsters 2010 vice president, skilled trades director, and project supervisor at Cal State San Bernardino. I'm here to voice our need for a bill AB 1818. I have worked for the Cal State University system for almost ten years.

Time and again, the CSU uses excuses not to pay our contractual raises. They find loopholes not to honor our contracts. Yet 1,100 skilled trades workers at every Cal State University honor their commitment every single day. They keep the lights on. They keep you hot and cold.

They keep our buildings looking great and freshly painted. We keep public service vehicles maintained to protect and answer any call to keep our campuses safe. We make sure our students can learn in nice, functioning, safe spaces. We do our part without excuses. We ask this body to support this bill.

Our future and our students depend on it. It's not fair for the CSU to take and manipulate legislative educational funds to benefit their own pockets. They turn around and cut the working class, yet their salaries continue to grow year after year regardless of any contingency in the state budget. We ask you to support bill AB 1818. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position.

Alia Griffing with AFSCME, in support.

Thank you.

Sandra Brewer with SEIU California, in support.

Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union, in support.

Thank you. Are there any, witnesses in opposition?

Thank you. You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, chair and members. I'm Adriana Gomez, legislative advocate with the CSU office of the chancellor, here to speak in respectful opposition to AB 1818. We appreciate and share your support for our 1,100 Teamsters employees across the CSU who play a critical and valued role in keeping our universities operational for more than 470,000 students. The CSU also remains committed to negotiating in good faith and to reaching a resolution with Teamsters. The 2024 ratified collective bargaining agreement, which was agreed to and ratified by Teamsters and its membership, included clear provisions tying certain salary increases to the receipt of approximately $240,000,000 in new unallocated ongoing fund state funding in the 25-26 budget.

The state budget fell short of providing that new unallocated ongoing funding, and this then triggered the mutually agreed salary reopening process under which Teamsters and the CSU have participated in mediation through PERB. A fact finding report resulting of this process also has recently became public and confirms that the CSU has honored the terms both parties agreed to. Proponents of this measure have expressed the bill is necessary because we are utilizing a loophole to back out of contracts, but that is not the case given the specific language both parties agreed to regarding required funding levels. I also wanna emphasize that state appropriations are foundational to university financial planning. The CSU cannot commit to ongoing compensation increases without certainty regarding state funding levels we will receive, which are not finalized until June.

This bill could limit future agreements to one year terms or delay the finalization of contracts as committing to ongoing compensations without guaranteed ongoing funding would expose the university to significant financial risk and potentially divert resources from core student services. For these reasons, CSU respectfully requests a no vote on AB 1818. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses, we'll bring it back to the dais. Or does any members have any questions or comments? Assemblymember, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an eye vote.

Thank you, lift bill. Have a first from Assembly member Boerner and a second from Assembly member Nguyen. AB 1818 is about standing up for the workers who show up for all of us. Our public employees dedicate their careers to serving California, and they deserve a system that treats them with fairness, transparency, and respect.

The bill moves us in that direction by strengthening protections and reinforcing the promise made to working people. At the end of the day, this is about dignity on the job and security in retirement. When when we invest in workers, we invest in the strength of our state. With that, madam secretary, can you call the roll?

Item number three, AB 1818 Ortega. The motion is do pass and be referred to the committee on appropriations. Mckinnor?

Mckinner, aye. Lackey?

Aye.

Aye.

Aye.

Alanis, Aye. Boerner?

Lackey, aye. Alanis?

Aye.

Burner, Aye. Garcia?

Aye.

Nguyen, aye. Michelle Rodriguez. The bill has sufficient votes. We'll put it on call.

Aye.

Garcia, Aye. Nguyen?

Thank you. Next, we'll have AB 1564: Ahrens. Members, is there anyone that would like to remove the item from the Consent Calendar? If not, Madam Secretary, can you call the roll? Right. Motion by Assembly Member Lackey, second by Assembly Member Nguyen. You may call the roll.

On the Consent Calendar is Item Number Four: AB 1841: Ramos. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to the Consent Calendar. [Roll call]. We have sufficient votes. We'll place it on call.

Thank you. Mr. Assembly Member, you may start.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. When employees discuss workplace matters such as discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed.

AB 1564 makes communication between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential to fostering trust and ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry with PORAC and David Mastagni, Legal Counsel for PORAC.

Good morning.

You may-- you may start. You have two minutes.

Thank you.

Madam Chair, members, Randy Perry, on behalf of PORAC. The bill simply codifies current case law from PERB. There have been a couple of cases that have ruled as confidential. We're not talking about privilege here. We're talking about confidentiality. I'm gonna pass the rest of my time over to David Mastagni, our counsel.

Thank you.

Madam Chair and committee members, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill. As a labor lawyer with 27 years of representing public employees and their unions, I can tell you this bill is of vital importance. It's a modest, balanced measure that codifies longstanding per precedent, making it an unfair labor practice for a public employer to question or to compel the disclosure of confidential communications between a union member and a union representative with respect to matters within the scope of representation.

I wanna quickly address what this bill doesn't do. Critics have suggested it creates a privilege or hinders investigations. It does neither. This is not an evidentiary privilege under the Evidence Code. It applies only to public employers and is enforced solely through PERB. It expressly exempts criminal investigations and does not supersede the Public Safety Officer's Bill of Rights or Government Code Section 3303. Employers remain free under this bill to question any recipient witness about facts of an incident.

The bill only protects secondhand representational discussions that have no legitimate evidentiary value and serve only to chill protected activity and invade the representational relationship. And lastly, some school administrators claim this bill hinders AB 218 investigations. This is also not true. AB 218 extends time for childhood sexual assault victims to sue. It doesn't mandate investigation tactics.

Schools can still question any witness about firsthand knowledge of an alleged assault, ensuring that they can still conduct a robust investigation. The bill only protects representation-related communications, like pre-interview discussions between a rep and a member, and those lack any evidentiary value. Compelling union reps to disclose this type of information will unlawfully commandeer them and force them to impeach their own members, which chills trust in the union, so we respectfully request your yes vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please give your name, organization, and position.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Barreiro, on behalf of SEIU California.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Doug Subers, on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters, in support.

Madam Chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Read and Associates, representing the Orange County Employees Association and the California Association of Highway Patrolmen. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. Connor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California, in support. Thank you.

Morning, Madam Chair and members. Ryan Sherman, on behalf of the Riverside Sheriffs Association, in support, and the other police officer associations listed in our support letter. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You have two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. My name is Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed to AB 1564, a bill that would mirror an evidentiary privilege while hindering important workplace investigations. We respectfully ask for a no vote today for three reasons. First, the bill states that it is intended to be consistent with and not in conflict with the William S. Hart Union High School District PERB decision, but the bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision.

This bill would forego the circumstantial analysis in wake of employees and employers' interests that were conducted in that decision and would categorically prohibit certain lines of questioning exceeding the scope of that decision. The need for this change has not been established. There is no evidence that PERB is not protecting employee interests in this regard.

Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, the bill would still function like a privilege in some context. For example, in two-party litigation, where an employer-- between an employer and employee, if an employer is prohibited by this bill from requesting a court to compel certain testimony, that testimony may effectively be off limits to discovery, which is a similar result to a privilege.

However, unlike a privilege, in professional context, such as attorney-client or physician-patient, this bill does not contain any of the same guardrails. There is no third-party regulators, such as the State Bar or the California Medical Association. The bill does not contain provisions for addressing conflicts of interest or issues where there might be competing information shared with a union representative in a workplace violence situation that an employer has a duty to investigate.

And unlike the 2024 version of this bill, AB 2421 by Assembly Member Low, this bill does not contain an exception where the representative is a witness or a party to the underlying facts. We respectfully ask for your no vote today. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Dorothy Johnson, on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed to AB 1564, which is consistent with our opposition on the prior iterations of this bill, for one of which bills Governor Brown's veto message read, this bill would compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations, interact with safety harassment, and other allegations.

We we do see harmful-- this bill is harmful for students and employees who benefit from the ability of school employers to conduct administrative investigations that are thorough, accurate, and timely. I appreciate the sponsors raising the concern about AB 218 investigations for schools to ensure the safety, again, of students and employees against childhood sexual assault.

Those often start as administrative investigations. It is rare for an individual to be caught in an egregious act of misconduct against a student. Rather, administrative investigations reveal noncriminal acts, things that may seem mundane, such as texting, emailing, rides home for students after school or activities that could be going on for months before an egregious act is committed or even discovered.

So, again, these administrative investigations are key for building evidence that could lead to criminal investigations and ultimately removing bad actors from our schools. We're also deeply concerned that it is very difficult for an employer to know when they could be violating this potential new law and restrictions on communicating and imposing questions on staff because only the employee and the representative know what was made in that confidential communication.

This will affect day-to-day activities and critical school operations. So for these reasons, we are respectfully opposed. I'd also like to express opposition for my colleagues at the California Association of School Business Officials, CASBO. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Please step to the mic. Give your name, your organization, and your position.

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

Good morning. Brianna Bruns, on behalf of the California County Superintendents, also in respectful opposition.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, in respectful opposition.

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

Good morning. Andrea Lynch, on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition.

Tyler Aguilar, on behalf of the University of California, in opposition.

Thank you. Seeing no more witnesses, bring it back to the dais. Any Assembly Members have any questions or comments? This bill was moved by Assembly Member Nguyen; seconded by Assembly Member Boerner. Boerner. Sorry. Would you like to close, Assembly Member?

Thank you so much. I'm really proud to author this bill. I think it's very important that we ensure that our employees can go to their union representatives without fear of retaliation, and I'm proud to have a track record for always protecting students or any vulnerable communities, and I would never do what the respectful opposition suggests. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Item Number One: AB 1564, Ahrens. The motion is do pass and re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call]. We have-- that bill is out on seven to zero.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's seven to zero.

Next, we'll have AB 1844, Assembly Member Pacheco. Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning, fabulous Madam Chair and, of course, fabulous members. I, I wanna thank you all for allowing me to present my bill, AB 1844. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments, which are technical and helpful. AB 1844 updates the judge's retirement system two or JRS two to allow judges to designate a non-spouse beneficiary to receive survivor retirement benefits and to ensure that all vested judges can access survivor benefit protections. Under current law, JRS two, judges may generally designate only a spouse or a registered domestic partner to receive ongoing survivor pension benefits.

Unmarried judges, including those who have long term partners, adult children, or other dependents cannot designate anyone to receive the continuing pension payments after their death. In addition, current law requires judges to serve twenty years before electing a survivor benefit option, despite some judges being fully vested and eligible to retire with fewer years of service.

AB 1844 ensures fair and consistent treatment of judges and aligns JRS two with every other major public retirement system in California. And with me today in support is Mike Belote, on behalf of the California Judges Association.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Mike Belote on behalf of the Judges Association. As noted, this is very simple and clarifying. Obviously, there are judges who are widowed, never married, and they ought to be able to designate somebody else besides a spouse which they don't have. Obviously, also though, it matters whether you're designating an infant versus designating a 70-year-old person.

As pointed out correctly in the analysis, it has to be revenue neutral, and we pledge to amend the bill to make sure that is clear. Secondly, there's two ways to become vested in the judge's retirement system, either 20 years and age 65 or five years and age 70. All this does is it picks up the age 70 with five year people in order to allow designation of an optional settlement. And with that, we ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none. I'll bring it back to the dais. Assembly, well, I think miss Assemblymember Rodriguez moved the bill, and Assemblymember Boerner seconded the bill. Yeah. Madam, would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Madam secretary, would you call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Thank you, assembly member.

Fabulous assembly member. Thank you. We need to open the roll for for add ons. Thank you.

Thank you.

Item number two, a b 1582. Ortega, the current motion is five to zero. Berner?

Aye.

Berner, aye. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye. Michelle Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out seven to zero. Item number three, a b 1818 Ortega, the current vote is six to zero. Michelle Rodriguez? Aye. Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out seven to zero. Consent calendar item number 4801841 Ramos. Aye. Rodriguez. Rodriguez, aye.

I think it's Ramos.

Rodriguez, I. That bill is out seven to zero.

Having no more no more business, this meeting is adjourned.