Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

[Background]

I'm sorry. Good afternoon, everyone. Welcome to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. In order to be able to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. Commenters who in commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed.

We will be starting as a subcommittee since we're waiting for other members to arrive. So we will start in bill order. I see we have Assemblymember Lowenthal here. If he is ready, you're welcome to start.

Okay. Afternoon. Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, members. I am so pleased and proud to present AB 1803, which is part of a broader legislative package developed in partnership with a Select Committee on Racism, Hate and xenoPhobia Phobia that is chaired by Assemblymember Corey Jackson.

And let me just take this opportunity to say, it is such a joy to work in an environment with colleagues that we can learn from. And I have learned so much from Assemblymember Corey Jackson every day. And it's it's thrilling to be able to work with him on topics that are so critical at a historic time in California and particularly for my community. And I'm grateful to the Assemblymember for wanting to collaborate with me on that. AB 1803 requires that all California businesses with five or more employees to include anti hate speech training as a component of their existing workplace harassment prevention training.

This bill does not add additional training hours. It just ensures that hate speech is addressed so workers understand how to identify and report hate speech when they encounter it. California law already requires employers to train workers on sexual harassment, on abusive conduct, and harassment based on gender identity and sexual orientation. However, it contains no requirement to address hate speech targeting race, religion, ethnicity, or national origin among the most commonly reported forms of workplace hostility. Hate speech is not just offensive language.

It can be a precursor to violence. When hate speech goes unchallenged, it normalizes hostility and emboldens escalation. Reported hate crimes in California rose by nearly a 160% in the last decade, and no community has been spared. As Jewish American, I want to speak to the rise in antisemitism directly. California now ranks second in the nation for anti Semitic incidents with 1,344 recorded in 2024 alone.

In Los Angeles, anti Jewish hate crimes accounted for 80% of all religious hate crimes and 19% of hate crimes committed in schools. But this crisis extends far beyond any one community. Between 2019 and 2022, hate crimes against black Californians nearly tripled. Hate crimes against Latinos nearly doubled. And hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California's civil rights departments estimates that 2.6 Californians 2,600,000

Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 2022 and 2023. These are not abstract numbers. They reflect real people in real workplaces who deserve better. Employees already undergo harassment prevention training. We are simply asking them to ensure it covers the full scope of what their workers are actually experiencing.

When employees can recognize hate speech, when they can understand their rights, and when they feel empowered to report it, hate loses the silent tolerance it depends on to persist. I'm pleased to be joined by Stephanie Chan of Stop API Hate, who is here to testify in support.

Thank you. I'm sorry, ma'am. Before we do that, I do would would like to establish quorum, if that's okay. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a quorum. You may proceed.

Okay. Good afternoon, Chair Ortega and committee members. My name is doctor Stephanie Chan, and I am the director of data and research for Stop AAPI Hate. Stop AAPI Hate operates the largest community reporting center for anti Asian and anti Pacific Islander hate acts in The US. This bill is a critical step to reducing workplace harassment.

Bias motivated hate acts are a major problem in California. Based on the latest data from the California Health Interview Survey conducted by UCLA, researchers estimate that over 3,100,000 Californians ages 12 and older experienced a hate act in 2024. Among Them83 percent encountered verbal insults and attacks55 percent were targeted due to their race, twenty percent of these incidents happened in the workplace. And this data still just represents the tip of the iceberg. Stop AAPI Hate also conducts its own annual survey asking about hate in more detail, and we found that 46 percent of AAPI adults, that's about 2,800,000 AAPI adults, experienced the hate act in 2025.

And among these62 percent experienced hateful or derogatory messages in their environment and 37 percent experienced hateful or derogatory messages spoken directly to them. Here's an example that was shared with us. We have an AAPI community event coming up to support the community. And one of my coworkers went up to our only Asian coworker in the department and said the event was of his people and proceeded to use her fingers to pull back her eyes and make slanted eyes. The Asian coworker who was targeted brought this up in our team meeting, and the rest of the team just laughed, and our head boss decided to ignore the comment with no action taken.

This is in Los Angeles in 2025. Hate acts like these have adverse impacts. Forty percent of the Californian AAPI adults who said they experienced hate reported negative effects on their health. Training on harassment could prevent hate acts in workplaces and more broadly in our communities. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members of the Committee. I'm Santosh Seeram representing Chinese for Affirmative Action. We are a community based civil rights organization. And Stop AAPI Hate in support of the bill. Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Shane Gusman on behalf of the Engineers and Scientists of California in support.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? We have a motion. You may start. I forgot to say this earlier, but our witnesses have two minutes each. Thank you.

Great. Thank you. Chair and Members. My name is Greg Burt with the California Family Council, and we represent thousands of Californians in 2,000 churches, and we strongly oppose AB 1803. Let me be clear. You cannot regulate what you cannot define.

And this training hinges on a term, hate speech, that has no clear legal definition in state law. I'm sure there are things in workplaces that 99% of us would all agree are hateful and should never be said. But here's the problem. When government uses its authority to define hate, it inevitably targets speech it just doesn't like.

We see this here at the Capitol. Unpopular religious beliefs about sexuality or gender are labeled as hate, and then groups like ours who advocate for these viewpoints are labeled as hate groups. Recently, our organization held a press conference in Long Beach advocating that female sports be simply reserved for actual women.

Some advocacy groups and government officials considered our message as hate speech. I would assume the author of this bill agrees with them because he showed up to personally protest as teenage female athletes expressed how uncomfortable they were to have to undress in locker rooms with boys watching them.

The message of the press conference must have really made the Assemblyman very angry because a couple of the girls told us they saw the Assemblyman flipping off the crowd as he left. I'll let Assemblyman Lowenthal clarify whether this really happened or what he was actually trying to communicate with that gesture. There is no hate speech exception in the first amendment.

The government cannot compel speech or force employers to promote a government approved viewpoint. That's not training. That's simply compelled indoctrination. For the sake of free speech and religious liberty and basic fairness, we respectfully urge a no vote on this bill. Thank you.

I just wanna remind my witnesses to keep to the substance of the bill. Your next witness has two minutes.

Hi. Good afternoon. My name is Meg Madden. I represent CAUSE, Californians United for Sex Based Evidence in Policy and Law, and Women Are Real, both nonpartisan organizations without religious affiliation. Hate speech is not defined, as it is not a legal category of speech in California or federal law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly confirmed that speech cannot be restricted simply because someone finds it offensive. Consequently, if AB 1803 is implemented, whoever designs or approves the training curriculum gets to define hate speech. Not in any legally enforceable way.

The first amendment puts a stop to that. Instead, the concept of hate speech will be used to chill what is completely legal speech. And that is a big problem for my organizations because existing California state law mandates instruction on, quote, gender identity, unquote, which presupposes there are more than two sexes.

Humans can change sex, and or humans have a gender identity inside of them that renders their actual sex irrelevant. This means anyone who speaks facts about the reality of sex is in danger of being accused of committing hate speech.

Yesterday, in the Arts Committee next door, I was accused of, quote, spewing hate, unquote, by two Assembly Members after I testified it was harmful...

Ma'am, I'm gonna ask... Excuse me. Ma'am, I'm gonna ask you to keep to the substance of the bill.

The bill is about hate speech training. Correct? If gender identity...

This is not a debate. I am asking you to please stick to the merits of the bill.

I gonna finish my testimony, which does stick to it. Did the Assembly Members have... They said that I was spewing hate when I testified it was harmful to girls' mental health to be forced to share locker rooms and girls' sports teams with boys. Did the Assembly Members have an argument against what I said?

I don't know, as none was needed when I could simply be accused of hate speech, an accusation that tends to chill any possibility of rational thought or discussion. Women must always be permitted to call a man a man.

Thank you. I will now call for questions from Members. Is there any other opposition in the room? State your name, organization, and position.

Hello. David Bolog representing the SFV Alliance and also as a member in good standing of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers in opposition.

Thank you. Any other oppositions? Seeing none. Questions from Members?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanna give the author a chance if he wants to, please, if you want a rebuttal anything that came or maybe even help define the hate crime because that seems to be the opposition's point that they're making.

The, we, the bill does not currently.

I'm sorry. Hate crime speech.

Thank you, Assembly Member. The bill does not currently define hate speech. We're still deliberately discussing that those elements with stakeholders very early in the process. Specifically, we're working with the Civil Rights Department and community advocacy organizations determine how to define what hate speech training should look like in practice. So what the content, the standards, and the expectations should be for employers.

Thank you. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. I would like, Madam Chair, if you would give me a moment, the opposition brought forward an event that took place in my district as some sort of mechanism for a discussion around hate speech.

Maybe I'll indulge you since you didn't ask me directly. We have a system in the legislature, an informal system amongst legislators that we notify each other when we're doing events in each other's district. Specifically so when there are public outcries and concerns that we know how to handle them.

The Assembly Members that were participating in that event didn't give our office any notification. So we didn't know anything about it whatsoever, sir. We got calls to our Assembly office about community members that were concerned that I was participating in that event because it said their Assembly Members at a press conference taking place in Long Beach.

I had no communication with any girls or any athletes in that, but I absolutely was very frustrated with the Assembly Members, who have since apologized. Thank you, Madam Chair. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you for addressing that and bringing this bill forward. I have a strong aye recommendation. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1803, Lowenthal. The motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

That's three ayes. The motion passes. Oh, we're gonna leave the bill open for absent Members. I apologize. Thank you. We're gonna go out of file order since I see Assembly Member Calderon here. If you're ready, please. That is AB, item number 6, AB1940. Just a reminder, our witnesses will have two minutes each.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Today, I'm here to talk about, bring up a bill, AB 1940, regarding menopause. Menopause can bring a wide variety of symptoms, including physical, emotional, and cognitive changes.

Women make up roughly half the population, and about 57 percent of women are participating in the workforce, meaning menopause will impact a significant portion of employees during their careers. Unfortunately, workplace standards have historically been designed without these realities in mind.

AB 1940 changes this by updating the Fair Employment and Housing Act to explicitly include perimenopause, menopause, postmenopause, and related medical conditions within the definition of sex, making it clear that no one should ever face discrimination or harassment because of a natural biological transition.

Too often women are not provided reasonable accommodations, and many are unaware that they have the right to request support. Supporting workers during this transition promotes economic equity, strengthens workforce retention, and ensures we retain experienced employees who are vital to our economy.

AB 1940 raises awareness and provides clear protections so employees can continue to contribute fully and fairly in their roles. With me in support of AB 1940 are Alex Zucco with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and Dr. Amy Day, who is the Founder and Clinic Director of the Women's Vitality Center.

Thank you, Assembly Member Calderon. Good afternoon and thank you, Chair. My name is Alex Zucco. I'm the Policy Director for the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and proud co-sponsor of AB 1940. When the fair, when our Fair Employment and Housing Act was first written, women were not as prevalent in the workforce.

And today's workforce demands women actually be a part of it. But many women, because of systemic low pay, have to work well into retirement age. Our systems were just simply not written with women in mind. No two women will experience menopause the same.

But if you're lucky enough to make it to that age, you will. Menopause doesn't care about your education, your zip code, your duty statement, nothing. What it requires is our attention. Adding perimenopause, menopause, and postmenopause to this list of normal events is something that will happen to women.

Unlike childbirth, which will not happen to every woman, but yet we include childbirth and not menopause in these accommodations. Looking at this holistically, it recognizes the whole women for more than just childbirth. Explicitly placing the information in the workplace can help because it adequately informs women of their rights.

Because saying it's just covered under reasonable accommodation means it can be denied. This is not something a simple fan on a woman's desk is gonna solve. Further including these rights in the Office of Community Partnerships and Strategic Communications is a way to have this topic to continue to be brought out of the shadows.

Research further shows menopause related challenges attribute to $1.8 billion in annual work loss, leading some women to either reduce their hours or leave the workplace altogether. Each time I was pregnant, people could not wait to give me advice, opinions, everything.

You hit the other side of 45 and it is crickets. Nobody is talking about anything. This is another in a long line of equity based adjustments we need to make to our system that businesses have been reluctant to embrace and have sometimes outright opposed.

No different when childbirth was added to these accommodations. For over sixty years, the Commission has worked to provide gender equity in the workplace, and we urge you to vote yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Assembly Member, and hello, Committee. I'm Dr. Amy Day. I'm the Founder and Clinic Director of the Women's Vitality Center. And we specialize in women's health and hormones, and we see a range of patients throughout the menopause transition.

Since I started practicing in California in 2005, I've seen a major increase in public recognition of something that I've been seeing privately in my office for the past two decades. Women are suffering with hormonal issues, and there's very little to support them. Doctors will tell them it's normal. Family members don't understand what's going on.

And employers have no patience or awareness of the fact that their employees are, their employees' needs are shifting. Please don't get me wrong, these women still have a tremendous amount of value to bring to the table at work. They have experience that younger workers just don't have and can provide insight, mentorship, and creative problem solving in ways that are highly valuable to an employer's business.

I had a patient, I'll call her Lucy, had been working for a tech company for fifteen years. And when she started perimenopause, she was having brain fog and forgetting words and was really worried about her performance at work. She knew what she was doing, but she had anxiety about the pressure of giving presentations without notes.

So she would stay up late at night to make sure she was super prepared, but the lack of sleep actually made it even harder for her during the workday. And that cycle did not benefit her. It did not benefit the company she was working for.

Another patient, we'll call her Heidi, was embarrassed to be at work during her periods because they became unpredictable and could be so heavy that she would soak through her clothes sometimes. That isn't her fault. And she shouldn't be discriminated against because of a health issue.

She needs more understanding from the people around her and better treatment options to help her. Just like women going through pregnancy, childbirth, and breastfeeding, women going through the menopausal transition deserve fair employment practices and reasonable accommodations.

And when these protections get put into place with this bill, we also need to make sure that employees are informed about them. Women need to know that they have the right to be supported and they don't have to just suffer through on their own. Thank you. And I respectfully ask for your support on AB 1940.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have anyone here in opposition?

Good afternoon. My name is Andrea Lynch, and I'm here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. Madam Chair, we thank you for the opportunity and appreciate the author's willingness to work with us on amendments.

We share the goal of ensuring that women experiencing menopause related symptoms are supported in the workplace with dignity and understanding. That said, we do have concerns with the approach taken in this bill. First, AB 1940 would incorporate menopause directly into the definition of sex under FEHA.

While well intentioned, expanding protected classifications in this way raises significant legal and practical concerns. California's anti-discrimination framework is already one of the most expansive in the country, and layering additional classifications, particularly where there is overlap with existing FEHA protections, can create uncertainty, increase litigation risk, and make compliance more complex for employers without necessarily improving outcomes for employees.

Second, we believe there is a more effective and balanced path forward that meets the intent of educating women and providing resources. Many menopause related symptoms are already capable of being addressed under existing reasonable accommodation and disability frameworks.

The interactive process allows employers and employees to engage in individualized, flexible solutions, such as remote work, temperature control, or modified duties without redefining protected classes under FEHA. We think this approach is, we think this approach better aligns with how California has historically addressed medical conditions in the workplace through accommodations, not categorization.

Importantly, we want to emphasize that we are not opposed to the underlying goal of this bill. We are committed to working on amendments that would ensure women experiencing menopause related symptoms are supported while maintaining clarity and consistency within existing legal frameworks. We appreciate the author's willingness to dialogue and look forward to continuing this work together. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional comments in opposition?

Marlon Lara with the California Restaurant Association. Echo the comments of the Cal Chamber. Thank you.

Thank you. I will now turn it over to the dais for Members. You have any questions? Seeing no other comments, we have a motion and a second. Okay.

I just wanna comment that I also understand where the opposition's coming from. I think the author does as well, and I'm pretty sure we could figure something out as we go. But I'll be supporting this today, but I do look forward to seeing at least maybe some changes that address the opposition. So thank you for coming.

Assembly Member Calderon, would you like to close?

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. We have been talking to the opposition and will continue to do so, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Well, you have a strong aye recommendation from me as the Chair. Really wanna thank you for bringing this forward. You know, as our medical research tries to catch up with this issue, I appreciate you bringing in, trying to do the same with some of our laws in our workplace legislation. So I really appreciate this. And with that, I will ask the Secretary to please call the roll.

AB 1940, Assembly Member Calderon. The motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

We have four ayes. We'll leave the roll open for absent Members. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. But that bill's out. Okay. We're moving right along. Item number three, Assemblymember Berman, think welcome. We will go ahead whenever you're ready with AB 1838.

Good afternoon, Chair Ortega and colleagues. AB 1838 would ensure that local agencies can better assess if contractors should be awarded a public works project bid. Existing law requires most public works construction contracts to be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, which is defined as a bidder who has demonstrated trustworthiness. Any history of rate of wage and hour violations directly reflects contractor responsibility and is critical information for local agencies to determine who should be trusted with taxpayer dollars. This bill would require a contractor submitting a bid for a public works construction project to disclose any history of wage and hour violations within the previous five years.

Bidders would also be required to provide documentation of how past violations have been addressed, and how they will prevent future violations. AB 1838 would help ensure taxpayer dollars are well spent, promote fair labor practices, and increase transparency for local agencies awarding public contracts. Finally, I would like to thank the committee consultant for their work on this bill. And should the bill move forward today, look forward to working with the committee to clarify the language as outlined in the analysis. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1838 which as the assembly member mentioned would add some additional transparency for awarding agencies of public works projects to help them make a better assessment of whether the contractor that they're giving taxpayer funds to is responsible. Under existing law, most public works construction contracts are awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. And as the assembly member mentioned, there is also an existing definition in statute as to what constitutes a response a responsible bidder.

And while existing law is clear on what constitutes a responsible bidder, awarding agencies are often not privy to certain information that could be critical in making their determination if their contractor can be trusted. One of the main tools that awarding agencies utilize when they are making this determination is they'll often check a contractor's contractor state license, or they will check their public works registration, which gives important information related to whether they have workers comp insurance, or whether they have, excuse me, workers comp insurance, or whether they, have been debarred from bidding on public works. So with that being said, a b 1838 is simply seeking to add this additional transparency. We would respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair and committee members. Keith Dunn here on behalf of this, the building instruction trades council, as well as the cosponsors of District Council of Iron workers in the state of California. I'll just echo what was said, but continue with the fact that transparency saves money on the front side. Nothing's worse than having a bad experience with the contractor. We have responsible contractors, union and nonunion throughout the state who comply regularly with all of our laws and obligations to bid on public works.

This provides additional transparency. It's been my experience that that provides additional savings and benefits to the public. We'd ask for your support. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional comments in support?

Good afternoon, madam chair members. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME, and we support.

Madam chair members, Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Erica Valentine, UA Local 393 Pulmber's Pipefitters, Steamfitters, HVAC technicians, San Jose, California. We stand in support with the state building trades and operator engineers. Thank you.

Elmer is already here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. So to Medrano, District Council of Ironworkers in support.

Madam chair and members, James Thoractor with the California State Council of Laborers. Apologies to the committee for not getting our letter in, but we are in strong support. Thanks.

Shane Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Scott Reese, business agent, local 393 San Jose, California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Glenn Lovell, Napa Salerno Central Labor Council, AFL CIO, standing in strong support.

Thank thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have anyone here in opposition?

Good afternoon, madam chair and members Richard Markson on behalf of Western Electrical Contractors Association in opposition unless amended. We can support transparency and compliance

Could you I'm I'm sorry. Can you move the mic a little closer to you?

A little closer. Yes. Of course.

Thank you.

We could support transparency and compliance with wage and hour laws. However, as drafted, AB 1838 relies primarily on public enforcement records, and that creates a structural problem. As the committee analysis notes, many agreements, particularly settlements, are not disclosed. At the same time, under numerous California statutes, disputes on certain projects, particularly those covered by project labor agreements, are often resolved through private grievance and arbitration procedures rather than public enforcement. That means that similar wage and hour disputes may be treated very differently for disclosure purposes.

Some will appear in public records and some will not. This creates what we call an enforcement gap where a contractor's compliance history is incomplete. WECA is not asking for a change to the underlying labor format. We are simply requesting a consistent disclosure method, something that the analysis talks about. We respectfully ask that the committee amend the bill to ensure that this disclosure requirements apply equally to violations resolved through both public enforcement, those taken by the labor commissioner, and arbitration or grievance procedures, which might be private.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California with apologies to the author and to the committee. Our legislative committee didn't get together until last week to formalize its position and concerns with measures like this one. But our main objection to this measure is the fact that the bill does not define clearly what it is that complete documentation would meet in order to satisfy the requirements of the bill. With hundreds of jurisdictions in the state of California, this would create potentially and likely subjective and very, hodgepodge approach to what is deemed complete.

In addition to that, general contractors that we represent, are evenly split between union and nonunion, heavier on the union side. And we're very grateful for the relationships that we have with our basic craft partners. But this disproportionately could affect our union contractors in that union contractors have to comply with more, paperwork than a nonunion contract award. So any simple mistake on certified payroll, as a matter example, could portend a real problem for our contractors. Big and small contractors, similar problems, very large contractors have many divisions, many different types of work that they do.

And as a result of that, there could be discrepancies across the communication channels, which then would put this bill into effect and would ultimately shame a contractor for a mistake rather than some grievance that is already recorded and measured in other compliance ways. So for those issues and and many more, we have real concerns with the measure and unfortunately are here in opposition.

Thank you. Do we have any other witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch here on a behalf of California Chamber Commerce. We don't have a formal position. We just have some clarifying questions regarding the language, and we're working with the author's office. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses, any questions from members? Yes. Assembly member Alanis.

I do. Opposition has actually brought up some valid questions. I was hoping maybe the author or somebody with them would be able to answer the definitions that were brought up.

Yeah. I'll, to cover the the first Kinda concerns that were raised by the Western Electrical Contractors Association. I I disagree with the point that they make, which probably doesn't come as a surprise. The the concerns assume that arbitration or grievance procedures contained in collective bargaining agreements and project labor agreements are utilized to enforce state law. When in reality, these procedures are utilized to enforce the positions contained in the collective bargaining agreement itself.

So this is sort of apples to oranges, comparisons. Moreover, the labor commissioner is legally responsible for citing wage and hour violations. And even if a matter is resolved through a grievance or arbitration procedure, the labor commissioner's office can still cite the contractor for a for a violation of law and pursue penalties. Finally, arbitration and grievance procedures are mainly intended to be private matters between a represented worker and an employer requiring the release of decisions from the these proceedings would likely violate provisions contained in many collective bargaining agreements and would completely undermine collective bargaining rights, which we obviously don't wanna do. I might defer to my witnesses to to address the the sort of the social generated contract.

I would just like to say that we're looking forward to removing any of those differences between nonunion contractors and union contractors. Some of you may be familiar with the asterisk, double asterisk issue that's been in in the city of California for some time. So I look forward to working with mister Fuentes to remove that obstacle for the nonunion contractors so that we all have the same reporting obligations and obligations for payments.

And madam chair, if I could just jump in really quickly, obviously, I can't speak for the author. But if you do have a definition of complete documentation, we'd be happy to consider that.

It goes without saying, I'll absolutely continue to work with all stakeholders, including folks who have concerns, to see what we can do to address.

If I could, just one last mister Fuentes. Did you happen to have a definition or something you want to say on that?

Well, no. I think the whole spirit of the measure is also complicated for us to because I'd like to thank the committee for their analysis because they astutely point out here that local agencies today overseeing public works have the opportunity to design their own prequalification sort of, paperwork, and there's even sample ones at the state. And with that, every public works agency in the state has ability to understand if there's been any debarment issues or any other issues with contractors. Here, it seems like the burden that is being placed on contractors and the contractor community is really a a solution in pursuit of a problem. We absolutely respect and appreciate the opportunity for transparency.

But here, you have to distinguish between small and medium sized companies and then very large ones. And then again, anything that was potentially a mistake has to be reported up to five years worth of this information. So we really don't see the need for the bill. We will, in good faith, think of what it is that, we could call complete documentation, but, we really don't see the need for this bill.

Thank you. Alright. See no other questions or comments. I will would you like to close?

Respect to ask

for a vote.

Do we have a motion or a second?

Second.

I would like to thank both sides and thank you and hope you will continue having this conversation.

With that, secretary, please call the roll.

You bet.

AB 1838 Assemblymember Berman. Action motion is do passed. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alanis? Alanis, aye. Chen. El Hawari? Aye. Alra? Lee? Aye. Arambula? Aye.

That has five votes to build up, but we will hold the role open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, everyone.

Appreciate you, man. Yeah. Definitely.

Secretary, can you please call the roll for consent item? AB 1707

[Roll Call]

Five votes. We'll keep the roll open, perhaps, and members. I believe assembly member Brian is on his way, so we'll give it a minute for him to get here. We're going to move a little bit out of file order, and I'm going to present my bill item number seven.

Alright. We're gonna go with item number 7, AB 1859 by Ortega. You may start.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Members, for the opportunity to present AB 1859 today. California today faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor laws. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE, has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims and often resolves them months or years past the statutory deadlines.

When we fail to effectively enforce these laws, it hurts working Californias and allows bad employers to continue operating without paying back the wages they stole. Here to present with me AB 1859 is Matt Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn with the California State Building Trades Council.

Thank you very much. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1859, which as the Assembly Member mentioned, would authorize joint labor management committee access to public work job sites.

Joint labor management committees, or JLMCs, are federally recognized groups that are represented by both equal parts of labor and management and are designed to improve workplace conditions, safety conditions, and productivity on the job site. And simply put, these entities are the gold standard of labor and management collaboration.

In the construction industry, these entities currently play a critical role in acting as the eyes and ears for the state's Labor Commissioner, as they actively perform investigations into public works job sites and often turn their investigations over to the Labor Commissioner.

Which has the effect of streamlining investigations at no cost to the state. So simply put, this bill is gonna authorize access for these entities. I'm happy to answer any questions or concerns. I would respectfully request your aye vote.

Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair and Members of the Committee. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the District Council of Ironworkers as well as the State Building Construction Trades Council. I'll just reiterate Mr. Cremins's comments, but also in response to some of the issues I've heard from those that may oppose this bill talking about potential litigation and a violation of due process.

I just would like to point out that every available tool in the toolbox in our judicial system in the state of California is available to anybody who's been accused of any wrongdoing on a job site. That is the very definition of due process.

The process of going in and responding to those complaints, it's all available. So don't be confused by anyone who might say this violates due process. Litigation is due process. That's how you go in and defend yourself for anybody who's been involved in the legal system.

With that, I would just say the transparency and the opportunity to protect workers should remain a top priority for us, and this bill adds to that ability. We have an underfunded, underutilized Industrial Relations Department. This provides additional safety for our workers. We'd ask for your support.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room in support, please step up. Name, organization, please.

Shane Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.

Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support.

Erica Valentine on behalf of UA Local 393, Plumbers, Pipefitters, Steamfitters, HVAC/R technicians. We stand with the Building Trades.

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

Xochitl Medrano, District Council of Ironworkers, in support.

Scott Reese, Local 393, as well as Building Construction Trades, in support. Thank you.

Louie Costa with SMART Transportation Division in support.

Glenn Loveall, Napa-Solano Central Labor Council, in full support and solidarity.

Thank you. Anyone else in support? Okay. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Opposition, please go up to the table. You'll have two minutes each.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Members. Silvio Ferrari here on behalf California Building Industry Association. And I will be very quick. And I'll be quick because I wanna extend sincere appreciation to Mr. Cremins, who very much has been open and willing and met with me a couple weeks ago to talk about where we might be heading on this, how we might be thinking about this, and what things we could potentially do in the future.

But long story short, the reason for our opposition, it is not uncommon in the development world in a residential project that there are both parts of that project that are both public works. So think of the streets, sidewalks, roadways, underground infrastructure, those things that are definitionally technically public works.

But then right behind the curb and gutter, it converts to private residential privately funded. And how do we sort of delineate and tackle that issue when someone could be coming looking at one aspect and not sort of blurring those lines as they're doing the work they should appropriately be doing?

So we are concerned with that. It's not as clear as we would hope on how to tackle that issue. But I think anticipating that this bill moves forward today, certainly hope to continue to work with the sponsors and figure out if there is somewhere to go. But at this point, we are opposed. But again, big appreciation so far for the conversations that have happened.

Mr. Chair. Richard Markuson on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We can support strong enforcement of prevailing wage laws. Our concern is not about enforcement, but about who is doing the enforcing.

AB 1859 grants private parties, the JLMCs, access to active construction sites. These are not neutral regulators, but organizations affiliated with one segment of the industry, and this raises real concerns about fairness and job site management.

As the committee analysis notes, the bill also raises serious constitutional questions under Cedar Point Nursery versus Hassid because it compels access to private property by private actors without clear standards. In practice, contractors would be required to admit individuals with no contractual role, no public accountability, and no clear credential, creating safety risks and liability exposure on active job sites.

California has a strong enforcement system through the Labor Commissioner, although there are arguments about how diligent they are with the enforcement activity. But if more enforcement is truly needed, it should be done by neutral public agencies, not private organizations. And for these reasons, we respectfully are opposed to the measure. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition, please step up. Name, organization, please.

Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and San Diego in opposition. Happy to answer any questions about litigation or anything else.

Thank you. Anyone else in opposition? Alright. We'll move it to Members. Any questions? Mr. Kalra.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Do you have a motion? I'll move the... Okay. I'll third the bill. And I know this, well, I would just say that couple of things. One is I I understand why some of the private sector contractors would wanna rely on government workers to come in when we know we're understaffed in every single department.

And to actually expect, I mean, I think it's a false expectation to expect that we're gonna have the resources to have public workers be able to come in there to do any monitoring. Secondly, I think that reasonable access means reasonable access. We're not talking about folks coming in and running roughshod over the site.

Third, the argument that this would fall under this the constitutional taking as the US Supreme Court dictated in Cedar Point, I think is a stretch. When this bill passes this committee, it will be going to Judiciary. So I'll certainly expound on that further, and happy to hear arguments on both sides for that at a later time.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Alright. I think opposition had some pretty good questions that came up. I was happy to know you guys are already working with them, so I appreciate that. With that, Madam Chair, you may close.

I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. I will take a roll.

AB 1859, Assembly Member Ortega. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. [Roll Call]

The motion passes. Thank you.

Yeah. We will now go back to file item four, a b 1883. Assembly member Brian, whenever you are ready.

Thank you, madam chair, and colleagues. I'm proud to present a b 1883 which will prohibit the use of invasive and potentially discriminatory surveillance systems in the workplace. Workplace surveillance is not a recent phenomena, but today's workplace surveillance tools differ in their scale, their speed, and their invasiveness. Employers used to have to monitor video feeds to track workers. Now artificial intelligence and tech advancements allow them to not only track worker movements, but also compile massive amounts of data points and analyze them in real time.

Current technology includes wearable devices to monitor worker speech, devices that can collect and retain biometrics, retina tracking, and systems that use emotional, facial, and gait recognition. Employers can use the surveillance data for predictive behavior analysis to prevent workers from exercising their protected rights or to figure out deeply personal information such as health or immigration status. Employer surveillance tools vary across forms. Call center workers, for example, may be required to use tools that employ emotional recognition and generative AI to analyze interactions. These systems send constant nudges to alter worker behavior and provide data to supervisors for corrective measures.

Workers face risks of bias, discrimination, and frequent errors, usually without knowing how the algorithms work, when they're being assessed, and what inputs are being put in such as their tone, their accent, or their word choice. Other surveillance tools secretly monitor body movements using gait recognition, flagging suspicious individuals, whether customers or employees based on how they walk. This can easily lead to discrimination against individuals with physical disabilities. This bill prohibits the use of the most unreliable and potentially discriminatory types of surveillance, facial, gait, and emotion recognition technologies. It also puts guardrails and regulations on the use of facial recognition, mainly allowing it for its use to open a locked or secured area or device.

Joining me to testify in support are Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and Shane Guzman representing the California Teamsters.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez of the California Federation of Labor Unions, cosponsor of AB 1883. AB 1883 is part of a package of bills the Labor Federation is sponsoring this year to update labor standards for the twenty first century. This technology, as the assembly member has noted, has existed, but today, it's more powerful than ever before. And the principles guiding the creation and the need for worker centered guardrails remain consistent.

Labor has been at the forefront of making workplaces safer and more humane for decades, and this is no different. This committee has seen previous iterations of workplace AI bills, and we brought them back because we are at a junction point where we can act to protect workers. The assembly member just described how emotional recognition tools are used on call center workers at MetLife, Humana, and even Kaiser. Developers like Verint and NICE offer tools capable of real time sentiment and soft skill analysis to monitor and, in a sense, automate worker emotions and behavior. Not only are these tools invasive, but they are likely to discriminate against workers who fail to meet arbitrary communication standards.

In addition to monitoring worker emotions, employers also have access to tools purportedly capable of analyzing neural data to determine if a worker is tired, concentrating, or stressed. Del developers like Emotive sell hardware, to allow employers to understand a worker's true mental and cognitive state for improving ROI. These tools rely on questionable technologies to make bold claims of of humans' mental state. The likelihood of inaccuracy is high. And despite these questionable outcomes, these tools still exist today, and employers are clearly opposed to their prohibition.

Developers are creating boss wear beyond purposes, beyond neural and emotional recognition. The assembly member just mentioned gate recognition technology and its impact on workers, and facial recognition continues to be deployed in worksites across the state. While workers buy every day to make ends meet, they are also subjected to these extreme tools. AB 1883 sets needed guardrails, and the time to update the labor standards for the twenty first century is now. I respectfully urge your eye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Madam chair, members of the committee, Shane Guzman on behalf of, Teamsters California, proud cosponsor of this bill. Also representing a number of other unions that are supportive, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Machinist Union, Utility Workers, Union of America, Engineers and Scientists of California, and Unite Here. We we are supporting this bill like we supported a number of bills last year because the powerful incentive of of employers to use this technology. It's becoming cheaper and an easier way in in their view. And I think they're being sold on this to manage their employees and manage manage productivity.

We think it's imperative for policymakers in the state legislature to put guardrails around this because they don't you guys don't have an incentive, that the companies have that that are selling this technology. And we believe that the legislature has a worker's best interest at heart. Let me talk about a few of the things that reasons why we're supporting this bill. We know that AI technology and the way it is used in the workplace to constantly monitor and surveil employees is both dangerous physically for workers and for their mental health. The constant stress of being monitored causes distraction.

The worst workplace causes accidents, and the constant fear and stress also causes, anxiety that is unimaginable for workers, particularly in places where you're doing high volume work or high pressure work like warehouses and driving commercial vehicles. Loss of privacy and autonomy that happens. When did we give up the idea that we have some privacy in the workplace as a worker, autonomy in the workplace or dignity? This technology is leading the way for giving that up. I I just wanna raise one other point for for this facial recognition technology.

The we have workers where the facial recognition technology has said that they are falling asleep at the works workplace when they are not. It's because of the way the technology works and doesn't take into account people look differently, they have different looks. And it's, you know, in some instances completely racist and we need to do something about it. We support this bill and our drive up.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Thank you, madam chair and members. Megan Soopers on behalf of the California professional firefighters in support.

Hi. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME in support. Thank you.

Gateway. Hello.

Renee Cruz Martinez, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers1245 in support.

Good afternoon, chair members. JP Henn on behalf of the California Nurses Association, in support.

Good afternoon, chair, committee members.

My name is Sean Mason, I a t s e local b 192 in support.

Good afternoon, committee members. Glenn Laval, Napa Solano Central Labor Council in full support.

Madam chair members, Louis Costa with Smart Transportation Division in support.

Good afternoon, madam chair members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California also in support.

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of Tech Equity Action and the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support. Navneet

Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Megan Varve, on behalf of Privacy Rights Clearing House at Oakland Privacy in support. Ashley Gunkel from the Miss Universe Union, we're in support.

Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

You may begin whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of on position. We really appreciate a lot of the conversations we've had with the author's office and the sponsor. No limiting of this bill, you know, to what is perceived as the more invasive uses of some of this technology. But our concern really stems from the fact that the bill is a straight ban on that technology rather than placing guardrails on how and when that technology is used.

So a lot of the things that have been mentioned today, of course, we agree that there can be problems with this technology, and that's important that there is oversight review that's happening right when this is being used. But we also I think that it's more for the legislature to consider what benefits and safety features some of these technologies provide, like facial recognition. One of the key uses of this is rapid analysis of footage. When you have an incident, when you have a lost child in a senior park, when you have suspicious personnel on, you know, on a campus, right, it can review in very quick form who right. Where these people are, who's there, if someone is remaining in a building when there's supposed to be an evacuation and is not picked up that that person has left.

And, of course, that thing those things can capture employees. Right? Even if sometimes it's missing a public, like a situation where a child might be missing in a theme park. When we're talking about emotional, right, recognition, areas like a call center. Completely hear that there are situations where maybe it's flagging and that's inaccurate.

Right? But when we're talking about call center, we potentially have thousands and thousands and thousands of calls happening. Realistically, it can be difficult for managers or otherwise to monitor all of those calls. We wanna make sure that if someone is being hostile or rude to customers repeatedly, that that is caught. And I I would argue that that's a question not necessarily banning that technology, but if it if there is a flag, what then happens and how is that used?

Gate recognition. Right? Warehouses and logistics often use that more so to understand how they should best organize their warehouses, how long it might take to cross a floor, right, to get a specific product. Again, completely here that we don't want that to be used against individuals, you know, for example, those with disabilities or otherwise, but it doesn't mean that every single use of these technologies is problematic. And so rather than a ban, we look forward to working with the author's office and sponsors to hopefully find some sensible guardrails around the use of the technology.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Chris McCailey on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Two issues I wanted to raise for the committee's consideration. The first is, the enforcement mechanism, primarily our concern with the proposed private right of action in, proposed 1582 Subdivision D, which I would note includes the potential award of punitive damages. The second item is related to preemption.

First concern is is that there are some vagaries in the language, I either standard for which either the public or private enforcement could occur, including words such as profile or infer? What are those standards exactly that could subject an employer to a private right of action? The in in terms of the definition of employer, it applies across the board, whether you're a small or a large corporate entity as an employer. So certainly from the small business perspective, there's great concern. Also, in 1582 Subdivision F, the venue is either where the employer resides or transacts business.

And our concern with the second clause of transacting business is whether or not this could ultimately lead to essentially forum shopping by the plaintiff to find a more favorable potential venue for bringing that enforcement action. The second is in subdivision, g right below it. We believe if you're gonna create a statewide standard, it should be statewide and applicable across the board, and not have some sort of patchwork of local ordinances. So we would like to see that provision struck and not have potentially differing local ordinances on the same topic. Instead, create one statewide standard.

Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Any other witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, madam chair, and committee committee members. Cindy Beifuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in opposition.

Good afternoon. Margaret Gladstein here on behalf of the California Hospital Association and the Security Industry Association.

Good afternoon, madam chair. Tom Sheehy on behalf of the California Landscape Contractors Association in opposition to this measure.

Good afternoon. Taylor Shiffo with KFC on behalf of the

California Grocers in respectful opposition. Okay.

Good afternoon. Aaron Avery, California Special District Association. Respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Johnny Pino with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brent with California Retailers in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Emily Udell with California's Credit Union's in respectful opposition.

Daniel Parsons with the California Assisted Living Association in opposition. Okay.

Eric Lair on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and the rural county representatives of California in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, chair and members. Melissa Kostichuk with Western Growers. We align our comments with those provided by Cal Chamber in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Madam chair, members of committee, Chris Walker on behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors as as well as the California Craft Brewers Association Opposition.

And I'll be on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in Opposition.

Good afternoon, Chair members. Jose Tarla with TechNet and respect for Opposition.

Good afternoon. Elizabeth Escobello with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Martin Lauer with the California Restaurant Association in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, I will now turn it over to members to see if they have any questions or comments. Assembly member Brian, would you like to address any of the, questions that were brought up in your closing?

Yeah. Absolutely. You know, I I think we just have a fundamental difference of of approach here. One is to let these technologies move unfettered, see what kind of harm they cause, and then adjust to that. And the other is to not let these technologies go forward as is because they are already causing harm and then decide which uses are appropriate.

Interestingly enough, the example is cited by the opposition, including collecting the data on your children without you knowing it, and then using it to find a lost child, which is I think interesting and raise a whole bunch of questions about why you have my child's face in your data, what you do with it after, all of the above. Another example included walking across the floor, which it can be very easy to see how somebody with a limp or somebody with a disability or somebody who's had a a a leg surgery could be, you know, have their gait used against them, the speed at which they move, in a way that's discriminatory. A lot of these practices, are not theoretical. They're actually happening. They're real documented worker stories, and I think that is where the impetus of this bill comes from.

And I think it's something that the state of California needs to get ahead of, and I respectfully ask for your eye vote.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 1883 Assemblymember Brian. Motion is do passed, and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. Ortega. Aye. Ortega Aye. Alanis. Chen. Elhamari. Aye. Elhamari Aye. Kalra. Kalra Aye. Lee.

Aye. Aye.

Lee, Aye. Arambula? Aye. Arambula, Aye.

We have five votes that measures out. We will leave the roll open for absent members.

Thank you madam chair.

Assemblymember Schulz, your final bill. Item number five, a b 1898. Whenever you are ready.

Well, thank you very much madam chair and members. Sorry to keep you waiting. I was presenting a bill in another committee.

It's okay. It helped me. I, you know, I took the chair prop. So

Well, I'm here and I am thrilled to be presenting Assembly Bill 1898 which ensures transparency and accountability by requiring employers to give workers advanced notice before they implement artificial intelligence tools in the workplace. And before I go on, I'm gonna say there's a lot of bills that the committee is gonna hear this year in the realm of workplace surveillance and artificial intelligence. And I'm gonna make probably the most controversial statement of the day, but I do not believe this bill to be a controversial one. This is a very common sense measure to ensure that our workforce knows the conditions under which they're working. And if we can't agree on that, it's gonna be very hard to agree on much.

Let me further describe the problem. Artificial intelligence systems sold to employers are no longer just simple chat bots or search engines. Today, companies use a wide range of AI tools to monitor and manage workers, changing the modern workplace and affecting millions of employees right here in the state of California. Now, earlier this year, fast food chain Burger King announced that they are testing AI powered headsets for their drive through workers, for example, so that they can listen and track how friendly their employer employers are with their customers. Other systems track workers, using tools like keyboard monitoring, eye tracking, and biometric sensors that can predict fatigue.

Employers are also using automated decision making systems, ADS for short, to automate oversight. ADS systems can set weekly schedules and even track discipline or fire employees, a practice recently reported in Amazon warehouses. While employers continue to purchase and utilize these AI powered systems, the vast majority of workers are left in the dark of how these tools are being used to monitor or manage their day to day life at the work site. Algorithmic algorithmic firing is reportedly on the rise with recent figures estimating that more than one in five managers allow AI systems to make final firing decisions without their input. This practice has been has invaded numerous industries such as the gig economy, which often leaves ride share drivers at the whim of AI driven deactivation.

Without an understanding of the automated decision making systems in the workplace, workers are unable to navigate workplace expectations. So in my final moment, let me talk to you talk to you about what 808098 does do. Eighty 8098 would require an employer to provide workers with an advanced notice at least ninety days before an AI powered workplace tool is used to surveil or manage workers. And it would require employer notices to disclose the purpose of the AI tool, a description of the worker data that will be captured by the tool, what employment related decision may be affected by the AI tool, and importantly, a description of the general location in the workplace where these tools will be used. This bill is important because California workers deserve transparency and accountability when it comes to AI in the workplace.

And I wanna close with where I started. I don't view this bill as a controversial bill. There are a lot of proposals out there that I believe rightfully are seeking to regulate even more than this bill does when AI is used in the workplace. This is a simple bill. This is a bill saying that you you as an employee have a right to know what's being monitored, what's being collected about you, and where you're subject to surveillance.

This is essential for the protection of our workers in the state of California. With that, I respectfully and humbly ask for your aye vote. And with me today is, two gentlemen you know quite well. We have Yvonne Fernandez from the California Federation of Labor Unions and Shane Guzman with the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council to testify in support.

Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions. The assembly member perfectly encapsulated the types of AI tools that workers are forced to face every day. When it comes to surveillance, the military grade equipment in the workplace today has created a never ending apparatus capable of capturing every conversation and every interaction between workers. And these tools don't need a person watching a live feed because with AI, workers can be continuously monitored.

What this means for our workers is that when they are engaging in protected activity, such as unionization, the manager is privy to every single interaction. Nontransparent surveillance has a chilling effect on a worker's decision to engage in protected activity. And even in a unionized workplace, workers could be less likely to report any workplace violations of harassment if they feel that they are being watched. Surveillance and the lack of transparency all also has been reportedly proven to increase psychological distress among workers. The feeling of always being watched does not foster a healthy working environment, especially if you're always guessing how and when the boss is watching you.

Regarding automated decision systems, these tools, as the assembly member also described, are used to replace human decision making, especially when it comes to management decisions. While they're not capable of replacing human decision making, these tools are still used to set a worker schedule, pay, and even determine whether or not they should be fired or disciplined. Workers cannot realistically be expected to know how to operate within the workplace and fulfill their tasks if they can't describe who or what is managing them. These are the challenges workers across all industries are experiencing. As the assembly member described, a b 1898 simply requires employers provide notice to workers before bringing these tools into the workplace.

It does not prohibit or limit an employer's ability to use any AI tool in the workplace or on the public. A b 1898 is a necessary step to empower workers with the knowledge necessary to operate in the modern workplace. For these reasons, I respectfully urge your aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Madam Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, Shane Guzman, on behalf of Teamsters California, proud cosponsor of the bill. Also, Utility Workers of America, Unite Here, The Machinists, Engineers and Scientists California, ATU, and I may have left out one or two, but they all support the bill, important bill. I couldn't agree more with the author. This bill should be one that, should be considered a best practice rather than controversial. The workplace always works better when the employer and the and the workforce are sharing information.

It it makes for a safer workplace and more productive, frankly. The reason in this particular instance that it's important that the employer share this information is because, number one, it's not perfect. And the employer should know from the employee's perspective what's not perfect about the technology because the employer is relying on it to make management decisions. So having employee input is critical to make sure whatever technology the employer is adopting is working. It also gives employees a peace of mind about what what management decisions are being made over their work.

Right now, you have a black box in a lot of workplaces where it's it's difficult for an employee to know why they were disciplined, why they're losing their shift, etcetera. So having that sharing of information is critical, and and very important. I'll I'll leave you with one example of this. I was talking to a union leader earlier this week, and we were talking about this bill. And he told me that he represents a workplace where the employer had installed surveillance technology to surveil the the the employees and didn't tell the employees what was happening.

And and when one of the workers noticed, they went to the employer and said, hey. We understand what you're doing here, but you're surveilling your own IP and you're putting it on the cloud unprotected. Plans, critical importance to the employer were were going out there unprotected in the world. So had they talked to the employees first, they might have known that. We heard your eye vote on the bill.

Thank you. Do we have any any other witnesses in support?

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

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

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Karen Stott here on behalf of Unidos US in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Committee Members, Sean Mason, ATSC Local B 192 in support.

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

Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of Tech Equity Action and the California Employment Lawyers Association in support.

Janice O'Malley with AFSCME, strong support.

Thank you.

Megan Varve on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation, Privacy Rights Clearing House, and Oakland Privacy in support.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support.

Good afternoon. Luis Vega, IBW 1245 in support.

Nepni Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association also in support.

JP Hanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, in support.

Glenn Lovell, Napa Salerno Central Labor Council, in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any any witnesses in opposition? Welcome back. Whenever you're ready.

Yes.

Good afternoon. Ashley Hoffman on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. The Cal Chamber actually put forward its own AI tool disclosure bill a couple of years ago. And so I really do hope we reach a place where working at the author's office and sponsors, we can find a disclosure measure. I think that works for both sides.

Of course, the devil is in the details. And so I do want to express a couple of the concerns that we do have with the bill as written. I think the first is a volume of notices. So the notices would be required for any tool or ADS that even simply assists an employer with any employment related decision, which is quite broadly defined. It also would apply whether you are directly impacted or indirectly impacted.

SB seven from last year had similar language and was vetoed in part for the sheer volume, and the number of lower risk tools, mundane tools that it would cover. Some of our concern also is with the contents of the notice. Again, some similar bills did not succeed last year because they would have required disclosure of quite confidential information. You know, for example, we have a lot of sensitivity when we're talking about security tools, which we qualify under the definition of surveillance tools, about exactly what systems are being used, how those calculations are performed, and exactly how that works. And then finally, and I know we've had conversations about this, the requirement to give notice to the workers and independent contractors, and then the fact that we wouldn't be able to deploy the technology until everyone signs and returns a notice.

From an administrative standpoint, that is that is quite a feat, especially if you are a larger employer in California. But our concern is that it's also effectively a veto power if an employee or independent contractor wants to not return that notice. Right? Even just one, we wouldn't be able to deploy it. It's It's my understanding that was not the intent, and appreciate the committee analysis that also raised that as a concern as well. So thank you.

Madam Chair, Chris McCauley on behalf of the Civil Justice Association in California. Similar concerns that we had to the last bill, especially in light of the language is essentially the same in terms of enforcement and preemption. I understood the author's statement about the basis for this bill. I would note that the standard for which someone could face a public prosecution or a private right of action to me is a little bit vague. In 16 o one b, you have to give that notice to any worker who likely will be directly or indirectly affected.

Both likely and indirectly are pretty vague for which you could be subjected even to punitive damages. Now perhaps one believes that large corporations are appropriate to be subject to that. But imagine the smaller businesses, especially those that have no IT or HR type department or personnel to assist them in compliance with this notice with 11 required provisions and everything else. The potential threat of punitive damages seems excessive. Also have concern about it's not just a worker, but their exclusive representative, not aware of, you know, exactly the parameters of that, is and how how broad or how narrow it might be.

And then again, if the notice is, necessary and appropriate, then there should be one statewide standard. So we'd like to see the provisions of subdivision, g struck from the bill so that we don't have potentially a patchwork of local ordinances, adding to this compliance burden. Thank you, madam chair.

Additional witnesses in opposition.

Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in opposition.

Jose Torres, with TechNet, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Anthony Butler Torres on behalf of the California Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, in opposition. Thank you.

Mark Farooq on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition.

Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also a respectful opposition. Thank you.

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

Daniel Parsons with the California Assisted Living Association in opposition.

Good afternoon. Emily Dell with California's Credit Union's respectful opposition.

Taylor Sherpa with the California Grocers and respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Tom Sheehy on behalf of the California Landscape Contractors Association in opposition to this measure.

Jackie, on behalf of the California fuels convenience alliance, respectfully oppose.

Madam Chair, Members of Committee, Chris Walker on behalf of the California Craft Brewers Association as well as the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Also, on behalf of my colleagues at the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sam Hood on behalf of the Security Industry Association, respectfully opposed to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Johnny, being able with the lead of California cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Eric Lair on behalf of the California State Association of Counties opposed. Thank you.

And that incoming after the California League of Food Producers and Opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, I will now turn it over to the diocese to see if any members have any questions or comments. Seeing none, Assemblymember Schulz, would you like to address some of the comments made in your closing?

Certainly. I'll try to be brief. There's just two points I'd like to leave you all with. Part of why I have a personal passion, part of the reason I took this particular bill is that as a state employee, I remember entering the California Department of Justice, the Reagan Building in Downtown LA. Day one, I was told that what happens in this building constantly under surveillance by CHP.

I was informed that anything I do on a workplace device, computer, phone, it can be tracked. It could be subject to a Public Records Act request. And once I was informed, I knew that every every moment I step foot in that building, just do my job and be proud and be able accountable for every action that I took. That's really what this bill seeks to do. Just let our workers know where they're being tracked, surveilled so that they at least have that knowledge and what they choose to do with it.

Once they've been informed of that, that's on them. The last point I'll make is this. And I say this comment as much for all of you as to the stakeholders, and I really do appreciate the the testimony from the opposition. And I make this comment to the office of the governor as well. There are a lot of challenging decisions that we have to make in this job.

You know, in the coming decades, we're gonna have to grapple with artificial intelligence and the eroding protections that the Fourth Amendment provides. We have more data collected about us and available about us than ever before. And one of the things I often talk about is, well, in the past, if you wanted to get data about someone, you probably have to get a judicial warrant. You have to go through the proper channels. Now you can purchase it from a lot of large corporations that hold that data.

My point is simple. We have a lot of tough decisions that we have to answer, decide the next couple years. Don't let this be one of them. This should be one of the easiest bills you will ever have the opportunity to vote on in this chamber. And when it lands on your desk, sign it. Don't veto it. It's the right thing to do. If we care for California workers, we will make this happen. With that, respectfully ask for your aye vote, madam chair.

Thank you. We have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.

AB 19 I'm sorry. AB 1898 assembly member Schultz. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. Ortega?

[Roll call]

That measure has six votes. It measures out. Yeah. Secretary please call the absent members.

[Roll Call]

Those measures are out. Those measures are out. Seeing no further business, we are adjourned.