Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

So we'll move to consent calendar. That is file item number six SB 939. Assistant, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of three zero on consent calendar. Let's redo that. We need a motion for the consent calendar. Do we have a motion? Senator Rosso gives the motion. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

We have a vote of three zero. The consent calendar is on call. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will go to recess for about five minutes, and, we'll reconvene at that time. Committee will rein reconvene. We are going to move forward with file item number four.

You each have two minutes.

Good morning. My name is Andrea Lynch, and I'm here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to SB 951. SB 951 creates a conflicting regulatory framework governing technological workforce decisions that significantly expands California's existing WARN Act. I want to draw your attention to three overarching issues. First, the overly broad scope.

Second, extensive notice requirement. And three, conflicts with existing California WARN law. First, SB 951's definition of technological technological cessation and hiring are broad and unquantifiable, such as the term primarily caused by an AI system and automation of job functions. These broad and vague definitions could capture the use of routine and widely used tools such as payroll software and scheduling programs.

Second, SB 951 requires extensive requires an extensive eight item notice including but not limited to an employer's justification for using an AI tool and disclosure of the model of AI tools used.

This could lead to disclosure of proprietary information, confidential operational strategies, or vendor relationships wholly unrelated to job loss. Third, SB 951 creates overlapping compliance obligations and a new private right of action tied to technology adoption decisions. For example, Cal Warren requires a sixty day notice for layoff versus SB 951's proposed ninety day notice requirement. Cal Warren is triggered when 50 plus employees are impacted versus SB 951's proposed threshold of 25 workers or 25% of the workforce.

Cal Warren does not require a right to first bid versus SB 951's proposal requiring a right to first bid even if employees are not covered under a CBA, which creates competing competing priorities for employers that have unionized and non unionized workforces.

These conflicting frameworks could create compliance issues, increase litigation exposure, and leave uncertainty on which war notice takes priority when both are triggered. I also want to highlight the, the ninety day, employers cannot, discharge an employee with nine within ninety days. It's noted in the analysis as well. And we believe employers should be able to discharge employees that have performance issues or performance issues or violating company policy within that ninety days. You're too Two minutes.

Wanted to flag that for you. So for these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 951 or respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning again, madam chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Three main issues. The first two are a replication of earlier concerns with Senator McNerney's bill. That is the overbroad definition of worker.

We think it should not include independent contractors. They have a specified term. Those contracts generally specify a scope of work, termination provisions, etcetera. So we don't think that the definition of worker should include independent contractor. The second is as miss Lynch indicated, of course, CJF's concern with the private right of action as opposed to labor commissioner enforcement of this.

And then the other thing that I wanted to make mention of is in the language on the private right of action. It's not just the individual, but also their worker representative. And unfortunately, I think history with other laws such as the UCL, the unfair competition law, we've seen abuses, occur and a litigation industry start up when we have worker representatives also able to make those, claims as well. The last item I wanted to point out is some experience in other states.

For example, Bloomberg law reported on AI related, layoffs testing New York's ability to track their, job losses. They had a 160 mass termination notices under New York's AI WARN Act in 2025, but none of them were attributable solely to AI related displacement. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. We will move to opposition me twos.

Good morning. Eric Lehr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We appreciate all the conversations with the author and sponsor, but are opposed unless amended at this time, but look forward to continued conversations. Thank you.

Hi. Eileen Ricker with the California's Credit Unions in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California, the urban counties of California, the California Special District Association, and the Association of California School Administrators, in respectful, oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Good morning, chairman members. Jose Torres with Technet in opposition.

Good morning, madam chairman members. Cesar Diaz on behalf of California Hospital Association in opposition.

Good morning. Jacob Brin on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition.

Good morning, chair members. Melissa Kosachuk with Western Growers in respectful opposition.

Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors in opposition.

Brena Sheehy on behalf of the California Landscape Contractors Association in opposition.

Good morning. Brian Little, California Farm Bureau in opposition. Thank you.

Thank you. We will come to the dice. Senator Derazo.

Thank you, madam chair. You know, just generally speaking, I'm a little bit, I mean, disappointed that there'd be the kind of opposition today when the things that are being asked for in this bill are so basic. To have information in advance of major decisions being made about people in our communities, you know, to to not to have the information so that we don't blindly approve or reject policies that are presented to us, all these potential ideas.

I mean, why why should employers alone have all the information at their disposal and not share that information with the people who are gonna be impacted? To know in advance as much as possible, if you're gonna lose your job and because it's because of technology.

I mean, why aren't we why aren't we talking about this in such a way that it's gonna join both the benefits of technology with the well-being of people who work for them? I mean, wouldn't you want that in your own situation, in your own lives to have that information, to know that it's gonna impact you, that something's gonna impact you and your livelihood. Why wouldn't you want that? I mean, why wouldn't you wanna share that?

Why why would you want to keep that and and hold it back instead of sharing it so that we could come up with the best possible ways of addressing what may be some job losses.

I don't think anybody's saying don't do this. It's how you do it. It's how you do it. And this basic dignity that people should have, I don't know why there should there's so much opposition to that. Any individual would want that.

Any business would want that. You wouldn't want to be from one day to the next, you know, your contracts thrown out the door. You know. You just you would wanna know and you'd wanna prepare for that. So I don't know what the problem is with knowing in advance, preparing in advance, doing it for a greater good.

I don't think I'm being naive about this. You know? It's like that's the way isn't technology supposed to help everyone? Isn't technology supposed to benefit everyone? Or is it just supposed to benefit a few people?

If there are some small, some issues that could be addressed, then by all means. But this this overall, is just it's just the opposite. And that's why there's reaction from our communities. That's why there's reaction saying we've gotta we've gotta do much stronger guardrails. Why?

Because no guardrails are being proposed. So it's all in in reaction. I don't know. Profits should not depend on denying people such basic information or denying our community basic information. So I just gotta say, overall, I'm disappointed in this, and I wholeheartedly support the, the author and and the and the, and the bill today.

And I just hope that, you know, someone could take the lead in the tech industry and say, these are specific things we could live with. We wanna do this for the for the greater good. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you so much, Senator Durazo. And I too, you know, echo those sentiments, and I wanna thank the author for bringing this important legislation forward. And we know that AI, that it's evolves and and workers are at risk, and, it is very important for us to protect them.

I also wanna thank you for working with this committee, on a couple of the amendment provisions that needed some correction and, and and particularly to specify that an employer is only allowed to discharge an employee during the ninety day notification period if there is reasonable and substantiated cause for for such action. This change just is consistent with, existing law.

We wanted to make that clarification. And I think it does strike a balance, that, the opposition was lifting up today and really appreciate you working on that.

And I also wanted to, suggest that as your conversations, continue, having spent many years on the workforce development board and understanding how incredibly disruptive and how incredibly disruptive and painful this process can be for workers when, displacement is, is happening, that we think about, ways that we build and support a network of local workforce development boards so that they can play a role in really assisting, these workers.

I don't think that we have thought about, you know, the Warren Act and how the rapid response is triggered. You know, what are the ways that we can deploy real workforce development and and and retraining and reskilling to address this.

And I think this bill helps us to to to bring that into the spotlight. And and lastly, the importance of going after, bad employers and, and thinking about this, this third party and uninterested parties. We're seeing, some bad actors in that space, and I think, you know, beginning to have those conversations about how that, important part of a workers protection is done in a way, that, supports the worker but also, dissuades abuse, in that space. But, you know, this is a critically important discussion.

Notification is a first step to making sure that that workers are protected and something that Sarah, Flock said really struck me about from de industrialization to de humanization of our workforce.

I represent South Los Angeles, and I wanna say our neighborhoods are still struggling from the de industrialization of that city, in that region. And, if we don't figure out this notification and how we work together, the industry and workers to ensure that workers are able, to have justice and and dignity, I fear, there will be many, many more communities that will go through what South LA went through in the last transition of our economy. And so I wish you all the best.

I know you're going to do tremendous work on this bill. We have a motion from Senator D'Arosso.

Would you like to close and then we'll take the vote?

Well, the wonderful comments from the two of you, I use that as my close. Respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed as amended to the Senate Committee on Privacy, digital technologies, and consumer protection. Senator Smallwood Cuevas?

Aye.

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye.

Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird?

That bill has a vote

Senate Labor Committee is going to take a Alright. Well, we are going to lift call since we have, another Senator here, and we will start with our consent item. Please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Okay. With a vote of four to zero, the consent calendar is out. And we will move to file item number one, SB 947.

[Roll Call]

With a vote of three to one, file item number one, that bill is out. File item number two, SB 951. We have a vote of three to one. On file item number two, that bill is out. Okay. Now it's on. Moving on to file item numb number four SB978.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is three to zero with the chair voting aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no.

It's a vote of three to one that bill is out. Alright. We are waiting for Senator Blakespear, which is our final file item of the day. We Senate committee on labor will recess for ten minutes, and we'll convene when she arrives. Senate Labor Committee reconvenes.

I see we have our final office, author here in the room. Thank you, Senator Blakespear. We will take up file item number 5, SB1046. You may proceed when you're ready. And if you have witnesses, they may sit at the table.

Okay. Great. If I have witnesses in the room, they're all gonna come forward.

Please do. Don't all rush.

So sorry to keep you waiting. Presenting in another committee. I know you know how that is.

We understand. We understand. And you may begin when you're ready.