Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon. Welcome to Labor and Employment. For any staffers out there who are watching this committee, please ask your members to make their way to labor and employment as well as any authors who will pre be presenting bills. Once again, welcome to the assembly labor and employment committee. We're going to go ahead and get started as a subcommittee.

We are now going to go out of order and start with item number eight, AB 2137. Assemblymember Chen, whenever you are ready.

To present AB 2137, I also wanna thank so much for the committee for analyzing this bill. They did an incredible presented to us. AB 2137 strengthens workplace safety in the artificial stone fabrication industry by requiring certification for shops that process artificial stone while holding suppliers and fabricators accountable for verifying compliance and establishing mechanisms to reduce silica dust exposure. Exposure to silica dust has become a serious public health issue in California, especially among workers who fabricate and engineer stone products.

In recent years, there has been a riot in cases of silicosis and other lung diseases tied to this industry.

Our bill builds on the foundation established by SP 20 by Senator Menjivar, which introduced strict state requirements for high exposure tasks involving artificial stone. This bill requires the state to establish a certification program for fabrication shops, ensuring that only businesses meeting strict standards are allowed to make sure they can legally operate. By expanding accountability across the supply chain by requiring suppliers to verify buyer certification, ensuring customers hire compliant contractors.

Our bill strengthens enforcement by authorizing citations and civil penalties for noncompliance and establishes a system to track violations, silicosis cases, and regional trends. It helps promoting safety in the industry and lowering long term health risk for workers.

Here with us to testify, I have Glenn Farrell and Kirk Himmelschoo from the Silica Safety Coalition. It may be in the building, but with that, I guess we'll go ahead and with your permission, madam chair, just go ahead and move forward without their testimony at this point in time.

Okay. Sounds good. Any other witnesses in support?

Jusy Yee State Building Trades in support.

Thank you.

Good afternoon. Irena Repetian on behalf of Cosatino in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any witnesses in opposition? You can come to the desk if you like.

No. That's fine. Okay. Jordan Uter here. Worksafe. We are in opposition.

Is this your witness and support? Okay.

Madam chair, members, apologies. We'll get this one rolling quickly. But Kurt Kimmelshue on behalf of ASTA Worldwide, the agglomerated stone manufacturers trade organization, really pleased to be with you here today. We represent a number of the manufacturers of engineered stone and natural stone products, as I'm sure mister Chen noted in his opening. Really, what the the the primary focus of the effort around this bill and follow-up to the bill last year from Senator Menjivar surrounds worker safety.

How do we make sure that the product is handled safely? And what our members know above all else is in our time cutting these products that absolutely these products can be handled safely. But it's critical that we really structure a program and a state effort in a way that ensures that air quality standards are met, that this this idea of dry cutting is

a thing of the past and that we're using wet cutting methods to make sure that silicosis is not

a disease that continues and the silica dust particles that find their way into the atmosphere when the incorrect cutting techniques are used that that caused this issue, are definitely addressed under the provisions of the bill. So we we urge your support. We know there's some ongoing efforts and and discussions with this conversation, both with the department at the Department of Industrial Relations and with the Standards Board.

We we greatly appreciate mister Chen's efforts here to make sure that we can put a regulatory framework in place that absolutely protects the workforce and ensures that we can make silicosis a thing of the past. So with that, I'm happy to happy to answer questions. Again, apologies for my tardiness and, urge an aye vote.

No worries. Thank you for being here. Turning it over to the members. Any questions or comments? Okay. At the appropriate time, we will, hopefully make a motion when I move this forward. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair.

Oh. Okay. It's okay. It looks like we can go ahead and establish a quorum. Madam secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

Okay. Actually, let's go ahead and go back to item number 8AB2137. Chen? May I have a motion and a second?

[Roll Call]

The bill is out, but we're gonna keep the roll open for our absent members. I see assembly member Erwin here, please. Whenever you are ready. That's item number one, AB1534.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. Last year's federal budget reconciliation bill, HR 1, expanded the types of educational programs that are eligible for Pell Grants to include short-term workforce training programs lasting between eight and fifteen weeks. AB 1534 will create the necessary state process for California to approve high quality short-term programs aligned with the requirements of HR 1.

To be eligible for workforce Pell Grants, HR 1 requires short-term programs to offer participants skill-based and stackable credentials in high demand fields.

This will allow students to enter the workforce with training that leads to high paying jobs. Additionally, mid-career adults will be empowered to seek new training that aligns with the needs of their local economies or upskill so they can advance within their careers. HR 1 and this bill will unlock Pell Grants that have been historically reserved for undergraduate students that have not yet earned a bachelor's degree.

This could not have come at a better time, as there are gaps in the workforce between the needs of employers and the skills of workers that are not best addressed by traditional undergraduate degrees. The guardrails in AB 1534 will ensure that only the highest quality programs that will deliver real results for both workers and employers will be able to access this historic expansion of federal financial aid.

With me to testify in support is Manny Rodriguez, Senior California Policy Director for the Institute for College Access and Success.

Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Manny Rodriguez here on behalf of TICAS. I'd like to begin by thanking the author for taking this issue on, and the committee for a great analysis. As previously mentioned, the goal of this bill is to create the necessary state process for California to approve high quality programs aligned with HR 1.

Expanding Pell Grants to these programs has real potential to meet workforce needs by training working adults, career changers, and students to ultimately move into a job faster. But these programs do have a mixed record. While some lead to meaningful job opportunities, others can leave students with little economic benefit. In fact, research shows that some workers with short-term credentials earn only $30,000 or less, and those outcomes can be worse for Black and Latino students.

So while the federal law sets kind of a bare minimum standard, it does give California some discretion on how these programs' eligibility will work out here in the state, after consultation, of course, with the Labor and Workforce Development Agency.

The state framework in this bill builds upon those minimum federal standards and includes critical consumer protections around outsourcing instruction, cost, and predatory financing options. These safeguards are especially important because workforce Pell Grants can count towards a student's lifetime eligibility, and we believe students should not spend those limited resources on programs that are overpriced or low quality. This bill ensures that California takes a responsible and intentional approach, and it's for these reasons we're proud to sponsor this and respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. Jesse Hernandez Reyes on behalf of the Campaign for College Opportunity, in support.

Maxwell Johnson on behalf of California Competes: Higher Education for a Strong Economy, in support.

Jennifer Aguilar on behalf of EdGE Coalition, in support. Thank you.

Jessica Soco on behalf of Children Now, in support.

Hey, Dean Foreman here on behalf of the Hospitality Training Academy, the training arm of Unite Here Local 11 and its contributing employers. I'm here to support the bill, but I just want to make sure that registered apprenticeships are included in this and that funding can go directly to the registered apprenticeship programs without having to go through some other vehicle.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the members for any comments or questions. Seeing none, Assemblymember, would you like to close?

Well, thank you, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

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

[Roll Call]

That bill is out, but we will leave the roll open for absent members.

Thank you, Chair.

I see Assemblymember Gibson is here. Item number 4, AB 2499. Whenever you are ready. Quick announcement. I forgot to say this at the beginning.

Just a reminder, each witness will have two minutes each, and those coming after will just state your name, organization, and position. Thank you.

Thank you very much, madam chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present assembly bill 2499, Adrianne's Act. This bill will require California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation to strengthen protections for incarcerated individuals and workers who are living and laboring inside our state correctional facilities. Let me be clear. No one regardless regardless of their circumstances, should be subject to dangerous inhumane conditions.

Yes. Across California, our prisons are increasingly exposed to extreme heat conditions that put lives at risk because of aging infrastructures and and adequate ventilation systems, indoors temperatures. These facilities regularly exceeds watch this 90 degrees in heat. These are conditions that would violate workplace safety laws in virtually any other settings. And yet the persistence behind prison walls where accountability is too often out of sight and out of mind.

Under California laws, incarcerated individuals are recognized as workers, but in practice, they are not afforded the same level of protections that we would demand for any other worker in the state of California. That is a gap where we have both the authority and the responsibility to close. In 2024, Adrian Beulworth died from extreme heat exhaustion inside the Central California's women's facility. I just need that to seek in for a moment. In 2024, this sister died of extreme heat in one of our facilities here in California.

She was less than a year, watch this, a year away from being released. And her death is not just a statistic. It is a tragedy that and it is a warning. A warning that the status quo is spelling, and the inactive and the inaction has real human consequences. Assembly bill twenty four ninety nine is about accountability.

It's about dignity, and it's about ensuring that our correctional system reflects the values we claim to uphold as Californians. With me to support assembly bill 2499 is a representative who was self introduced as who who is a co executive director at safe at at excuse me, at WorkSafe, as well as a representative who represent the legislative advocacy for AFSCME California. Both will self rep, self introduce themselves.

Thank you, Assemblymember. My name is Stephen Knight. I'm the, co executive director with WorkSafe and, here to urge your aye vote on 2499. We all know that heat illness is deadly and preventable. And this bill affirms the basic principle that people working in correctional facilities deserve the same protection, from heat illness as are in place for all other workers in California.

AB 2499 requires that CalOSHA develop and propose a standard covering these facilities. The bill precludes CalOSHA from proposing a a rule with weaker or different standards, different heat trigger thresholds for work taking place within CDCR, a proposal that would have no scientific or biological basis. Weakening these thresholds, unacceptable and a threat to the health and safety of all the workers in correction facilities.

So this bill is necessary because it demands, that a critical gap in gap in worker protections closed, and it does so by setting a specific deadline, for action as we see extreme heat were worsening each year. In in this shifting political and budget climate, we need clear timelines and baselines to prevent worker safety standards from being deprioritized or stalled.

So no worker, as the assembly member said, regardless of their status, should face heat stroke, organ damage, or death simply for doing their job. We urge your support, to ensure that every worker in carceral institutions is afforded the same dignity, protection, and care that is due to all work that takes place in our state. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members. Janice O'Malley, legislative advocate with AFSCME California. We're proud cosponsors of AB 2499. I wanted to take a moment to bring you inside what it's like to work in these prisons, as the as the union that represents these members. At the California Medical Facility in Vacaville, a rehab therapist was running back to back treatment groups in a room that reached 93 degrees.

She was on medication that increases the risk of heat stroke. There's no ventilation, no fans. After an hour, she stepped out because she felt like she was going to pass out. She couldn't think clearly, didn't feel safe. When she called her supervisor, she was told to go back in and keep working.

In another facility, mental health staff assigned to crisis units are required to spend their entire shift outside no matter the conditions. In the cold, they bring their own gloves, own hand warmers just to to get through the day. In the heat, there's no real relief. At Valley State Prison, during work during weeks of a 109 degree heat, staff worked in offices with no ventilation. One worker suffered a heatstroke.

Others were told to move confidential mental health work into inmate areas because there was no safe workspace. Some ended up working out of a storage closet because it was the only place that felt even slightly safer. And in facilities like Wasco and California health care facility in Stockton, members describe heart palpitations, dizziness, shortage of breath just from doing their jobs. They walk long distances from the parking lot a mile into the facility in extreme heat with little shade and limited access to water.

These are the conditions our members are working in, not occasionally, routinely.

AB 2499 is an important step because it acknowledges that extreme weather is already here and that we need real planning, real monitoring, and real protections. But these stories make one thing clear. We cannot allow a separate, weaker standard for people who work and live inside prisons. We appreciate others' willingness to work with us to ensure the prison workforce is fully included, and we respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have a additional witnesses in support?

Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.

Bernie Singh with All of Us in Nant Sacramento in legal services for prisoners with children in support.

Reagan McCullough on behalf of California Coalition for Women's Prisoners. Happy cosponsor and strong support.

Andy Munoz, legal services for prisoners with children, cosponsor and support.

My name is Ayanna Green. I am the granddaughter of Adrienne Bowyer. I respectfully ask for your aye vote for Adrienne act at which I am in fully support.

My name is Tyresha Reid. I'm the oldest daughter of Adrianne Bowyer, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote for Adrianne's act in which I am in full support.

Hello. My name is Nenaya Moochie, but All of Us Are None Oakland. Strong support.

Jordan Uter with WorkSafe. We are strong support as well.

I'm a little sorry to California Federation of Labor Labor Unions in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none oh. Oh, okay. Thank you.

Seeing none, turning it over to the members. Yes. Hawaii.

I think I I just wanna start by thanking the author and the witnesses, but in particular, Adrienne's family for being here, for continuing to fight in her name, and knowing that this is just completely unacceptable that we've allowed this for so long for all of the the Adrienes that are in the women's prisons, for all of the folks who are working in the prisons, for the men who are in other prisons that are also experiencing this, like, we can't continue to allow this to happen.

And I just really appreciate that you're willing to push on CDCR to really be thoughtful about the standards that we need.

And I think knowing that the workers are fighting alongside the folks who are incarcerated speaks volumes, and I just wanna really say that this is how we need to be fighting together in all the ways to ensure that CDCR is held accountable, but also that they recognize the ways that they have to show up for our communities who are behind the walls because we aren't throwing people away. The expectation is rehabilitation. The expectation is that we're working together so that folks can come back home.

And so to allow somebody to die on our watch is not okay. And I'm just so grateful for all of the witnesses who are here, all of the folks who testified in support, who are willing to do this work.

I know legal, services for prisoners with children has been really pushing this year after year, and so just really want you all to know that this is, this is an area that we have to do something and we have to make sure that we're all working together to make it happen. Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none, I will turn it over to you for closing, but just real quickly, I did wanna make one comment. I have visited some of the facilities and talked to the workers, and the extreme heat is still in it. It's very much an issue. When I went into the facilities and then during the, you know, summer months when are that are getting longer and longer, and my office gets letters, and and calls about this issue.

So really appreciate the member for bringing this forward. I am concerned, though, that, you know, I'm not confident that OSHA is gonna be able to do many other things that you are asking of them to do in this bill. Just but that's a separate issue. So with that, I will ask you to close.

Thank you very much, madam chair, and your comments are not lost on me. We're gonna hold OSHA accountable. We say Adrienne Bowyer's name out loud. This is her act, and we wanna thank her family for being courageous to stand and be here. This is their second time being here.

Adrian was a mother, a grandmother, a community leader. She loved people. She loved her community. She gave to her community. This is about workers.

This is about the men and women who are in these facilities that's coming to work. This is not just about those who are incarcerated, but those are this is about those who go to work day in and day out under the same extreme heat that those who are incarcerated have to deal with as well. Adrian was a year away from being released, going home, and now she's no longer with us. So this is about justice for her.

This is about making sure that no other person have to experience death before they're released or those who are serving their time, whatever they have done.

This is about making sure that they can serve their time and not have to be serving their time in extreme heat and dying from heat stroke, dying from heat exhaustion. We are better than this. I had an opportunity last year to go to Alabama with a number of my colleagues from the California Legislative Black Caucus. That's deplorable conditions in Alabama. Those are deplorable conditions that reminds me of of of what my forefathers and it reminds me of pictures and films that I saw of slavery.

That's what I see in Alabama, and the Federal Government government needs to step in and shut down the federal prisons in Alabama, but that's not California. We are better than this, and this bill is an opportunity for us to show that we are better than this. And I'm asking each member to one, to buy to vote I on this to show that Adrian did not die in vain. I respectfully ask when I vote.

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

File item number for AB 2499 Gibson. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, Aye.

Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz, Aye. Chen? Aye.

Chen, Aye. Elhawary? Aye. Aye. Kalra?

Lee Moore.

That measure is out. We will call Thank you. Keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Item number 10, I see Assemblymember Armbula here with AB 2300.

Good afternoon, madam chair and members. AB 2300 would modernize the state's workforce disbursement of federal funds to be more helpful to workers and employers. Local workforce boards are the backbone of California's employment training system, but delays in dispersing of federal funds often hinder service delivery. This can lead to barriers from job seekers trying to access training, challenges for employers seeking skilled workers, and inefficiencies and delays in meeting workforce program mandates.

This bill addresses these issues by aligning state provisions with federal WIOA requirements, authorizing a unified sub grant structure for state and federal workforce funds to local boards, treating them as a public purpose grants and exempting them from the DGS contracting approval.

This process has been used by WIOA for decades and ensures efficiency and accountability. AB 2300 is a practical system improvement measure that ensures California's workforce programs are better aligned, easier to access, and more responsive to the needs of workers and employers, helping to build a stronger, more inclusive economy. With me to testify in support is Cesar Diaz with the California Workforce Association and Jose Espinosa, who's the executive officer with the Fresno Regional Workforce Development Board.

Madam Chair and Members, Cesar Diaz on behalf of the California Workforce Association in support of 2300. The CWR represents 45 local workforce boards across the state. They help out job seekers and businesses, find skilled labor. This bill is a practical modernization that improves how workforce programs serve your constituents without sacrificing oversight. different administrative structures.

Federal funds move through a streamline sub grant process, while state funds must go through a more rigid contracting process. That disconnect creates delays, increases costs, and slows down the service to workers and employers both. This is especially problematic when we're looking at rapid deployment for plant closures or refinery closures and when we need to get those services out there quickly for workers to find the resources they need to find employment.

AB 2300 solves that problem by creating a unified sub grant model for both state and federal workforce funds. It reduces red tape while maintaining transparency and accountability, allowing programs to be delivered more quickly and efficiently.

The bill also gives the EDD flexibility to issue timely guidance outside the full APA process. That's only when appropriate, and it ensures that local boards can quickly respond to economic changes, layoffs, and new federal or state directives. For these reasons, we respectfully request your support, and thank you.

Good afternoon, Assembly. It's such a pleasure to be here. My name is Jose Espinosa. I am the former eligible training provider list coordinator for the Fresno Regional Workforce Development Board. I'm here to speak on the Fresno board as well as the local boards across the state, the 45 boards.

And by the way, Assemblymember Alanis, it's great to see you. I know we met a a little bit over a month ago, and I'm here to share a little bit with you about how this bill is gonna support the local boards. You know, we're the funding delays, it causes a few issues for local boards. One of them is that start times can get delayed.

A lot of times, local boards just like us have a timeline in terms of when we're gonna be launching a program and how it's gonna be benefiting those communities, whether those programs are on rapid response services for business closures, whether that is in forestry or projects in terms of forestry, our construction program.

And so a lot of times when it comes to those delays, it can have an impact on our contracted partners. So there's different partners that we work with in terms of being able to launch these programs. And, of course, we have to go back and let them know, hey. You know what? The funds are coming in within the time frame that we had planned for and then the impact that it has on participants.

You know, local boards, what we do is we help people with job training and job placement services. And so when you have an extension of or when there's a program that is not released or implemented within this right time frame, that recruitment gets impacted. The trust gets broken, especially when we already had a timeline that we have been promoting in the community.

And so what this bill is is gonna do is be able to make it more efficient as well as remove one of the duplicate- duplicative processes that already exists. So the bill touches on two pieces.

The first piece is a unified sum granting process. So it acts similarly to, like, a TSA precheck. TSA precheck, you know, usually, you already have your your check-in. So, yeah, you can avoid one less thing to have to do. And, of course, airports are busy.

Right now with the, with the state with the federal process, it takes two weeks to two months for us to receive federal dollars through the Workforce Innovation Opportunity Act. Through state funds, it can take four to six months. So you can see that there's a major difference in terms of time line between federal and state funds. So this can speed up the process by up to four months with this bill.

The second component of this bill is gonna be the employment development department directive exemption from the state APA process.

The beauty about this is that currently, directives can take six to eighteen months. With this bill that we are suggesting, this bill would take about two to four weeks. And so the directives would be treated similar to, like, what the Federal Government does when they provide, guidance for local boards through what's called the training and employment guidance letters, which can be released quicker. And so, that yields my time. I thank you, everybody.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support? Seeing none, any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, moving it over to the members. Questions, comments?

Well, good afternoon, and good to see you again. Some issues that I have with the bill. Just so you know, you you may have changed something today because I remember talking with you. But I'm uncomfortable with the easing oversight on EDD. That's the biggest issue I think I have and maybe, some of those on on my side as well.

So I think I think we can have some further talks. I think maybe after this as well, I'll lay off this for today, but I I think there's, there's definitely room to to talk about that and explain more. Thanks.

Thank you.

Do we have a motion? Second? Secretary oh, sorry. Would you like to close?

Thank you, madam chair, for the opportunity to present, and I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Secretary, may you now please call the roll?

File item number 10, AB 2300 Arambula. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Ortega?

Aye.

Ortega, aye. Alanis?

Not voting.

Alanis, not voting. Chen? Chen, not voting. Elhawary? Elhawary, aye. Kalra? Lee? Ward?

That bill is on call. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. We will now do consent calendar.

What?

We're gonna vote on consent calendar. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

K. The we will hold the roll open for absent members on the consent calendar. Will the following members please make their way to the Labor and Employment Committee to present your bills? Assemblymember Haney, Assemblymember Connolly, Assemblymember Zbur, Assemblymember Krell, and Assemblymember Pellerin. Assembly member Krell, whenever you are ready.

Whenever you are ready. Welcome. We were Item Number 12: AB 2646.

Perfect. Good afternoon. Thanks so much for having me. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. First off, thanks to the committee for working with my team on this bill.

I'm here to present Assembly Bill 2646, Farmworker Wages. Yesterday was Ag Day here at the Capitol, and we saw the rich bounty of our state. It is a $60 billion industry. We produce more fruits and vegetables in agriculture than anywhere in the world. And we do it on the backs of our farmworkers, many of whom-- most of whom, actually, are living in poverty.

So this bill is about setting a wage floor that would protect farmworker wages at a time when they are particularly vulnerable. In fact, a UC Merced farmworker health study found that 1 in 13 farmworkers have reported experiencing wage theft. There's been well-documented cases of sexual abuse in the fields. There's also the health issues that come from inhaling pesticides, excessive heat, and these are just some of the many challenges that make farmworkers particularly vulnerable.

They have lower annual earnings and are susceptible to any small, marginal shifts in consumer pricing, such as the inflation that we're experiencing right now. Uplifting their significance through fair wages provides these workers with equitable opportunities that every Californian is deserving of. Assembly Bill 2646 sets a minimum hourly wage of $19.75 an hour with an annual cost-of-living adjustment for a state-approved agricultural employees and the corresponding employees that work alongside them.

The number that we got to of $19.75 is based on the 2024 average hourly wage that was reported by California farmers. Additionally, the bill falls under the State Labor Commission's authority to collect unpaid wages if a farmworker is found to be a victim of wage theft. With me to testify, I'd like to welcome Ignacia Hernandez. She's a farmworker from Yolo County, California.

Good afternoon. My name is Ignacia Hernandez, and farmworkers support AB 2646. I have lived in Davis, California for 20 years. I have worked in the fields picking tomatoes, chilies, cucumbers, corn, melons, grapes, and now I work in lettuce production in the packing area.

My hands are the last hands to touch the lettuce before it reaches kitchen tables like yours. Our work is hard and physically demanding. I start at five in the morning, and many days, I do not know what time I will be able to go home. We are constantly pushed to move faster and faster. Even with hard work, our wages are not enough to cover basic living expenses.

My rent is 2,560 a month, and my take-home pay is just 500 a week after taxes. In total, it's $2,000 a month. As a single mother, I need to pay rent and bills first. And then I try to find enough food for home. Sometimes I go to the food bank, and I share an apartment with another family just to survive.

I also work a second job in the afternoon at a restaurant to cover the necessities. I have two children in college. I try to help my son with his rent so he can focus on his education. There are times where I have to choose between helping my son and buying the medication I need for my chronic pain.

Every parent silently questioning whether they're a good parent knows about these choices. I took today off without pay to be here because with the hope-- with the hope that you will consider farmworkers. Help us earn wages that are fair. Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, Matt Broad from Teamsters California, in support. Thank you.

Thank you. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federations of Labor Unions, in support.

Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, in support.

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

Good afternoon. I'm Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition as a cost driver to AB 2646. We stand alongside Western growers as lead opponents on this bill. California agriculture is an over 49 billion dollar industry already facing rising labor costs, shrinking acreage, car check, expanded overtime mandates, and mounting environmental regulations. AB 2646 piles onto this by imposing a new sector specific minimum wage mandate that we estimate will cost California farms $256,000,000 to $736,000,000 per year.

And those figures don't even include the 218,000 primary crop workers who could also be impacted. The COLA mechanism compounds this issue, this problem permanently. Agriculture labor productivity has grown at just point 7% annually over the past decade, yet the Social Security COLA has averaged 2.8%, which is four times faster. Tying ag wages to the index artificially in place costs every year regardless of how farms are actually performing. By layering state mandate mandates on top of federal standards, it makes California a less viable place to operate.

These mandates would directly increase food costs for California consumers. It also threatens rural jobs and notably family farms, which is roughly 98% of California's agricultural businesses and a pivotal anchor to our rural communities. For these and other reasons, we oppose AB 2646 as a cost driver. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the committee. I'm Matthew Allen with Western Growers Association. Before I go into my testimony, I just also wanna thank the author for meeting with us to, allow us time to express some thoughts and concerns we have with the bill. As the Chamber of Commerce mentioned, this is a time when California is already facing rising food costs, shrinking ag acreage, and mounting regulatory pressures and burdens.

This bill would make it ever more difficult for us to maintain a viable, farm economy in California.

The bill would result in additional immediate cost to the industry between the 256,000,000 and $736,000,000 annually along with the automatic annual escalator, that's mentioned in the statute. While AB 2646 avoids explicitly referencing the H-2A program, the definitions and structure of the bill clearly target this federally regulated program. The domestic ag workforce has steadily declined and growers increasingly rely on the H-2A program to remain stable for the production. The H-2A program is not designed or intended to replace the domestic workforce.

It offers temporary assistance in filling labor gaps that exist at varying levels each year.

Utilization of the program is a last resort for employers. The program has many requirements, including the provision of housing for, those employees. The housing cost themselves continue to increase as do the necessary things that come along with housing, things that we're all very familiar with, like rising utility costs. Additional concern, the definition of corresponding employee in 2646 is significantly broader than the definition under, federal law.

Under, this bill, corresponding employ under the federal law, corresponding employment is is defined as the employment of workers who are not H-2A workers by an employer who has an approved H-2A application for temporary employment certification and any work included in the job order or in any ad work performed by those H-2A workers.

To qualify as corresponding employment, the work must be performed during the validity of the job order, including any approved extension thereof. However, under this bill, corresponding employees defined as any employee engaged in ag. It's a much broader definition and pertains to work workers that are working with that employer also in the same county. For all those reasons and others that we are respectfully opposed to the bill.

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

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and committee members. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Kimberly Clark with the California Farm Labor Contractor Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Taylor Triffo on behalf of Variety of Agricultural Associations, and I've also been asked to register a respectful opposition on behalf of Ag Council. Thank you.

Hi. Michelle Borges, on behalf of a variety of agriculture commissions, respectfully opposition in this.

And having come behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition.

Seeing no other witnesses out in opposition, turning it over to my colleague to see if he has any comments or questions. Move the bill. Second, would you like to close?

Thank you very much, madam chair. Appreciate the opposition's concerns. As you stated, we have met and I continue to have an open door policy. This seems like one of those issues where we're gonna just have to agree to disagree, about the needs of these vulnerable workers, at this time. I also wanna thank, my witness here, Señor Hernandez, and with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Gracias. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File item number 12, AB 2646 Krell. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Ortega? Ortega, aye.

Alanis? Chen? Elhawary? Kalra?

Aye.

Kalra, aye. Lee? Ward?

We will leave that role open for absent members. Thank you. Once again, if staff is listening, I know we have a number of committees going on at the same time. But if you have a member who is presenting in labor and employment, please make sure that they make their way over now. Thank you.

Alright.

Yeah. Good afternoon, Assembly Member Haney.

Hi.

Whenever you are ready to present Item Number Two: AB 1869.

All right. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 1869 addresses a growing problem in our hospitality industry, real estate investment trusts, or REITs, improperly inserting themselves into hotel operations. REITs own hotel properties, but they are legally structured as passive investors. In exchange for a special tax-exempt status, they are prohibited from participating in management labor decisions or day-to-day operations.

But increasingly, that line is being crossed. We are seeing REITs influence staffing levels, workplace policies, and even labor negotiations, responsibilities that belong solely to the hotel operator. When REITs act like operators, they should not continue receiving a tax break that is explicitly conditioned on staying out of operations. Compounding this issue, there is currently no clear process for hotel workers to report when a REIT is overstepping its legal role. AB 1869 will fix both problems.

It will clearly define what constitutes direct or indirect management of a hotel by a REIT, ensuring that they are held accountable for it if they violate the conditions of their tax status. Second, it establishes a clear pathway for hospitality workers to report these violations to the Labor Commissioner. This issue became especially visible during the Covid-19 pandemic.

For example, RLJ Lodging Trust reported operating with 47% lower wages and benefits compared to prior years, all driven by cost-cutting measures imposed by workers-- imposed on workers by the REIT despite it not being permitted to manage operations. AB 1869 simply reinforces a basic principle.

If a REIT wants to act like a hotel operator, it should play by the same rules and not receive a tax benefit meant for passive investors. With me today to testify in support are Matt Broad, on behalf of Unite Here, and Anand Singh with Unite Here International.

Madam Chair and member, Matt Broad, here on behalf of Unite Here International, proud sponsor of AB 1869. I think Assembly Member Haney summed up the bill well, so I'll keep my comments short. I would just add that in 2024, the IRS Chief Counsel put out a letter, an advice letter that was-- clearly stated that, if a hotel REIT exceeded its authority, it could risk losing its tax status.

So, with that in mind, I wanna talk about what the bill actually does, which is really reporting. It just creates process at the Labor Commissioner's Office by which an aggrieved hotel worker or their representative would be able to report instances of REIT mismanagement, and then the Labor Commissioner would do a report, and the Franchise Tax Board would be copied on the findings of that report.

So just to clarify, it does not obligate the Franchise Tax Board to pull tax-favored status. And I'll just finish by saying, if hotel REITs comply with the law, they have nothing to worry about. I wanna be very clear about that. So with me today, I have Anand Singh, who's the Director at Unite Here International and gonna speak from his perspective what he's seen on the ground. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Chair and members, thank you for the time. I-- in the 24 years that I've been with the union, with Unite Here, the hotel workers union, I've seen and we've seen the industry, the hotel industry, change radically. And what was once upon a time, you know, a collection of locally owned, locally operated mom-and-pop kind of hotel operations in cities all over this country, has evolved and changed and, you know, radically so.

So, you know, the big hotel change that we think of when we think of hotels today--Marriott, Hilton, Hyatt--they really became dominant, you know, multinational corporations in the last couple of decades.

They're no longer locally owned and operated hotels. And then in the last 10 to 15 years, those same corporations gave way to a whole ownership class of hotel owners, including hotel REITs. Those companies still exist. Hilton, Marriott, Hyatt--obviously, we see them. They are now almost exclusively hotel operators.

They're the employers we deal with at the bargaining table and who employ our members. Hotel REITs are anything but passive, you know, participants who just collect revenue. They are all over labor relations. They are all over collective bargaining. Having something as simple as a grievance at a property, you know, at one hotel, the hotel REIT weighs in on the outcome of that grievance.

This is the experience that our members have had--frustrating experience our members have had--time and again as we've seen hotel REITs become more and more dominant. They are a dominant hotel owner in a number of major markets, including San Francisco and San Diego. And the result of this is more protracted fights and struggles. You've seen a number of strikes, lengthy strikes.

We think that's gonna continue well into the future as long as hotel REITs are given this competitive advantage and don't play by the same rules as their other counterparts. So, we respectfully urge for your aye vote, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Thank you, Chair and members. Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.

Megan Varvais with Kaiser Advocacy, on behalf of the California Tax Reform Association, in support.

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

Good afternoon, Madam chair. Armand Feliciano, on behalf of the California Hotel Lodging Association, who represents interest of about 6,000 hotel owners and operators across California. We are respectfully opposed to AB 1869. Some background information to start: real estate investment trusts, or REITs, were created decades ago by Congress to allow everyday people to invest in large projects that would normally be unavailable to them.

Fifty-six percent of Californians have invested in REITs, making them an important part of pensions like CalPERS, 401[k], 529, and other plans that have enabled everyday-- kept people to retire.

As part of their design, REITs are tax efficient but are not allowed to directly or indirectly manage, operate properties. A violation of these rules can result in fines, a 100% tax on income, and loss of REIT status. REITs can also be audited by the Franchise Tax Board. REITs are regulated. CHLA opposes AB 1869 for the following reasons.

The longstanding IRS test to determine if a REIT is managing or operating a hotel is based on an analysis of the facts and circumstances surrounding the day-to-day operation of the property. This rule has been in place for decades, create a stable environment for REITs. AB 1869 upends the stability by creating an evidentiary standard which ends California's conformity with the federal rules and will threaten REITs in California who are acting within the law.

REITs are risk-averse and will likely to be forced to sell, which will hurt communities in California. REITs are risk-averse, and they have to be. They are legally charged with protecting the funds given to them by their investors, Californians who have put their savings into these projects.

In California, we're already hearing that if this bill passes, hotels will likely be sold or closed quickly. If even a fraction of REIT owners are forced to sell because of this bill, the market will be flooded with inventory at a time when hotels are already selling. I'll close up. For all these reasons, CHLA urges a no vote on AB 1869.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Skyler Wonnacott, on behalf of the California Business Properties Association, representing commercial property owners, developers, and investors across the State of California, here in respectful opposition to AB 1869. You've already heard the direct impacts on hotel REITs, so I'll focus on the broader issue.

The bill breaks from federal conformity and creates a separate state standard, putting REITs that are otherwise in compliance with federal law in a very uncertain position. This kind of an inconsistency creates real compliance risks, and while the bill is framed around hotel REITs, it touches the same REIT rules that apply across the board.

Once California starts applying those rules differently, it won't stay limited to that one asset alone. It creates risks for REITs-backed investment in office, retail, industrial, and other commercial properties. There's also a direct impact on retirement investments. REITs are widely held through pensions, 401[k]s, and other savings vehicles across the state.

It's actually estimated that CalPERS has $6.5 billion invested into REITs as part of their broader portfolio. When you introduce uncertainty into how those investments are treated, it can affect their value, their performance, and that risk ultimately will flow through the state workers and retirees who rely on those pension funds. At the end of the day, it also makes California a less attractive place to invest. REITs were designed to give everyday investors access to real estate.

If regulatory environment becomes uncertain, that capital will remove elsewhere and Californians lose the ability to invest in their own communities. And if-- for those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1869.

Additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Alexander Rossitto, on behalf of the Building Owners and Managers Association of California, as well as the California Business Roundtable, in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and member. Maria Spencer Neider with Platinum Advisors, on behalf of National Association of Real Estate Investments Trusts, in respectful opposition.

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

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, I'll turn it over to the dais for any comments or questions. Yes.

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. To be honest with you guys, I didn't know what a real estate investment trust was until this committee, so I had to make some phone calls to my district to get some information on this, and my district, unfortunately, is very opposed to this.

And for the points that you guys made and saying that nobody's gonna invest in hotels anymore, we're gonna be losing that businesses, and so, as much as I know that the author is gonna work as hard as he can, I'm hoping maybe he'll change my mind by the time it gets to the floor, but right now, I can't support this. Thank you.

We have a motion and I'll second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Secretary-- oh, I'm sorry. Assembly Member Haney, would you like to close?

Sure. Well, you know, I just wanted to be clear that there's nothing that we're doing in this bill that is creating any new standard. If anyone is following the law as was stated by the opposition, there's nothing to worry about. We are all very clear about real estate investment trusts, REITs, and what they can and cannot do.

And all this does is providing for an opportunity for the law to actually be enforced for there to be an opportunity for the Labor Commissioner to investigate whether they're following the law. That's all we're doing here.

We're not creating new law. We're not creating new standards. We're not even-- this is not even adding any private right of action, or any fines, or anything like that. We're simply saying we agree on what REITs can and cannot do and we need to have a way for there to be a reporting mechanism to be able to ensure they're actually following that law.

That's all this does. And right now, many of them, as we know, are not following the law and are overstepping their boundaries of what they should be doing and what we all agree they should be doing under the law. There should be a way for us to actually investigate that, for people to report that, and for the law to be enforced and followed. That's what this bill would do, and respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. With that, Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File Item Number Two: AB 1869: Haney. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

That mem that bill is on call. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Assembly member, Pellerin, please. Item number 13 AB 2650.

Lucky 13. Good afternoon, chair and members. Retirement savings, while important for everyone to have, many do not plan for it until it's too late. Planning for retirement in today's economy has become increasingly more difficult to attain. As of 2020, over one fourth of non retired adults and two thirds of millennials do not have any form of retirement savings.

CalSavers was created by this body in 2016 to tackle California's retirement savings crisis. Since its launch in 2019, California has seen private employer plans grow by 15 with Cal Savers adding over 630,000 accounts to supplement that coverage. However, multiple problems are facing the Cal Savers program, which have affected implementation and require updating. AB 2650, the Save for All Workers Act creates workplace emergency savings accounts for CalSavers participants.

Additionally, it allows CalSavers to assist participants in claiming government retirement benefits by cutting red tape and clarifies that domestic employees are included in the program, ensuring that they have access to the same retirement as their boss.

The addition of a workplace emergency savings accounts is a crucial tool for CalSavers participants to weather financial emergencies and allows them to put aside a small portion of their paycheck into an account that is stable and can be accessed quickly in times of need. Lastly, the bill makes several technical updates to modernize the law, bringing the program closer to sustainability and maintaining employer compliance over time. With me to testify in support is CalSaver's deputy director, Tristan Woolicott.

Thank you. Good afternoon, chair and members of the committee. I'm Tristan Woolacott, deputy director of the CalSavers retirement savings board. CalSavers is a small agency within the treasurer's office headed by treasurer Fiona Ma, proud sponsor of AB 2650, the Save for All Workers Act. CalSavers is California's retirement savings program for employees who lack one at work. We function like other workplace retirement programs with the difference between us and private plans being that employers are not fiduciaries.

They pay no fees. And, crucially, employee accounts follow them wherever they go. Simply, they're portable. Since launching, CalSavers has grown into the largest and most successful program of its kind. Despite the success, we have plenty of room for improvement.

Such areas include growing withdrawal rates, the lack of employer contributions, administrative burdens, and persistent confusion among a small portion of the employer community. The Save for All Workers Act tackles these issues head on. Specifically, the bill creates emergency savings accounts within CalSavers, allowing our employees to save for everyday emergencies via their paycheck while crucially preserving their existing retirement investments. Additionally, the accounts allow for employer contributions without violating federal law. Both of these functions are basic features available to private plans throughout the country.

Furthermore, Bill cuts red tape, allowing CalSavers to open accounts for participants who are claiming government benefits without having them open accounts on their own. This puts us to work for Californians and maximizes the money going into our constituents' accounts. It also saves us significant time and money, keeping our fees as low as possible. Third, the bill ensures that all employees throughout California, regardless of their employment circumstance, have access to a workplace retirement program by clarifying the household employees are included in in the law.

Thank you for the opportunity to advocate for the Save for All Workers Act.

This legislation is important to our 630,000 and counting constituents. And if desired, I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you. Any additional witnesses in support?

Megan Varve on behalf of the California Association for Microenterprise Opportunity in support.

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

Hi. I'm John Valley from the AARP, and our 3 and a half million members are in support.

Okay. Seeing no other members and no other, members in support, do we have any members of the public in opposition? Seeing no opposition, I'll turn it over to the dais. Do you have any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second.

Assemblymember Pellerin, would you like to close?

Thank you so much. Bill has no opposition. I respectfully ask for aye vote.

Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number thirteen, AB 2650 Pellerin. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. {Roll Call}

That bill remains on call for absent members. Thank you. Thank you so much. Assembly member Zbur, item number 11, AB 2634, whenever you are ready.

Thank you. Okay.

Madam chair, members, I'm proud to present AB 2634, which strengthens the high road training partnerships program funding requirements to ensure that workforce investments lead to good paying, high quality jobs. In 2017, California's workforce development board launched the high road training partnership initiative. Intended to promote industry collaboration across stakeholder groups, HRTP provides funding and a framework for workers and employers to partner and create mutually beneficial solutions.

These partnerships operate on three core principles, job quality, equity, and climate resilience, together considered the high road for employers and workers. Since its inception, California has invested approximately $370,000,000 into the program, evolving into a permanent high road workforce development model.

AB 2634 aligns high road funding requirements with California's vision for a true high road workforce by prioritizing programs with labor management partnerships to receive high road funding. Specifically, the bill directs the state when awarding grants for the HRTP program to give preference to applicants who are or who are applying on behalf of a bona fide labor management cooperative program committee. High road jobs are the backbone of a strong middle class, creating pathways out of poverty, raising wages, and improving lives for working people.

At a time of rapid economic transformation driven by automation, climate transition, and shifting labor markets, California has a unique opportunity to reaffirm our commitments to labor and to ensure that workforce development is done with the knowledge, expertise, and engagement of workers. When labor and management partner on workforce development, the result is stronger industries, a more resilient workforce, and a more competitive California economy.

I ask for your aye vote at the appropriate time. And with me today, we have two witnesses oh, there we go. We've got both of them here now. We have two witnesses today, Renee Biardo with SEIU California and the Dean Foreman, executive director of the Hospitality Training Academy.

Are you first? Okay.

You both could share ten minutes. You could start when you're ready.

Chairwoman Ortega and honorable committee members, I'm here to speak in support of the AB 2634 introduced by Assemblymember Ziburr. My name is Adine Forman. I'm the executive director of the Hospitality Training Academy, the HTA.

We are a nonprofit Taft Hartley Fund and a labor management partnership that provides no cost job training and registered apprenticeships, line cook, barista, bartender, and room attendant to prepare our students for union jobs with good wages, benefits, worker voice, and career letters in the hospitality, food service, leisure, and tourism industry. Our program outreaches into low income marginalized communities facing generational poverty as we move individuals into self sufficiency and on the road to the middle class through life changing careers.

And we have been highly successful. The snapshot of our outcomes, a 100% placement rate, every graduating student gets a job, an unparalleled 89% retention rate after one year. LA County assessed the HTA as its number one training program. We credit our success to our deep relationship with the Unite Here Local eleven and more than 170 employer partners, including Disney, Hilton, Marriott, Universal Studios, Compass Levy Restaurants, HMS host airport concessions in USC who hire our graduates.

As AB 2634 ensures that state investment support workforce programs that deliver these kind of results and no training without a pipeline to life changing employment.

Federal workforce funding has drastically declined with another 10% cut expected this year. This bill is timely as global events, including the World Cup, Super Bowl, and Olympic and Paralympic games drive demand for a skilled hospitality workforce essential to being a world class host. We urge the passage of AB 2634 to strengthen critical industries that can't be shipped overseas, expand access to good union jobs, and build a more resilient, inclusive economy. Thank you.

Thank you, madam chair, members. Rene Bayardo representing SEIU California. In recent years, California has made significant investments in high road training partnerships, and we know this model works. SEIU California and other unions are already operating high road partnerships that successfully bring employers and workers together to train workers for good quality jobs. From the beginning, high road has always meant something specific.

It means jobs with strong standards that support working families. But more recently, the program has shifted away from that model. AB 2364 simply brings us back to what high road was always intended to be. It prioritizes labor management partnerships and helps ensure these investments lead to real quality jobs. SEIU California would like to thank assembly member Zurb Zbur, sorry, for introducing the bill, and, we respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional, comments in support?

Hi. Kate Eager. Sorry. Kate Eager with Weidman Group on behalf of the Center for Caregiver Advancement in strong support. Thank you very much.

Kate Eager with Weidman Group on behalf of the Center for Caregiver Advancement in strong support. Thank you very much.

Elmer Lizardi with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Good afternoon, chair and committee. My name is Ashley De La Rosa, Government Relations Coordinator with Building Skills Partnership representing low wage property service and airport workers in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Jose Mondragon with BSP providing a meet too for the California American Policy Center in support.

Chad DeWitt with the California Community Foundation in support.

Seeing no other comments in support, do we have any, witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, moving it over to the dais for any comments or questions. We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Zbur, would you like to close?

Aye, I wanna thank my, sponsors, for being here today and also the, the hospitality training institute, for the amazing work that they do. One of the reasons why I became interested in this bill was actually going out to the institute which trains culinary workers. It's an amazing program.

And, the reason why this bill is important is that we need to make sure that they these programs are doing what it intended to do, which were basically programs that, where we have a partnership between, with with, employers and labor, and that's what this bill is about. So with that, I will, respectfully, ask for your aye vote.

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

File item number 11, AB2634 is the burr. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. {Roll Call}

That bill is on call, and we will use the roll up and grab it, Melissa. Thank you. In my turn.

Oh. Connolly. Assembly Member Connolly, Item Number Nine: AB 2227. Whenever you are ready.

Thank you, Chair and members. Good afternoon. Proud to present AB 2227, which will provide comprehensive protections for domestic farmworkers against wage theft. Domestic farmworkers are the backbone of California's agricultural industry yet they often are the victims of labor violations, such as wage theft at the hands of their employers and what are called farm labor contractors, FLCs.

FLCs are often the worst violators, accounting for one half of all federal wage and hour violations found in California's agricultural industry. Because of the prevalence of labor violations, the state requires FLCs to purchase a surety bond. This bond functions as an added protection from exploitation and harmful work conditions, allowing workers to access bond funds to compensate for stolen wages or fines.

AB 2227 will strengthen the farm labor contractor license renewal process, increase the surety bond amount, and create a default judgment to expedite wage recovery for workers. These changes will ensure that FOCs are held accountable and cannot leave workers high and dry. It is critical that we guarantee farmworkers are paid what they deserve so they can continue to care for their families.

With that, I will pass it to my witness, Iris Flores Bautista, a farmworker from Salinas, and Ephraim Camacho, a community worker with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Felipe Rojas-Flores with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation will also be available to answer any technical questions.

I'm gonna translate the document, the statement that you just read. My name is Iris Flores. I'm from San Pedro Cuitlapa Guerrero Mexico. I worked in the fields for eight years, harvesting strawberries in Santa Maria and the Salinas Valley. In 2023, I worked with a farm labor contractor named Luis Rodriguez.

He did not pay me for my last two weeks of work. I worked because I had to help pay the rent for my family, childcare, and the necessary living expenses. We tried many months to solve a problem directly with the employer, calling and sending messages. He would only give us a check that would bounce back. He got mad at our insistence and started insulting us and threatening us.

He would tell us that we were animals, that if we look for help that we could get deported, and that we did not know English or Spanish, and that he went to a university so that he would not be able to do-- we would not be able to do anything against him. At the end, we submitted a wage claim with the Labor Commissioner's Office. It took many months before the initial conference, and he did not bother even showing up.

It took more than a year and a half to-- for a hearing, and he did not show up either and where he did not find an interpreter in my language, so they decided to cancel my hearing, and I have not gotten a new hearing date to this day.

After almost three years, I've been-- not been able to recover my stolen wages, and I've lost work to attend the conference, any hearing, and find information about the employer. The employer was able to work his company under a different names and no issues not for showing up to the conference or hearings at the Labor Commissioner.

This irresponsible people should not be able to get licenses easily when they play with the work and the labor of farmworkers, and workers should be able to get their wages in cases where employers don't show up for the conferences or hearings. This is why I ask you to support AB 2227.

Now, good afternoon. My name is Ephraim Camacho, community worker with California Rural Legal Assistance for the past 45 years. CRLA represents agriculture workers and wage and hours issues before--excuse me. In front-- let me back up. So CRLA represents agricultural workers owed to them by farm labor contractors.

Farm labor contracts, or FLCs, specialize in providing workers to farmers. We were surprised to learn that very few workers file claims with the FLC bond, but that it makes sense and how difficult it is to recover from the bond and how few people know about the bonds. We help workers recover from the bond after receiving an order and decision and award from the Labor Commissioner.

It takes years before a wage claim is adjudicated because of significant delays at the Labor Commissioner's Office. Four clients come to mind when we were invited to come here today. The four clients are owed more than $50,000 by a single FLC. Two of the clients waited a little over three years to recover their wages from the bond, and after filing the wage claim with the Labor Commissioner's Office, CRLA waited four and a half months for the labor commissioners to provide bond information pursuant to a PRA request before pursuing recovery from the bond.

Our other two clients waited two years and three months before filing the claim and the bond payment, but there was not enough left in the bond to cover the entire judgment. Four workers easily exhausted the $50,000 bond.

In these four cases, the FLC did not participate in the process. CRLA knows of at least 13 workers who alleged wage and hour violations against the same FLC since 2017. One of the workers obtained a judgment against the FLC over $1,000 to work done in 2018, and to date, he has not been paid. If the FLC tried to obtain a new license, new licensing requirements would help ensure Labor Commissioner is aware of any unpaid judgments. I ask that you vote for 2227.

Any witness-- additional witnesses in support?

Catalina Sanchez, APRAB co-sponsor, on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation and also on behalf of the Central Valley Immigrant Integration Collaborative, Valley Improvement Project, Centro Legal de la Raza, and Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability, in support. Thank you.

Mariko Yoshihara, registering support for Legal Aid at Work, Equal Rights Advocates, Pesticide Action and Agroecology Network, and Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. My name is Yeliza Amrbiz. I'm here on behalf of the California Farmer Coalition, the Mixteco Indigena Community Organizing Project, TODEC Legal Center, Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, in support. Thank you.

Madam Chair, Tiava Morris with Community Water Center, in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Eduviges Antonio from Fresno, and I am coming from [Spanish], and I am in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Ortensia Antonio, and I am here on behalf of [Spanish] from the Fresno County, and I am in support.

Good afternoon. My name is Estela Martinez, and I am here from Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo Indígena Oxaqueño Villasadrogio, and I am here on favor of the bill.

Good afternoon. My name is Guadalupe Beltran, and I am here in support of the bill from the original Central California environment. Thank you.

Good afternoon. I'm Jessica Guzman with Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo Indígena Oxaqueño, and I'm in favor of the bill.

Jordan Uter, on behalf of WorkSafe. We are in strong support.

Hello, Chair and members. Beth Spitler, on behalf of Health In Partnership, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, Asian Pacific Islander Forward Movement, and Farm to People, in support.

Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any witness in opposition?

Would you like me to come down? Thank you. Good afternoon, members of the committee. I think we're plural again. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I'm Kimberly Clark with the California Farm Labor Contractor Association. FLCs are integral to California agriculture, representing over 40% of the state's workforce.

Most are small, family-owned businesses, and many actually started as farmworkers themselves. We agree with the overarching goal to protect farmworkers. However, we are respectfully opposed to AB 2227 as it misunderstands the licensing process, increases administrative burdens on employers and the Labor Commissioner without increasing protection for farmworkers.

Proponents claim that the FLC bonds regularly run out yet they have not provided evidence and data to support this claim. The bill aims to create parity between FLC and foreign labor bonds. However, as the analysis of AB 1362 last year addressed, the bonds are purposely distinct. FLC bonds cover potential violations during employment, hence tied to payroll. Foreign labor bonds are tied to gross receipts as recruiters do not primarily employ workers.

We do not object to requiring relevant information for licensing, and in fact, the Labor Commissioner already has the authority to require everything sought in AB 2227 and beyond when it deems necessary. For example, though not in the Labor Code, FLCs submit fingerprints for background checks. The proposed language, however, is exceedingly broad, and while likely not the intent, would require information on taxes and wages before they are even past due, claims even if they were dismissed, and with no time frame or limit.

Concerningly, posting bond company information suggests to workers that they should reach out to the bond company directly, which is confusing and potentially delaying the process through the Labor Commissioner.

The proposed default judgment would give just 10 days after the notice is mailed, hardly any time at all, particularly for employers that travel throughout farms across the state, have family obligations abroad, or just fall ill and can't check the mail daily. Just 5% of FLCs are responsible for 65% of violations.

These bad actors harm farmworkers, undercut ethical law-abiding employers, and we urge the committee to hold AB 2227 and work with stakeholders to target those bad actors, address issues with the Labor Commissioner's claim process, and provide tangible protections for farmworkers. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. Bryan Little, California Farm Bureau, in opposition for the reasons detailed by the California Labor Contractors Association.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you.

Seeing now that-- no other witnesses in opposition, moving it over to the dais. If we have any questions or comments? Assembly-- Vice Chair Alanis.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So for the same reasons that Ms. Clark was bringing up, I know a lot of people in my area, in my district, and those that I work with in the farming industry also have the same questions. Like, what problems are we fixing? This is confusing. And I know one of the things was that we actually have an actual incident where the bond did not cover the wages.

In the example that your witness gave, Mr. Connolly, it sounds like that wasn't a real contractor. It sounds like that that was a bad actor we were talking about. Can we-- do we know anymore about that?

Yeah. I appreciate the question. I'm gonna turn it over to my technical witnesses to kinda talk about why we're here and also the data issue that kind of has repeatedly come up.

Good afternoon. My name is Felipe Rojas-Flores. I'm a staff attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance, Inc. I represent farmworkers in front of the Labor Commissioner against FLCs.

To answer your question regarding the data, the data that we have is very skewed because of the pandemic and the delays at the Labor Commissioner. So that case that my colleague mentioned was a case that started in 2018. The final judgment wasn't even issued until--if I remember correctly--2022, which that's what allowed us to go after the bond. If the case is filed now or even as recently as 2024, we're still waiting for conferences. We're still waiting for hearing.

If a hearing has been held, we're waiting for the order decision or award from the Labor Commissioner. So we can't go after the bond until the ODA is issued. That skews the data. It-- the delays are the reason why we can't go after bonds and why they're not being exhausted right now. To the specific case that my colleague mentioned-- so that was a real FOC.

They went through the licensing application, they obtained the bond, as is required of FOCs, but even then, the $50,000 bond was not enough for four workers, and we're aware of 13 workers that had allegations against them. What really happened there is that once we started reaching out to the FOC to obtain the wages informally before going to the Labor Commissioner, FOC will respond and then just stop responding to us. Once we filed the wage claim, they didn't show up to the settlement conference.

They didn't show up to a hearing. So there is no way to try to settle with that FOC prior to reaching out to the bond. So once we actually got an order decision and award for those clients is when we would be able to request the bond information through a public records request with the Labor Commissioner. Some of those took--I think my colleague mentioned--four and a half months. Other cases not related to that specific FOC, it took six to a year to get that information.

All right. Thank you for that. It sounds like the problem that you have isn't necessarily increasing the bond or anything like that. It sounds like maybe there needs another-- be a process to help with you guys with litigation on the case itself is what I'm hearing from what you just explained right there. I don't-- tell me how the bill helps what your case just had.

So using the example that my colleague mentioned about the FOC back in 2018, the first thing that it would help out is increasing the bond amount, right? So if that bond was 100,000, we would have been able to recover from the bond instead of having to go to the Farmworker Remedial Fund, which is a state fund. What else would do? The default provisions in the bill would allow the workers to move forward and not be delayed by an unresponsive FLC.

The example I gave, we-- our work-- our clients participated in a labor commissioner process. They attended the settlement conference, and if they don't attend the settlement conference, their case is closed. There's no penalty or incentive for an employer to show up to that settlement conference, but they can wait it out until the hearing, which would, given the current delays of the Labor Commissioner, can take up to three to four years.

So wouldn't it be better to fix that part where to say that if they don't show up, that things could still be awarded?

Yeah.

Yes. Which is why I think the default provision addresses.

Okay. So Ms. Clark, if you can answer me this on the bond, is it by-- is it per person or is it just a one per employer?

The bond is one per employer with the caveat that if you have a farm labor contractor who is also recruiting their own workers abroad, acting as a foreign labor contractor, then going into effect next year, that would trigger technically two bonds. Also, if you're working with H-2A, it gets even more complicated. But in general, you're gonna have an FLC that's running one single bond, yes.

So in the case that was cited, should that have been two bonds?

I'm not sure that two bonds would really solve the issue, and I agree with your point that a lot of these issues are inherent with the process and so we should solve the problem that we're really encountering here. And as far as increasing the bonds, that is-- we've actually-- I will say, Assembly Member, your staff has been great and the sponsors have been very forthcoming in our meetings, and we were hoping to work with them on that and potentially find a middle ground.

However, there's a lot of other amendments that got added into the bill, and that's when we got concerned. Even on the default judgment, we absolutely recognize that an employer who's purposely delaying the process by not showing up is a problem for everyone. It's a problem for farmworkers.

It's a problem for the industry. It's a problem for good employers that are acting in good faith. And so we were also open to that. However, it's 10 days from the date it's put in the mail. So I don't think that two bonds necessarily would help the issue, but we were definitely open to working with them and saying, well, let's find a way to help farmworkers and also not take it against employers who are doing their part.

And just for the record--

It looks like you have an answer for that.

Well, we're taking an amendment on the default.

Okay.

And happy to reiterate some of the-- what the bill additionally would do, but I think-- yeah.

And if we could, I--

I think we answered your--

--or I'm sure my office is gonna-- I'm definitely gonna wanna talk to you guys more about this.

Yeah. Absolutely.

Thank you.

And we welcome continued dialogue as well.

Any additional comments? Yes. I see Elhawary and then Kalra.

[Spanish]. Okay, sorry. Trying my best.

Assembly Member Kalra.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Assembly Member Connolly, for bringing this forward and building upon and improving the licensing process. Last year, I was proud to have AB 1362 signed into law. It was a seven-year journey to get that bill passed into law, and so I think we have-- you know, we have to make sure that it's working and makes-- and ensure that the process is actually there to uplift the farmworker.

And so, I know that there might be, you know, growing pains in implementing legislation from last year. I think this bill certainly helps to ensure that the intention of that legislation is effectuated, and I'm just grateful that you are-- you know, continue to push for, you know, with dignity at work for our farmworkers that are here as part of-- that are brought here and recruited here by farm labor contractors, and just wanna thank you for that and love to be added as a co-author.

Appreciate it.

Seeing no other comments, I would like to add a comment. I appreciate you, Assembly Member, for bringing this forward. I had a similar bill last year, which was much more expansive, and it-- every time I hear the testimony, it gives me-- it raises more questions than it gives me answers in terms of holding some of these employers accountable, which is what this bill is trying to do.

I know that if I get a ticket, just a parking ticket, if I don't pay that ticket, I'm gonna have a consequence. I'm gonna get additional penalties if I don't pay those tickets. We're talking about people's livelihood here. We need to have-- we need to have some accountability to get people to the table to have those conversations, and so that's what we're talking about today. I also, you know, frustrated with our Labor Commissioner in the department.

To hear about all of these delays after every hearing is another problem. We really need to stop hearing excuses from them about why it's taking so long because if you are lucky enough to, you know, have the strength to be able to report an issue, especially in this climate, we should be able to respond to you and get you into a process that gives you the opportunity to have a voice, not have to wait six months, four and a half months, or longer in some cases, and then never be able to recuperate the wages that were lost.

So I'm hoping that they are listening as well because we need to really address this issue, and I appreciate Iris for being here and being strong enough to share her story today. Muchas gracias. With that, do we have a motion and a second? We have a motion and a second. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File Item Number Nine: AB 2227: Connolly. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

That measure is out. We will hold the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Okay. We're on our last bill. So colleagues, if you're listening, get here quick. AB 1888. Miss Ortega, you have the floor.

You wanna switch? Because she's my staff.

Okay.

Yeah. Exactly.

We'll figure it out.

Thank you, mister chair and members of the committee for allowing me to present AB 1888 today, which is which is joint authored by myself and assembly member Calderon. AB 1888 would require any work performed for the California safe home grant program to be performed by a skilled and trained workforce paid with prevailing wages.

Last year, AB 888 by Assembly member Calderon established the California Safe Home Grant program to help low and middle income homeowners and high wildfire risk areas afford home hardening upgrades. AB 1888 is a companion bill to ensure that taxpayer funds are used effectively and productively, requiring that the work done for the safe homes grant program is performed by highly trained and well paid workers ensures that the upgrades are done well and right the first time.

Preventing costly rework or delays is imperative to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used well in this budget conscience time.

AB 1888 accomplishes two major California priorities at once, allows the reduction of home insurance cost for families while protecting well paying jobs in the state. Here to testify with me is the insurance commissioner, Ricardo Lara, from the California Department of Insurance, and Judy Yee, legislative advocate with the State Building and Construction Traits Council.

Thank you. Thank you, mister vice chair and committee members. What wildfire risk in California is, constant. Reshaping communities, straining our workforce, and demanding mitigation work, that is done right the first time. We know that home hardening in indefensible space improvements are among the most effective tools we have to reducing wildfire losses and stabilizing our insurance market.

That is why I proudly sponsored AB 8 a eight last year to create the safe home grant program to help income eligible residents afford these critical upgrades. Since then, dozens of legislative offices have reached out asking when constituents can apply. We are building this program in real time. Currently, we're working on securing long term funding, and we want it to succeed. But mitigation only works if the work is done correctly.

Without clear workforce standards, we risk funding projects that are inconsistent, incomplete, and ineffective. When mitigation work isn't completed correctly and to standard, homeowners may be may believe that they are protected when in fact they are not. If mitigation isn't done right, you only find out after the fire when it's too late. Homeowners shouldn't be left unprotected despite trying to do the right thing. Public dollars get spent, but when underlying risk remains and in some cases, the work must be must be redone at additional cost.

This is where labor standards matter. Decades of labor economics and construction safety research in include studies from UC Berkeley and the Midwest Economic Policy Institute clearly state that prevailing wage laws do not increase overall project cost when accounting for productivity training and reduced workforce. Skilled and trained workforce complete projects faster and with fewer errors, and workforce standards actually improve safety, reducing injury rates and liability exposure. And this is where my department role matters. Workforce standards also improve safety.

And as the state workers' compensation regulator, I see the data. Trained workers get hurt less less often, employers face fewer claims, and overall system costs stay lower. These standards protect workers but also protect employers and ultimately protect public dollars and the funding for this program. Other states similar that have similar mitigation programs, including Alabama and Louisiana, and, yes, I said Alabama and Louisiana, already include labor components because they already know that the work must be reliable, durable, and technically sound.

California is applying the same logic, but the scale is com more complex here in California.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Vice chair, members, Judy Yee, on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support of AB 1888 by the chair, we appreciate the inclusion of prevailing wage and student trained workforce standards in the bill by the chair and the insurance commissioner without being asked. The chair and insurance commissioner touched on many points of why utilizing the skilled and trained workforce and prevailing wage is important. So I'm not going to bore you with those comments.

I would just wanna focus my comments raised in the analysis by the opposition. School and train standards require workers to come from a state approved apprenticeship program over by the overseen by the division apprenticeship standards.

They are both union and nonunion. There are both union and nonunion state approved apprenticeship programs. Importantly, skilled and trained requirements are not over rigid. In many cases, only 30% of the workers must meet the standards and up to 60 for some crafts. This is not a 100% skill and train statute.

This reflects a balanced widely used policy approach adopted by the legislature to ensure skill and train workers are performing these important construction projects. These standards are critical here just as they are across California's construction projects. We appreciate their inclusion and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else in the room support, please come up? Name, organization? Alright. Seeing none. Anyone in opposition? Anyone wanna come up to the mic and give anything? Okay. Careful. Alright.

No.

I gave them the opportunity. They didn't come up. I will bring it back to members. Members, any comments, questions? We'll move in a second.

Any others? Okay. Seeing none. You may close.

I would like to ask our commissioner to close.

Oh, thank you. Member, thanks. Wow. Okay. I appreciate your time. I just wanna say, you know, that this bill has the potential to create an entire new unionized workforce. You're welcome to the building trades. Appreciate you asking. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

I already used to be on the the laboror the yeah. Thank you guys very much. Let's take the roll.

[Roll Call]

Thank you. Now we will move on to add ons. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

[Roll Call]

See no further business. We are adjourned.