Assembly Standing Committee on Labor and Employment

Good afternoon. We would love to get started. If I can, get, Members of the labor and appointment committee to come on over, we have authors ready to present. Thank you. Welcome to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing.

In order to be able to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings. Commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed. We will begin as a subcommittee. Senator Smallwood Cuevas, we have item number one whenever you are ready. And thank you for being on time.

09, which strengthens enforcement of public works laws to ensure workers are paid the wages they earn. It also protects responsible contractors, and it's a safeguard for taxpayer dollars. When the state spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid fairly. Responsible contractors should be able to compete on a level playing field, and taxpayers should know their money is supporting lawful, high quality work. But that is not always what happens.

Wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects, and penalties have not been meaningful meaningfully updated in over a decade. Bad actors are too often able to treat violations as just the cost of doing business. But for workers, this is not an abstract. A conch a construction worker can put in long hours of hard work on a public works project expecting a fair paycheck only to find out that they were underpaid and misclassified. That missing pay means rent.

It means groceries. It means gas in their car and money to get to the next job. SB 909 fixes this by directing penalties toward enforcement and ensuring bad actors no longer outcompete contractors who do follow the law. This is about protecting workers. It's about ensuring fair competition and making sure taxpayer dollars support lawful work.

With me to testify today is Matthew Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers and Elmer Lazardi. No. My this is not Elmer Lazardi. Voila. Sarah Flocks with the California, Federation of Labor.

One person. Go ahead. Sure.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Members. Matt Cremins here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB 909, which would modernize public works contractor registration fees, update penalties for prevailing wage violations, and seek to take a critical step to ensure that our state's labor compliance capabilities are as robust as the laws that we currently have in statute. It is often said members in this building that a budget is a reflection of our priorities.

And I truly think the same thing can be said about our enforcement of our state labor laws and that in many ways, it is truly a choice.

We're either willing to do what it takes to protect workers in this state or we are not. As I know, this committee knows well, wage theft and misclassification in the construction industry remains rampant with the use with the recent UC Berkeley study finding that one in five construction workers will experience wage theft throughout their careers.

And this growing frequency of wage theft can also be seen at the labor commissioner's office, where a recent audit found that the state labor commissioner had 47,000 backlog wage theft claims that are taking an average of 854 to issue decisions on. So with that being said, this bill simply seeks to take a small but important step to ensure that we are better prioritizing enforcement, and it's gonna do so in three ways.

First and foremost, it's gonna increase the amount that the labor commissioner can set public works contractor registration fees, which importantly is the only sole dedicated source of funding for enforcement currently.

It's going to increase prevailing wage penalties for the first time since 2012 to ensure that those continue to act as a deterrent for contractors seeking to violate the law. And lastly and perhaps most importantly, the bill is going to require that 50% of public works penalties that are collected by the labor commissioner must go back into the public works enforcement fund. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your Aye vote.

Madam Chair, Member Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are also a cosponsor of this bill, and we would like to thank the author and also the chair, for their work on enforcement because California does have some of the best, if not the best, labor laws and protections for workers in the state, yet none of that matters if those laws are not enforced.

We need robust enforcement agencies both to make sure that workers are made whole after wage theft and to deter bad behavior by employers. And we need to have the penalties that are set at a level, so it's just not the cost of doing business to steal wages from workers.

And so this bill is a very smart combination in that it increases the penalties on employers to make sure that they are paying the prevailing wage, but it also reinvest those funds into the agencies that need to be doing the work.

And this is a piece of a larger puzzle to make sure that there's adequate staffing and that there is aggressive enforcement, proactive enforcement of these laws. So we thank the author and the other sponsor for bringing this forward and urge an Aye vote.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

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

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

Vince Segarou on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support.

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

Good afternoon. James Thuerwacter with the California State Council of Laborers in proud support. Thank you.

Keith Umemoto from California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, and we respectfully oppose Senate Bill 909. Let me start by saying that AGC supports strong and fair enforcement of public works laws. Responsible contractors want 11 a level playing field, and we support efforts to ensure workers are paid correctly and protects projects complying with the law. Our concern with the bill is not the goal.

It's the structure. This bill increases the statutory cap on annual fees, which would increase burdens on small and midsize contractors. Additionally, it would increase daily civil penalties leading to further potential financial risk for contractors in the case of clerical clerical or unintentional errors. As prime contractors are liable for subcontractor compliance, this risk compounds. At the same time, the bill significantly increases penalties across multiple areas, prevailing wage, payroll records, and apprenticeship compliance.

The bill also directs 50 of penalty revenue into the enforcement fund. That raises a structural concern for us because it creates a dynamic where the enforcement system is partially funded by the penalties it generates. We're also concerned that increasing fees and penalties does not address the underlying issue that's been identified by the proponents and by the state auditor, namely delays and backlogs and enforcement. If anything, increasing penalties without improving administrative capacity risks more disputes, more appeals, and longer resolution timelines.

And ultimately, these increased costs and risk will be reflected in higher bids, reduced competition, and increased costs for public agencies and taxpayers.

We support fair enforce fair enforcement, but SB 909 creates a system with a greater cost, greater risk, and less transparency without solving the core challenges and enforcement. And for those reasons, we respectfully have to oppose this measure.

Thank you. Do we have additional, witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon, chair.

Good afternoon, Chair and Members. Naomi Padron on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California. We would echo the concerns outlined, by my colleague at AGC. Thank you.

Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, do we have any comments from the dias? Oh, do we have Oh, Sec. Let's take a minute to establish quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.

[Roll Call]

Arambula? Here. Kalra Lee Ward? Here.

Move the bill. Thank you.

Move the bill. Thank you.

We have a motion and a second. Seeing no other comments, I do have some comments myself. I actually, as was mentioned, I've spent a lot of time, in the last three years working on the issue of wage theft and more time on the issue of enforcement. And while I am recommending an eye today, I would like the, you know, the author and the supporters to continue thinking about the enforcement piece of this.

As was mentioned, we have over 47,000 wage theft backlog right now and, you know, requiring more of the DIR, when right now they're not doing their job, I think is something for us to look at and consider.

Unfortunately, you know, with two audits that I've looked through and done now, it's clear to me that in the state, we care more about fish and wildlife than we do about workers. And I've stated this in other committees. So, you know, I'm I do have concern about how this is actually gonna be enforced. But with that said, I understand the bigger picture and what you're trying to accomplish here today. And with that, I I will be giving it an eye recommendation.

Seeing no other comments, secretary, would you like to call the roll? Or oh, sorry. I apologize. Oh, no. Would you like to close?

Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, I share your concerns about the protection of workers and the the lack of investment at the state of California in enforcement of the laws that we passed to protect working people. What I appreciate about this bill is that it's a revenue generator at a time when the state does not we have a serious convergence and compression around our fiscal outlook.

thank you, madam chair. And, you know, I share your concerns about the protection of workers and the the lack of investment at the state of California in enforcement of the laws that we passed to protect working people. What I appreciate about this bill is that it's a revenue generator at a time when the state does not we have a serious convergence and compression around our fiscal outlook.

And just like our workers are struggling with rising costs of eggs and milk and gas, we've got to look at raising the penalties and making sure that they're keeping pace with, what makes it, important for contractors to pay attention to. So I share your concerns.

We hope that this will help generate income and revenue to increase enforcement and to make it more fair so that those lawful contractors who are doing the right thing are rewarded, and those who are not are forced to make sure that they support and follow California law. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. Secretary, please call the roll.

File item number one, SB909 small will Cuevas. Or motion is duplex, and we refer to committing on appropriations. [Roll Call]

Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Chen. Arambula?

Aye. Arambula, aye. Calra Lee Ward? Aye. Ward, Aye.

We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank

you. Yes.

We will go a bit out of order. Seeing item number four, Senator Reyes, SB 951. Whenever you are ready, Senator.

Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and committee Members. Today, I'm presenting SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act. Artificial intelligence rapidly trans is rapidly transforming our economy and workplaces. The governor's recent executive order makes that very clear. The question is no longer whether AI will impact workers.

The question is how California will respond. SB 951 is that response. According to the challenger job jobs report, AI has already been linked to nearly 72,000 job cuts nationwide, including approximately 55,000 in 2025 alone. In California, that number is from 10 to 31,000 job losses. Major employers, including Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, UPS, Citigroup, Salesforce, and Oracle have all publicly announced significant significant workforce reductions associated with AI adoption.

And the workers who are on the brink of losing their jobs to automation should not have to wait months for a report before receiving basic notice and transparency. This bill requires employers to provide a sixty day advance notice when 25 or more workers are displaced by technology. It also provides California with critical information about how artificial intelligence and automation are affecting jobs and workforce trends, so future policy decisions can be driven by facts rather than assumptions.

Most importantly, SB 951 recognizes a simple principle. When technology replaces workers, those workers deserve notice, transparency, and an opportunity to prepare.

California has always led the nation in both innovation and worker protection. I urge employers and members of this committee to embrace technological advance while ensuring workers are not left behind. Here to testify in support of the bill is Sarah Flocks with the California Labor Federation.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Member Sarah Flocks, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are the the sponsor of SB 951. So the worker adjustment and retraining notification act was a response to the deindustrialization and automation that devastated entire communities and regions of this country starting in the nineteen eighties.

Today, artificial intelligence tools threaten a dehumanization of the economy, hitting large swaths of this nation, potentially creating catastrophic job loss everywhere in the state, from warehouses to the tech industry, to the financial administration, customer service and entertainment industries.

Tech companies say that AI will create new jobs in its place and increase productivity that benefits everyone. Yet tech CEOs have yet to say what jobs will be created, for whom, and how many of them. And AI is very different than any technology. It moves at a speed and velocity and has a scope that is unmatched. And it's moving so fast that the economy is not having enough time to create the jobs to replace what is lost, and society has not had the time to adjust.

There is not enough retraining in the world if there are no jobs that we can train workers to take. But catastrophic job loss caused by AI is not inevitable. It is a political choice. It is a choice that all of us have to make. We can respond to the human wreckage caused by AI after it happens, or we can proactively put in place the policies that slow it and make sure the benefits of AI are equitably distributed.

Right now our safety net is frayed and broken. Our UI system is insolvent, and we don't have the resources to deal with this. SB 951 gives policymakers the data they need to make those hard choices, and it gives it to them in real time. And for those reasons, we urge an aye vote.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

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

Good afternoon, Chair, committee Members. Brian Maramontes the California Teachers Association in support.

Good afternoon. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals also in support.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Violet Spitler on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Tech Equity Action in support.

JB Hannah on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support.

Megan Varbe with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support.

Good afternoon. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Keith Imamoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to SB 951. We appreciate the author has worked with us in good faith on amendments. This matters, and we are grateful gratefully appreciative, for the continued dialogue. However, there are still critical concerns with the bill.

Few people in this room have sat on both sides of a layoff. I say that not just as an advocate, but as someone who has lived it. I've been laid off before and spent months without work. That layoff led to my tenure at ADD. I understand deeply how destabilizing job loss can be.

I've also administered Cal Warren notices on behalf of an employer, and I know how emotionally charged and nuanced that process is. There are these are never easy decisions, and California employers do not make them lightly. That shared understanding is exactly why we believe governor Newsom's executive order is the right next step. The order reflects a serious, comprehensive commitment to this issue. Notably, it directs the LDWA in consultation with both labor and employers to deliver recommendations on modernizing Cal Warren.

It also directs the EDD to publish ongoing data on AI's impact on hiring and workforce decisions. This is the exactly kind of grounded, collaborative process at a question this consequential deserves. Moving forward before those findings are on hand risks locking in the wrong policy at exactly the wrong moment. We also want to flag two areas where the bill where we believe the bill would be would benefit from further refinement.

The 25 worker threshold, half of Cal Warren's 50, would extend significant compliance obligations to small and mid sized employers who are least equipped to absorb them.

And the right to first bid creates an untested preferential hiring obligation that does not exist under Cal Warren and raises significant operation on legal questions about how employers manage internal postings, qualifications, and restructuring decisions. We believe a workable solution is within reach and remain committed to fighting it together. And the path there runs through the executive order process, not around it. For these for these and other reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote.

Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli here in respectful opposition, to SB 951 on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Four specific items. The first is in fourteen fourteen point one e, which is the definition of worker.

We don't believe that independent contractors should be included. These are often limited term workers who have an agreement. That agreement almost always contains, for example, provisions related to their termination. The second item is we believe that under fourteen fourteen point three c six that the notice requirement could actually result in the release of AI technology, which we believe is appropriately proprietary to the owner and do not think that that information should be released.

The third item is in 14 at 14.88, which is a new private right of action, along with some of the vague causation standards, which we believe exist in the bill, makes it, very problematic, and we believe that will result in excessive litigation.

We're also concerned in that provision on not only could, the individual sue, but also his or her worker representative. We do have some history with that, for example, in the unfair competition law, and we think that that opens up for additional and unnecessary litigation. The last item I will mention, madam chair, Bloomberg law earlier this year talked about last year's in 2025, New York did an AI warn law.

And of the initial a 160 mass termination notices, they didn't attribute solely to AI in a single one of those because, obviously, there are multiple factors often that take effect. So thank you, madam chair.

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery, California Special District Association, respectfully with an opposing less amended position. Thank you.

Sarah Dukett, on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California with a oppose uness amended position.

Good afternoon. Matt Easley on behalf of the California chapters of the Associated General Contractors here of the respectful, opposed unless amended.

Good afternoon, Chair. Members. Melissa Kosicek with Western Growers in opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. A respectful opposition.

the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. A respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Julissa Sejar Cardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and respect respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts, respectfully oppose unless amended. Thank you.

unless amended. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Jack Yanis with Slow, Higgins, and Jenson, respectfully oppose on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Thank you.

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

Good afternoon. I'm Dean Ricker with California's Credit Unions in opposition. Thank you.

Hi, Chairwoman, Members of the committee. Rachel O'Brien, California Grocers Association opposed.

Robert Singleton with Chamber of Progress also have an opposed unless amended position.

Good afternoon. Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions Management or Prism, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Andrew Martinez, the Community College League of California oppose unless amended. Hope to work it out. Thank you.

Jacob Brim with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Seeing no other comments in opposition, I will turn it over to the dais for any comments. Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you, madam chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this issue forward. I think a lot of us are waking up to the threats and the challenges that we have out there with AI now coming into our daily experiences. And while we are hoping for some synergistic and, you know, really co beneficial futures, you know, we raised some I think I think your witness is, you know, verbiage, you know, the the the right to be able to think proactively around this.

I don't disagree, and I applaud our governor for thinking about the executive order that is gonna set some things in motion and, you know, credit where credit is due.

Something's happening in Washington, DC, thankfully, because a lot of us don't, foresee a lot happening there. I'm still doubtful, that much will, but, but but, you know, there there are some things in motion. And that said, Aye, you know, don't want to just rest for a while that the executive order and gathering information and reporting information back is sufficient given the speed at which this is coming at us right now.

And we have existing law on the books right now when it comes to the workforce and you have mass displacement that is coming out here.

And I see this is really an offshoot of that, threading this current threat and issue that we have here together and really trying to tie to some standard that we have, to make sure that at the end of the day, individuals that are part of a larger, employment area employment operation, when there is something pending or something likely to come in the near future, that they got that opportunity to be able to stand on their own two feet and maybe find another job, find another opportunities.

Because those opportunities, if this, you know, trajectory continues, might become more and more limited as time goes on. And we want people to make sure that they are able to have the opportunity for gainful employment to be able to make sure that they're treated well as and respected as as employees.

And so this threat, I think, variation that we have here under SB 947 is is is essential because it is linking, you know, a very current issue that we have right now, with sort of our practices on how we deal with that in the employer employee relationships right now.

I'm encouraged, to hear that we're having ongoing conversations and some of these things are solvable because, you know, working on a certain number at the level of the size of business and everything does get into that meaningful conversations around the size of a small business or a medium sized business opportunity. I think that that is something that can be resolved through ongoing conversation.

And then I'd like to learn more about this right to first bid and if there are some legal problems as well, that might come out of that too. I know that this, our author here is, very, astute enabled to be able to reconcile a lot of that and make sure, that, you know, a final product is not something that's indefensible, that we wanna be able to get this right without losing sight of the core principle that we must do.

You know, I'm I'm curious a little bit at the author or, somebody else I didn't hear. I'd like to hear a little bit more maybe from, public sector, employers and and and possibly how that's relating to, employees that are largely a unionized workforce, probably largely are gonna be able to have ongoing, labor management conversations as opposed to, like, you know, this technology come into the workplace. But they sort of distinguished I saw a thread here for an opposed unless amended position.

And what what can we do to better harmonize this issue with the with the public sector?

Through the chair?

Yes.

We've been in conversations with the public sector. They are this is a new requirement for them. And so we have been successful with the LEAs, for example, that they already give a notice annually. And so we figured out a way that they don't have to duplicate that notice.

But if there are if AI is replacing workers in the public sector and the governor has made it clear with his five sandbox projects that he wants to integrate AI into the public workforce very quickly, we wanna know if there is any impact either on layoffs, but this this bill also includes what is called a cessation and hiring.

If there are positions that you just stop hiring for because artificial intelligence is taking its place. For example, Salesforce, they announced a while ago that they were just not gonna hire coders or I believe in sales representatives. They were just gonna use AI from then on. And so we wanna be able to capture that as well because that is something that artificial intelligence is doing that's really hitting young people who are graduating from college. But you're not gonna capture that.

They've never had a job, so they're not captured as unemployed. But you have this huge block of people who might have gone to the public sector because it's a good steady job, but they can't find a job because AI has taken it. So we just wanna capture that information so all of you have it when you're starting to make decisions.

And then I think kinda relate to I'm sorry. Did you if the opposition is not sponsored.

Madam Chair, if I may respond to that. I've worked in public sector and administered layoff in both public and private sector. And so typically in public sector, there's collective bargaining agreements cover the layoff notice. And so this would be duplicative in regards to that. So it's a different process.

not sponsored.

And so it's separate. I mean, currently, public entities do not have to comply with CalHorn unless they're like a quasi government entity. So that's a huge educational piece as well for public employers who don't necessarily have to comply with CalHorn because it's usually in their collective bargaining agreement.

And so I think to the author, that's something that, you know, being kind of I have a lot some closer study if it has this bill continues to be able to move forward being consistent. I think with how we're able to work on that that that class of sector. And you might be to learn things from that too that can apply to other areas that have highly unionized labor labor components. Right?

If I think about many of our grocers or many other, like, you know, sort of industry areas that that that are highly you guys, a lot of that conversation can come through in labor management conversations that also, may not create, like, a duplicate of action here.

Right? We want to be, like, you know, a a symbiotic with it, you know, kind of existing practices. But importantly, what we're getting out of this, if this is gonna be, an important law to be, signed bill signed bill assigned into law is the opportunity to be able to get the data. I think it's really was as be as that that real time information is gonna be essential for us to be able to think of how we're gonna be responsive next year.

We are going to have to be responsive next year as this thing is as they started rapidly coming into our lives right now.

And so thank you for being in the in the driver's seat with us on this on this issue. I'm happy to move the bill today and support it, and we'll look forward to its progress as it goes forward.

Thank you. If I may also, I think it is it is important that we recognize that there are two parts to it. One is the notice and the other is a gathering of information. We need to know what we're going to be doing next year in our policies, and it's only through having this data. In appropriations, we did take the amendment as was mentioned by my expert witness, regarding our LEAs. We found a way to as was mentioned, how to do that.

may also, I I think it is it is important that we recognize that there are two parts to it. One is the notice and the other is a gathering of information. We need to know what we're going to be doing next year in our policies, and it's only through having this data. In appropriations, we did take the amendment as was mentioned by my expert witness, regarding our LEAs. We found a way to as was mentioned, how to do that.

And with our public sector, it is a little more difficult. But certainly, what we what is put together here, if there is when we have collective bargaining, that is something that we take seriously also. It's something extremely important to us.

Thank you for that. Any other comments? Seeing none, I do have a comment. First of all, I wanna appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I think it's already been mentioned in terms of AI and the impact that it's happening having in our workforce.

The reality is that we are being left behind. That there is this this big freeze as it's being called or you know, hiring stagnation, is on the rise, especially amongst our recent college graduates who are concerned about their future and the inability to get a job. And as was mentioned, this is moving very rapidly and we're constantly trying to play catch up. And so this will give us the ability to look into the future and also think about planning.

How how we how do we address these real issues in real time?

So I appreciate this bill. Have an eye recommendation today. And with that, seeing other comments, secretary, can you please call the roll? Yeah. We had a motion and then a second.

Thank you, Chris. Appreciate that.

Yes.

Okay. File item number 4 SB 951 Reyes. Motion is due passed and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. [Roll Call]

Ortega, Aye. Alanis?

No vote.

Alanis not voting. Chen? Arambula?

Aye.

Arambula, Aye. Calra? Lee?

Aye.

Lee Aye. Ward? Aye. Ward Aye.

That measure is out. It is a that measure is out. Good. Alright.

Yes. Let's go ahead and take the consent calendar as we wait for other authors.

K. File item number two, SB 1316 Small-wood-Cuevas. File item number five, SB 1046 Blakespear. And file item number six, SB 10 of 59. Motion for SB 1316 Smallwood-Cuevas is due passed and we refer to committee on Judiciary with the recommendation to consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Ortega? Hi. Ortega, Aye, Alanis? Hi. Alanis, Aye, Chen.

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

Lee, Aye, Ward? Aye. Ward, Aye. S, SB 1046 Blake Blake Spear. Sorry.

Due pass and re refer to committee on appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. [Roll Call]

Aye.

Alaniz, aye. Chen. Rambula? Aye. Arambula, aye.

Kalra. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye Ward? Aye.

SB 1059 Archuleta, due pass and we refer to committee on appropriations. [Roll Call]

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

Aye. Arambula, Aye. Cara. Lee?

Aye.

Lee, Aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, Aye.

Consent calendar is out. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Alright. We Senator McNerney, Senator D'Orazzo, or Senator Cortese, if your staff is listening, please send them over to labor and employment.

Consent calendar is out. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Alright. We Senator McNerney, Senator Durazo, or Senator Cortese, if your staff is listening, please send them over to labor and employment.

Welcome, Senator Durazo, whenever you are ready.

Item number seven, SB 1149.

Yeah.

Thank you, madam chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present SBA 1149. This bill allows workers to use bereavement leave following the death of a, quote, unquote, designated person, which is defined as an individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship. Existing law allows most workers to take up to five days of unpaid job protected bereavement leave following the death of a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild.

To use this law, an employee must work for an employer with five or more employees, and the employee must have worked for that employer for at least thirty days prior to the commencement of their leave.

Bereavement leave must also be completed within three months of the family member's death. In today's world, more and more people have strong bonds with and rely upon the support of their chosen and extended family members. Our caregiving laws reflect that reality, and it is time our bereavement laws leave laws due to. Here with me today to testify and support are Nina Wheeler Harwell from AARP and Q Wilson who has a personal story.

Before they begin, I'd like to ask the chair's permission for one of my witnesses to show a photo during their testimony.

Yes. Thank you. Okay. Who's kidding?

Okay. You okay.

Alright.

And good afternoon. My name is Nina Weiler Harwell. Good afternoon, chair and members. Nina Weiler Harwell with AARP on behalf of our 3,200,000 members. We are proud cosponsor of SB 1149.

As already mentioned, SB 1149 would update California's bereavement leave law passed in twenty two thousand twenty three by allowing workers to use this unpaid but job protected benefit to grieve for the loss of a chosen family member, also known as a designated person under the law. Last year, California updated its paid family leave law to enable chosen family to take paid family leave to care for a loved one with a serious illness.

This bill continues the mission of modernizing California's caregiving leave laws to address the realities of California's families in the twenty first century. ARP supports this bill because it's critical to so many older Californians who aren't aging in the same family structures they were raised in. Today, older Californians are more likely to be solo agers, also more likely to have never married, and more likely to have no children.

Instead, they rely on family and friends sorry. Extended family, family neighbors and friends for support, care, and social connection. Older Californians from diverse communities are also more likely to be part of multigenerational families, which often include chosen family. ARP believes SB 1149 is vital because it recognizes California must keep pace with the changes in the American family structure. California has already ensured that paid family leave reflects these changing dynamics.

So let's do net the same now for bereavement leave. We thank you for your time today, and we urge your support for SB 1149.

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

Good afternoon. Carly Holko with the California PACE Association in support.

Hello, madam. Cherry Vaughn Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Fund in support.

Good afternoon. Erin Hill on behalf of Western Center on Law of Poverty in support.

Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.

Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co sponsor in support. Also registering support for the following, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Partnership End Domestic Violence, Friends Committee on Legislation, LA Best Babies Network, Nourishing Justly, and Orange County Equality Coalition. Thank you.

Hello. Keith Imamoto of the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

Magali Zagal on behalf of the quality California in support. Megan Varve with Kaiser advocacy on behalf of Cameo Network in support.

Good afternoon. Erica Siermeno with legal aid at work registering support as well for Universidad Popula, WorkSafe, and the Working Partnerships USA.

JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the dais. Any comments? Thank you, madam chair.

madam chair. I wanna thank the Senator for continuing to work on this issue. This is an LGBTQ caucus legislative caucus priority bill as well. And we're grateful for your allyship and strong dedication to be able to make our laws equal in the space.

Thank you,

As we've done, as you heard, through paid family leave, you know, was a success, but, you know, we had some work to do in this space too because there is no distinction between that love and relationship from those that are covered under existing law here today who might be a nuclear family member and that of a chosen life partner or somebody else that is equally, sometimes not more, you know, a strong of a bond.

And the loss and the and the hurt and and and and the and the pain and the the the grieving are something that is just the worst and and rightfully due to to be respected as something that we respond to equally under the law. And so very strong to very, very, very proud that you're working on this bill and this issue here. I'd love to have you as a co author if you're willing and happy to move the bills.

Thank you.

Any other comments? Seeing none, I I would just like to thank your witness today for sharing your personal story and putting a face to the legislation that we will be voting on. So thank you. Senator, would you like to close?

Just thank you for your comments, and I respectfully ask when I vote. Thank you.

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

File item number 7SB1149, DeRosso. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, Aye.

Alaniz?

Aye.

Alaniz, Aye. Chen. Arambula.

Aye.

Arambula, aye. Kalra. Lee. Aye. Lee, aye Ward.

Aye. Ward, aye.

That five ayes, that measure is out. Thank you.

Aye. Thank you.

I know. Today, he's like Welcome, Senator. We will now go to item number three, SB 947, Senator McNerney. Whenever you are ready.

Honest and distinguished members of the committee, today I'm presenting SB 947, which is what we're calling the no robo bosses act of 2026. I wanna thank the committee staff for their work and apologize for making you wait for me to come here this afternoon. We are at a critical decision point when we decide how a machine should be integrated into our lives. Technology including AI has made an important role in our lives and medical and many other areas.

But right now, there are no real guardrails on how it's used in the workplace.

And it is being used extensively in the workplace. The algorithms are being used to make firing and discipline decisions. Human beings should make these decisions. They should be made by people who can apply judgment, context, and compassion to their decision making. SB 947 sets a common sense

that requires a human review when an automated decision assists in discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. This bill also bans predictive behavior analysis because no one should be punished for something they haven't done yet. Too many working families are living paycheck to paycheck. We can't leave their livelihoods to systems that can be biased or make mistakes without some human oversight. California workers deserve dignity and a real person using judgment and compassion making the final call about their jobs.

standard

Today with me and testimony, I have Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. Ivan?

Madam chair and members of the committee, Yvonne Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud sponsor of the No Robot Bosses Act. The committee has already seen a number of our bills, spawned that the labor Fed is sponsoring to establish, worker technology rights for the 20 century. SB 947 serves as an integral part of this package because of the growing need to regulate automated management.

Since last year, a 2025 resume, rebuilder report indicated that about 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical employment related decisions such as firing, determinations, and layoffs. The report also indicated that of those employers that use AI to impact the livelihood of a worker, about 20% allowed the AI system to make the final determination without any human input or oversight.

So today, employers are still capable and clearly eager to automate managerial decisions. Yet automated management continues to pose serious harms to workers. Algorithmic management often results in endless speed and efficiency increases, and workers are likely to become fatigued leading to injuries and immense stress. This is seen in Amazon warehouses where their unpaid time system is used to flag workers who happen to to pass their allotted time off even by a few minutes. As the system flags workers, reports have indicated that firing paperwork is automatically generated.

No worker should have their livelihood stripped away because an algorithm is incapable of understanding the nuances of everyday human life, and no employer should be rubber stamping ADS outputs to fire a worker. These issues, unfortunately, also exist beyond Amazon warehouses. In health care, a platform known as ShiftKey has re has been reportedly providing disparate wages to nurses who sign up for shifts due to the platform's algorithm.

It is unclear what the platform is drawing on to offer these wages, so nurses are forced to deal with potential algorithmic bias. And this is the landscape that workers are facing every single day across the state.

As the Senator described, SB 947 does not ban the use of automated decision systems, but instead creates necessary guard rules and just requires meaningful human oversight when these tools are being used. Lastly, I'd like to note that the corroborating evidence process and the prohibition on predictive behavior have always been central components of this bill and of last year's SB 7. I'd like to reiterate that our position has remained consistent from last year's iteration of the bill.

I respectfully urge dry bone at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Madam chair, members of the members of the committee, Shane Guzman, on behalf of the Teamsters, proud cosponsor of the bill, Also here on behalf of the Machinist Union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here, and the Utility Workers Union of America, all in support of the bill. The crux of it for us is that we are seeing in our workplaces the adoption of this technology, as a management tool moving rapidly. And the the the technology is developing rapidly, but it's not perfect.

As as my colleague pointed out, it makes mistakes, including discrimination. And so our view of it is we need to put some guardrails on this because there are none.

And, there should at on the most important decision besides hiring someone, firing someone, we we need to have some humanity there. And so, we urge your support for this bill.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support.

Janice O'Malley asked me California in support.

Eric Barrelez with the California Faculty Association in support.

Keith Imamoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.

JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support.

Seeing no other witnesses in support, any main witnesses in opposition?

Madam chair, Chris McCailey, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, some specific items and two of them at least are similar to what you heard me talk about on miss Reyes' bill. First, as miss Lynch alluded to, the definition of worker in this bill, just like in the other one, includes independent contractors. We have not done that in the California labor code and shouldn't do it here. That provision should be removed. These are, individuals who are not employees.

They are treated differently. Those independent contractor agreements set forth those provisions and how they operate and certainly termination provisions. So we believe that section should be eliminated, independent contractors. Second is the private right of action, an aggressive one, to say the least. It includes the opportunity to obtain punitive damages.

What miss Lynch indicated earlier, this was one of the provisions that on the assembly floor in SB 7 was removed before it passed off. We believe that that provision should be removed here as well. Two other minor items. The first is, there's an inclusion of resides or transacts business where a lawsuit can be filed. We believe that that will lead to forum shopping and some previous legislation.

That provision transacts business was was taken away or repealed from that provision. And then the last item is that this allows local ordinances as well. We believe that if you are going to do something along these lines on a statewide basis, it should preempt any local provisions. There should be one statewide standard. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose the bill.

Madam Chair, thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Good afternoon, madam chair. Aaron Avery, California Special District Association, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Matt Easley on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and San Diego chapter. I'm here respectfully opposed.

Sarah Duket, on behalf of the Rural County representatives of California and the urban counties of California, respectfully opposed.

Good afternoon. Michelle on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and on behalf of my colleagues at the Association of California School Administrators in opposition.

Good afternoon. Ethan Naikler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Jacob Brint with California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition.

Good afternoon. Julissa Sajak, Adelina's on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Clifton Wilson on behalf of the counties of Kern and Fresno, both in respectful opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon. Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition.

Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Unions in respectful opposition.

Robert Singleton and Chamber of Progress also respectfully opposed.

Hi, Chairman, members. Rachel O'Brien, California Courses Association in opposition.

Good afternoon, Brian Little, California Farm Bureau in opposition.

And that being come behalf of the California League of Food Producers in

opposition. Madam chair and members, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions management of Prism respectively.

Good afternoon. Timothy Burr on behalf of Lyft in opposition. Thank you.

Seeing no other comments in opposition, I'll turn it over to the dice Assemblymember Ward.

Thank you. I wanna thank the Senator for staying on this issue. Obviously, there's a lot here that is substantially similar to SB 7, which I strongly supported, and the principles here are not something I continue to be unwavering on.

Nobody should be, I think, subject to some kind of automated decision that's just looking at data and information and doesn't have that human kind of component to be able to double check and and participate in a life changing and critical decision about their opportunities and their futures. And that's all I think that you're asking for through the concept of this bill.

That you know, noting that and and also being practical about, you know, the the outcome last year of SB 7, I guess I I've been wondering, we would want this effort and this concept to be successful. So what do you foresee as this bill moves forward as the kind of direction that you would be able to make this without losing effect of this principles something that's gonna be able to meet the stated objections of the governor.

That's any question. Thank you. I think one of the issues is how do we protect workers and not open it up to massive lawsuits and legal challenges and and that's the the fine line that we're trying to accomplish here. I know that a lot of people have heartburn with the private right of action and I'm certainly willing to look at how we can work on that specific issue.

I do think that including independent contractors is important because independent contractors are probably the most vulnerable people out there and the people that are the most in need of of reliable income without being subject to arbitrary dismissal or or demotion.

So I think those are the two key areas. I appreciate Mr. Kripmecheli's comment on statewide standards. That's something we'll have to look at. And I think those are kind of the key issues that we'd like to make sure that are moving forward.

But but actually, I mean it really comes down to this. Do we wanna let AI continue to infiltrate our lives without any sort of without sufficient protection? And my answer is we need to find ways to protect it. There's going to be some some starts and stops. We're going to do the best we can and I we're working with of folks on both sides of the issue.

We'll have to find a way forward because we can't let AI become our masters.

Well, I think that holding on to that is sort of like hopefully a more common goal that I think we can find through ongoing conversation a way that this could work in practice. Like I said without undercutting, I think the intent of what we're doing with a focus on the workers really good answer for me.

I trust that, yeah, this is gonna Kinda continue over the summer in in that working on that technicalities of the of the bill and happy to be able to support it today.

Thank you.

To close.

Sure. Let's keep people at the center of the workplace. AI needs to be safe and beneficial. And that's that's what our ultimate goal is. And we're certainly interested in in perfecting the bill.

But at this point, the the basics are are there. Protect workers from automated decision making systems by putting a human being in the loop. I respectfully ask ask for an aye vote.

Thank you, Senator. Secretary, would you like to please call the roll?

File item number 3sb947mcnearney. Motion is do passed, and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye.

Alanis? No. Alanis, no. Chen? Arambula?

Aye.

Arambula, aye. Kalra? Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

That has four ayes. One no. That measure is out. Good afternoon, Senator Cortese. Item number eight SB 1185.

Whenever you are ready.

Well, thank you very much, chair Ortega and members. I'm I'm very happy to be here to present SB 1185, which applies skilled and trained workforce standards to pharmaceutical facilities. Existing law prescribes skilled and trained workforce standards on a variety of high risk public and private construction projects, including refineries, commercial hydrogen manufacturing, biofuels manufacturing, carbon dioxide capture. Pharmaceutical facilities are among the most technically complex construction environments in the modern economy, and the integrity of construction is inseparable from the purity of the final product.

Even minor construction or maintenance errors can lead to biohazard exposure, product loss, costly facility shutdowns and catastrophic disruptions in the medical supply chain.

SB 1185 reinforces the state's high quality skilled workforce on sites where construction safety is essential to protecting public health and maintain a secure medical supply chain. With us today to testify in support is Keith Dunn with State Building Construction Trades Council of California. And at the appropriate time, I'd like to ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you,

Madam Chair. Committee members Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. First, let me start with where we agree with the opposition. California's life sciences and farming industries are extraordinary. We're very proud that California is home to the researchers, innovators and companies developing the next generation of lifesaving medicines.

But there's a difference between admitting lifesaving therapy and safely constructing the complex facilities where those therapies are manufactured. SB 1185 is about the second point. Some of the opposition arguments make it sound like tomorrow morning a union electrician is going to walk into a clean room, grab a laptop and start recalibrating proprietary biotechnology equipment. This is not what SB 1185 does. It doesn't replace scientists.

It doesn't replace company employees. It does not replace original equipment manufacturers or specialized technicians who service proprietary technologies. This bill only applies to construction trades. The men and women building and maintaining the highly specialized environments that allow these companies to succeed. Opponents also argue that these facilities are highly regulated by the FDA.

We agree that actually helps prove our point. If the medicine requires the highest standards, if the manufacturing process requires the highest standards, if contamination control requires the highest standards, why would the would we accept a lower standard for the workforce building the facilities that protect all of these elements. Forgive me as I state the obvious. We all know that the foundation matters. And in this case, literally, a world class laboratory should not be built on a lowest bid workforce.

The opposition also raises concerns about workforce shortages. California's union apprenticeship system is one of the largest privately funded workforce development systems in the country. We train the next generation before the industry needs them without asking taxpayers to pay the bill. And even though we disagree with any fears of a workforce shortage and true partnership, SB 1185 includes safeguards against this unlikely threat.

If qualified workers are unavailable after a request through the hiring halls after forty eight hours, contractors are not prevented from obtaining workers elsewhere.

If there's a true emergency affecting health, safety or the environment, SB 1185 provides workers the opportunity to address that emergency right away. Finally, we reject the idea that a strong workforce and those standards make California less competitive. California is the fourth largest economy in the world and home of the world class pharma and life science companies because we have the best universities, the best scientists, the most innovative companies, and I would also argue the most skilled workforce in the world.

Eleven eighty five is not anti biotech. It protects the infrastructure that allows biotech to thrive.

SB 1185 is the foundation of our innovation economy, and great science deserves great construction. We'd like to ask for your support. Thank you.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

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

Vince Agru on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local one zero four in support.

Omar Lazard on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Hi. Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Property Association in opposition. Thank you.

Good afternoon, madam chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California. Let me begin by saying that AGC absolutely supports the development of apprenticeship programs and safe construction practices. The question before the committee is not whether training matters. The question is whether there is a demonstrated need to impose a permanent skilled and trained workforce mandate on an entire private industry.

Historically, when the legislature has extended skilled and trained workforce requirements into private industry, and has done so in response to specific public safety concerns. The best example is SB 54, the refinery safety legislation enacted following the February. That legislation was rooted in a documented catastrophic incident. Extensive investigations and concerns involving facilities already already regulated as high hazard operations under the California's risk management program. Imagine a hydrocarbon vapor cloud.

15,000 residents seeking medical attention. 19 employees hurt in that fire. Investigations by Cal OSHA and the United States Federal Government. And at the conclusion of that, there was an assumption, and it was a very good one, that we needed to do better by these dangerous operations. This bill, however, presents a very different situation.

The bill identifies no pattern of construction failures, workforce deficiencies, catastrophic incidences, or public safety concerns associated with pharmaceutical facility construction. There have been no refinery style disasters, no chemical safety board investigations, and no legislative finding demonstrating that existing construction safety standards are inadequate. Put simply, what problem are we solving? California already licenses contractors and forces workplace safety standards through Cal OSHA and maintain some of the strongest labor and safety protections in the nation.

Yet this bill would impose a permanent mandate on all future construction construction, alteration, repair, installation, demolition, and maintenance work at pharmaceutical facilities for the life of the facility.

It would also create significant reporting obligations, compliance requirements, and potential penalties for private owners and contractors. The result will be fewer eligible contractors, less competition, higher project costs, and potential delays to facilitate to facilities that are critical to California's growing life sciences and biotechnology sectors. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose this measure.

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Hi. Thank you, chair. Mark Watt representing Wareham Development Company. They're a developer of numerous multi tenant commercial mixed commercial and office space throughout the Bay Area. We've been in touch with the author's office and with the sponsor, and we're trying to work out some minor very minor technical language changes.

So thank you.

Chair and committee members, Gilbert Laurie here on behalf of Viacom in opposition. Thanks.

Hi, Jenny Aggie Larkin on behalf of California Business Properties Association in opposition. Thank you.

Sarah Bridges on behalf of California, California Manufacturers Technology Association in opposition. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Philip Herrera representing my growing life science companies here in California in opposition. Thank you.

John McHale on behalf of American Council of Engineering Companies of California, Calgio, and associated builders and contractors of California in opposition. Thank you.

Dean Raffia with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Life Sciences. We're opposed. Thank you.

Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, any comments or questions from the dias? Senator, would you like to address some of the opposition comments in your closing?

Yeah. Thank you, madam chair. Appreciate it very much and appreciate the analysis by this committee. I appreciate very much eloquent. Opposition arguments.

At the same time, I can only imagine what might have been had we had SB 54 before the refineries got themselves into the situation that they did. No one will ever know for sure. But that was certainly the the thought process a couple of years ago when I followed as an author with SB 740.

What if we can now take, you know, next level related industry when it comes to hazardous materials and and jump on that now and bring the skilled and trained workforce, perhaps before the next tragedy. And I actually wish in some ways that that bill would have gone further, not necessarily into this space, but into some.

You know, we're we're seeing explosions and problems happening in other industries that probably could have been covered already by a bill like this. The OSHA argument is a great argument, as you know, Madam Chair, if we can ever get OSHA to do their jobs. And, you know, that's the real problem. And I actually would concede that if we had those OSHA not just full, fully funded, but fully staffed, which is the problem there, and then doing their work.

And once they're fully staffed, I think it gives committees like this and legislators like us an opportunity to further direct them to come in and do what needs to be done.

I'm not sure any of that does away with the need for a skilled and trained workforce or the prudence of doing it. But that's where we are. And I think we're finding ourselves as legislators proactively trying to bring in safety centers at a higher level through apprenticeships, through the skilled and trained workforce and workplace standards that we have available to us to essentially do the work that, you know, that the public sector should have been doing in the first place over on the private sector side.

The bottom line here is, I believe, and I don't say this, you know, with absolute accuracy, but I believe that 95% of the facilities that we're talking about, are currently being built with skilled machine labor. I don't think this is a a radical leap forward, I think.

But I do think it it it sort of plugs the gap, you know, over what may be the last 5%. That that said, I would if I've adequately responded, madam chair, I'd respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Yes. And for those reasons, I I have an eye record today. As you mentioned, it's something that it's preventable. Right? We wanna do things before they happen.

And understand you will continue working with the opposition to address some of the other concerns that have been brought up.

Yeah. We're we're always very happy to have opposition that we can work with, and we appreciate their recommendations going forward. Thank you.

Sounds good. Secretary, can you please call the roll?

File item number eight, SB 81185 Cortesi. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, Aye.

Alanis? Chen?

Aye.

Chen, Aye. Arambula?

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

Aye.

Lee, Aye. Ward?

Five ayes. That measure is out.

Thank you.

Nice. Alright. Secretary, can you please call for the absent members? Yes. Consent calendar.

Consent calendar.

File item number two, s B1316, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on judiciary with recommendation to consent calendar. Chen? Aye. Chen, Aye.

And Kalra? Aye. Kalra, Aye.

That measure is out. Seven ayes.

File item number five, SB 1046 Blake Spear. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations with the recommendation to consent calendar. Chen?

Chen Aye, Kalra? Aye. Kalra Aye.

Aye.

Seven ayes that, item is out.

File item number six. SB 1059 Archuleta. The motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations with the recommendation to the consent calendar. Chen?

Aye.

Chen, Aye. Cara? Aye. Cara, Aye.

Seven eyes. That measure is out.

File item number one, SB 909 small with Cuevas. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Chen? Okay. Chen Aye, Kalra?

Aye. Kalra I Lee? SB 909, Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Lee, aye.

That measure is out. Seven ayes.

Final item number three, SB 947, McNerney. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. Chen?

Not voting.

Chen not voting. Cara? Aye. Cara, aye. Five ayes.

That measure has five ayes. It is out.

File item number four, SB 951 Reyes. Measure motion is do passed and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection. Chen?

Chen not voting. And Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Five ayes.

Not voting.

That measure has five ayes. It is out.

File item number seven, SB 1149 Durazo. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. Chen? Aye. Chen, Aye, Kalra?

Aye. Kalra, Aye. Seven ayes.

Seven ayes. That measure is out.

No.

Okay. File item number 7, s p 11 I'm sorry. That's the wrong one. File number item number eight, s P1185 Cortesi. Motion is do passed and we refer to committee on approach.

Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.

That measure is out. Seeing no other business, we are adjourned.