Senate Standing Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement

Senate Labor Committee on Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement will begin in ten seconds. Alright. Good morning, everyone. Senate Labor Public Employment and Retirement Committee will come to order. We have 16 items on our agenda today.

Chock full, and we're so glad to see members here from the Assembly with us. We are gonna start with file item number two. That's AB 65. Assembly member Al Galera please Ag Galera Curry. It's an early morning. I'm getting started.

It's very early morning.

But thank you. And if you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the front desk with us.

Thank you very much. Good morning, witnesses.

And proceed when ready.

Okay. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 65 would grant public school employees up to fourteen weeks of leave with full benefits for pregnancies and pregnancy related health issues. Today, our educators can't earn paid pregnancy leave. If teachers need time to recover from pregnancy, they must first use all of their accrued sick leave, if they have any to begin with.

After that, they receive differential pay. And, of course, that's a fancy way of setting a teacher must pay half their salary to cover a substitute teacher. Today, too often, educators are told they can simply schedule their pregnancies around a school calendar or go without pay. As we work to ensure Californians can care for their families, we cannot allow the people who care for our children to bear this burden. These outdated policies also have long term financial consequences.

Data from CalSTRS shows women receive nearly a $100,000 less in retirement benefits than their male counterparts. In a profession where more than 70% of educators are women, that disparity is unacceptable. And at a time when California is struggling to recruit and retain educators, we should be removing barriers and not creating them. AB 65 modernizes an outdated system and supports AB 65. I am glad to see it included on the Governor's Budget, after many years of working on this effort. Thank you for helping me this through the legislative process, as trailer bill language mirrors AB 65.

Speaking in support, with me today is Nikki Milevsky, on behalf of the Sacramento Teachers Associations, and Adara Clark-Gunn, on behalf of the California School Employees Association.

Thank you. And you each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Perez and committee members. My name is Nikki Davis Milevsky. I'm a School Psychologist and President of the Sacramento City Teachers Association. Speaking today on behalf of the California Teachers Association as a cosponsor of AB 65. As a leader of 2,600 educators, the vast majority of whom are women, I'm here to advocate for AB 65.

This bill is critical to addressing our pervasive teacher shortage and correcting the massive financial disparity that the current system inflicts upon women. You see, I love getting phone calls from our members sharing the joyful news of a baby on the way. But immediately after, I have to be the voice of reality. I have to say, "We don't have paid maternity leave. The district is going to burn up all your sick leave and then you'll go on to lesser pay using your differential bank."

Even with baby bonding time, female teachers are forced to burn every single sick day just to survive. This leaves them with zero safety net when they or their children get sick in the future, forcing an agonizing choice between prioritizing their newborn or returning to the classroom just to pay rent. The true penalty hits years later at retirement. Because of these gaps, women have less money paid into CalSTRS and fewer accumulated sick days than their male counterparts.

Like generations of teachers before me, I will receive less in retirement than men who work the same amount of time simply because I gave birth to two children, even though I took the absolute minimum amount of time off.

This all translates for all women less retirement checks for the rest of their lives. If we are serious about recruiting and retaining high quality educators, parental leave must be a standard workplace benefit, not a lifelong financial penalty. I respectfully urge you to vote aye on AB 65. Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning, Miss Chair and members of the committee. My name is Adara Clark Gunn and I'm the Data and Compliance Technician for San Juan Unified School District and Chapter President for Chapter 127 This bill is about fairness. California has long recognized that pregnancy deserves workplace protections. Most employees in the private sector are entitled to pregnancy disability leave under state law, giving them important job protections during pregnancy and recovery from childbirth.

Yet many of California's public school employees, including classified employees, who educate and support our students every day, do not receive those same statutory protections simply because they work for a public school. Classified school employees are often forced to plan pregnancies around school breaks or exhaust their sick leave before taking unpaid leave.

While some employees may qualify for up to twelve weeks of unpaid job protected leave under the Family and Medical Leave Act, many classified employees do not qualify because they have not yet met the eligibility requirements. Even for those who do qualify, FMLA protects a job, not a paycheck. Many employees never return to work.

Those who do often come back with no leave remaining to care for themselves or their families. I know this firsthand. In the spring of twenty twenty one, while I was seven months pregnant with my first child, I received a layoff notice after more than a decade with my school district. I immediately began researching my rights and wondering how I would protect both my growing family and my livelihood.

Because it was during the pandemic, I was able to interview for jobs over Zoom and hide my pregnancy from the waist up.

But I had no idea what leave or job protections I would have with my new employer. I wondered whether I would have to return to work immediately after giving birth simply because I couldn't afford not to. Thankfully, my layoff was rescinded. And after more than ten years of service, I was able to use my accumulated sick leave to receive six weeks of full pay while I recovered and cared for my newborn daughter. Then in January 2023, I gave birth to my son.

My leave balances had not yet recovered from my first pregnancy, and we had enough leave to cover two of the eight weeks my doctor recommended. I thought I had prepared by enrolling in supplemental disability insurance, only to learn that my pregnancy was considered a preexisting condition.

Your time is up. Thank you very much. If there are any support witnesses, please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning. Jason Henderson on behalf of the Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, proud cosponsor, respectfully asking your aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, in strong support.

Connie Chan on behalf of California State Treasurer, Fiona Ma, proud cosponsor.

Ryan Spencer on behalf of the American College of OBGYNs, District 9, in support.

Good morning. Joycelyn Martinez Wade with the California State Teachers Retirement System in support.

Good morning. Ebony Perrier on behalf of the California School Employees Association. We're also proud cosponsor.

Good morning, Madam Chair, Senator: Connor Gusman, on behalf of Teamsters California and the Amalgamated Transit Union and proud support.

Good morning. Jennifer Robles with Halifax's California, in support.

Isha Ayer, on behalf of the City of Glendale, in support.

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

Good morning. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also a cosponsor. Urge your support.

Sara Bachez, Children Now, in support.

Thank you. Any other me-too's in support? Okay. Seeing none, we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today?

Seeing none. Any opposition me-too's here? Okay. Well, we will bring it back to the dais and, Assemblymember, we don't have a full quorum, so we're starting pretty much as a subcommittee. But I wanna just tell you how important this bill is, not just to the women who are here giving testimony.

And thank you so much for your testimony. I can relate. I have two children and went through the same anxiety. It is incredibly important for every woman in California, the bill that you're moving forward today, and it is unfortunate that we are here having to even negotiate and debate fourteen days when we know that the rest of the developed world requires and provides so much more to women.

Over 120 countries around the world provide guaranteed paid maternity leave, while the United States is one of the shortest on the list.

And we are outpaced by places like Papua New Guinea and Micronesia. So, when we say California needs to lead the way as we have already led the way on so many, areas where it comes to childcare and leave, family paid leave, there's so much more that we need to do. So, I just wanna applaud you for your efforts. As a member of the Women's Caucus, I'm very proud coauthor and supporter of this bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. I respectfully ask for your aye vote as well. Thank you very much and I appreciate yeah. We're really into that, but you know, I just want to remind everybody, you know, we ask these educators to show up every day for our children. It's time that California shows up for them.

And I do respectfully ask for your aye vote for all of them. Thank you very much.

Appreciate that. And we will take this bill up once we get to our quorum. I think we need to I think it's Jones is not here. Okay.

We will move on to file item number five, Assemblymember Ortega, we're gonna skip the file item order. And if you have witnesses, they're welcome to take a seat at the front table. You may proceed.

Good morning, madam Chair. Thank you for allowing me to present AB 1818 today. AB 1818 changes an antiquated code section in the Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act, HERO, that is no longer used for its original purpose. Back in 1978, when HERA first allowed CSU workers to unionize, the annual state budget appropriated funding to the CSU line item by line item, including how much it could use for employee compensation.

In this context, CSU needed a provision to allow for returning to their bargaining table if the state didn't allocate enough funds to pay their employees.

Now, however, the state budget allocates the CSU lump sum funding, which the segment has broad discretion on how to spend. AB 1818 will make PERP their arbitrator deciding when CSU and bargaining units need to renegotiate their contract, restoring balance to their collective bargaining agreement. Here to testify with me today is Jason Rabinowitz, secretary general of the Teamsters Local twenty ten, and Ernesto Torres, vice president of Teamsters Local twenty ten.

Thank you. And you each have two minutes.

Thank you. I'm Jason Rabinowitz, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local twenty ten, proudly representing over 28,000 workers in California education, including 1,100 skilled trades workers across 22 campuses of the CSU whose work makes CSU work everyday. We urge your support for AB 1818, which is simply aimed at making sure that CSU honors its promises to workers and does not unilaterally refuse to pay raises that it has contractually agreed to. This is not an idle question.

CSU has unilaterally failed to pay contractual raises that were due in July 2025 last year.

And in fact, has given no raises to anyone in the system other than the already overpaid executives who they handed out huge raises to. And even though the legislature allocated the funding in the budget for CSU to pay these raises. CSU has not bargained in good faith with our union and this has created all kinds of problems, labor unrest, strikes and has affected employee morale and services to the students in the state.

We urge support for AB 1818 and we note that it places the decision properly now with PERB based on the recent amendments instead of allowing CSU unilaterally to refuse to pay raises that it can afford and that it has contractually agreed to. Thank you for your support and for listening.

Good morning.

My name is Ernesto Torres, team just twenty ten skilled trades director and project supervisor at Cal State San Bernardino. I'm here to voice our need for bill AB 1818. I have worked for the Cal State system for almost ten years. Time and again, the CSU uses excuses not to pay our contractual raises. They find loopholes not to honor our contracts.

They offer one time payments instead of salary based building raises. Yet 1,100 skilled trades workers at every Cal State University honor their commitment and service over 470,000 students every year. We keep the lights on. We keep them hot and cold. We keep our buildings freshly painted and the water running.

We keep public safety vehicles maintained, which is essential to protect the life and safety of our students, staff, and faculty. We do our part without excuses. We ask this body to support bill this bill. Our families and our students depend on it. It's not fair for the CSU to take and manipulate legislative education action funds to their own pockets.

They turn around and cut the working class, Yet their salaries continue to grow regardless of any contingency. We urge this body to support AB 1818. Thank you.

Thank you very much. And we will take me twos at the mic. Before you begin, we I noticed we now have a quorum with Senator Cortese. We're gonna just take a moment and set quorum. Please call the roll.

Senator Small Cuevas?

Present.

Small Cuevas present. Senator Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Senator Cortese?

Here. Cortese here. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird?

We have a quorum, so me too's please come to the mic. Thank you for your patience. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California in strong support.

Good morning, madam Chair and senators. Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

Connor Gaskin on behalf of Teamsters California, proud sponsor of the bill.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Okay. Looks like that is the end of Me toos. Any opposition witnesses here? If you are, please have a seat at the table.

Eric Bauchi with the California State University. Just wanna apologize to the committee for the late shift in our position. We just wanted to let the committee know that we're moving from oppose to neutral with the June 8 amendments. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other opposition? Me too's. Okay. Seeing none, we will bring it to the dias members.

Any comments, questions?

We'll move it. K.

We have a motion from Senator Cortesi. Would you like to close?

Thank you, madam Chair. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a

motion by Senator Cortese. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Samoan Cuevas?

Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

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

We have a vote of two to one. That bill is on call. We'll take it up when members return. Thank you. Okay.

We're gonna go back to file item order. And next, we have file item number eight, and that is Assembly member Calderon. If you have witnesses, perfect. Have a seat at the table, and you can proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Menopause can bring a wide variety of symptoms, including physical, emotional, and cognitive changes. Women make up roughly half the population and about 57% of women are participating in the workforce, meaning menopause will impact a significant portion of employees during their careers. Unfortunately, workplace standards have historically been designed without these realities in mind.

AB 1940 does not create a new protected class. It simply clarifies existing law. Menopause is already understood to be protected under the definition of sex in the Fair Employment and Housing Act, but without explicit language, many women are unaware of their rights. By naming menopause directly in the statute, we are making it easier for women to understand their rights and request reasonable accommodations without fear of discrimination.

Rhode Island recently passed similar legislation and Washington's governor just recently signed an executive order to support women in the workplace experiencing perimenopause and menopause, and it's time for California to lead and do the same. Supporting workers during this transition promotes economic equity, strengthens workforce retention, and ensures we retain experienced employees who are vital to our economy.

AB 1940 raises awareness and provides clear protections so employees can continue to contribute fully and fairly in their roles. With me in support of AB 1940 are Katherine Squire with the California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls and Ryan Spencer with the American College of OB/GYNs.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, and thank you, Chair and members. Katherine Squire, representing the Commission on the Status of Women and Girls. We are a proud co-sponsor of AB 1940. When our Fair Employment and Housing Act was first written, women were not as prevalent in the workforce as they are today. They were regularly kept out of the workforce, but today's changing economy not only requires us, but due to a lifetime of being paid less than our male counterparts, requires us to work well past the age of retirement.

Our systems were not designed with women in mind. No two women will experience this time the same, but every single woman lucky enough to make it to that age will be affected by menopause. Menopause does not care about your education, zip code, income level, job title, or duty statement. This bill will importantly add perimenopause, menopause, and post-menopause to the list of normal life events that will happen to every woman, unlike the accommodations made for childbirth, which actually won't be experienced by every woman.

The addition of menopause recognizes the whole woman and all her life experiences in a way that doesn't reduce a woman's only experience to childbirth. Explicitly placing this information in the workplace can help women be adequately informed of their rights because saying this can just be covered under the reasonable accommodations process means it can be denied, and if it were that simple, we would not have to be here, but not every workplace values their workers' rights or healthcare needs.

Furthermore, the announcements agency is charged with comprise the exact kind of awareness campaigns that are essential to this topic as this topic continues to come out of the shadows. As women experience pregnancy and childbirth, there's no shortage of books and advice, but as they approach their mid-40s and try to understand how this will affect them, it's crickets. This is just another in the long line of equity-based adjustments that we need to make to our systems. And for these reasons, the commission is proud to be a co-sponsor and strongly urges your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair, members of committee. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the American College of OB/GYNs District Nine, in support of AB 1940. From a clinical standpoint, menopause is not a single event. It's a transition that can last years, often coinciding with the woman's peak professional responsibilities. Many women experience significant symptoms, as Assembly Member mentioned, including hot flashes, sleep disruption, cognitive changes, anxiety, depression, and musculoskeletal pain.

These are not trivial inconveniences. They can materially impact a person's ability to perform at work without support. However, too often, these experiences are stigmatized or dismissed. As a result, many women suffer in silence, reduce their hours, or even leave the workforce entirely. This is a loss not only to those individuals, but to employers and to California's economy.

This bill does two important things. First, it helps workers experiencing perimenopause, menopause, or post-menopause understand their existing workplace rights, including protections related to reasonable accommodations and retaliation; second, promotes education and awareness so employers understand how existing workplace laws apply while ensuring outreach is accurate, multilingual, culturally competent, and distributed through trusted community, labor, employer, and health advocacy partners. From an OB/GYN perspective, this bill recognizes what they see every day in clinical practice.

Menopause-related symptoms are real, they can be significant, and patients should not be forced to choose between managing their health and maintaining their employment. Supporting menopausal women in the workplace is not burdensome. It's smart workforce policy. For these reasons, ACOG is pleased to support AB 1940 and ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. Are there support MeToos in the audience? Please state your name and affiliation.

Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, in support.

Any others? Okay. We will move to opposition. Any opposition witnesses?

You have two minutes.

Good morning. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition. I'm a woman, a former employment law attorney, and prior to that worked over a decade in HR and have administered reasonable accommodation for women experiencing menopause related symptoms.

I'm keenly aware of the reasonable accommodation framework that exists regarding menopause related symptoms. We appreciate the intent behind AB 1940 and support the bill's education and outreach provisions. We have provided the author with amendments that keep menopause symptoms within the existing reasonable accommodation framework.

With the amendments provided, we believe the bill achieves its stated purpose without the unintended consequences of the current language. I want to address previous mention of Rhode Island enacting laws codifying menopause as a protected characteristic. Rhode Island's law is actually a reasonable accommodation statute. The word accommodate or accommodation appears in every operative subsection.

It does not create a standalone protected class. Additionally, as noted in the analysis, Washington's governor signed an executive order this year directing state agencies to implement menopause accommodations under the accommodation framework, not by creating a new protected class.

Virginia is also instructive here. SB 258 passed the legislature and would have added menopause as a protected characteristic. However, the governor vetoed that bill with a specific recommendation to remove the protected characteristic language entirely and replace it with a study on workforce accommodations instead.

These states' experience underscores what our amendments reflect, that the reasonable accommodation framework is the right vehicle for addressing menopause in the workplace, and every state that has adopted menopause related legislation has used the reasonable accommodation framework.

Here's what creating a protected characteristic means practically for employers, including the State of California. Consider a state employee requests a schedule modification for menopause symptoms and gets a delayed response. If the employee were to file suit under today's law, it would be one FEHA accommodation claim.

Under AB 1940, it expands from one to three theories of liability. That same claim plus a FEHA sex discrimination claim plus a separate Unruh claim. Damages under Unruh start at $4,000 per violation plus attorney's fees. Damages under a fee has sex discrimination claim...

Your your time is up.

Thank you. We respectfully ask for your no vote.

Thank you. Any other opposition me too's out there, please come to the mic. State your name and affiliation. Seeing none. We'll bring it back to the dais. I do wanna thank you for bringing this bill. I think not enough has been done on the health care of women and particularly in this area.

I'm just curious, given the opposition's points, and you're welcome to address them in the close. You know, are you working with the opposition on some of this language about accommodation versus where you are initially started with the bill? How are how are you thinking about what the opposition is raising and what these cases are pointing toward?

So we have had conversations when this was in the Assembly, and I'm open to continue working with them. Definitely open to that.

Well, I appreciate it. I absolutely support this bill and want to see it move forward. Having worked with workers on discrimination cases, you know, it's really tough for workers to meet the bar for discrimination cases, and whatever we can do to clarify and make it stronger so that women can actually use the statute and get relief from it is incredibly important. Appreciate your bringing this bill. And would you like to close?

Yes. Just respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Thank you. We have a courtesy motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a 1-0 vote. We'll take it up when Members return. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

We are going to move back to file item number one. We have Senator Jones.

Madam Chair, while he's coming up, could I move the consent calendar?

Sounds great. Let's do that. Assistant, please call the roll.

On the consent calendar. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of 2-0. Consent calendar is on call.

Senator, you may proceed.

Thank you, madam Chair and members. It's an honor to be with you in the labor committee this morning. I am print presenting a joint resolution, s j Senate joint Resolution 15, which is a simple resolution urging Congress to protect California employers from being penalized for debt that they did not create. California currently owes more than $20,000,000,000 to the Federal Government after borrowing to pay unemployment benefits during the COVID nineteen pandemic.

And I'll just remind all of us that the pandemic, ended somewhere between five and six years ago, and we still owe this debt.

Because of that debt, the federal law automatically increases unemployment payroll taxes on California employers every year until the loan is repaid. These tax increases are not the result of businesses doing anything wrong or agreeing to take on this debt. No. They are the result of unprecedented state actions, including mandatory business shutdowns, prolonged restrictions, and billions of dollars in unemployment fraud that California, California government failed to prevent. SJR 15 simply asks Congress to recognize that distinction.

If a state's debt was caused by government decisions, not employer behavior, businesses should not receive higher federal payroll taxes to make up for the boneheaded decisions of their government. This resolution does not eliminate unemployment benefits. It does not reduce worker protections. It simply says California employers should not be forced to pay higher federal taxes because of government decisions completely outside their control.

Many of these employers are the same small businesses that survived mandatory closures, inflation, supply chain disruptions, and labor shortages, all the while keeping California's gainfully employed.

Now they're being asked to finance a debt that the state government created. That's neither fair nor good economic policy and will only lead to more shuttered businesses and a more corporate exodus, exacerbating the affordability crisis we face here in this state every single day. Every additional payroll tax dollar is money that cannot be invested in hiring workers, expanding operations, or increasing wages. This resolution stands for a straightforward principle. Government should be accountable for government decisions, not small businesses.

With that, I ask ask for your aye vote. I have two witnesses in support, one from NFIB and one from the Cal Chamber.

Good morning, madam Chair members. Tim Taylor with the National Federation of Independent Business. We have about 14,000 dues paying members in California. I wanted to point out that among the 22 states that took out UI loans from the Federal Government, we are kind of the last man standing here. All 21 other states have paid off those loans.

Currently, the small business group that we represent in FIB is essentially servicing the debt on UI as we move forward. The EDD estimates too that there had been about 20,000,000,000 in fraud that occurred. We are servicing that fraudulent debt too. Some estimates are even higher than that, and I really feel like we haven't gotten to the bottom of what that number really is.

We think this is a very common sensical measure, not asking Congress not to do anything to exacerbate the debt that we're already paying, and that we think it makes good sense.

We, ask for an aye vote. Thank you.

Good morning, madam Chair and, member. I'll be very brief. I mean, much of this has been covered and the committee is familiar with the UI fund. We view this as a per employee tax increase that will continue to grow in coming years until we pay off the debt, and we view that as regressive and discouraging employment, which is something I think we all want. Right?

We want those jobs to be out there for it. The only other piece I wanna flag is that there's been some recent discussions about this in the context of the rainy day fund, which we, like, think maybe a helpful change as the budget moves forward. You know, we're hopeful that we can get more action there. But given that budget action in this front hasn't been forthcoming in the recent years, we think this measure is a good step, you know, as a start. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other support witnesses? Please come to the mic. State your name and affiliation.

Alejandra Taylor with the California Business Roundtable in support.

Any opposition witnesses? Please come forward. Any opposition me too's? Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the dias. Senator Strickland.

I I just think this is a good measure. I'm a co author. It's not right to punish our small businesses to pay back this loan based on, as the leader said, on governmental decisions. And I would like to move this bill when appropriate.

So we have a motion. And I I wanna just say, Senator Strickland, I we we rarely agree on things in this committee. This is probably what's suspect.

I've heard it's the most fun committee to serve on.

Well, I will say I will say that I unfortunately will not be supporting this bill. And, you know, and there are many reasons for for that but but one that I wanna point out is unemployment insurance is about employers paying in good times so that workers are protected in bad times. And any efforts to eliminate employer adjustments, is detrimental, to to our system. And and any reform and the and I think this is the most important point that will happen to our unemployment insurance process will

be done by California and for California. It will not come from the Federal Government. So you know, for starters, I agree. Reform is needed. We need to modernize the system, and we have to start by making sure it's fully resourced.

California is it likes so far behind. We are taxing only on the first 7,000 in wages and that's putting us down at the bottom and and we looked into this with Florida, Arizona, and Tennessee. And we know the scale of our workforce. We know the number of workers. We know all of the diversity diversity of industry.

That just simply is not enough. Our own LAO has given a number of ways for us to fix the system and starting with the legislature's need to increase our our tax investments to 46,000 from 7,000. And so we've got a long way to go on reform. I'd be happy to work with you though on a resolution, toward this effort. I think that we should be working to get the Federal Government to forgive UI loans.

I think the debt is is unreasonable given the the the situation where we had no real guard rail rails for how the funding was to be distributed and that, you know, there was also no funding or mechanisms to prevent fraud from happening by the Federal Government. So, again, we we need to trust ourselves to work toward the solutions, and solutions have been presented to us. Workers, we know, paid the price during COVID.

We know families paid the price during COVID, and I wanna say they continue to pay the price. Many of our communities have not fully recovered.

Certainly, many of our businesses haven't. Government, we did make mistakes, and, yes, there were some criminals who exploited the situation as that often happens. But the answer cannot be leaving the unemployment, system permanently underfunded and eliminating adjustments that help it be solvent and to really help and serve the families that need it the most. So, with that, we have a motion, from Senator Strickland, but I will allow you to close.

Thank you. I appreciate that. And I will have my capital director follow-up with, your office on working together on a resolution. I think that's a great idea, and and hopefully, we can come to some, combined agreed efforts to to address this issue. I will share with the committee and folks here in the room that I was in Washington DC on Monday and met with the undersecretary of the Department of Labor.

And we talked about many things, but the very first thing that they mentioned on their agenda was California's unemployment debt. And they were very specific to point out that of 50 states, there's only one state that hasn't paid their unemployment debt, and that's California. Two of the concerns that they pointed to, not specific specifically notified in this resolution, and and I I will remind the committee, you know, this is just a

resolution asking Congress, to take action. This isn't, we're not passing a statute regarding California. But they they they pointed specifically to two things. One was that California had the opportunity several years ago to pay off the unemployment debt when we were running a surplus of a $100,000,000,000, for that year and a half that we actually did have a surplus. We could have paid it off then.

The governor, you know, could have, put that into his proposals as far as the budget process, and the legislature could have confirmed that, which I think there would have been bipartisan support for that issue. And then the other thing that they pointed out was the fraud, as you've rightly noticed as well and mentioned that California was the most delinquent or that that that's not the right word, delinquent.

California was the most careless state when it came to dealing with the fraud in the first place, letting it happen. In the second place, investigating and prosecuting the fraudsters in this and in the third place, holding those people accountable. California has done a despicable

job of handling that part of the UI debt, and the Department of Labor is very concerned about that. I agree with you that California needs to solve this problem. We should do it right away. We should have paid off the debt already. We certainly I I also agree with you, that we don't want the Federal Government coming here and trying to solve this for us.

But let's face facts. There's 50 states, and there's one state that still owes the Federal Government $18,000,000,000, and that's California. So I think it's, incumbent upon us as policymakers in California to take that serious, be accountable, and make sure that the small businesses in California know that we have their back. Currently, we don't. And I I think we need to come to the table with some with some real solutions, and I look forward to working with you on that.

With that, I'll ask for an aye vote on on this Senate joint resolution.

Assistant. Assistant. Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is be adopted. First, we refer to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas? No. Small Cuevas, no.

Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland? Aye. Senator Senator Cortezi?

No, Gordon. Senator Perazzo? Senator Laird?

One to one that bill's on call. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

We're gonna move to file item number three. Assembly member Erwin, are your witnesses here? Please have a seat at the front table, witnesses.

Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members. I am proud to present AB 1534 today, which supports California's implementation of the newly created federal Workforce Pell Grants by providing enhanced guardrails for the approval of these short-term programs. AB 1534 also adjusts how the state spends federal workforce development dollars to ensure that more job seekers are receiving training services.

Last year, HR 1 expanded the type of programs that are eligible for Pell Grants to include short-term workforce training programs lasting between six and 15 weeks. As California prepares to implement an approval process that ensures that programs meet minimal federal requirements, this bill adds additional standards to protect students from financially risky or low-quality programs.

To prevent students from taking on unnecessary student debt, AB 1534 requires that programs limit tuition and fees to the maximum Pell Grant award and prohibits programs from offering risky income share agreements. Additionally, AB 1534 requires programs partnering with unaccredited entities to be publicly transparent about that partnership, ensuring that students understand exactly what the program offers.

Lastly, AB 1534 makes clear unaccredited entities may not exercise control over course design or curriculum development and provides that unaccredited entities may not be compensated by a tuition-sharing model, which has been shown to encourage inappropriate incentives.

I appreciate the recent discussions committee staff had with my office on how we can assure that local boards are transparent with how they spend federal workforce development funds and I am committed to continuing to work with the chair and committee to strengthen transparency measures in this bill. We want to make sure that we can track outcomes and maximize the impact of these important investments. With me to testify in support is our sponsor from TICAS.

Thank you. And you have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Sarah Bouabibsa, here from TICAS. I'd like to begin by thanking the committee staff for their analysis and for your time today. Expanding federal aid to short-term programs has a strong potential to meet workforce needs by helping working adults, career changers, and students move into jobs faster.

These programs, however, have a mixed track record. While some lead to strong outcomes, others leave students with little economic benefit. Research shows many certificate holders earn $30,000 or less per year with worse outcomes for Black and Latino students. Since pending trailer bill language will establish the broader Workforce Pell approval process, this bill adds key components we believe are necessary, as covered by the Assembly Member.

Because federal law gives states discretion over the approval process, we believe California should take a proactive role in establishing safeguards that direct students to high-quality and affordable programs and use this opportunity to align state postsecondary and workforce efforts, including participation in WIOA, to expand access and improve outcomes.

AB 1534 carefully balances guardrails with programmatic feasibility, including allowing programs to partner with outside entities to provide instruction within federal limits and clarifies the rules when they do. Outside of apprenticeship programs and community college contract education agreements, partnerships must be transparent, disclose to students, not involve revenue sharing, or give an outside entity control over decisions.

Second, it protects students from being pushed into burdensome private debt or predatory financing options and encourages safer options like employer sponsorship, institutional aid, no interest loans, or payment plans. Third, it sets a reasonable cost cap so programs are priced in line with the maximum Pell Grant award. During federal debate, concerns about price inflation and uneven outcomes were at the forefront, so it makes sense to pair the federal backend accountability measures with frontend protections to ensure affordability and reduce risk for students.

At the same time, this bill does have flexibility to allow programs to charge more if employers or third parties cover additional costs. Taken together, these guardrails can--and increased alignment of WIOA and Workforce Pell--will expand access to high-quality programs for California students and workers. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Any MeToos in support of this bill, please state your name and affiliation.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Dawn Koepke, on behalf of the California Council for Adult Education and California Adult Education Administrators Association, in support.

Sara Bachez with Children Now, in support.

Jennifer Aguilar, on behalf of California EDGE Coalition. Support. Thank you.

Nazeehah Khan with California Competes, in support.

Thank you. Any others? Okay. We will move to opposition. Any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none, any opposition MeToo witnesses? Okay. We will bring it back to members.

Assembly Member, I'm gonna support the bill. I'm gonna move the bill. I just wish that you would take a look at private institutions as well, you know, because I-- my understanding through the analysis is it's excluding, you know, private institutions from being able to take advantage of this and I think you're lowering the participation rate when you do that. And so, I'm gonna support the bill because I think there's more good than bad, but I would love for you to take a look at trying to include that in the future.

And the reason that we had initially not included private institutions is because we were waiting for the budget trailer bill to come out. That did include private institutions, so we will be amending our bill to include private institutions. And now you'll say there's even more good than that.

Right. Exactly.

And now we can say we have even more agreement on our committee. I'm really liking this bill more and more. I have raised an issue with you earlier and your team about this question of making sure that participants who can have access to the program can continue to have access to training programs.

Oftentimes in my work before coming to the state legislature, the challenge was always not did folks want to participate in the training but could they get to it, meaning, did they have childcare, did they have transportation, did they have stipends, the things that actually help them be successful in participating in completing programs? I really appreciate you saying that you wanna continue to work on that because that is one of the leading causes for those participant levels dropping lower than what we would want them to do.

I think this bill goes a long way to making sure that we are connecting people to good jobs, that we're helping to address poverty through workforce training, and really appreciate you bringing this bill forward and would love to be added as a co-author as you move to the next level of this this process. So, please close.

And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Okay. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll call].

We have a vote of three/zero. That bill's on call. Thank you.

Hey. We now move into file item number seven, Assemblymember Mark Gonzales.

You may proceed.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, members. First, I would like to thank the committee staff for their work on this important bill.

I'm pleased to present AB 1896, the GTFO Act, which says "Get The Feds Out." This bill says that individuals who participate in immigration enforcement activities between 01/20/2025 and 01/20/2029 will be disqualified from holding state, county, or local public employment in California, except for conduct already permitted under California Senate Bill 54, the law that protects trust between our communities and our local government.

The bill is authored by myself and our speaker whose partnership in this effort sends a message that California will not bend when it comes to defending our communities, our civil rights, and the values that define our golden state. Since January 2025, fear has been knocking on doors before the sun even rises and especially in both our respective districts. Families waking up wondering if today is the day someone knocks on their door to kidnap them.

Communities are wondering if the people who swore to protect them are actually working against them. This is not an abstract thought. This is our reality. And when we what we have seen with our own eyes the terror that follows when cruelty is given authority without accountability. These acts are not isolated.

They are not faceless, a pattern that has been shown, a pattern of poor training, poor decision making, and poor values. Tower of events like the immigration enforcement officials publicly executing Renee Goode, shooting Alex Preddy in the street, kidnapping five year old Liam Cornejo to use as bait, and shooting, killing Keith Porter during a holiday. Whistleblower complaints and congressional documents show alarming changes to ICE training standards. Current ICE recruits now receive two hundred and fifty fewer hours of training and complete only a fourteen week program.

Entire practical examinations have been completely eliminated.

The number of tests recruits must pass dropped from 25 to 9, and entire courses have disappeared, including instruction on use of force, the structure of the United States government, and even the difference between criminal proceedings and civil removal proceedings. In comparison, peace officers in California must go through a minimum of forty weeks of training just to graduate from the academy.

California expects its public employees to be moral, to defend the people against all enemies, and to support and defend both the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of California. And anyone who is participating in these raids has shown that they do not live up to the bar that California deserves from their public servants. So today, California answers with clarity.

If you participate in cruel basis immigration enforcement, if you violated civil rights, ignored due process, or followed unlawful orders, you will not be welcomed into California's public workforce. This morning, primary witnesses in support are Edgar Guerra, advocate with SEIU California, and Monica Maderin, State Policy Advocate with CHERLA. Take it away.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Edgar Guerra here with SEIU California, in support of this bill, representing more than 750,000 people across the state. I also wanna thank the Assemblymember and the speaker for bringing this important conversation forward and standing up for the values California expects from its public institutions. At its core, this bill is about public trust.

The people who serve California in public employment should reflect the values of service, accountability, respect for the communities they have sworn to serve. Over the last year and a half, we've seen immigration enforcement actions carried out in ways that have undermined public trust, separated families, and created fear in communities across the state. SEIU represents workers from every background in every corner of our economy. We represent healthcare workers, childcare providers, janitors, public employees, educators, and many of those who serve in the public every day.

Individuals who willingly participate in enforcement actions that disregard due process, undermine community trust, and conflict with California's values should not be entrusted with public employment in our state.

For those reasons, we ask for your aye vote. Thanks.

Thank you.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Monica Madrid. I'm a State Policy Advocate with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, CHIRLA. I'm here in support of AB 1896.

For many Californians, immigration enforcement is not just a policy. It's something that families are living through in real time. At CHIRLA, we operate the LA Rapid Response Network. This network, was activated first in 2017 during the first Trump Administration, in response to threats of a mass deportation. And in November 2024, we had to reactivate it again.

In just a few months, we have trained over 2,000, community members to document immigration enforcement and support impacted families. What they are witnessing is just deeply alarming. Parents taken during routine stops outside of their homes, children coming home from school not knowing if their mom or dad will be there, families left scrambling overnight to figure out how to survive. And increasingly, we are seeing something more troubling. Our reports document patterns of cruelty, racial profiling, and intimidation by ICE and CBP.

We are also seeing federal agents target rapid responders, community members who are peacefully documenting and ensuring due process. We have had to change our trainings to include safety protocols because even though standing up for their communities are now at risk. And the impact goes far beyond those directly targeted. We are seeing entire communities live in fear. Parents afraid to take their children to school, people skipping medical care, survivors of crime hesitating to seek help.

That is not safety. That is fear. Public safety depends on trust. Trust that people can seek help and that those of authority will protect them. AB 1896 draw draws a clear line.

It ensures that individuals who participated in harmful federal immigration enforcement are not placed into positions of public trust in California because who we entrust with power matters. We owe it to our families living in fear and to children who deserve stability. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Your time is up. Thank you. Any support witnesses, me too's, please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation and position.

Pooja Lal, on behalf of NextGen California, in support.

Santiago Avila with La Mesa Verde, on behalf of the Central American Resource Center, CARECEN, in support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support.

Good morning. Ashley De La Rosa with Building Skills Partnership, in support.

JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association, in support.

Thank you. Any others? Okay. Opposition witnesses, if you're here, please have a seat at the table. You each have two minutes.

Morning, Chair and members. Jonathan Feldman with the California Police Chiefs Association. I wanna start by saying we are not opposed to the idea of vetting out candidates thoroughly to make sure that they are qualified and suitable to be peace officers in the state. We are opposed and have concerns, categorically excluding people based off of their employment and not their actions.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for the author, the sponsors, and understand with empathy the issue at hand, but, you know, we have done a lot of work in the state of them with the police chiefs for ten years.

We've worked on background checks, training standards, academy standards, decertification, accountability, you know, we've done a lot to make sure that we've picked the best of the best, but we created pathways for all eligible candidates, which included sponsoring a bill with the UC, several years ago, to allow undocumented Californians to become peace officers. I've got a number of police chiefs who've been fighting for their DACA officers to remain on the force over the last few months.

Again, because no one should be excluded just because of their background. They should be excluded because of their actions. We're gonna continue to have conversations with the author, staff, sponsors, you know, to try and see if there's some type of agreement that we can come to.

But as the bill stands now, we are opposed and I'm happy to answer questions.

Madam Chair, members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC, also in opposition. We're working with the author's office and their sponsors. We appreciate that. Our concern again is we have, you know, many agencies throughout the state who are short, extremely short, sometimes 28% short on manpower, which is dangerous, not only the officers but the community. Secondly, we do think that there's a pathway here where we could put a lot of guardrails and parameters around people who are applying.

We can do background checks. We can go to DOJ, for example. We can have them find out. Did you work for ICE? Did you work on any immigration?

And then vet them out. We would be open to that. We'd be open to language in this bill that simply said that if that's a determination, it would make them ineligible, and they would be vetted out by through the information of DOJ. And post could be the final determinator, make the final determination on whether or not they should be peace officers in California or that they cannot be peace officers in California. So, we wanna continue working on this.

We hope that we can shape the bill into a way that would be - still get the end game of what the goal of the bill is, but through a way where we're not just categorically denying people jobs.

Thank you. Do we have any other opposition me-too's? Please state your name, position, and affiliation.

David Bullhog, opposition. I am representing SFV Alliance. And as a union member, we oppose this retaliatory legislation. Thank you.

Any others? Me too. Seeing none, we'll bring it to the dais. Senator Strickland.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Deep respect for the author and the Assemblymember. I consider him a friend. We could agree to disagree without being disagreeable on this issue. Let me open with, I hate these public raids.

I think they're unacceptable, and I wish it wasn't this way. But I think there's many factors into what happens here. One, let's just back up. President Obama actually deported more people, undocumented immigrants than Donald Trump. One of the reasons why it was a little bit more precise and people didn't know about it is because we didn't have these sanctuary city and sanctuary state laws.

Now, because of those laws that we have in place, it's not as precise, and and therefore, it's in our public communities like car washes and our our supermarkets, which I absolutely despise. I don't like seeing that at all. But it shouldn't be a shock to anybody that the President's in enforcing our federal immigration laws; one of his main points of running for office, it was a centerpiece of his campaign, and we are in a democracy.

I know a lot of people don't agree with the president on that, but that's why we have elections.

One of the main reasons why he has that seat in the Oval Office is because he campaigned on this issue. And I do believe that those folks who are, enforcing that are just doing their job. But when we look at this bill, we already have a problem as was stated by, our testifiers today. We already have a problem, attracting individuals into law enforcement.

I believe the the gentleman said we're 20% lower than where we need to be in many of our communities across the State of California.

And who ends up hurting the most at that is our citizens. The most essential role of government is public safety and to keep our citizens safe. I do believe by this bill moving forward, it would keep our communities less safe. I understand where the author is coming from. I understand he has a big heart on this.

We could agree to disagree on this issue. But for those reasons, that's why I'm not supporting this bill moving forward. I think there's things that we could do, to make things better for our communities and not as chaotic. But, this bill, I don't think, in the end, at the end, if this bill passes, I think it keeps our communities less safe. And for those reasons, I'm not supportive of the bill today.

So, and I wanna thank the author for bringing the bill. And what I also appreciate is all the heads that were nodding during both the opposition and support witness testimony. I think, it is a testament to how far California has come on making sure that law enforcement does have the trust of the people.

I take deep offense and think it's disingenuous to raise president Obama's name in the same breath of these vicious brutal attacks of racial terror that continue to vilify and harm and destroy our communities and the trust of the public. I think it is incredibly important that, what we did do under the Obama administration, is make sure that we have a stronger law enforcement process of training, of accountability, and a partnership. And that's what this bill I think is is seeking to do to say that we want to uphold the standards of law enforcement in the state of California. We wanna hold them all accountable. We wanna make sure we have a rubric of training and laws that will do that.

And so, I deeply support this bill and I'm happy to, take a motion so that we can move it forward, and, I will ask you to close, good Assemblymember.

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for your comments that we both experienced, this and, again, just to reiterate in our in our overlapping districts as well. I wanna acknowledge that I remain committed to continuing good faith conversations with law enforcement. As you heard, here today, we've worked together on this bill probably probably every week since we introduced it, and that's why we're trying to find a common middle ground. But we can all agree that what is happening is a very unique situation.

Whether you've worked in law enforcement for ten years or twenty years, this is a new problem this administration is doing by kidnapping everyday law abiding citizens and which is why we brought this bill forward in the first place.

And I wanna thank Mister Strickland also. Yes, I do consider you a friend as well. And some of the policy issues, we might not be on the same page, but we both come from the same cloth of understanding that we can call out with what's wrong and how we can find ways to to solve those problems, especially here in California.

We have been having for those productive conversations and believe we are making good progress towards a solution that ensures California's public workforce is free from those who engage in these terrible actions while not punishing those who have not. The goal here and the message is simple with this bill that if you choose to terrorize communities instead of serving them, if you take the bonuses, California will not reward you with a public paycheck.

GTFO, thank you, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And do we have a motion? We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]. We are going to move down to file item number 12.

That's AB 2300. If you have witnesses, please have them have a seat at the table.

Thank you, madam Chair and senators. You and the vice Chair had been getting along so well earlier. I'm gonna try and get us back in line if I can. AB 2,300 modernizes the California workplace system by streamlining distribution of the innovation and opportunity act funds. Delays in this distribution towards the federal workplace funds can hinder job training, create barriers for job seekers, and make it harder for employers to find skilled workers.

AB 2,300 addresses these challenges by aligning state law with the federal WIOA requirements that allow for unified sub grant process and exempt these public purpose grants from the Department of General Services contracting approval. This approach has been used successfully under WIOA for decades, improving program efficiency while maintaining administrative accountability. AB2300 will strengthen California's workforce and economy by ensuring that the WIOA programs are better aligned, easier to access, and more responsive to the needs of both workers and employers.

With me to provide testimony are Adam Peck with the California Workforce Association and Anita Maldonado, PhD, Executive Director of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency.

And you each have two minutes.

Good morning, Chair Smallwood Cuevas and members of the committee, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Anita Maldonado, executive director of the Sacramento Employment and Training Agency, and I am here in strong support of AB 2300. SADA serves as Sacramento County's local workforce development board, connecting job seekers, workers, and employers to the American Job Center of California system. Our work is about helping people move from job loss to opportunity and helping employers find the skilled workers they need.

In workforce development, timing matters.

For someone who has lost a job, a four to six month delay is not just a process issue. It means that rent is coming due, bills are piling up, and a family is waiting for stability. It can mean the difference between enrolling in training for a better career or taking the first job available just to get by. A Sacramento worker who's ready to retain and return to work cannot wait months for resources to become available.

During that time, opportunities can disappear and the path forward becomes harder.

Our training providers experience the same challenges. Instructors are ready, classrooms are prepared, and participants are waiting, but delayed funding can postpone training and interrupt pathways towards employment. Employers feel it too. Businesses need a workforce system that can respond quickly when they have open positions and need skilled workers. Delayed guidance creates additional barriers.

Our teams work hard to maintain compliance and accountability, but when direction comes months after implementation begins, programs may need to pause, procedures may need to change, and the staff time is diverted from serving workers to employers. AB 23 helps California workforce system move with the urgency our communities need. It strengthens our ability to respond quickly, support businesses, and help workers to get back on their feet. For the people we serve, waiting is not neutral. It has real consequences.

Sara respectfully urges your yes vote on AB 23. Thank you.

Good morning. Chair, Smallwood Cuevas and members of the committee. I'm Adam Peck, executive director of the California Workforce Association. We sponsor AB 2300, and we represent the work local workforce boards that are the backbone of the California workforce development infrastructure. You just heard what a four to six month delay means for a worker in Sacramento.

I wanna explain why it happens and because it is structural and it repeats in every region of the state. Right now, the same local board is funded two different ways. Federal WIOA dollars reach it through a sub grant, a process that is fast, efficient, and has worked for decades. State workforce dollars are treated as procurement contracts that wait for Department of General Services approval. That is where the months go before anyone is served.

AB 2300 lets the proven sub grant process carry. AB 2300 also protects how boards get their day to day guidance. For years, EDD has issued operational directives, much like the All County letters that Department of Social Services issues to count. Depends on it. AB 2300 confirms EDD's authority to keep issuing it directly.

And if it had to go through full rule making instead, the same direction could take a year or more leaving boards waiting when federal rules process, not the oversight. Every dollar stays subject to the same federal reporting, record keeping, and audit requirements boards already meet under WIOA. We are asking to move faster, not to answer to less. On behalf of California's 45 local workforce boards, I respectfully urge your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any me too's in support of this bill? Please step forward, state your name and affiliation.

Good morning. Andy Lebenbaum on behalf of the County Of Los Angeles in proud support.

Jenny Aguilar on behalf of California Edge Coalition in support. Thank you.

Any others? Okay. We will move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness here today? Okay.

Seeing none, opposition me twos. We will bring this back to

i Move the bill.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Would you like to close?

Thank you. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Glad to see you on the same page.

Thank you.

Thank you. Please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriation. Senator Small Cuevas.

Aye.

Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortezi.

Aye. Cortezi, aye. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird.

We have a vote of three to zero that Bill's on call. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. We are gonna lift call and walk through a few of the bills.

But at first, we'll take a a file item number 2AB65, Aguilar Curry bill. Assistant, please. Oh, can we get a motion on that file item number two, please?

Motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriation. Senator Small Cuevas? Aye. Small Cuevas? Aye.

Senator Strickland? No. Strickland? No. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese? Aye. Senator D'Orazo? Senator Laird? Two to four.

Okay. We have a vote of two to one that bills on call. And now we will go through Consent. But okay. We'll start with consent calendar and go through the bills done so far.

So we'll start with consent calendar assistant. Please call the roll.

On the consent calendar, Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird?

K. We have a vote of three to zero. That bill's on call.

K. We have a vote of three to zero. That bill's on call.

Okay. And let's call the roll on file item number eight.

[Roll Call]

Okay. We have a vote of two to zero. That bill's on call. Okay. We will move to Assemblymember Lowenthal on file item number 11 AB 2223.

If you have witnesses, they may sit at the front table.

Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. I am pleased to present AB 2223. Excuse me.

That's alright. Sacramento allergies.

Yes. Indeed. Indeed.

Take your time.

I think I'm allergic to all these hearings. This requires CDCR to report standardized information regarding the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts to the State of California. This bill is actually a follow-up to an audit that I requested in 2024 examining the use of contracted medical and mental health staffing at certain state facilities.

The audit found that vacancy rates at some facilities remain extremely high, which have led CDCR to rely heavily on private staffing contractors to fill critical positions that often cost more per hour than comparable state employees. Despite the growing reliance on contractors, the legislature currently lacks consistent and standardized information about the number of contracted workers, the classifications they perform, and the total cost of these contracts.

AB 2223 addresses this gap by requiring CDCR to provide standardized disclosure of key information regarding contracts that substitute for civil service work. Very pleased to be joined today by Carl Miller, president of AFSCME Local 2620, who's here to testify in support of the bill.

Thank you. And each witness has two minutes.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Good morning, committee. My name is Carl Miller, and I'm the president of AFSCME Local 2620, representing more than 5,000 health and social service professionals who serve California everyday. I also work as a frontline licensed clinical social worker at the California Health Care Facility in Stockton. I am here today in strong support of AB 2223.

Our members work every day inside of California's correctional facilities providing essential medical, mental health, and rehabilitative services. We see firsthand what happens when critical positions remain vacant and departments increasingly rely on outside contractors to perform work that has historically been done by dedicated state employees. The issue is not that the contractors are being used. There are times when contracting may be necessary.

The real issue is that there is very little transparency about how much outsourcing is occurring, what it costs taxpayers, and whether it actually addresses the state's workforce challenges. The findings of the state auditor confirmed exactly what our members have been experiencing. The audit identified persistent vacancy rates, increased reliance on contract workers, and found that CDCR has not consistently assessed its staffing needs or evaluated the effectiveness of its recruitment and retention efforts. AB 2223 offers a common sense solution. It does not prohibit contracting.

It simply requires CDCR to provide basic information about contracts for medical and mental health services historically performed by civil service employees, including what services are being contracted, how much tax payers are paying, how many contractors are being used, how those positions compare to civil service classification, and the scope and duration of those contracts.

Just as importantly, this information will be shared with the legislature and the exclusive bargaining representatives of affected employees. California cannot effectively plan its workforce without accurate information. Transparency is the foundation for better workforce planning, stronger recruitment and retention, fiscal accountability, and informed policies. On behalf of more than 5,000 workers of AFSCME Local 2620, I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 223. Thank you for your time.

Okay. Good morning, Chair and Members of the Committee. My name is Vanessa Seastrong. I'm a registered nurse and I work for the State of California. I am proud to serve as the Bargaining Unit 17 Chair for SEIU Local 1000. Through my union, I represent healthcare workers in CDCR facilities across California. I am here today because of AB 2223 speak directly addressing the challenges my coworkers deal with daily.

For years, those facilities have been short staffed and vacancies have gone unfilled, but yet the work continues to go on. When we're not enough, when there's not enough state employees, the solution becomes expensive contractors. That means workers are asked to work side by side with registry nurses who are making double their salary.

This is a real real consequences that lead to burnout, resentment, and high turnover, which only makes staffing shortage worse. As well, contractor staffs help with the shortage, but relying on them year after year costs the state far more than investing in civil service workers. Workers have raised the concerns for years. We've asked how many positions are vacant, how much money is going to contractors, and why aren't public civil servants being hired for these positions.

Right now, these answers aren't being available to the legislators or to us workers affected by this. AB 2223 is about transparency and accountability. It requires regular reporting on vacancies and contracts so policymakers, departments, and workers can clearly see what's happening in these state healthcare facilities and begin to address the root causes. State auditors recently report confirms what workers have been saying for years, the system isn't working.

Your time is, your time is up. Wanna quickly close?

I respectfully ask for your support for AB 2223.

Thank you. Any other support me too's, please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Janice O'Malley, proud co-sponsor of AB 2223. Thank you.

Analisa Quintero, SEIU Local 1000, proud co-sponsor of this bill.

Leticia Whitman, CDCR, CCHCS, registered nurse, employee of the State of California, and support this.

Elsa Monroe, RN, San Quentin, and also the Co-Chair for the Coastal for the Nurse Alliance of California. Thank you.

Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Rene Bayardo representing the California Association of Psychiatric Technicians in support.

Thank you. Do we have any, one more call for me too's. Okay. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Please come forward. Seeing none. Do we have any opposition me too's? Seeing none. We will bring it back to the dais, Members. Okay. We have a motion from Senator Cortese. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Cortese.

Motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

You have a vote of 2-1. That bill's on the call. Thank you. So we will move now to Assembly Member Elhawary, and that is file item number 14. If you have witnesses, they are welcome to sit at the table.

Alright. Good morning, madam Chair and members. I am so proud to present AB 2483, which creates a permanent dignified pathway into firefighting careers for formerly incarcerated individuals who served on CAL FIRE hand crews. California has real has relied on incarcerated firefighters for nearly a century. Men and women who risked their lives clearing brush, cutting fire lines, and supporting fire suppression across the state.

These individuals are carefully screened, limited to low level nonviolent offenders with good behavior and low security classifications. These are folks who went through Cal Fire's rigorous hands on training, risked their lives on the front lines, and came home with no certificate, no job prospects. AB 2483 changes that. It ensures they leave with an official certificate and a fair shot at a real job. This bill is about more than a job though.

It's about recognition, dignity, and a real shot at rebuilding their lives. This is about showing people that if you do the work, you deserve the opportunity, and we have the power to open those doors instead of keeping them locked. Joining me today is Benjamin Fowler with the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program and Nia Bratton with the Michaelson Center for Public Policy.

Thank you. And you each have two minutes.

Yeah. I'll go first. Hello, Chair and members. My name is Benjamin Fowler. I'm a crew lead one with the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program, a proud cosponsor of AB 2483.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. As an incarcerated firefighter, I fought some of California's most dangerous wildfires, including the Caldor, Zogg, Ranch, Dixie, SEZU Complex, August Complex, and Kincade Fires. I did real work. I received real training. I served on real fire lines.

I put my body, my safety, and my life on the line to protect communities across California. And when I came home, I wanted to continue that work, not just as a job, but as a career and a calling. But like many many formerly incarcerated firefighters, I quickly learned that my experience did not translate into a clear employment pathway. Even though I had done the work, I did not receive the industry recognized certifications I needed.

I also did not see fair access to the career opportunities that should have been avoid available to me based on my training and experience.

So instead, I immediately immediately entering the wildfire workforce, I became a construction laborer. Eventually, I found FFRP. I graduated from FFRP's career training program, earned the certifications I needed, and secured a job with the US Forest Service. The work I'm most drawn to and the work I have been trying to get back to since coming home. Today, I'm proud to be back with FFRP, but this time, as a crew lead one, helping others who are working and trying to find the same path I once walked.

AB 2483 is about removing unnecessary barriers to employment for people who have already done the work. It recognizes real training and real experience, requires meaningful certification, and helps qualified candidates compete for careers in firefighting and forestry. These are not just jobs. These are careers that can provide family sustaining wages, stable benefits, upward mobility, employee protection. They are careers that allow people coming home to support their families, contribute to the communities, and build long term stability.

California and these firefighters, formerly incarcerated firefighters need fair access to careers they have already trained for. AB 2483 helps connect these two needs. I respectfully ask for your eye. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair and members. The Michaelson Center for Public Policy is proud to cosponsor and strongly support AB 2483. Every wildfire season, California calls on incarcerated firefighters to protect our homes, businesses, communities, and natural resources. They compete in rigorous training, perform dangerous work, and put their lives online alongside professional firefighters. But when their service ends, so does their opportunity.

The skills they earn and the experience they gain often do not lead to a clear pathway into the firefighting profession. For many of these firefighters, e b 2483 is not about a second chance. It's about a first real chance. A first chance to have their hard work recognized. A first chance to turn their experience into a career.

A first chance to provide for their families through meaningful employment. A first chance to continue serving the state they've already risked their lives to protect. No one who already has proven they are willing to protect California should have to start over simply because of where they gained that experience. We know that stable employment is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry.

According to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, individuals who spent one year or more in fire camps have recidivism rate of thirty one point six percent compared to forty five point two percent for those who did not participate.

California has already invested in training these firefighters. AB 2483 ensures that investment does not end at the prison gate by creating a pathway to long term employment in a professional in profession where experienced firefighters are urgently needed. At its core, this bill recognizes that hard work matters, earned skills matter, and people who have already demonstrated their commitment to protecting California deserve the opportunity to continue serving.

For these reasons, the Michaelson Center for Public Policy respectfully requests your aye vote on AB 2483.

Thank you. Thank you. Are there any me too supports out there? Please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Good morning. Griselda Chavez with the California Association Local Conservation Corps in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Connor Gussman on behalf of Prosecutors Alliance Action, proud co sponsor in support. Thank you.

Good morning. Carmen Nicole Cox on behalf of the Forestry and Fire Recruitment Program, proud sponsor in support.

Great. We will now move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none, any opposition me twos? Seeing none, we will come back.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland. I just wanna say to the author, thank you for your persistence, and for your commitment to making sure that we are supporting our returning citizens and making sure our incarcerated firefighters have a real chance. We were part of a a fight last session, and I'm so glad that you are fighting and I am fighting to make sure that we create real pathways.

I think you gave the statistic that, there's great reduction in recidivism and we know that when folks have a job, not just the work experience, but when they have a job commitment, it drops 95% reduction in recidivism. So the best way to deal with prison and mass incarceration is to create good jobs, and this is exactly what this bill does.

So I would love to be added as a co author if I have somebody already. And My name is Ivy. I welcome you to, to close this Assembly member.

I really wanna thank our witnesses and in particular, Ben, for sharing his story and the importance of why we're here. I also wanted to share that my mom is actually in the capital today sharing testimony about the impact of the fires on her own life. Last year, Altadena, while it was burning, impacted my entire family who lives there.

And it was folks, who were currently incarcerated, who were on the front lines first because our our CAL FIRE firefighters are seasonal while incarcerated firefighters are there all year round. And so we know the importance of investing in more firefighters and in particular in real pathways for our folks who are on the front lines when we need it most, who were there to save our and to be there during one of the worst moments in LA's history.

They've stepped up. They've protected our communities. And so this is our chance to show them that we are also going to invest in them. And I respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas.

Aye.

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

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

That bill has a vote of three to zero. It's on call. We'll take it at the member's return. Thank you. Thank you so much.

Okay. We are going to move down to file item number nine, AB 2142. Senator Pertesi will be presenting on the behalf of Assembly member Garcia. Proceed when you're ready.

Thank you. Thank you, madam Chair and members. I am presenting AB 2142 on behalf of Assembly member Garcia. He wanted he wanted me to convey as many thanks to the Chair and the committee staff for their work on this bill. AB 2142 ensures a temporary classified employees, that are employed longer than 75% of the school year are given the benefits and protections they're entitled to as permanent staff.

While this bill does not raise wages or create any new benefits, it does indeed help simply guarantee that workers at a minimum will earn the benefits and rights established under current law for permanent employees. For my primary witnesses, we have Mitch Steiger from CFT and Carlos Lopez from CSEA. At the appropriate time, we respectfully ask your aye vote.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Good morning, madam Chair and members. My name is Carlos Lopez. I'm a legislative advocate for the California School Employees Association, which represents almost 300,000 essential classified school employees across California and a proud cosponsor of the bill. AB 2142 helps to clarify the appropriate role for short term employees performing classified duties. Per education code forty five one zero three, short term employees are defined as employees who are performing services that will not be extended or needed on a continuing basis.

We are attempting to set two clear standards, about how classified employee short term employees should be appropriately used in order to make sure that Californians who have given years and sometimes decades of their working lives to our school systems receive the basic benefits and protections that they deserve. The bill under AB 2142, if a single classified or a single short term employee performs classified work for more than 75% of the school year, they will become part of the permanent classified service.

We think it's perfectly reasonable that someone who has worked an entire school year should become part should not be considered short term anymore. The second standard establishes that if a classified position is being occupied by a short term employee for more than 50% of the school year for three out of five consecutive years, that position must be filled by a permanent employee.

This, the second standard allows for greater flexibility for districts to fill their positions as they need while ensuring that ongoing needs are performed by permanent employees.

It's important to clarify these standards and to ensure that ongoing ongoing duties are filled by permanent employees because short term employees do not receive many of the basic standards and protections of permanent employees, such as retirement, vacation, or job security. We believe that employees who fulfill essential ongoing duties should be entitled to the hard won rights and essential rights of classified employees. Thank you very much.

Thank you, madam Chair, members, and staff. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, proud to cosponsor this bill along with CSEA. And thank you to Senator Cortesi for stepping up to present the bill. Just wanted to give a little bit more perspective on what the situation looks like for our members. It's a huge priority for our classified division, one that we hear about from them very frequently.

And, there's an example that that I'm always bringing up because it's the one that really sticks in my mind of someone who was employed for thirty seven years in a community college bookstore as a short term temporary worker. So that means at the end of every year, they were terminated, brought back at the beginning of the next year for thirty seven years.

It's thirty seven years of no seniority, no benefits, no sick leave, no vacation, no nothing other than getting fired at the end of every year and then brought back. We think it's extremely hard to defend any kind of a system that allows that sort of thing to happen. And we would also encourage everyone to also try to keep in mind what it's like for a classified worker even when they're properly classified.

If you go on your local school boards or your school district's website and look at the open positions, limited to classified, you'll see that a lot of these jobs pay $19.20 dollars an hour, give twenty, thirty hours a week. So it's already very, very difficult to staff these positions. And sometimes, those positions require a great deal of experience or training.

And so when you compound that with, you might be fired at the end of every year, you don't get any sort of seniority or benefits or sick leave or anything, it makes it very, very difficult to staff these. And we would also point out that when you deny workers sick leave, especially when they're making wages that low, you often leave them no option other than going to work sick.

So these work with students, these work with young children, some of our most vulnerable students with special needs. It is not fair to them or those they work with to force them to go without sick leave and have to make this impossible decision of do I go to work and potentially jeopardize the health of my students, or do I stay home and provide for my own family.

So we think this bill is a great step forward to help solve that problem and finally award these workers the rights they deserve, and we strongly urge your support.

Thank you. Any me too's in support of this bill, please step to the mic, state your name and affiliation.

Investment on behalf of Teamsters California and the Alameda Transit Union in support.

Edgar Gedei with SEIU California in support. Thank you.

Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.

Any others? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses for this bill? Please have a seat at the table.

Association of California School Administrators, in respectful opposition. Our classified staff are essential, critical parts of serving students and the school community. Regrettably, AB 2142 makes sweeping changes, to the ability to staff short term positions with, added costs and challenges for layoff notices. Why do we have short term positions in the first place? Well, sometimes they are grant funded, like literacy coaches or homeless assistant specialists.

Sometimes they're funded by limited federal dollars, like our COVID ESSER, emergency relief dollars. Sometimes we get discretionary block grants, one time dollars for a one time position. These are not ongoing resources to provide ongoing full time permanent status along with the benefits that are forwarded to those positions. We're also concerned again about the added liability for failure to notice through our existing March 15 Layoff notice process. Time permanency to a rolling multiyear threshold makes alignment extremely difficult.

Currently, school employers can identify short term positions and create full time equivalency calculations to ensure that we are not exceeding those times, exceeding the money afforded for those positions, And that could only be complicated through this, again, multi year rolling percentage. And then we are deeply concerned that this would have the unintended consequence of denying really well qualified, well liked, classified short term positions from coming back in future years should they, exceed the threshold.

One really quick example, someone supporting in the executive office, has come back multiple years. If that person exceeds more than 50% for more than three or five years, that individual become permanent. That individual will likely not be invited back despite their desire to serve in a short term position and their excellent qualifications.

So for these reasons, we respectfully oppose. Thank you.

Martinez. Community College League of California, respectfully must be opposed to the measure. We are thankful for the author and sponsor for meeting with us and discussing the bill as it's moved to the process, but we still have concerns with the bill as is in print as as mentioned by my colleague. We are concerned about the rebuttal of resumption.

We are worried about how it will impact our ability to, draft short term fluctuating needs of our students by establishing that result rebuttal of presumption that certain positions must be treated as classified based on multi year workload patterns.

Our colleges rely on short term employees to meet the dynamic student needs. As an open access system, we serve all students and deliver a wide range of services, including associate degrees, dual enrollment, career technical education, online instruction. Flexibility and local control are critical for colleges to effectively support enrollment periods. Many of the needs of our are driven by funding sources beyond the control of our locally elected boards.

And while we're appreciative of the investments that our colleges have made received in this year's budget, they have to be mindful of that the out years could be a challenge for us going forward.

Giving taking away additional flexibility for our colleges to manage our employees is a challenge for us and and is something that we'll continue to be concerned about as this bill progresses.

Thank you. Are there any opposition Me Too 's in the audience? Please step to the mic. State your name and organization.

Bella Kern on behalf of the Small School Districts Association in respectful opposition.

Good morning. Michelle on behalf of California Association of School Business officials and on behalf of my colleagues at the Kern County Superintendents of Schools in respectful for opposition. Thank you.

Okay. Seeing no others, we'll move to the dias. Any comments, questions? Please close.

I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

Thank you. And I I'll do it first.

Thank you. We have a courtesy motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

Motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas?

Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?

Aye.

Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Senator

Aye.

Laird? K. We have a vote of three to one. That bill is on call. I'm sorry.

Two to one. That bill is on call.

Two to one. That bill is on call.

Assembly member, Carlra, just in time. We are going to move to file item number 13. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to have a seat at the table.

Wonderful. Proceed when ready.

Thank you, madam Chair. AB 2367 will require state run healthcare facilities to report on a quarterly basis their staff vacancy overtime and contract data with additional breakdowns by classification and facility. Per the direction of the joint legislative audit committee, the state auditor reviewed staffing levels of the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation, the Department of Developmental Services, and the Department of State Hospitals last year.

They focused on three facilities and the audit found that over five they focused on these three facilities and the audit found that over five years, the staff vacancy rates at all three facilities had increased. To address the vacancies, the facilities had to increase their use of contract workers, which cost more per hour than, their state civil service counterparts, even after taking into account the non wage costs associated with state civil service employment, such as benefits.

The contract workers also had two to three years less tenure than state employees in the same classification, which resulted in a need for additional training and time. Additionally, the auditor found that CDCR, DDS, and DSH do not have a formal process for reporting their shift staffing minimums, which are critical to ensuring the provision of legally required levels of care.

To promote transparency, accountability, and oversight, the auditor recommended all three departments immediately require their facilities to track and report publicly their staffing levels with explanations for any missed minimums. AB 2367 builds on the auditor's recommendations and requires state run healthcare facilities to report quarterly by facility information regarding vacancy and overtime data, registry contract data, and the number of shifts by which the facility fell short of its required shift staffing minimums, and an explanation for why it missed those minimums.

Whitney provides supporting testimonies to Vanessa Seastrong, an RN BSNPHN Bargain Unit seventeen share for SEIU Local one thousand And Hakam Jaber, contract coordinator with SEIU Local one thousand to help address technical questions.

Thank you. You each have two minutes.

Okay. Hi. My name is Vanessa Seastrong. I'm a registered nurse for the State of California. I'm proud to represent bargaining unit seventeen.

I'm the bargaining unit Chair. And I represent healthcare workers in the state facilities across California. I'm here for AB 2367 directly addressing the challenges my coworkers and I face every day on the job. For years, our facilities have been short staffed at vacancies gone unfilled and yet worker does work goes on. When there aren't enough state workers, the solution is often mandatory overtime and expensive contractors.

That means state workers are working multiple double shifts and just to keep things running. And this causes burnout, unsafe working conditions, high turnovers, which only makes staffing shortage worse. And while contract staff help

short term, but using them year after year instead of investing in civil service workers. State workers have raised these concerns for years. We've asked how many positions are vacant, how much overtime is being mandated, How much money is going to registry staff? Right now, those answers are not always available to the legislators or the workers affected by these decisions. AB 2363 is about transport transparency, accountability.

It requires regular reporting on vacancies, overtime use, and contracts. So political makers and policy makers and departments and workers can clearly see what's happening in the state health facilities and begin addressing these root causes. State audit auditors recently reported confirms what state workers have been saying for years. The system isn't working. AB 2367 gives us the information we need to do better for patients, workers, and taxpayers.

I respectfully ask for your support.

Good morning, Madam Chair Cuevas and members of the committee. My name is Hakam Jaber. I work with SEIU Local one thousand. We represent over 90,000 civil servants here in the state of California. I work very closely with Vanessa.

I'm her lead staff person with SEIU Local one thousand, and we work together on a joint labor management task force for mandatory overtime, which is the topic that Vanessa was just speaking to. We work with several departments, the Department of Veterans Affairs, California Correctional Healthcare Services, and the Department of State Hospitals in this mandatory overtime task force. And we've made little to no progress over the last five plus years in me working for this task force.

The departments have recently rejected all of our mandatory overtime proposals in totality during present bargaining. We are currently bargaining our state contract right now.

The state these departments are trying to strip current rights away from our, labor men labor management task force and take it away. These departments have made little, again, to no progress eliminating mandatory overtime, and this task force was created in 2017. It's now 2026, and we've made little to no progress on this issue. So this is an extremely important bill for AB 2367.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote, Even though the departments I mentioned insist that mandatory overtime has significantly decreased, we still file grievances in an appalling manner with regard to these departments for constantly violating our contract with respect to mandatory overtime.

Our nurses deserve better compensation that they are presently getting. That is one of the biggest issues that we have is a retention a recruitment and retention problem across the State Of California, and it's due to low compensation for nurses. Currently in this bargaining cycle, the state has offered us zero percent for 2026, 3% for 2027, and 0% for 2028. That's unacceptable for our civil servant nurses that work across the state. These departments have multimillion dollar registry contracts.

Your time is up. Please.

We respectfully ask for your aye vote for AB 2367. Thank you.

Are there other me too's in support of the bill? Please to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.

Hello. Annalisa Quintero, SEIU Local one thousand. We are proud cosponsors of this bill, and we really appreciate you guys hearing this today.

Janice of Emily AFSCME, California in strong support. Thank you.

Leticia Whitman, registered nurse, twenty year service with CDCR, CCHCS, and I support this.

Elsa Monroe, RN for San Quentin for twenty years and also the cochair for the coastal area for the nurses of California of SEIU. We support this.

Madam Chair, Edgar Guerra with SCIU California, proud cosponsor. Thank you.

Michelle Taylor, registered nurse, with SCIU and CCHCS. I support this.

Any other me too's? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses here today? Please come to the table.

Seeing none, opposition me too's. Seeing none, we'll bring it Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Would you like to close?

Respectfully ask for an eye vote. Thank you.

We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assistant, please call the roll.

The motion is do passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas.

Aye.

Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortezi?

Senator Durazo? Senator Laird?

We have a vote of two to zero. That bill is on call. We'll take it up when members return. Thank you. Okay.

We are going to move up to file item number six. I see Assembly member Brian is here with us. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the front table.

And then if it's okay with you, madam Chair, after I present my bills, I will also be presenting AB 2150 on behalf of Assembly member Haney and potentially asking for a no vote. We'll see.

That is that is perfect. Two for one. We like two for one. You may proceed when ready.

Well, good morning. I believe this is actually my first time in front of the Senate Labor Committee under your chairwomanship. I'm proud to present AB 1883, which will prohibit the use of invasive and potentially discriminatory surveillance systems in the workplace. Workplace surveillance is not a recent phenomenon, but today's workplace surveillance tools differ in their scale, their speed, and their invasiveness. Employees employers used to have to monitor video feeds to track workers.

Now artificial intelligence models and tech advancements allow them to compile massive amounts of data points and analyze them in real time without that human interaction. Current technology includes devices to monitor worker speech, collect neural data, and systems that use emotional recognition. Employers can use these surveillance data for predictive behavior analysis to prevent workers from exercising their protected rights or to figure out deeply personal information such as health or immigration status.

This bill prohibits the use of the most unreliable and discriminatory types of surveillance, emotion recognition tools, and surveillance tools that collect neural data. Joining me to testify are Ivan Fernandez with the... Is Ivan Fernandez with the California Labor Federation. I respectfully ask for your aye vote.

You have two minutes.

Hello, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions, a proud co-sponsor of AB 1883. The surveillance technology that exists today is clearly more powerful than ever before, but the principles guiding the creation and the need for worker centered guardrails remain consistent.

Labor has been at the forefront of making workplaces safer and more humane for decades, and today is absolutely no different. The Assembly Member just described how emotion recognition methods are conducted on call center workers at MetLife, Humana, and even at Kaiser. But unfortunately, these tools do exist outside of call centers.

Developers such as MorphCast and Hume AI sell emotion recognition software products capable of monitoring Zoom meetings and worker interactions to provide managers with a real time analysis of a worker's positivity or excitement throughout the day. And not only are these practices invasive, but they are likely to discriminate against workers who fail to meet arbitrary and potentially racially biased communication standards.

And as we know, these tools are not free of biases, yet employers still deploy them in workplaces all across the state with a false sense of confidence and perceived accuracy. In addition to monitoring worker emotions, employers also have access to tools purportedly capable of analyzing neural data to determine if a worker is tired, concentrating, or stressed.

Developers like Emotive sell hardware to allow employers to understand a worker's true mental and cognitive state, all for the purposes of improving ROI and supposedly improving worker morale. These surveillance methods rely on questionable tools to make bold claims of a person's mental state.

The likelihood of inaccurate readings are very high, yet despite these questionable outcomes, workers are still susceptible to these tools being deployed in the workplace. With recent amendments, AB 1883 prohibits employers from using AI powered technology to make inferences on a worker's emotional state and prohibits employers from deploying neural recognition tools.

AB 1883 does not prevent employers from using actual surveillance methods and tools for safety purposes. Tools that provide interpretation of a worker's emotional and mental state do not create a safe working environment. They create a dystopian and invasive workplace. And for these reasons, I respectfully urge aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there me too's in support of the bill? Please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, in strong support.

Connor Gusman on behalf of Teamsters California, proud co-sponsor in support. Also on behalf of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the Engineers and Scientists of California, Unite Here International Union, Utility Workers Union of America, and the California Conference Board of Machinists, all in support. Also conveying the support of Tech Equity Action.

Carlos Lopez speaking just on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.

Edgar Guerra with SEIU California in support. Thanks.

Hi. Brooke Bonetti with on behalf of Electronic Frontier Foundation and Privacy Rights Clearing House in support.

Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support.

JP Hanna on with the California Nurses Association in strong support.

Mitch Steiger with CFT also in support.

David Bolog, not speaking on behalf of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 18, but as a member, I'm in support.

Okay. Any other me too? Seeing none. Gusman, impressed with that memory. That was, that was impressive. Opposition witnesses, please have a seat at the table.

Good morning. I'm Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respect of opposition to AB 1883. We appreciate the author taking amendments on the bill and want to raise two outstanding concerns. First, AB 1883 defines worker to include independent contractors. I want to again reemphasize that independent contractors are not employees.

They are not part of the employer's workforce in the way this bill assumes, and applying employee style surveillance restrictions to a contractual arm's length business relationship creates confusion about who owes what duty to whom. This rewrites the terms of private contracts the legislature was never a party to, relationships parties freely entered and freely negotiated. Second, consider what this bill actually bans in practice. Under SB 553, employers are required to have effective means to alert employees to a threat in real time.

Many use AI enabled security systems that detect raised voices, distress, escalating aggression, or facial recognition in workplaces or parking lots. This is to be able to trigger an alert before a situation turns violent. This is precisely the kind of emotional inference AB 1883 prohibits. This bill would ban the exact safety mechanism SB 553 requires employers to have. For these and other reasons, we respectfully urge your no vote. Thank you.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Chris Micheli here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Apologies for having my back to the author. CJAC shares the concerns that Chamber has, California Chamber has expressed. Wanted to raise two additional issues, which we have previously with the author and sponsor.

The first is in Section 1582, what is now in C, which is the private right of action that also includes the potential for punitive damages to be awarded. In Subdivision A of 1582, we have Labor Commissioner Enforcement and CJAC would prefer to have public enforcement of this provision of law rather than a private right of action. The second issue we raise is in what is 1582 G allowing additional local ordinances.

We believe, as we do with several of these artificial intelligence related bills, that if we adopt this as a statewide standard that should be applied across the board. And therefore, we believe that we should have statewide preemption and not allow differing local ordinances. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Do we have opposition me too's? Please come to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position.

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

Taylor Criddle with the Electronic Security Association, respectfully in opposition.

Margaret Gladstein on behalf of the Security Industry Association in respectful opposition.

Ryan Allain on behalf of the California Retailers Association in opposition. Thank you.

Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition.

Good morning. Eric Lawyer on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. Opposed to the bill in print, still reading amendments. Appreciate it. Thank you.

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

Jean Hurst on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, as well as my colleagues at the County Health Executives Association of California, also opposed.

Good morning, Madam Chair. Aaron Avery, California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Thank you.

Isha Iyer on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts and the City of San Marcos in opposition.

Good morning, Madam Chair and Senator. Carlos Gutierrez here on behalf of the California Grocers Association in opposition.

Good morning. Mishaal Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in opposition.

Good morning. Melissa Koshlaychuk with Western Growers in opposition. Thank you.

Dorothy Johnson with the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed.

And Meghan Loper on behalf of the California Distributors Association in opposition.

That looks like the end of me too, so I'll bring it back to Members. Questions, comments? The motion. Thank you, Senator Strickland. And I just wanna say thank you to the author for bringing this bill. We have had many bills attempting to do what your bill is doing to put some guardrails on AI tools, including a bill of mine that didn't make it past Assembly Privacy. And I wanted to say that employers we know are increasingly finding ways to cut cost, to integrate this technology, to oftentimes displace workers.

And it really is important that we have some guardrails in place that don't allow them to completely get away with this. I think we have seen the governor's recent announcement about Anthropic and the state is moving toward its 50% discount with Claude, which, you know, we understand, but at what cost?

And at what point do we put the privacy of our workers in the same proximity as the importance of integrating this innovation. I wanna say this is an important bill. It's unacceptable that this is the only bill really that is getting out on this topic this year. So I wanna make sure that we make it successful in this committee and to move it forward. I just wanted to confirm though that you are going to take the amendments that...

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. So these are amendments that you agreed to in the previous committee. So thank you for that. And with that, we have a motion from Senator Strickland, and I'll invite you to close.

I wanna thank the Senator for his courtesy motion. Fantastic gentleman. We're also happy to have you as a principal co-author if you'd like to join us in this fight on this bill.

Sign me up. Sign me up.

I had a witness earlier this week who came and testified and told the story of how her natural voice, the way that she was born and the way that she speaks, gets detected while she's at work on a regular basis and suggested that she speak with kind of a lighter tone and it nudges her to speak in a different way than she was born. Knowing that she provides fantastic customer service and has for many, many years at her place of employment.

And she spoke to the kind of emotional weight that that has on you, being corrected in that way by an immutable characteristic. These tools are not yet perfected, and some of them are more than just invasive. And I think any of the security concerns are outweighed in my mind by the personal liberty and the privacy concerns, which is why we need to do this kind of legislation now before it's too late to turn back. And so I respectfully ask your aye vote, and appreciate you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll.

The motion is do pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. [Roll Call]

We have a vote of one one. That bill is on call. Thank you. And thank you for taking up file item number 10, AB 2150 for Assembly member Haney.

Absolutely. On behalf of Assembly member Haney, I'm here to present AB 2150. Twenty one fifty requires employees who are already CPR certified as part of their job to complete a brief naloxone training module, which will equip them to respond effectively to an opioid crisis. By ensuring that CPR certified staff are also trained to administer naloxone AB 2150 strengthens our frontline response and helps us save lives.

With me to testify in support is Rob Lane from the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program Executives and Wesley Saver from HealthRight three sixty.

You each have two minutes. Wonderful.

Rob Lane with the executive director of CADB, the California Association of Alcohol and Drug Program executives. The consequences of an opioid overdose should never be death, not for someone who's been struggling for years, not for someone who has made one bad decision, and certainly not for someone who was prescribed opioids for a medical reason and experienced an accidental misuse, medication error, or an unexpected reaction. Nobody should die from a preventable overdose, yet in California every day somebody does.

Synthetic opioid deaths have risen more than 1,000 over the last decade. Nearly four in ten American adults personally know someone who has died of an overdose.

This is not happening on the margins. It's happening in our families, in our workplaces, and in our schools. Right now, workers are standing next to colleagues who are overdosing and do not know how to respond, not because they don't care, but because no one has taught them that they have the power to act. And the data backs that up. Sixty three percent of overdose deaths occur in public settings, forty percent involve bystanders who want to help but they simply don't know how to.

According to the CDC, recent analysis, for over forty seven thousand overdose deaths, and overdose mortality is high among workers in construction, food service, and personal care. These are our colleagues in our workplaces, our neighbors, our friends, and people in our communities. Workers across California are often the first people present when an overdose happens. AB 2150 gives them the knowledge and the tools to respond when seconds matter. Since 2018, California's very own naloxone distribution project has reported more than 40,000 overdose reversals.

Four hundred thousand people were dying. But because of this program, they got another day. We're making progress, but we cannot stop. California already requires hundreds of thousands of workers to be trained in CPR because we trust them to act when the when life is on the line. We teach people in closing.

We teach people that they have the power to save a life. Stigma when we teach people that they have the power to save a life, stigma begins to erode. An overdose becomes not someone else's problem.