Labor — 2026-06-10 (partial)

Good morning everyone. The Senate Labor and Public Employment and Retirement Committee will come to order. We have 13 items on our agenda today. We'll start as a subcommittee. We don't have a quorum right now. Let's see. And we won't take up the, for the audience, we have a consent calendar of file items 5, 6, 9, 11, and 13 are up for consent today. And with that, we're going to, again, go as a subcommittee. I believe in the audience we have members file item number 1, AB 1048 by Mr. Chen. Mr. Chen? Please come up. Yeah, just for everybody, each support or oppose witnesses are two minutes each.

Good morning. Thank you, committee members, for allowing me to testify on this bill. My name is Basil Besh. I'm an orthopedic surgeon who treats injured workers. AB 1048 is a very modest clarification of existing law. Right now, when a payer contractually reduces the payment to a doctor, they are obligated by current labor code 4609 to demonstrate the justification for that reduction. The problem is that there's current ambiguity in that word demonstrate. You could provide the name of the network or the processor, but not actually the contract that is the justification accurately and quantifiably for that reduction. AB 1048 is very narrow. It just seeks to clarify that, demonstrate that the contract must be produced. We've met with opposition and heard their contentions and responded accordingly. They were concerned about being inundated with requests for contracts, and we agreed that you get the contract, it's good for a year, you shouldn't be asking for it repeatedly and bogging down the system. The rest of the contentions that were brought up to us are not addressed by 1048. They are already existing in 4609 So for example if the demonstration cannot be made the fee goes back to the official medical fee schedule the statutory fee schedule for treating injured workers This is not punitive This is already existing law and 1048 doesn't touch that. All 1048 does is provide transparency. It is not anti-contract, it is pro-contract. I know my contracts and so we have two demonstrable examples. One group out of LA was getting discounted consistently over a period of approximately three years. They could not get the contract to justify. We stepped in on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association to help. And when we finally got the contract, it turned out to be one that had been termed out seven years prior. 4,500 claims, half a million dollars. That's a lot for an orthopedic group. That makes them think twice about treating injured workers.

Thank you, Madam. I respectfully request that you support 1048. Thank you. I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Ryan Spencer, on behalf of the California Orthopedic Association sponsors of the bill, and I'll be brief. This is the second time you've heard AB 1048, and the reason why it's back before you because of the substantial amendments that we took. And this is a result of extensive conversations we had with the opposition, as well as the administration and the great work of your committee staff, Jasmine. So thank you. So what we're hoping for is the same vote that we received last time, which was unanimous. And so we ask for your aye vote again. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. My name is Don Shinsky. I'm here on behalf of the Western Occupational Environmental Medical Association in support.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Jason Schmelter here on behalf of the California Coalition on Workers' Compensation and PRISM, which is a JPA that serves public entities. We are still reviewing the committee amendments and the analysis, but we continue to oppose the bill based on our initial review. I'll provide a big-picture overview of our reasons for opposing the bill, and then Lisa Ann from APAN will dig deeper into the details on the data that support our assertions. So, first, we don't believe that the sponsors have clearly established that a real problem exists. They rely heavily on very limited anecdotes, but the data shows that only statistically insignificant number of disputes involve network contracts. Second, in talking to the sponsors, it became clear to us that there are several legal remedies and dispute resolution processes that are available right now in the anecdotes that he provided and are simply not being pursued. That's frustrating for us. The liens could be filed, the independent bill review process could be pursued, or the dispute resolution process in the actual contract could be activated. Third, providers are not prisoners in network contracts. To be clear, they agree to network contracts because it provides them a massive benefit, which is patients, bodies that seek treatment through their practice. Every contractual relationship is voluntary. Every one of these contracts has a cancellation clause. Providers are in the contracts because they benefit from them. Finally we think providers are sophisticated business owners who can track their contractual relationships and frankly shouldn need us to send them a copy of a contract that they already signed Despite this general objection we have offered them multiple rounds of amendments that would do exactly that provide them the transparency that they provided What we've asked is that employers not be penalized financially for failing to timely send a contract that a doctor should already have in their filing cabinet. This is the fifth version of this bill over the last year and a half. It continues to have significant problems. We do not think there is an urgent need to pass this bill. We don't think there's an overwhelming problem. This is an issue that could be sent to the Commission on Health and Safety and Workers' Compensation, which studies these types of issues and helps the legislature determine what is fact, what is fiction, and where the policy should go. And for those reasons, we urge a no vote today. Thank you.

Your two minutes is up. Please close. Oh, so basically 99.96% of bills in California pass without incident, haven't been challenged, or haven't had any issues of any kind. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any oppositions meet to state your name and affiliation? Faith Borges on behalf of the California Association of Joint Powers Authorities, respectfully opposed for the reasons stated by Mr. Schmeltzer. Good morning, Julissa Cajacardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Respectful Opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Laura Curtis on behalf of the American Property Casualty Insurance Association and Respectful Opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Lori Kammerer on behalf of the Association of California Workers Comp Professionals Med Healthcare and One Call Care Management Respectfully opposing Thank you Stephanie Larris Coventry Healthcare Respectfully opposing Thank you. Welcome to the DICE members. Questions, comments? Mr. Glenn. Assemblyman, I hear from the opposition that there's no data, no data. What brings you forward of this bill? Do you have data? What made you bring this bill forward? in terms of solving the problem? This bill actually came to me from the industry when it comes to medical providers in the sense of the physicians, the medical doctors. It's something in which they have the ability in which they were looking for accountability and information. Like I said before, this doesn't change reimbursement rates or create a new payment obligation system, but ensures that these providers have access to information necessary for them to understand why payment was reduced. These are incredibly skilled, highly educated professionals. But at the same time, when it comes to accounting, that's something a skill set they often delegate to other people. So we heard this from the medical providers themselves, and it's something that I think also has the opportunity to answer the need for transparency. We've taken the amendments from the committee. It's something that we appreciate the opposition is reviewing, and we hope to have the opportunity to move forward to continue those conversations, Senator. Thank you Senator Strickland. It sounds like that was pretty close to a close, but would you like to close, Assemblymember? I respectfully ask your aye vote. Thank you Madam Chair. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smaller Cuevas? Aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Senator Cortese, Senator Durazo, Senator Laird, Laird, aye. We have a vote of 3-0. It's on call for one member's return. Thank you, manager. Appreciate your time. Okay, we... Madam Chair, can I move the consent calendar? We have a motion on the consent calendar. Please call the roll. On the consent calendar, Senator Simón Cuevas, aye. We have a vote of 3-0. The consent calendar is on call. Next, we will move down to file item number 4, seeing Assemblymember Rogers. Please come forward. And if you have witnesses, they can come and sit at the front table. I'm also presenting for Garcia. You are presenting for Garcia. Okay, and that is file item number three. Perfect. Do you have a preference in order? Let's go three. Let's go in file order. All right. Oh, wait, never mind. If they're here, we'll go in this order. No need to move. We're flexible here in the Labor Committee. Thank you. Yeah. Please proceed when you're ready, Assemblymember. No, I really appreciate it and appreciate the committee's time. We're here to present AB 1601. This is a district bill for the County of Sonoma. The way that the county's retirement system has operated means that there's really two options for the Board of Supervisors in giving a COLA, a cost of living adjustment for its retirees. One of which is a broad COLA that applies to everybody, which is cost prohibitive for the county and doesn't target those who need it the most. The second option is actually to allow for COLA in the event that somebody falls below 80% of their purchasing power, which it can only be paid for out of excess funds that have come in. That has not happened since. 2008. That means that for retirees in a high cost of living area, they have lost about 50% of their purchasing power. And it is a retirement system that is doing exceptionally well, which you will hear from our witnesses. We have Travis Balzerini, who is the North Coast Regional Vice President for SCIU Local 10 to 1, and Julie Wynn, who is the CEO of the Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association. Before I turn it over to them, I will note very quickly that the County of Sonoma, who would be given the opportunity to work with an actuarial and find a path forward on ECOLA for retirees, not be forced to do so, is in support of the bill, as is SEIU, who is the sponsor of the bill. You each have two minutes. Great. Thank you, and good morning. My name is Julie Wine. I am the CEO of Sonoma County Retirement. We fondly refer to her as Sarah. I want to make clear from the get-go that this bill will not grant a COLA. All this bill does is provide flexibility so that the retirement system and the county can work together and look at each individual system's fiscal realities and decide whether, how, and who to grant a COLA to. This bill provides some flexibility in the law that doesn't already exist in that it allows the retirement system in the county to target a COLA to specific retirees. The way the law currently reads, we would have to give an all-or-nothing COLA. Those, as you have heard, are cost prohibitive. I will mention that the retirement system is 94% funded. That is on an actuarial smooth basis, meaning that we smooth investment earnings over five years. If you look at it on a market value basis, we're 106% funded. So what does that say? that says the retirement system has been managed very well over a long period of time. The county, likewise, is also in a very strong fiscal position. The county has been managed very well. This bill will not change that. All it does is allow us to talk. It's not going to change the behavior of the retirement board or the county in being fiscally responsible in managing their systems. Finally, the bill does have to have an actuarial study, or the COLA, excuse me, before it is granted. That means it goes to the county board of supervisors at a public meeting at a minimum of two weeks prior to any benefits being granted. So the public has an opportunity to weigh in on any funds that are going to be spent out of the county of Sonoma into the retirement system. With that, I thank you for the opportunity to testify and urge your support. Good morning. My name is Travis Malzerini. I've been a county employee for 18 years. I've been a trustee for the Sonoma County Employees Retirement Association, also known as SARA, for six years. I'm speaking with you as the North Coast Regional Vice President for SAU Local 1021 on behalf of our members, retirees, and their beneficiaries who served for the County of Sonoma or the Sonoma County Superior Court. SARA is the only 1937 Act county pension system that does not offer an automatic yearly pension cost of living adjustment to retirees and their beneficiaries. Therefore, Sonoma County can only grant a pension COLA using the two ad hoc COLA options available under the County Employees Retirement Law of 1937, or the CERL. The last ad hoc COLA pension granted was in 2008. Following massive losses from the 2008 global financial crisis, an accounting mechanism in Sarah's COLA policy prevented any pension COLA from being granted. That accounting mechanism was recently removed from that policy. In the last 18 years since the last COLA was granted the San Francisco Bay Area inflation has increased by 50 severely eroding the purchasing power of our retirees Meanwhile retirees pensions payments haven increased since 2008 Our retirees' yearly average pension payment is very modest, between $18,000 and $42,000 per year. These retirees won't receive another pay increase in their lifetimes unless Sonoma County can grant an ad hoc pension COLA. After 18 years without a COLA, retirees' need for financial relief is dire, and the two ad hoc COLA pension options available in the CERL are cost-prohibitive for the county. Sarah's Actuary produced four cost studies with various pension COLA options, ranging from $30 million to $366 million. Two of those COLA options require changing CERL law to target specific groups of retirees and allow COLA funding from additional sources. AB 1601 will allow Sonoma County the flexibility to target retirees who are the most in need using any funding source available. We urge your support for AP 1601, which provides a viable path forward to deliver long-overdue financial support to our aging retirees who dedicated their careers to serving their Sonoma County community. Thank you both. Are there any witnesses, Me Too's in support? Please come to the mic and state your name and organization. Andre Burkett, President, Sonoma County Association of Retired Employees, and I urge you please to pass this bill. Ed Kleitz, Sonoma County Retired Annuitant, speaking in support of this bill. Thank you. J.P. Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, now we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here with us? Okay, we'll move to opposition Me Too's. Any opposition Me Too's? Okay, we will come to the dice. Thank you. When I first read the bill, I had concern about what the cost might be. But hearing that it's 96 percent funded and there's not been a COLA since 2008, the justice of the situation is really clear. And there was a time, and this all runs together for me now, I think it was about three years ago, we faced the fact that in the STRS system, the teacher's retirement system, that there'd been minimal COLLIS. And we did a special bump for people that had retired before the early 1990s because their pensions had inflated out of the point to be meaningful. And at the time, my 98-year-old mother was one of those people. because she had retired in the 80s. In some years, they didn't even get the 2% COLA. I'm kind of amazed that you weren't here earlier if there wasn't a COLA since 2008. But this makes sense, and I will move the bill. Great. We have a motion. And I also want to thank you for bringing this bill forward and appreciate it also, just the stewardship at the county level in the work to make sure that the pension is always solvent, viable, and strong. We know that when you start making changes, there's always a concern. But we're glad to hear the ways in which you all are stewarding over this pension and are working together to address this. And we have a motion from Senator Laird, so let's call the roll. Oh, wait, we need you to close. We are closing for you. I'll be really quick, and I think the senator hit it on the head that this bill, it mirrors fiscal prudence with a heart. And that's why this was the number one ask from the county of Sonoma was to give them the flexibility to be able to take care of people even knowing that they would have to work through the potential financial impacts So with that I hope for an aye vote and for us to rectify this long overdue situation Thank you We have a motion from Senator Laird Please call The motion is due pass. Senator Small Cuevas? Aye. Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Three to zero votes on call. We'll take it out when members return. Thank you so much. And thank you. And so we'll move to file item number three. And those witnesses for AB 1439 can please come to the table. Long time no see. You may proceed. All right. Well, thank you so much, Chair. I'm presenting AB 1439 on behalf of Assemblymember Garcia. Assemblymember Garcia wanted me to start by accepting the amendments. I also want to start by asking if there are any Golden Bears Berkeley graduates at the dais. Good. Good. So this bill is a study bill. It would request that the University of California, Berkeley, not sure why he chose Berkeley when you have other fine institutions like UC Santa Barbara that could do the research work. But he asked Berkeley to conduct an independent study and analyze labor standard projections in California's real estate and infrastructure development projects funded through the portfolio for PERS and STRS. Here to testify on the bill is Mike West with the State Building and Trades Council, and I'll turn it over to him. You have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, sponsors of AB 1439. We believe that investments of union members to find benefit pension contributions by public pension funds in construction projects should not go to underground economy developers and contractors who do not pay the construction workers a living wage or ensure that those workers are graduates of state-approved apprenticeship programs. CalPERS and CalSTRS have a responsible contractor policy intended to protect public employees' retirement investments and ensure fair treatment of construction workers on pension-funded projects. However, that policy lacks clear requirements to ensure prevailing wages are paid, workers are properly trained, or labor peace is maintained after construction. Today, contractors simply self-certify compliance by checking boxes with little verification or enforcement. As a result, CalPERS and CalSTRS can end up investing in projects that enable worker exploitation and undermine labor standards. Problems such as wage theft, health and safety violations, and poor quality construction are often not visible during the construction phase and frequently only after the project is completed. These risks can erode project returns, increase costs, and are difficult to correct once they have already developed. Ultimately, these practices expose CalPERS and CalSTRS to real financial risk, including cost overruns, delays, reduced returns, and projects that fail to meet construction standards. AB 1439 has been amended to simply request the UC Berkeley Labor Center to conduct an independent study of labor standards protections in California real estate and infrastructure development projects funded through the real estate asset portfolios of PERS and STRS thanks for the opportunity to speak today and I respectfully request an aye vote on AB 1439 Thank you Thank you Are there any support Me Too out there Please state your name and affiliation. Good morning, Chair Members. Elmer Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Good morning, Chair Members. Martin Pignolo on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you. Vince DeGruh on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support. Good morning Chair and Members. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Good morning Chair and Members. JP Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support. Arian Adam Chikova, San Francisco resident, a member of CTA California Teachers Association in eye support. Okay, that looks like it for support Me Too's. We'll go to opposition. Is there an opposition witness here today? Seeing none, opposition Me Too's. Please state your name and affiliation. Good morning, Chair and members. Freddie Katana on behalf of the California Apartment Association. Respectful opposition. Stephanie Jimenez on behalf of the California Council for Affordable Housing in opposition. Good morning. Jaleesa Sahak-Garabanas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and Respectful Opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Dorothy Johnson of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed. Good morning, Vanessa Chavez with the California Building Industry Association and Opposition. Thank you. Good morning, Michelle Gill on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and Respectful Opposition. Sarah Ducat on behalf of the rural county representatives of California in opposition. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California also respectfully opposed. Good morning, Erin Avery, California Special Districts Association, respectfully opposed. Okay, I will bring it to the dais members. Senator Laird. I'm very confident Assemblymember Garcia could have found a banana slug to do the research. so you can reflect that only because Sonoma State is so well regarded that they're already too busy but yes yeah well um you're the supplicant right now so be careful uh but this is a study it makes sense I would move the bill okay we have a motion would you like to close I just respectfully ask for an aye vote on behalf of Assemblymember Garcia thank you we have a motion from Senator Laird please call the vote the motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas? Aye. Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of two to one. The bill's on call. Thank you. I see Assemblymember Calra is here patiently. Thank you. So we are going to move to file item number seven. And if you have any witnesses, support witnesses, please come to the table and have a seat. Thank you, Madam Chair. AB 1697 will delay the implementation of AB 692, which I authored last year, by one year until January 1st, 2027 with an urgency clause. AB 692 was signed into law last here to protect all workers from being subject to debt traps, stay or play, employment contract provisions, exit fees, pay to quit requirements, or whatever term of art employers use to force a payment when the employee wants their freedom to work someplace else. Regardless of a worker's entry level and asked to pay back for a training course or is a highly paid professional that is asked to pay back for incentives to relocate, the policy we passed was one that tried to prohibit punishing workers for choosing to exercise their freedom of employment. Last year, AB 692 was carefully crafted to include limited exceptions and allowances for when an employer would be allowed to claw back benefits received. In response to the staff comments in the analysis, it is our intent to apply the bill retroactively so that future or pending claims a worker wants to enforce for the entire year of 2026 would not be enforceable under a court order. By moving the date back a year, this bill fulfills the ask and the governor's signing message by giving all employers with a collective bargaining agreement, including the NFL, the ability to amend contracts or negotiate through collective bargaining and more time to comply with California's labor law, their ongoing conversations with the professional sports leagues. And this will buy some time to continue those conversations. And I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Any support? Me too. Name and affiliation. Yeah. Good morning, Madam Chair. Member Silvio Ferrari on behalf of the National Football League in support. Thank you. Any opposition witnesses? Do we have another support? Me too. Thank you. Madam Chair, we have a support if amended position. May I have a few minutes? Please. Thank you. Madam Chair and members, Joanne Bettencourt representing SIFMA, the Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association, we have a support if amended position on the bill. We respectfully request that AB 1697 be amended to delay AB 692's implementation until January 2028. The intent of the bill, as Assemblymember Collar stated, was to protect low-wage workers to prevent them from exploitative stay-or-pay contracts that limits workers' mobility and career advancement. The language, however, could unintentionally impact the longstanding loan structure that the financial services industry has used to attract and retain financial professionals here in California. These contracts and situations are vastly different from the type of debt arrangements that AB 692 is trying to protect against. Financial advisors are sophisticated, well-educated, and highly compensated professionals here in California. They effectively can negotiate on their own, and they do hire counsel sometimes to negotiate on their behalf. A January 2027 effective date does not provide sufficient enough time for policymakers to clarify the law's applicability and intent. So we would support the bill if it was amended to extend it to January 2028. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So opposition witnesses? Opposition support? Me Too's. okay come to the dice oh center strickland please uh you heard from are you amenable to move it from one more year for 28 the current date that's been selected has been a part of negotiations with the professional sports leagues the sponsors and the administration. So any movement on that would require conversations with all the parties that have been part of the process so far. So at this point I don Let be clear Let be clear I going to vote for this today no matter what but would you be willing to at least have those conversations as you move the bill along We been having conversations with everyone including folks with folks from the financial services I just – if there's a way to be amenable, I know you have to go back to your sponsors and everything else. So I'll support it today, but hopefully you can talk to them and see if we can resolve it if possible. Thank you. Senator Laird. Senator Strickland more or less asked what I was going to ask, but I know I'm going to see this in judiciary next. And if you continue the conversations, we'll see if there's any progress, then I would move the bill. Wonderful. We have a motion for Senator Laird. Would you like to close? Respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 3-0. We'll wait for members when they return to vote. Thank you. So we don't have another author. We'll wait a few more minutes. And hopefully someone will come on down. That's Assemblymember Lowenthal. Assemblymember Salache, Assemblymember Ward. See? Speak, manifest, and then they... Here they come. Well, welcome, Assemblymember. We just spoke your name, and here you are. If you have witnesses, please have them have a seat at the table. We will proceed to file item number eight. Begin when you're ready. Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am pleased to present AB 1803, which is developed in partnership with the Select Committee on Racism, Hate, and Xenophobia, chaired by Assemblymember Corey Jackson, and this bill is a Jewish Caucus priority bill. The reason why this is a Jewish Caucus priority is simple. Our community is under threat. California now ranks second in the nation for anti-Semitic incidents. Anti-Jewish hate crimes account for 80% of all reported religious hate crimes, 19% of all crimes committed in schools despite being only 3% of the population of California. Action is demanded now. We must prevent hate from persisting and give workers the tools and knowledge to recognize hate speech. AB 1803 tackles this issue by requiring all California businesses with five or more employees to include anti-hate speech training as a component of their existing workplace harassment prevention training. This bill does not add additional training hours. It just ensures that hate speech is addressed so workers understand how to identify and report hate speech when they encounter it. Hate speech is not just offensive language. It can be a precursor to violence. When hate speech goes unchallenged, it normalizes hostility and emboldens escalation. Reported hate crimes in California rose by nearly 160% over the last decade. This crisis extends far beyond any one community. Between 2019 and 2022, hate crimes against Black Californians nearly tripled. Hate crimes against Latinos nearly doubled. Hate crimes against Asians more than tripled. California Civil Rights Department estimates that 2 million Californians experienced at least one act of hate between 22 and 23 and that is intolerable These are not abstract numbers They reflect real people who deserve better And employers already undergo harassment prevention training We're simply asking them to ensure that it covers the full scope of what their workers are actually experiencing. When employees can recognize hate speech, understand their rights, and feel empowered to report it, hate loses the silent tolerance it depends on to persist. Lastly, I want to address concerns that have been raised about the First Amendment. This bill does not target speech itself. It addresses conduct that creates a hostile work environment. The courts have long recognized that speech delivered in the workplace can rise to the level of harassment or intimidation when it is severe or pervasive enough to interfere with an employee's ability to do their job. Training employers to recognize that distinction is not a restriction on free expression. It is acknowledgment that workplace conduct must be appropriate and that workers deserve protection from a hostile environment. Every worker deserves to come to work without fear of being targeted for who they are. The workplace should be a space where people can contribute and thrive, not one where they have to absorb hatred and silence. This bill gives workers and employees the tools and knowledge to make that a reality. I'm very pleased to be joined here today by Connie Tan from Stop AAPI Hate, who is here to testify and support. Thank you. And you have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Smallwood-Cuevas and members of the committee. My name is Dr. Connie Tan, and I'm a research manager at Stop API Hate. Stop API Hate operates the largest community reporting center for anti-Asian and anti-Pacific Islander hate acts. This bill is a critical step in reducing harassment in the workplace. Bias-motivated hate acts are a major problem in California. Based on the latest UCLA California Health Interview Survey, researchers estimate that over 3 million Californians, ages 12 and older, experienced a hate act in 2024. Among them, 83% encountered verbal abuse or insults, 55% were targeted because of their race, and 20% experienced the hate act in their workplace. This data still just represents the tip of the iceberg as it requires Californians to be able to identify what they experienced as a hate act. In our Stop AAPI Hate Annual Survey, which asked about experience of hate in more detail, we found that 46% of AAPI adults in California, or about 2.8 million AAPI adults, experienced a race-based hate act in 2025. Among them, 37% experienced hateful or derogatory words spoken directly to them, and 62% experienced hateful or derogatory messages in their environment. Here's just one example that was shared with us. We have an AAPI comedy event coming up to support the community. One of my coworkers went up to our only Asian coworker in the department and said the event was of his people and used her fingers to pull her eyes back to make slanted eyes. The targeted coworker brought this up in our team meeting and the rest of the team just laughed and our head boss decided to ignore the comment with no action taken. And this happened in Los Angeles. Hate acts like these have adverse impacts. We found that 40% of California API adults who experienced hate reported negative effects on their health. So training on harassment could prevent hate acts in the workplace and more broadly in our communities. Thank you. Thank you. Is there a Me Too's in support of the bill? Please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Santosh C. Ram, representing a community-based civil rights organization, Chinese for Affirmative Action, in support. Thank you. Good morning Chair and members Conor Gussman on behalf of the Engineers and Scientists of California in support Thank you Is there any Is there another support Okay Any opposition to the bill Please have a seat. You have two minutes. Good morning. I'm sorry, we don't allow filming inside of this. This is a there's the filming is done for the public. We don't allow individual filming. You have two minutes. Good morning, Chair and members. My name is Sophia Laurie with California Family Council in opposition to AB 1803, which adds an anti-hate speech training to California's already mandated workplace harassment training. The bill requires employers to train their supervisors and employees to confront speech that vilifies, humiliates, or incites hatred based on protected characteristics. What is speech that is considered humiliating or speech that vilifies or incites hatred? There is no settled legal meaning to these words. And not only do employers have to give the training to employees, but they need to get training on how to report on each other, a.k.a. to police each other's speech for signs of hate. This is sounding more like communism every day. The state will now encourage people to report on each other when they say something the government considers humiliating. But do those rules apply to legislative officials themselves who regularly use humiliation to attack those they disagree with? If you can believe this, we had a legislator come to one of our Save Girls Sports press conferences and humiliated the girls by flipping off the press conference. You can imagine how the girls felt. So I ask, who decides? The newest co-author, Assemblymember Rick Chavez-Zaber, sat in the Capitol last year and heard from me and others testify to protect girls' sports. His answer was to compare what he heard from us to Nazi Germany and the Holocaust. If that is how he hears a common-sense concern, ask yourself, How would he define hate in a mandatory state training? Under this bill, would common sense beliefs and religious beliefs be labeled hate? Because that is the direction this is going. And the Supreme Court has spoken clearly. There is no hate speech exception to the First Amendment. The government cannot push speech for being offensive, and it cannot compel you to endorse its preferred message. This bill does both. Your two minutes is up. Oh. It's closed. Thank you. Okay. California should not be in the business of labeling disagreement as hate. We respectfully urge a no vote on AB 1803. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Kara Dansky. I am a Jewish lawyer, feminist, author, lifelong Democrat, former senior counsel at the ACLU, and a board member of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. I urge you to vote no. If this bill becomes law, California will be setting itself on a dangerous path. We in the United States do not generally recognize a category of speech called hate speech in the law at all. Our forefathers fought for our right to be unburdened by legal restrictions on our speech, including speech that some find hurtful. California law already does what this bill claims to do. Workplace harassment is illegal under state and federal law. Employers are already required to train workers on harassment and abusive conduct, standards that have settled legal meaning. A worker targeted by slurs severe enough to create a hostile work environment already has a remedy today. AB 1803 adds no protection workers do not already have. I understand this bill does not purport to criminalize so-called hate speech because doing so would be unconstitutional. But even recognizing so-called hate speech so-called hate speech in a statute sets a terrible precedent. I'm a feminist. I do not want any man calling me or any woman a misogynist slur. But there's a difference between workplace conduct that rises to the level of harassment and speech someone finds offensive. No worker needs the state deciding which views are acceptable and writing that into mandatory training. Once hate speech is recognized in law, government decides what counts as hate, and that definition shifts with whoever holds power. These laws are easily turned against dissenting voices, including women who speak plainly about sex. AB 1803 sets a dangerous authoritarian and un-American precedent. Please vote no. Thank you. Next, any Me Too's in opposition? State your name and affiliation. Meg Madden on behalf of Californians United for Sex-Based Evidence in Policy and Law in Opposition. Jean Chadbourne from Oakland, California, high school teacher, lifelong Democrat, member of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and Nonpartisan Civil Liberties Group, and here on behalf of Women Are Real, and I oppose this bill. Free speech makes a free people. Beverly Talbot from San Francisco, registered Democrat, speaking as a member of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Courage Coalition, Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender, and as a supporter of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, FIRE, I strongly oppose this threat to free expression in the First Amendment, which will surely be found unconstitutional. My name is Arian Adam Chikova, resident of San Francisco, lifelong progressive Democrat, LGB activist, a 24-year veteran CTA high school multilingual language teacher, member of Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Courage Coalition, and Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender in opposition of this bill. Thank you. Laura Perez from San Francisco, California. I'm a California licensed midwife and I oppose this bill. Romy Mancini, San Francisco resident, lesbian, former attorney at the ACLU Lesbian and Gay Rights Project in opposition. Jenny Poyer Ackerman, resident of Alamo. I serve on the board with Karadansky of Democrats for an Informed Approach to Gender. I'm also a lifelong Democrat, and I oppose this bill. Hi, Lisa Disbro. I'm the chair of Moms for Liberty of Contra Costa County. I'm a retired teacher. I've been called a bigot, a racist, all the four-letter words my entire career. Free speech is important to preserve and protect. okay we'll move to the dais Senator Laird thank you very much I appreciate the author bringing the bill and as somebody that ran an aid service agency at the height of the epidemic I don't see anything in this bill that prohibits discussion of sex or sexual transmission of disease or other things that are articles of our policy and we should do And we had a situation in my hometown where I was once mayor where the Jewish mayor was presiding over a meeting and had people stand up and do the Nazi salute in Zieg Heil to him And while there was a debate that was appropriate about free speech, this is about training people in a way that they understand that they should not put themselves in those situations, rather than actually regulate the free speech. This is going on to the Judiciary Committee, and I know that is where there will be maybe a more refined discussion of free speech. But I think this is appropriate, and at the appropriate time, I would move the bill. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. I want to thank the author for bringing this bill. Whenever we can stand up against hate and hate speech, it's so important. We know education is power. That's the way that we can ensure that people's rights are protected and respected. And I'm happy and want to be a co-author on this bill. And we have a motion from Senator Laird. Please close. Yeah, I just want to say thank you for the thoughtful comments. I appreciate them so much. I thank for all the people that came testifying this bill, including the opposition. You know, hate is already voluntarily included in a vast amount of the trainings that are sexual harassment trainings that are taking place right now. I believe including the modules that we do here in the Capitol includes those components, too. So on a voluntary basis, it's already happening, and we're not hearing about any of the concerns that are happening that the opposition is speaking about in those that are going through those modules. And I just want to say one last thing before I respectfully ask for your aye vote. When I ran for assembly in a losing campaign in Mr. Strickland's area, actually in 2018, there was mail that was sent out that enlarged my nose that showed me clutching money and saying that I was making money at the expense of the sickness of residents in the district, which is playing on the most horrific Jewish tropes that are out there. This is pervasive throughout the state of California, including in politics itself, and I think it's a wonderful idea for us to be reminded, as the senator pointed out, in a training capacity, what is appropriate in the workplace and what is not. Respectfully ask for your aye vote. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Please call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smaller Cuevas. Aye. Smaller Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo Senator Laird Laird, aye We have a vote of 2-0 The bill's on call Thank you Thank you Okay, we are going to move down to File Item Number 10 I see Assembly Member Salaches with us If you have witnesses They're welcome to sit at the table Okay, making sure. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. As a former school board member and personnel commissioner, I proudly present AB 2120, I am grateful to the chair and the committee and staff for their thoughtful work on their engagement with my office I will gladly accept the committee amendments This bill addresses the Selected Certification a specialized hiring tool that Los Angeles Unified School District successfully and responsibly utilized since 2003. With these amendments, AB 2120 ends the sunset of after five years. This 23-year-old practice has been supported seven times by the legislature and ensures taxpayer dollars are used efficiently by hiring candidates ready to perform on day one in a highly specialized role without intensive remedial training. Testifying in support, I would like to introduce Anna Yokomizu at Los Angeles University School District. Good morning, Chair Small. You have two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. Anna Yokomizu's legislative advocate on behalf of Los Angeles Unified. Los Angeles Unified is sponsoring AB2120 to extend the authorization for the district to use selective certification for certain positions and to additionally allow the district to retain employees hired under selective certification in the event of a layoff. Los Angeles Unified adheres to the Merit System, a set of laws that for over a century has promoted excellence in hiring in government positions. Under the Merit System, an employer is typically required to hire one of the top three applicants for the job as determined by an examination process. However, due to the very large workforce and very diverse school sites and student body that we serve, sometimes the position requires specific skills, competencies, or certifications that cannot be learned on the job. For example, we may use selective certification to hire a senior administrative assistant with knowledge and experience in highly specialized and technical reporting and compliance processes for facilities bond compliance. Without selective certification, if candidates in the first three ranks do not possess the necessary knowledge or certification, the district is compelled to onboard individuals who require immediate intensive remedial training. This results in a prolonged skills and productivity gap of up to two years, increased turnover, and the additional cost of restarting the recruitment cycle should the candidate fail the necessary competencies. In addition, Los Angeles Unified seeks to logically extend the policy to also apply to reductions in force. If a layoff pattern would deprive the district of the specialized skill for which a staff member was hired, the district wishes to be able to skip that individual in a layoff. This will avoid depriving the district and the students and families we serve of critical skills that cannot be easily replaced. Selective certification allows the district to most efficiently utilize taxpayer dollars and serve students and families by hiring candidates who are able to effectively perform the job on day one. In closing, we would like to note that as originally drafted, AB 2120 sought to permanently authorize selective certification, which we have had authority to do since 2003. We understand the committee is recommending a new sunset date, and we look forward to working with staff on these amendments. However, we do wish to state our position that after over 20 years of successful implementation and no no votes in either House, thank you. We respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. Are there any Me Too's in support of this bill? Please come to the mic. We will move to opposition. Is there opposition witnesses? Seeing none. Any Me Too opposition? seeing moved to the diocesan or Laird is chomping to give some comments here. I don't know if I'm chomping on a silage bill, but the interesting thing to me was, is that there were no concerns expressed by the unions in the district. I was actually a little surprised by that, but I think that's significant and that sort of tells us. And I know that having worked with certification before locally we amended it because it really turned out to be a problem for gender parity and people showing up on a list in a way that they could do it And I see you're just trying to get at skills here. So I would move the bill. Thank you, Senator Laird. You may close. Thank you, Madam Chair. And to Mr. Laird's point, I think we will always protect our employees and the right thing to do by our labor partners. So this is definitely to specifically address those specific positions, and we are happy to support this and work with our committee and partners and ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Please call the roll. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Education. Senator Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. 3-0. That bill is on call. The rest of our members return. Thank you. All right. We see file item number 12, Assemblymember Ward, is here. Please come to the mic. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the table. Well, good morning, Madam Chair and members. I'm here to briefly present AB 2292, which would ensure that workers can access state disability insurance and paid family leave benefits without being charged administrative fees for required medical certification forms. Now, existing law requires a physician or a practitioner to certify a worker's medical eligibility in order to access their benefits. These certifications are essential to establishing or maintaining eligibility for wage replacement during periods of serious illness, injury, pregnancy, or family caregiving. However, current law does not clearly prohibit providers from charging separate administrative fees specifically for completing these required forms. As a result, some workers report that they're being charged hundreds of dollars simply to have paperwork completed on top of medical visit costs and despite already paying into the system through payroll deductions. AB 2292 closes this gap. The bill prohibits physicians and practitioners from charging administrative fees for completing initial SDI or PDL certification forms, as well as any required recertifications or documentation needed to maintain eligibility. This ensures that access to benefits is not conditioned on a worker's ability to pay additional out-of-pocket administrative costs. Importantly, this bill is narrowly tailored. It does not prohibit providers from billing for actual medical services, including examinations, evaluations, or clinical care associated with a determining disability. It also allows providers to collect standard copayments, coinsurance, or deductibles consistent with other medical services. The intent is not to interfere with medical practice, but to ensure that administrative paperwork tied directly to public benefit eligibility is not treated as a billable service. AB 2292, importantly, aligns SDI and PFL with existing protections for other public benefit programs where providers are already prohibited from charging for completing eligibility-related forms. The bill is about ensuring timely access to these earned benefits during the time that they're most financially and medically vulnerable in their life. So at its core, AB 2292 strengthens the integrity of California's SDI and PFL programs by ensuring workers can access these benefits that they have already paid into without any additional financial barriers when the time is appropriate. I look forward to your questions and respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you so much, Assemblymember. Are there any support me twos out there? Okay, we'll move to opposition. any opposition witnesses? You have two minutes. Thank you, ma'am chair. I'll be very brief. I first like to thank the author for the conversations that we had prior to this committee. I also want to make it clear that we fully appreciate the intent behind this bill. My name is Ryan Spencer. I'm speaking on behalf of the California Podiatric Medical Association and the California Orthopedic Association. They have an opposing less amended position and their position is largely fundamental. I think over the past decades, physicians have been asked to do more, including they're asking their staff to do more with less. The custom Medi-Cal, HR1, they're constantly under fire of trying to make it work to be able to provide the care to the patients that they need. We truly appreciate what the author is trying to address here, but the concern is they're being asked again to be able to perform a service for free. And so we came up with an amendment saying we understand they should not charge hundreds of dollars for these fees, but maybe the actual cost, $25, maybe $50, even $25, something to be able to ensure that they aren't doing things without actually getting compensated for it so they can pay for their staff work. So that's the position I have on the bill. I look forward to our continuing discussions with the author. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any opposition Me Too's? Seeing none, Dice, any members, comments? Would you like to close? Thank you. Respectfully, you know, appreciate the opposition's points. You know, this was a newer conversation that we had to not come at us in the assembly and we'll continue to engage with them as well. Of course, you know, I think that we would be, I think, in place of disagreement because when you think about it, those that are on SDI or PFL are already like, you know, really struggling to make ends meet. So even $25 or $50 goes a long way. Think about what that could be for food for the family for the day that you're otherwise having to be able to fork over here for administrative costs that probably are actually already associated with the costs that are already subsumed by a medical visit or other things that are not touched by this bill. We're just asking don't overcharge and don't be able to have this additional administrative charge on here that is not going to get picked up by the insurance company or some other program. This is going to come off of the back of that actual worker right now simply because they're trying to access the public benefit for which they are due. right? We need to have this form filled out. We're requiring them to have this form filled out. Let's not charge them to have this form filled out and be consistent with federal and other state practices. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have a motion? Thank you, Senator Laird. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass. Senator Smallwood Cuevas. Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 3-0. The bill's on call. Thank you. I see Assemblymember Haney is with us. So we're going to move on to file item backup to file item number two, AB 1198. Please begin when you're ready. If you have witnesses in support, you can sit at the table. Yes, they're here. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 1198 is the Fair Pay for Construction Workers Act. It's crucial legislation that will ensure equitable pay for construction workers across California. To me, this strikes me as pretty common sense. Workers should get paid the prevailing wage for when the project is actually happening, not for when it's first advertised to bid. Sometimes the advertisement to bid is many years before the actual project takes place, and the prevailing wage is meant for folks for the time that they're actually performing the work. The result of not having that in law currently is that there a loophole where some bad actors are exploiting to underpay workers to lower bid costs unfairly and undercut contractors who are doing the right thing Many contractors do of course pay folks the prevailing wage for when the work is being done but if some contractors are not doing that then they underbid and they underpay and we all lose as a result. And so this bill would fix that. I want to ensure that workers receive the current prevailing wage common sense on projects regardless of when a project was announced for bid. We've had some good conversations with the remaining groups in opposition. We're looking forward to receiving our proposed amendments. And with me here to testify in support of the bill is Keith Dunn on behalf of the Building Trades and Eddie Bernacchi on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association. Great. You each have two minutes. Thank you, ma'am. Chair and members of the committee, Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. We'd like to thank the author for bringing forward AB 1198. 1198 is about a very simple principle. When California invests taxpayer dollars into public infrastructure, workers should be paid the wage that California has determined is appropriate for that work. 1198 does not create a new prevailing wage requirement. It does not change who is covered by prevailing wage. It simply modernizes the process to prevent locking workers into outdated wages. It's not rocket science. It is about as straightforward a policy as we can talk about in this building. In fact, the opposition you'll hear from today, some local governments and some contractors already account for fuel escalation costs. They account for material escalation costs. A contractor can submit change orders when steel, concrete, insurance equipment, design professionals, services, or supply chains change during the life of a project. Somehow, and you're going to hear from my colleague here, union signatory contractors account for wage adjustments in this process. In fact, the only cost that the opponents of 1198 believe should remain frozen is the paycheck of the men and women who wear the hard hats to build the projects that we actually all depend upon. 1198 is here to address that injustice. 1198 is sound and reasonable. It provides a fair process for the contractors and awarding bodies and workers who, if there is a disagreement about the adjusted wage, there's a process for them to be adjudicated. That is transparency and that is due process. If escalation protections are good policy for materials, fuels, insurance, contractors, and design professionals, accounting for potential escalation of labor wages is a no-brainer. We would ask for your support of AB 1198. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Members Eddie Bernacchi on behalf of the National Electrical Contractors Association, in addition to the California Legislative Conference, the Plumbing, Heating, and Piping Industry, the Finishing Contractors Association of Southern California, Northern California Allied Trades, United Contractors, the Wall and Sealing Alliance, Western Wall and Stealing Contractors Association, and the Western Painting and Coding Contractors Association, representing thousands of union signatory contractors across California. Assemblymember Haney and my colleague Mr. Dunn have done an excellent job in explaining what the bill does, so I'll just try to focus in on a few points from a union contractor perspective. First, as stated, anticipating wage increases when bidding public works is standard practice. Our contractors are bound by collective bargaining agreements. that are renegotiated on a one to three year cycle typically, meaning they must account for likely wage increases in their bids regardless of what the prevailing wage is at the time of advertisement for a public works project. Second, under current law, as I just mentioned, the applicable prevailing wage is locked at the time a project is advertised, which can be months and in some cases years before the actual work is performed on a public works project. Third the issue that AB 1198 addresses is even more problematic when it comes to change order and extra work that is outside of the original contract Contractors are required to perform that work at an outdated wage rate even though higher rates have been posted by DIR, which results in them having to perform that extra work that was requested by the public agency at a loss. So they're having to pay what their wages are in their collective bargaining agreement that may be even reflected in current prevailing rate, but they can only charge back to the agency what was posted at the time of advertising, forcing them to perform that work at a loss, which this bill corrects, which is a substantial point and why we are so strongly in support. And then finally, any concerns that compliance with updating prevailing wage rates would be difficult is really a red hearing. All applicable rates are readily available on the DIR website. Your time is up. Please come to me. And for those reasons, we're accustomed to meeting those rates, so for those reasons, we urge your aye vote. Thank you. Any Me Too's in support of this bill, please step forward and state your name and affiliation. Thank you, Chair and Members. Omar Lizardo with the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Good morning, Chair and Members. Martin Vindial on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you. Vince Segru on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support. Thank you, Madam Chair. Todd Blumstein for the Southern California Contractors Association, as well as the Southern California Association of Scaffolding Contractors in support. Thank you. Good morning, Madam Chair. Connor Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you. Great. Do we have opposition witnesses? If there is an opposition witness, please come and have a seat at the table. You each have two minutes. Good morning, Madam Chair. Damon Conklin with the League of California Cities and also representing the California State Association of Counties. We always hate being on the other side of a bill with our good friends in the built environment, and we appreciate the author's efforts to narrow the bill from previous versions and recognize the intent to address limited sets of large, long, multi-year projects. AB 1198 continues to raise the same concerns identified in Governor Brown's veto of AB 1140 and Governor Newsom's veto of AB 2182, which ultimately were highlighted to increase uncertainty in public contracting, greater taxpayer exposure, and escalating project costs. Under current law, the public agencies and contractors can identify applicable prevailing wage rates at the time of project bid, allowing labor costs to be incorporated into the project budget and project contracting pricing with certainty. Unfortunately, 1198 would instead require agencies and contractors to absorb future wage determinations after a project's already been awarded, creating unpredictable costs, increasing what could force scope reductions, project delays, project cancellations, particularly for infrastructures funded through fixed grants, bond proceeds, or voter-approved revenues. If the legislature wishes to address concerns on a limited subset of projects, we respectfully urge amendments that would restrict the bill's application to multi-year, large infrastructural projects. Design bill, progressive design bill, or similar procurement delivery methods. Until those concerns are addressed, 1198 continues to expose taxpayers and public agencies to significant financial uncertainties. For those reasons we respectfully oppose 1198 Sarah Diquette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the urban counties of California I just quickly go over a few highlights My colleague covered a lot of it We do have a lot of fixed projects, grants, bond proceeds, and these changes could jeopardize potentially moving forward with these projects. So our understanding that it's really meant to go after these really long, multi-year, very large, expensive projects. So we think that there is a path forward to right-size the bill and narrow it to really go after these projects. Why not potentially jeopardizing your average public work projects? So we've shared a number of ideas and amendments with the sponsors in the author's office, and we think that there is a path forward. We're happy to work with them. But unless some of these issues are addressed, we're still going to have concerns with that uncertainty and really jeopardizing some of our projects with that. We respectfully ask. We're respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you. Any other opposition me-tos, please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation. Good morning. Kiara Ross on behalf of the city of Thousand Oaks, respectfully in opposition to the bill. Nicole Wordleman on behalf of San Bernardino County and respectful opposition. Melanie Perrin with the Associated General Contractors with an opposed unless amended position. Michelle Aguila on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials, also opposed unless amended. Thank you. seeing it come to the dice members any comments questions okay we have motion from Senator Strickland would you like to close Assemblymember thank you yeah I appreciate you madam chair and and look forward to continuing the conversation with the opposition on some of their concerns and and and some of the amendments they'd like to see and you have my commitment to continue that conversation and try to work out some of those issues I think this is an important bill and you know you've got an inequity and uncertainty right now where some folks are bidding and including those costs that can be appropriately predicted and others are not and that creates inequities and of course the inequities and how much folks are getting paid so with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas? Aye. Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. That bill has a vote of 3-0. It's on call. Thank you. Thank you. So Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will recess for about 10 minutes. Okay, Senate Labor Committee on, I'm sorry, Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment and Retirement is resumed. We are going to start with the consent calendar once we're all situated. I think all members are here. Assistant, please call the roll. On the consent calendar, Senator Cortese. With a vote of 5 the consent calendar is out We will start at the top of our file items File item 1 AB 1048 the motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations The current vote is 3-0, with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. And we have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. File Item 2 AB 1198. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-0. With the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. File Item 3, AB 1439. The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 2-1 with the Chair voting aye and the Vice Chair voting no. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 4-1. That bill is out. File item 4 AB 1601 The motion is do pass The current vote is 3 with the chair and vice chair voting aye Senator Cortese Aye Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. File item 7, AB 1697. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Current vote is 3-0, with the chair and vice chair voting aye, Senator Cortese. Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. File item 8, AB 10803. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 2-0. The chair voting aye. Senator Strickland? Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 4 That bill is out File Item 10 AB 2120 The motion is do pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Education. The current vote is 3-0, with the Chair and Vice Chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. File item 12, AB 2292. The motion is do pass. The current vote is 3-0. The chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. Okay, that concludes our agenda for today. If you were not able to testify, please submit your comments in writing to the committee. committee. Thank you, everyone. The Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement is adjourned. SB 1306 aligns California law with existing federal exemptions for certain chemical mixtures containing gamma-butrolactone, GBL, that are essential to semiconductor manufacturing and research. To be clear, nothing in this bill would change the requirements for purchase, storage, or use of pure GBL. My staff and the bill's sponsors have explained this to the opposition multiple times. The latest letter that we've seen still doesn't reflect the bill in print. I remain open to the possibility of addressing the opposition's concerns, but of course, we would have to understand and have them respond to our latest overtures. In 2010, the United States Drug Enforcement Administration adopted regulations exempting chemical mixtures containing GBL at concentrations of 70% or less from the Controlled Substance Act requirements, since extracting GBL from these complex industrial mixtures is not practically feasible. Specifically, bad actors wouldn't profit since the mixtures are expensive and the energy costs to remove the solvents are very high. Even if it made sense financially, industrial equipment is needed for the extraction. This reality is reflected by there being no reports, zero, of diversion for nefarious purposes in the 15 years since this change. At the same time, companies and state agencies are spending time and money enforcing chemical regulations that the federal government has already deemed irrelevant to public safety. That's because of California law. California law leaves suppliers serving the semiconductor industry subject to significant regulatory requirements, including permitting, owners reporting, record keeping and 20 21 day transaction holds. This administrative burden makes it more expensive to operate in California compared to states like Texas, Arizona, Florida, risking the exodus of critical engineering and manufacturing jobs in this key, very key industry of semiconductors. California leads the nation in semiconductor R&D, accounting for roughly 51% of total U.S. semiconductor R&D in 2021. And the state semiconductor sector contributes more than $100 billion annually to the economy. And as we know, much of which is right here in California, much of which is in my home district. This bill will encourage companies from the outsourcing manufacturing to other states and ensure the vitality of California semiconductor industry. By bringing California into alignment with federal policy, which is really all we're doing here, SB 1306 helps reduce operational disruption, supports in-state R&D, and strengthens California's role as a global leader in high technology innovation. With us here today to testify in support is Anthony Sampson on behalf of SEMI. At the appropriate time, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Good morning, Mr. Chair.

All right. Thank you both very much. Next, we'll take the Me Too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down. Okay. Do we have anyone testifying in opposition today? Anyone at all? All right. Anyone else wanting to register a position on the bill? Okay. Simple. Back to the dais. Questions, comments, motions? Second. Okay, motion, second, in place. Before we do that, would you like to close, Senator? I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay, aye recommendation you will have. Let's call the roll. For item 12, SB 1306 by Senator Cortese, the motion is due pass to the Appropriations Committee. Schultz? Aye. Schultz, aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz, aye. Hart? Hart, aye. Haney? Harbidian? Lackey? When Ramos Ramos I sharp Collins sharp Collins I Okay, that builds out will allow others to add on. Thank you both for being here and next we'll take the Extremely patient Senator Padilla followed by Senator Wahab Senator Padilla whenever you are ready the floor is yours

members. My name is Jackie Gonzalez. I'm the co-executive director of IDA and I'm here in support of SB 941. When ICE detains a Californian, a parent, loved one, caretaker, or provider is ripped away from a working-class family. But that family's bills continue. Rent, mortgages, loans, taxes, childcare expenses, even as the family loses income and faces the crisis of detention. Fernando, a green card holder and father of two U.S. citizens, explained, these expenses include hyperexpensive essentials such as hygiene products, weather-appropriate clothing, and medical items. For a full day's work, as the senator mentioned, detained people earn a dollar a day. That means it takes four days to save enough for a deodorant, seven days to save enough for a four-ounce bottle of shampoo, seven days to pay for a six-ounce jar of peanut butter, 18 days to save enough for an eight-ounce jar of instant coffee. SB941 would limit this kind of corporate exploitation. Just last month, a report by California's own attorney general exposed what he called cruel, inhumane, and unacceptable conditions in these facilities. Investigators documented murky tap water, empty water coolers, and improperly prepared food. These basic necessities are so severely lacking that the Attorney General found people are being forced to spend an astronomical to per week on commissary items just to satisfy basic hunger and survive At California City Correctional Center the state largest facility this creates a devastating multimillion extraction machine funded by working-class families in California. As the Senator mentioned, California has already acted to limit unconscionable commissary costs in state prisons. It must uphold the same basic standard for for-profit immigration detention facilities. I respectfully urge your aye vote.

Chair and members, one, I want to thank you all for working with us on this bill. This is a bill that's deeply important, especially with the current situation regarding law enforcement and emergency calls. SB 691 will require law enforcement agencies to update their body-worn camera policies to include a process for EMS professionals to request redaction of recordings prior to public release when patients are receiving medical treatment. This will ensure we protect the privacy of patients undergoing a medical or psychological evaluation, treatment, or procedure. The protection of patient privacy is critical, especially when the provider of care needs to collect information vital to delivering appropriate treatment. By requiring agencies to update their body-worn camera policy, we will ensure that we have clear policies to protect patient privacy while also preserving the important role of these cameras that play in the field and allow law enforcement agencies the flexibility to adopt a policy that works for each of their own local jurisdictions. With me is Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters.

Thank you very much, Senator, and to your witness for testimony today. Let's take the me too's. If you'd like to be heard in support, come on down. Mr. Chair and members, Paul Yoder on behalf of the California State Association of Psychiatrists and their patients in support of the bill. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much. Do we have any opposition witnesses today? All right. Come on down. Just the one, maybe two. Okay, we have two. All right. So we have two chairs and a microphone here, or you can testify from there if you like. and between the two of you, you have a combined total time of five minutes to address the committee. Oh, I'm just for me to not. Oh, perfect. Okay. You can do your me to that. Oh, okay. So do you know hard on behalf of, um, sorry, send you to know hard on behalf of initiate justice and opposition. All right. Thank you. And we'll note that. All right, Mr. Sillow. Welcome back. The floor is yours whenever you're ready.

All right. Thank you very much for the testimony. We'll take the me-toos in opposition. Anyone else hoping to be heard in opposition? Okay. Turning it back to the dais, questions or comments, Mr. Ramos.

Through the chair, it can. I suspect most of the time when an agency has body cams, those procedures are going to be meet and confer. Certainly around the use, when they're deployed, when you turn them on, when you turn them off, that sort of thing. Redaction policies, I honestly don't know how much that gets into an actual labor negotiation. But then it also may be something that the Board of Supervisors has some kind of say in. I think it just depends on the agency. There's not a whole lot of statute. There is guidance in statute. There is no requirement, as you know, that law enforcement agencies deploy body cameras. There is a requirement in statute that says if you're a law enforcement agency and if you're going to deploy body cams, here are a number of things you should consider in your policy. And policies that already address body cams within law enforcement throughout the state were predominantly put in there because of liability issues? Again, through the chair, those policies address a number of things, right? So the impacts of body cameras, right, those capture not only activities undertaken by those in the field, right, those who are recorded by the body cameras, a member of the public, a suspect, that sort of thing, but also that which is done by the peace officer or the employee who is wearing the body camera So there disciplinary functions There liability functions Yeah there are a number of purposes that obviously body cams serve and that the policies would regulate

Well, the through the chair, the bill does not provide a specific provision of review by the fire agency. So it would just it directs the law enforcement agency to develop a policy within the statutory construction that Mr. Salzolo referenced where basically if you have a body cam policy, body cam policy. It's asking to update that policy to create a process where the EMS personnel can engage the law enforcement agency to request redaction of that video. I would just also add that during an emergency scene, it is a responsibility of our members to make every effort to protect the privacy of their patient during an emergency scene. You can create a perimeter by law enforcement and fire can help create a perimeter and keep maybe a member of the public out of view or at least from close view. That same thing doesn't apply when you have, you know, law enforcement and fire working on a scene together. So we thought this was a narrowing way to kind of get at that specific issue.

What if a policy is derived through the chair and submitted to the board of supervisors or the authority board and fire personnel doesn't agree with that policy? Is there a mechanism where they would then work out those differences?

So just to add to that, you know, I just want to be very clear about this is that, you know, body worn cameras right now shall not be used to record confidential medical, dental and mental health assessments, appointments or consultations. One of our concerns is that when somebody is in a situation, for example, I'll just give our city as an example, our Hayward firefighters are actual paramedics and they receive the large majority of 911 calls. In fact, when I was on city council, I requested a survey of our 911 calls and kind of like a little bit of an audit. And it was deemed that roughly about 31% of the calls were actually crime related, if you will. The rest were largely health care related. And because of the fact that there's a lack of information when you arrive on scene, law enforcement does show up, right, depending on what the call was about. What we are trying to do, and again, the redaction may include blurring patient, right, in the work and CPR. And I want to be very clear when, for example, my father, I've called 911 because my father had a kidney transplant. We didn't know what was going on with him. And we had both firefighters as well as law enforcement show up. It was a health issue, not necessarily a criminal issue, right? And, you know, they take care of that individual right then and there. they lame out. But I want to be clear that sometimes, for example, if a woman needed support and they cutting her shirt open and her bra open and she is fully exposed We know that law enforcement both from the police side as well as the fire side do try to create a perimeter, try to push people out from recording anything like that as much as possible. But when these videos become an issue that they are releasing to the public, we are asking for our local, let's say, paramedics, firefighters, whoever is providing that type of care, be able to go over the video and just say we would like these parts redacted because they are sensitive. We want to make sure that both our law enforcement as well as our, you know, paramedics and so forth are in collaboration. We are leaving through this bill it at the will of the local jurisdiction. And usually the fire chief and the police chief typically work well together and try to find a policy that makes sense. I also want to be very, very clear that this is really just to protect patient privacy when requiring law enforcement or any agency to kind of just, again, update their policy to allow for clear, consistent requests for redaction. And lawyers are deeply involved before the videos ever get released. So I just want to state that there are steps to this. We just want to make sure that it's uniform and privacy is the most important. So this redaction, just literally, again, blurring patient care and muting audio if needed, so that if a patient does admit to, hey, they took drugs, right, or they did something, that that is kind of protected where they can be honest with the person that's providing them the care at that moment. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Ramos. Any other questions or comments from the dais? No? All right, Senator, would you like to close?

Thank you so much, colleagues. I'll try to be quick and get you out of here as fast as we can. I am here to present SB SB 562, I'll start by accepting committee amendments. SB 562 is intended to provide a pathway to financial relief for individuals who are arrested, use a bail bond agency, but ultimately have no charges filed against them or charges are dropped early in the arraignment process. These individuals often face an incredibly unjust situation. despite charges not being filed or having been dismissed, often folks have to choose between rent, food, or paying bail for a crime for which they ultimately are never charged. The bill applies to defendants and allows them to receive a partial refund if the terms and conditions of the bond are dismissed or dropped by the district attorney or court within 20 days of posting of the bond. The refunded amount is set by the judge's discretion but can be up to 80% of the premium amount paid. This is ultimately, fundamentally, about fairness. It's really about the cost of justice and the disparity that so many Californians face in accessing equal treatment in courthouses across the Golden State. I am truly honored to have these two incredible witnesses with me today. We're all quite fortunate to hear from them. We have Josh Mittman from the Bail Project and Esteban Nunez from the Anti-Recidivism Coalition. Chair, when you're ready.