June 24, 2026 · Labor · 25,378 words · 23 speakers · 139 segments
Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement will commence. We have 12 items on the agenda today and it looks like we are starting as a subcommittee as we are missing some of our members. There are a number of committees happening simultaneously, so folks will be coming in and out. I see we have our good Assemblymember Gibson here with us for file item number one, so we will start there. And if you have witnesses, they are welcome to sit at the table. And Assemblymember, we now have, it looks like a quorum, so if you don't mind, we're going to call the roll.
Senator Smaller Cuevas. Here. Smaller Cuevas here.
Senator Strickland. Here.
Strickland here.
Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Here. Durazo here.
Senator Laird.
We have a quorum, and you may begin, Assemblymember.
Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Members. Thank you for allowing me to present Assembly Bill 1054. Assembly Bill 1054. I want to start by thanking the committee and the chair for their work on this bill. I will be accepting the amendments, the committee amendments. All of us share a common knowledge that natural disasters once thought incomprehensible are now part of a common California fabric. We have entered an era that is being called the new norm. The best response during these times of crisis is to retain the most experienced public safety personnel to protect our people, our neighborhoods and our businesses. Assembly Bill 1054 helps law enforcement agencies retain knowledgeable Highway Patrol officers and firefighters on the job. Unfortunately, both Highway Patrol officers and CAL FIRE struggles to keep on board the personnel ideally to suit to direct response when they are needed the most. The Deferred Retirement Option Program, known as DROP, is nearly revolutionary nor untested. We have seen it work well in other parts of California and even in other states. Specifically, Assembly Bill 1054 will allow CHP officers and Cal Firefighters who is eligible for retirement to voluntarily work for an additional five years while accumulating retirement benefits in an interest-bearing account. The DROP program works for employees because they receive the accumulative funds as a supplemental to their pension. and if it works for the state because it is cost neutral. And I wanna repeat, it is cost neutral. The legislature is absolutely clear that there cannot be a cost to the state. This is a bill long overdue We will benefit from the legislation when California need it the most Members I have with me today we will have the president of the California High Patrol the president of the association but his duties allow him to right now to have to stay in Southern California. but we have a well-capable representative representing both sides, Mr. Terry McKaylee here, who will be representing CAL FIRE Local 2881, and also will be speaking on behalf of also the president of the California Association of Highway Patrol as well for any technical questions and also be testifying in support of this measure 1054. Thank you.
And, sir, you have two minutes.
Madam Chair, Terry McHale with Aaron Reed and Associates representing CAL FIRE Firefighters and the California Association of Highway Patrol. First I want to thank the committee consultant, Glenn Miles, who willingly gave up a day off to sit with the assembly PERS consultant, Michael Bolden, Assemblymember Gibson staff and stakeholders to work on this legislation. It was very much appreciated. Madam Chair, we had such a good time, we've decided to make it an annual event. We have come to agreement on the fundamental principles that the DROP program created by this legislation must be cost neutral, completely transparent, actuarially reviewed every five years, and through the bargaining process determined to be beneficial both to management and to employees. The bill is sponsored by the women and men of the California Highway Patrol and the firefighters of Cal Fire. Mr. Miles' analysis is succinct and accurate. The program allows participating officers and firefighters to continue working one to five years as bargained with the state, freeze their defined benefit accrual, divert the employee's contribution to their drop account, and where the amendments that we are taking allow a return that is 1.5% less than the investment return for CalPERS. AB 1054 serves as a voluntary program allowing eligible officers and firefighters to extend their careers while securing enhanced retirement benefits at no cost to the state. AB 1054 not only addresses the critical staffing shortage, but retains the knowledge and experience of veteran officers. We've agreed with the amendments that have been put in place, although just for clarification, I did speak with Mr. Miles. In terms of the legislature opening and being able to vote and close on this, I just wanted to make sure that it didn't interfere with the California rule. I do not believe that it does. The legislation itself says that notwithstanding subdivision A, nothing in this chapter shall prevent the legislature from making changes to this chapter where the terms of the program and drop is not an initial offering. But just as a cautionary note, I just don't want to do anything to inhibit the California rule. So, Madam Chair, members of the committee. This is a great bill. I ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Are there any
me-toos in support of this bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
We were merciful, Madam Chair. We knew you were going to have enough me-toos on another bill.
So we worked this out. We worked this out with your committee not to bring... Okay, well, we
appreciate that. We certainly support those who did come today for the other bill. Opposition,
any other opposition witnesses here today, please come to the table if you're a witness speaking in opposition to the bill.
And you have two minutes Yeah I don think I need it on this My name is Marsha Fritz I a retired CPA I assisted I was requested to assist governor brown when he developed PEPROP and I was also a member of the governmental accounting standards board task force that changed the accounting rules and I can help help you on this if it goes through I I strongly oppose a DROP program. When we passed PEPRA, our bond ratings in California almost a day later went up. That's like a tax increase that we didn't have to pay. If DROP passes, California's bond rating may be impacted negatively. I've worked with the bond industry. I hope you've consulted with them because they do not like DROP. It's cost neutral on paper, but it requires a guaranteed rate of return on the pension money that's being accumulated, and that creates risk. And that's why your bond rating may be affected. 70% of the voters, 70% of the citizens opposed the pensions before we passed PEPRA. And Brown and I worked to acknowledge their anger. I actually posted online the $100,000 pension club. That created a massive revolt among taxpayers. When you add drop to the $100,000 pension club list of these payouts, And we're talking half a million, three-quarters of a million dollars is going to be going to people that enroll in these drop programs. That is going to be a voter backlash that's going to come back on Cal Fire and CHP. So I just caution you to be very careful with this, even though it's cost neutral. Thank you.
Any more Me Too oppositions out there, please step to the mic. Seeing none, we will come to members. Any questions or comments?
I'll move the bill.
We have a motion from Senator Strickland. Senator Jarosso, would you speak?
Yes, thank you very much. Of course, in broad terms, I support the proposal, but if someone could respond to the remarks, the concerns that were just made, I think it's really important. important because we all have to be concerned about the financial aspects of it. So if you could. Senator Durazo, Terry McHale.
And as specific as.
I'll be very specific.
Because that's.
When we did drop, we looked at.
Sorry.
I'm sorry.
Yes.
Thank you. Thank you.
Sorry. When we did drop, we looked at previous history and what drop programs didn't work. This bill, we did an actuarial analysis in the Assembly before it was introduced. The bill gets analyzed every five years by finance. Every five years, it has to be actuarially sound. Unlike previous drop bills, the only contribution that is being made is the employee contribution of 14.5%. The employer contribution stops. and in reality we feel that the department and the state make money on this because they stop making the employer contribution. The other thing that's unique to this drop program is that there is absolutely zero double dipping So the defined benefit part of retirement ends is does not start until the drop program is in cessation So it really is cost neutral It really does have guards to make sure that it doesn become problematic. And I think we've dealt with all the doomsday possible impacts by making sure that the return is one and a half percent less than what CalPERS would be getting. So we've been very, very conscientious. We have taken seriously what the previous testimony had said, and we will continue to listen to her and I'm sure she'll hold us accountable. Okay. Thank you. Okay, it looks like we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Assemblymember, would you like to close? Thank you very much, and I'm glad that Terry was here to respond to the opposition. This is an effective way to, one, keep our experience, not only high patrol officers here, because there is a shortage in California, not only of experience, but also personnel who are retiring early or retiring. We want to make sure we keep the best and the brightest and experienced officers, but also firefighters as well. We want to make sure that in case of an emergency that we have personnel that is there to be able to handle that kind of emergency. And also we want to make sure that we take care of those in uniform to handle the emergencies that continue to arise here in California. I want to thank my witnesses for being here and also thank the men and women in uniform that stepping up each and every day, putting their lives on the line and being our front line warriors and champions. I respectfully ask when I vote. Thank you. Thank you. And we have a motion for Senator Strickland. Please call the law. Thank you. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smarquevas? Aye. Smarquevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Thank you. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Thank you. Aye. Laird, aye. Okay. We have a vote of 4 to 0. The bill's on call. We'll take it up when members return. Thank you. Madam Chair, I would move the consent item, which happens to be authored by the guy walking out of the room. So I would move the consent item. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird on the consent item. Please call the roll. On the consent calendar, Senator Smolt-Cuevas. Aye. Smolt-Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. A vote of 4-0. The consent calendar is on call. we are going to move now to file item number two we're not moving to a file item we're going to take a little break here as we wait for Assemblymember McKenna file item number two and then we have file item number three with Assemblymember Marisucci if you are in and around the building please come to room 2200. Okay. All right. We have a member. We're excited, very excited, to see Assemblymember Flora We're going to move on. On to file item number nine, AB 2129, and you may proceed when ready. If you have a witness, they can have a seat at the front table. I think we're going to try to find him, but we'll present it. If not, I don't think we're going to need him, but we appreciate it. Well, thank you, Senators. I appreciate your time. Today, I'm presenting AB 2129, which improves compensation for Cal Fire firefighters by ensuring their salaries are more competitive with local fire departments. AB 2190, 2129, aims to improve hiring and retention and will reduce losing firefighters to higher paying jurisdictions, which will assist Cal Fire in meeting their state's public safety needs. And with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. I do have a witness, but we'll see. Okay, well, okay, well, we will take the Me Too's in support. Please come to the mic, state your name and affiliation. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Megan Soopers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support. Thank you. Seeing any other Me Too's. Okay, we will move to opposition. Is there an opposition witness here? Seeing none. Opposition Me Too's. Okay, seeing none. We'll move to the dais. Do we have... Madam Chair, I would move to the bill. Thank you. We have a motion by Senator Laird. Assemblymember, would you like to close? I just really appreciate it. This is Bill's We've been working on it for a while and look forward to getting to the governor's desk again, and hopefully he'll sign it this year. But we appreciate you hearing the bill and appreciate the senator's vote and eye on when they get here. Appreciate your time. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Laird. Assistant, please call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas. Aye. Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 3-0. That bill is on call. will take it up when the members return. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. AB 2129 by Flora. Let's call the roll. Motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 3-0, with the chair voting aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Cortese? We have a vote of 4-0. That bill remains on call. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. All right. The member of the hour has arrived. We have now moving to file item number two. And that is AB 1383, Assemblymember McKenner. If you have witnesses and support, they're welcome to have a seat at the table. Breathe Okay All right Well we are ready to proceed when you are Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you so much for your patience. Of course, it's a very, very busy day. Madam Chair and members, AB 1383 makes limited revisions to the California Public Employees Pension Reform Act, or PEPRA, to address recruitment, retention, and challenges among the state's first responders. Sixteen years ago, and in order to stabilize the state's retirement system, the legislature made significant modifications to public employee retirement benefits including the retirement formulas, the age of retirement, and requiring public employees to contribute more to their own retirement benefits. While many of these changes to PREPRA are still necessary, for the long-term health of the retirement fund, retirement formula reductions are a contributing factor to vacancies throughout the public sector in this state, especially with our first responders. AB 1383 does not grant retroactive retirement benefit increases or pension holidays and it does not change the necessary appropriate PEPRA guardrails. AB 1383 only applies prospectively recognizing the ongoing challenges and dedication of our firefighters, police, and the unique challenges and risks associated with a career as a first responder. AB 1383 represents our need to recruit and retain the next generation of first responders needed to protect the lives and property of residents across California. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. So today, my witness is Darrell Roberts, President, California Professional Firefighters. Thank you. And you have one witness or two? Two. Okay, and you each have two minutes. And please introduce yourself. I will. You may proceed. Good morning, Madam Chair and President, members of the committee. My name is Darrell Roberts, and I'm the President of the California Professional Firefighters, representing over 37,000 firefighters and emergency medical personnel throughout California. I am also an active duty firefighter in the city of Chula Vista, where I have been proud to serve for the last 25 years. Every day spent in the firehouse with my brothers and sisters is both rewarding and challenging, and I am grateful for every opportunity to put on my gear and run calls. However, that doesn't mean that I and every firefighter here today are blind to the risks that come with every day on this job and what each year spent working means for us and our families. The danger is obvious when we're running into burning building, but the invisible threat of cancer is the one that plagues us the most. Showing up to a shift means being exposed to deadly, potent carcinogens, diesel fuels, PFAS, asbestos, benzene, hydrogen fluoride, off gases from electronics, lithium ion batteries, plastics, all of these and more that I can name here. Each year, cancer takes more of my members, more of my colleagues, and more of my friends. And the risk only keeps growing. Every day has a cost, and it's one that we pay with our lives. This job is physically and mentally demanding in the extreme, and asking us to work until 57 is pushing us not just to our limit, but beyond it. By lowering the retirement age of firefighters and other public safety officials to 55, this This bill takes reasonable, measured steps to balance both the security of retirement funds and protect the health of the men and women. have stepped up to protect us all. For their sake and for the future of profession, I strongly urge your support of AB 1383 with an aye vote. Thank you for your time. You may proceed two minutes and introduce yourself, please. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Brian Marvel. I am the President of PORAC, the Peace Officers Research Association of California. We represent over 87,000 and public safety officer members across California. President Roberts spoke about the physical and personal costs of public safety jobs. I wish to address the cost to California's communities. We face a staffing crisis without a modern precedent. Departments struggle to recruit, retain, and fill academy classes. The result is forced overtime, staff burnout, all while communities endure longer wait times. At my department in San Diego, Residents wait an average of more than 38 minutes for a priority one call, which involves serious crimes in progress or threats to life, such as domestic violence, child abuse, bomb threats. Other calls are waiting hours. Imagine a domestic violence victim hiding in a bathroom as her abuser remains in the house. Imagine a parent whose child has gone missing knowing help is 38 minutes away or longer. Those are the longest 38 minutes of a person's life, and they reflect the daily reality of public safety in California's second largest city. These delays stem not from a lack of dedication, but from a workforce stretched beyond capacity. The modest statewide employer cost of AB 1383 pale against the far greater expense of chronic understaffing, record overtime, officer burnout, turnover, and declining service letters. California is already paying dearly for this crisis. The question before this committee, therefore, not whether employers can afford AB 1383, but how much longer our communities can afford to go without it. PORAC respectfully urges your aye vote, and thank you for your time. Thank you. Do we have support witnesses here? Me Too's. I know we have quite a few. And we're going to really keep everyone to just your name, affiliation, and position. We have many folks to get through. So I ask that folks have real discipline around name, affiliation, and position on the bill. Please begin. Aliyah Griffin, American Federation of State County Municipal Employees, proud co-sponsor, in support. Alicia Rosa, president of the Sheriff's Employees Benefits Association, in support. Vince Wells, CPF, 4th District, representative of the nine Bay Area counties, speak in support. Good morning, honorable chair, honorable committee members. Roger Hilton, President of the California Furniture Police, in strong support of 1383. Thank you. Good morning, Manager. John Kaczoryski, Santa Ana POA, in support. Good morning. Shane Levine, California Statewide Law Enforcement Association, Association of Orange County Deputy Sheriffs, Long Beach Police Officers Association, and the Sacramento Deputy Sheriffs Association, all in support. Thank you. Good morning My name is Ross Pounds I a Monterey firefighter I also the California Professional Firefighters 3rd District Vice President I represent 46 different locals from Monterey all the way up to the Oregon border I stand in support Good morning. My name is Afrak Vargas. I'm with Fire and Flood Emergency Services. We're the world's foremost experts in high-volume water movement, proud to support CPF's sponsored measure to save firefighter retirement. Good morning, Madam Chair. George Osborne for the Union of American Physicians and Dentists in strong support. Good morning, committee. Charlie Martinez, Vandenberg Professional Firefighters, Local F-116, and 5th District Vice President representing Federal and Industrial Firefighters up and down California in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Brian Oftedal, Captain with the Oakland Fire Department and also Fire Commissioner with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Matthew Cherkot, President of Santa Maria Firefighters Local 2020, in strong support. Thank you. Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support. Good morning, Sam Gebbler, President of San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, in strong support. Thank you. Bruno Bovo, also San Francisco Firefighter, in strong support to support my brothers and sisters. No more cancer. Good morning, Sean Ramsey, Modesto City Firefighters Association, in strong support. Good morning, James Woodmancy, President of Modesto City Firefighters, we're in strong support. Good morning, Devin Robeson, Local 456, Stockton Firefighters President, strong support. Good morning, Rob Murphy, Oakland Fire, strong support. Good morning, Captain, Alameda County Fire Department, Local 55, Alameda County Firefighters, strong support. Good morning, Kevin Todd, Oxnard Fire, strong support. Good morning. Matthew Bollinger, Fire Department's Report Chair for Oakland Firefighters Local 55, in strong support. Good morning. Dustin Rodriguez, Sacramento Area Firefighters Local 522, in strong support. Andrew Galli, Union President for Hager Firefighters Local 1909, in strong support. Greg Fonce, Sacramento Area Local 552, in support. Good morning, Steve McGraw, Local 1186, Solana, Napa, Professional Firefighters, in strong support. Thank you. Tim Pearson, with 1186, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Melina Manictus, on behalf of the Lieutenant Governor, Lenny Kunalakis, in support. Good morning, Brandon Dowdy, Sacramento Area Firefighters, Local 522, strong support. Good morning, Ryan Henry, Sacramento Firefighters Local 522, in strong support. Good morning, Sean Schollard, Sacramento Area Firefighters Local 522, in strong support. Trevor Jamison, President of Sacramento Area Firefighters Local 522, in strong support. Thank you. Ryan Docter, Dixon Firefighters Local 4665, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Jose Luna, part of Local 3540, Marriott Fire and Rescue, in support. Good morning Anthony Hallworth Local 3540 Marriott Firefighters Association in strong support Thank you guys Good morning Vic Reeves Chula Vista Fire Department San Diego and Local 2180 Vice President in strong support Good morning, Nick Parra, Chula Vista Fire Department, Local 2180 Secretary in strong support. Good morning, Dawson Wisser, Gilroy Firefighters 2805 in strong support. Good morning, Steven Hayes, Galway Firefighters President, strong support. Good morning, Peyton Turner, Local 2805 City Galway, and I'm strong support. Good morning, Christopher Channel, Local 2805 Galway Firefighter, strong support. Good morning, John Ward, Oxnard City Firefighter, Local 1684, strong support. Andrew Behrens, Oxnard Fire Department, Local 1684 President, strong support. Thank you guys. Good morning. Justin Matsushita officially here representing the California Fire Chiefs Association. Cal Chiefs is in full support. Good morning, everybody. John Bagula, President of the Marine Professional Firefighters in strong support, and we thank you all for being here. Good morning, everyone. Kevin Fugate, retired firefighter, Local 1430, Ontario, California. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Andrew Martinez, Local 2400 president, and we support AB 1383. Thank you. Jackson Shales, Local 2400 DVP. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Lance Ledekin, Local 2400. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Dan Curtis, Local 2400. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Randy Shipley, Local 2400, and I support this bill. Good morning, Brendan Murphy, Local 2400. Strong support. Thank you very much. Good morning, Matt Van Orden, Local 2400. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Will Clare, Local 2400. Strong support. Thank you. Good morning. Dustin King, Local 2400. Strongly support. Thank you. Good morning. Jake Wilkerson, President of the Daily City Firefighters Association, Local 2400. Strongly support. Les Simon, 2400. I support this. Good morning. Nick Van Laningham, San Mateo County, 2400. Strong support. Good morning, Blaine Fisher, Local 2400. Strongly support. Thank you. Dale Hemsock, President of El Dorado Hills Professional Firefighters, Local 3604. Strongly support. Thank you. Good morning, Andy Wise, Santa Cruz City Firefighters Vice President. Strongly in support. Thank you. Good morning, Eddie Carlson, Santa Cruz City, Local 1716 President. Strongly support. Sam Carter, Hayward Firefighters Local 1909 Vice President, showing support. Good morning, Chris Buck, Hayward Firefighters Local 1909, strongly support. Shane Mantor, Hayward Firefighters Local 1909, strongly support. Good morning, Craig Martin, Hayward Firefighters Local 1909, strongly support. Thank you. Good morning, Samira Madzai, Hayward Firefighters Local 1909, and I strongly support. Good morning Ronnie Rines Hayward Fire strongly support 33 Thank you Samuel Firehue Local 522 strongly support Good morning, Bruce Becker, Hayward Fire, Local 1909, strongly support. Good morning, Zach Wernke, Local 1909, strongly support. Good morning, Nicholas Stevens, Hayward Local 1909, strongly support. Gavin Homer, 1592, strongly support. Jordan Majestic, 522, strongly support. Chris Reeland, Sacramento City Fire, strongly support. Good morning. Steve Dorsey, Contra Costa Firefighters, Local 1230, strongly support. Thank you. Good morning. Anthony Stevens, Contra Costa County, Local 1230, strongly support. Morning. John Ford, 1230. strongly support Brian Pizzamenti local 1230 strongly support good morning Dar Jalili local 1230 strongly support good morning Justin Grima local 1230 strongly support Brian Porter local 1230 strongly support Nick Viana local 1230 strongly support Alex towards you know local 2400 strongly support Ryan right all 2400 I support this bill Dave Magnin local 2400 Sean sport Griffin Sims local 1230 strongly support Kerry Gregg, Local 1230, strongly support. Jared Jones, Local 1230, strongly support. Nate Batts, Local 1230, strongly support. Kyle Wellington, Local 1230, strongly support. Good morning. Will Pagoza, Local 1230, strongly support. Jeff Bradford, Local 1230, strongly support. Good morning. Andrew Desmond, Local 1230. Strongly support. Good morning. Zach Kendall, Local 1230. Strong support. David Zalutski, Local 1230. Strongly support. Bob May, Local 1230. Strong support. Aaron Lemming, Sassoon City Fire Department, Local 1186. Strongly support. Luis Rivera Sassoon City Fire Department 1186 strong support Julie Malnowski by on behalf of the Fire Districts Association of California in support Lucas Myers 522 strong support Alex Heichlinger 522 strong support Jonathan Covey local 522 strongly support Zach Sedrezna local 522 strongly support Matt France local 522 strongly support Tom Conley local 522 strongly support Tad Gregory local 522 strong support Adam Vansuch, 522, strongly support. Magnus Johnson, 522, strongly support. Austin Saas, 522, strongly support. Justin Williams, 522, strongly support. Jordan White, 522, strongly support. Alex Meeks, 522, strongly support. Matthew Anderson, 522, strongly support. Alman Everett, 522, strongly support. Corey Condren, Local 230, strongly support. Good morning, Daniel Loomis. Hemet Firefighters, Local 2342. Strongly support. Samantha Harper, Hemet Firefighters, Local 2342. Strongly support. Chris Chapman, Local 1067. Strongly support. Good morning, Dakota Downs, Local 1067. Strongly support. Good morning, Dominic Luna, 1067. Strongly supports. Hello, good morning. George Acosta, 2274, strongly support. George Hardiman, local 2274, strongly support. Good morning. Eddie Pimentel, local 2274, strongly support. Good morning. Connor Gregorio, local 2274, strongly support. Good morning. Jeremy Day, National City Firefighters, local 2744, I rise in strong support. Good morning, Dominic Province, Local 4759, rise in strong support. Dennis Young, Antion Firefighters, Local 2899, strong support. Good morning, Jeremy Kunkel, Antion Firefighters, Local 2899, strong support. Hello, Adam Diaz, Local 1289 Modesto, showing our support. Kai Leichler, Local 1289 Modesto, I strongly support. Good morning. Dylan Gutierrez, 1289, strongly support. Michael Hearing, Local 1289 Modesto, and I strongly support. Hi, I'm Will Kaiser, Local 1289, strongly support. Peyton Camacho, Local 1289 as well, Modesto, I strongly support. Jake Ryan, Local 1289, also strongly support. Eric Arnold, Local 1289, strongly support. Joe Jarrett, Tracy Firefighters Association, strongly support. Steven Pine, Union President, Tracy Firefighters Association, strongly support. Justin LaGassa Tracy firefighters strong support Joe Flores Tracy firefighters strong support good morning Anthony Anaya local 689 Alameda firefighters strong support morning Sean Berger local 689 has strongly support Tyler Carino Local 689, strong support. Good morning. Nicholas Mignogliani, Local 689, strong support. Good morning. Deshaun Lele, Local 522, strong support. Good morning. Jake Redmond, Local 522, strong support. Good morning. Noah Gula, Local 522, strong support. Good morning Ryan Ryder Local 522 I strongly support Good morning Brandon Barrett Local 2881 strongly support Good morning, retired firefighter from Local 2881, strongly support. Good morning, retired Local 2881, I strongly support, Nate Terrell. Good morning, Brad Niven, Cal Fire, Local 2881, strong support. Good morning, Jordan Moda, CAL FIRE, Local 2881. I support this bill. Good morning, Brian Coffey, Local 2881. Strongly support. Good morning, Christopher Dean, Chico Firefighters, Local 2734. Strong support. Good morning, Kevin Snire, retired firefighter captain, Local 522. Strongly support this bill. Thank you for your time. Good morning. Andrew Whaley, retired Sacramento Area Firefighters, Local 522. Strongly support. Thank you. Good morning. Brandon Faddis, Local 522, and I support this bill. Good morning. Chris Caselli, Firefighter, Local 522, and I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning. Brian Benson, Local 522. I support this bill. Good morning, Jonathan White, Local 3631. Strongly support this bill. Good morning, Darryl Bedrosian, Orange County Firefighters. We strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Matt Carlson, Orange County Professional Firefighters 3631. I also support this bill. Chris Hamm, President of Orange County Firefighters, here to support this bill. Thank you. Miguel Gonzalez, President, Orange City Firefighters, and I'm here strongly supporting this bill. Good morning. I'm Jeremy Dance. I'm with Local 1165, Santa Clara County Firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Matthew Council, 1165, and I support this bill. Good morning. I'm Spencer Riffenberg, Local 1165. I strongly support this bill. Good morning, Anthony Fletcher, President, Santa Clara County Firefighters, Local 1165, and we support this bill Good morning, our name is Marty Collins, Local 1165, we strongly support this bill, thank you for your time Good morning, Joe Andrews, Local 1165, strongly support this bill, thank you Good morning, Matt Delfield, 1165, strongly support this bill. Thank you. Eric Mortimer, Napa City President, Local 3124, strong support. Good morning, Rick Boatman, Vice President, Local 3124, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning, Tara Carless, Local 3124, Napa City Firefighters, in strong support. Thanks. Good morning, Tim Pratt, Marine Professional Firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Sid Jemot, Health and Safety Chair for the Marine Professional Firefighters. Strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Jack Kicksmiller, Marine County Professional Firefighters, 1775. Please support this bill. Good morning, Grant Ferguson, Marine Professional Firefighters, Local 1775. I support this bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Tommy Pasalka Marine Professional Firefighters Local 1775 and I here on behalf of myself and my family to ask for your support on this bill Thank you very much Good morning Aaron Hakenen Marine Professional Firefighters Local 1775 Strongly support Good morning, Jared Meyer, Marine Professional Firefighters Local 1775 here in strong support. Thank you very much. Good morning, Ryan Fisher, Marin Professional Firefighters, Local 1775. I strongly support this bill. Good morning, Chris May, Marin Professional Firefighters, 1775. I support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Diggory McGuire, Local 1775. Again, strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning, Carlos Berlanga, Local 1775. I strongly support this bill. Good morning. Dalton Locke, Local 1775, in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. I'm Jeff Larkin, Marine Professional Firefighters, Local 1775. I'm in strong support. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Ryan Day with Marine Professional Firefighters as well, Local 1775, and I strongly support this bill. Good morning. Joe Stewart, Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County, Local 1401. Strong support. Good morning. Jonathan Bauer with Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County, Local 1401. We strong support this bill. Thank you. My name is Zach Leandro. I'm with Professional Firefighters of Sonoma County, Local 1401. Heavily, strongly in part of the bill. Thank you. Good morning. Gilbert Collins, Running Springs Professional Firefighters, Local 5308. I'm in strong support of this bill. Good morning. Seth Schachter, Local 522. I strongly support this bill. Good morning. My name is Steven Inderbitzen with Local 522, and I strongly support this bill as well. Good morning. Frank Avent, Glendale Local 776, and I support this bill. Good morning. My name is Greg Gonzalez from Pasadena, Local 809, and I strongly support this bill. Good morning. Local 809, Pasadena Fire Department, I strongly support this bill. Thank you. Good morning. My name is Joseph Hurley, Local 809. I strongly support this bill. Good morning. My name is Robert Ruzin, Pasadena Fire Department, Local 809. I support this bill.
Madam Chair and members, Matthew Seiberling on behalf of the Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs in support. Thank you.
My name is Joshua Halsey with Sacramento Local 522, and I thank you for supporting this bill. Good morning. Ryan Cortez, Corona Firefighters Local 3757, and I support this bill. Good morning. Michael Leibold, Corona Firefighters Local 3757. I support this bill. Good morning. Robert Corral, Corona Firefighters Local 3757, and I strongly support this bill. Eric Estes, Corona Firefighters, I strongly support this bill. Connor Lardner, Local 3757, I strongly support this bill. Rex Pritchard, Long Beach Firefighters Local 372, and strong support. Thank you Okay Okay. I don't want to ask, but is there anyone else, Me Too's, in support? Okay, seeing none, we're all clear. We'll move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses? Please come and take a seat at the front table. We'll ask support to sit in the audience. Okay, you each have two minutes. Good morning, Chair and members.
I am Johnny Pena on behalf of the League of California Cities here today and a very respectful opposition to AB 1383. I want to begin by acknowledging the authors, staff, sponsors, and reporters of this bill. We certainly recognize the critical role public safety professionals play in protecting our communities and the significant demands placed on those who serve. We share the goal of ensuring public employees have strong and reliable retirement benefits. Our opposition to this bill is because of the fiscal impact this bill would have on our local authorities and the state as well. I just wanted to kind of go over the three main pieces of this bill and go over the price tag that is estimated from CalPERS with kind of the caveat that that is just the cost estimate done by CalPERS and does not include the cost estimates from all of the other pension agencies that this bill would also impact. The first being the increase to the pensionable compensation cap. in the bill that's applicable to not only public safety folks but every PEPRA employee so every public employee who's hired after PEPRA went into effect in 2013. CalPERS estimates that that cost just in the first year could increase the normal cost by $241 million dollars per year. The second piece of that bill is, of course, the reduction of the retirement age for public safety from 57 to 55. CalPERS has tagged that at a much lower, but still significant cost of $38 million in the first year for the normal cost. And third is the bargainable piece of the 3% at 55. CalPERS does have an estimate, a pretty significant price tag on that, but again, that depends on the decisions that are made at the local agency level. And I wanted to talk about the normal cost piece as well, kind of how that is split amongst employees and the employers. Under PEPRA, the normal cost is split. In general, half and half. If that increase goes over 1%, it's shared by employees and employers. If it's under, it is borne by the public agency. So if it goes over, it is split in half. So I wanted to point out an issue with a pensionable compensation cap. It could be that if the pensionable compensation cap goes up, increases the normal cost for that local agency over 1%, the cost is shared between employers and employees however only those that are making over the cap itself will see a benefit from that increase. Essentially, those folks making under the cap will be paying more out of their check, but not seeing a benefit in their retirement because of that. Just to conclude, we do definitely support strong retirement benefits, but those benefits must remain sustainable and fiscally responsible for our local agencies. Thank you. You have two minutes.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members. I'm Eric Lurie, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties in the state. We, too, would like to start by recognizing the vital service provided by public safety employees and remain committed to maintaining a stable and sustainable retirement system for all public employees. PEPRA was critical legislation necessary to avoid a funding crisis for the public pension systems and provide fiscal relief for public agencies. We deeply appreciate the bill analysis, which covers the history of PEPRA and frames much of our broader concerns with the bill in great detail. Pension systems are funded through multi-generational commitments from employers and employees. Sustainable funding relies on careful planning, investment, and management over decades. We are just beginning to see the benefits of PEPRA, which has already led to billions in savings and is projected to deliver more than $26 billion in savings over the next decade, helping stabilize the state and local budgets and support essential services. It is easy to forget the time when PEPRA was passed. Immediately following the Great Recession, CalPERS had a funded status of 58.4%, and public agencies were still paying off public obligation bonds after the 2004 recession. Many were calling to convert public pension benefits to a defined contribution hybrid plan akin to a 401k. Public pension systems have climbed out of fiscal crisis but have a long road to go. By increasing the pensionable compensation cap, lowering the retirement age for safety employees, and authorizing enhanced benefit formulas, AB 1383 would substantially increase long-term pension liabilities and undermine the critical reforms of PEPRA. CalPERS estimates billions in additional future benefit obligations and higher annual contribution costs for employers and employees alike. These costs come at a particularly difficult time. Local governments are already facing severe budget constraints, raising service demands, and the impacts of H.R.1. AB 1383 would add to these severe fiscal pressures. For these reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote today. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any Me Too opposition witnesses? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
Marsha Fritz, retired CPA, former advisor to Governor Schwarzenegger on his pension initiative, which was suspended, advisor to Governor Brown on PEPRA, member of the Governmental Accounting Standard Board Task Force on Pension Accounting and Reporting, and I also represent 70% of the voters who oppose this bill.
Thank you, Lance Christensen, Vice President of the California Policy Center, also somebody who spent a lot of time on PEPRA. I represent also a coalition of local governments opposed to increased costs if we proceed down this path of AB 1383.
Thank you.
Madam Chair, Brendan Rpickey on behalf of the California Transit Association, the Humboldt County Board of Supervisors, the Kern County Board of Supervisors, and the City of Beverly Hills in respectful opposition.
Ophelia Segetti on behalf of the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposes this bill.
Sarah Ducat on behalf of the rural county representatives of California opposed the bill and align my comments with both individuals testifying Good morning Michelle on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials in respectful opposition Thank you
Madam Chair and members, Michelle Rolgavel with Nielsen Merksmer, on behalf of the Board of County Supervisors of Contra Costa County, in opposition.
Good morning, Kiarra Ross, on behalf of the cities of Burbank, Santa Rosa, Vernon, Merced, and the Town of Truckee, all in opposition. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the urban counties of California, also respectfully opposed.
Ana Iokamides on behalf of Los Angeles Unified School District in opposition.
Okay, that looks like the end of our opposition. Me too. We will come to the diocese. Senator Strickland.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just wanted to announce and give you a reason why I'm voting the way I am. First of all, I take deep pride in my brand of being fiscally responsible. And I always say when we talk about the budgets, a budget is nothing more than a blueprinting or priorities. I've always said, as mayor of Huntington Beach and here at the state level, the most essential role of government is public safety. On the national level, it's national security. But when you talk about locals, as mayor of Huntington Beach and also as a state senator, I want to put public safety first. I think this should be the first thing that gets funded. I think we do a lot of funding. We could agree to disagree on some of the other things. But I think our number one role is to keep our neighborhood safe. And when we talk about heroes, a lot of times it's loosely used loosely. My dad was a crew military soldier. These individuals were the firefighters and the law enforcement officers put their lives on the line for us to keep us safe every single day. We're at a time now where a lot of people are not going into these professions. And it was testimony here that response times are down because a lot of people are not going into this profession. and they take a big toll on their body. As a former athlete, I wish I was still playing. I played semi-pro basketball. But at some point in your life as an athlete, your body breaks down and you just can't do the job anymore. And they tell you your time's up. To ask these firefighters and law enforcement officers, and I had the privilege to go to the Orange County Fire Authority and do a training. And I'll tell you, there's a reason why I'm not a firefighter. Um, first of all, when there's danger, I run away from danger. They run into the building. Uh, number two, I think they have some kind of, uh, instinct, um, that really is a calling. Um, but again, their body breaks down. Um, I was carrying those packs going up and down the, uh, up and down the walls, breaking down the doors. It's physical exertion. And to ask these firefighters to go beyond 55, your body breaks down. just like you do as an athlete. And so just taking my district, Orange County Fire Authority, their pensions are 99% funded right now. And on average, 18.58% of their salary is put into their pensions, which makes it 99% funded. If we can't support law enforcement and fire, you know, again, I go back to the most essential role of government is public safety. And I also have another personal experience Just a few weeks ago we had an incident in Garden Grove where there was likely we came in on Thursday and this company said there nothing we can do We going to have a blevy explosion larger than the Oklahoma City bombing in my district in Garden Grove The Orange County Fire Authority and their leader said they would not accept that notion. And that's what they heard from the business. They said their backup to backup systems went down and there's nothing we can do. We're going to have a blevy explosion. that's where we were on thursday um and the firefighters uh got the best and brightest out there we call it a state emergency a federal emergency i want to thank governor newsom president trump for allowing us to do that to get the best and brightest but there was nights where these firefighters went to this facility and they actually hand removed some of the, I forgot what the terminology is called, but they knew there at that time that that can blow at any time. And I was praying. I still get goosebumps for these firefighters and their families that had to know that they're, that they're, they were putting their lives online to save that explosion from happening, which they actually ended up doing. um you can't put a price tag on that in my opinion and so we will be fiscally responsible these folks do pay into this pension um and i think this is a very reasonable ask of the state government and if you're asking me to cut in other areas i'm happy to cut in other areas for whatever the testimony was the it says it's an extra i forgot it was a couple uh 241 million per year. If you're asking me to go cut $241 million to pay for this, I'm happy to do that because I think this would be the first thing that gets funded. And that's those reasons. I'm supportive of this bill, and I'll move it at the appropriate time.
Thank you, Senator Strickland. We have a motion. Any other members, questions, comments? Senator
Dr. Dorosso. Thank you. It's great to see all of our firefighters and officers here. I want to be a big shout out to the firefighters who are now still fighting a week-long fire in Boyle Heights, Los Angeles. The dangers that those firefighters are facing are not just the, there's not just a routine fire. There are dangers that have never been confronted. A 500,000 square foot roof of solar panels catching on fire is not something that happens every day. How do you deal with that is a question that it's not just a matter of standing there with the water hose. There's enormous dangers and responsibilities for our community. So I want to thank the officers and firefighters who were there, in particular Local 112 and Local 1014. And also, I don't think there's a shortage. Everybody has an experience, a story to tell of what firefighters mean and officers mean to our community. So I wish we had all day to tell more of those stories, but this one stands out the most for me because it's happening right now. I also want, and I think all of us want, to make sure that this is fiscally responsible and sustainable because it doesn't do any good to do this for our firefighters and officers but then a few years later something economically or financially tragic happens and then what good did it do to be supportive So I have great respect. Not a popular message to deliver, to be opposed. I mean, I wouldn't want to be in your shoes saying no to the firefighters and what we all know that they need and they deserve. So I guess my question has to do with how do we address the financial and fiscal responsibilities that come with this, especially knowing that it's, as someone said, it's not something that you just buy today and pay today. this takes planning, this takes time to make sure that it's fiscally stable, to make sure that those benefits are actually paid out when they become due. So, Madam Chair, I guess maybe it's with the author or one of the witnesses.
And then I can also talk about the caps.
The current pensionable compensation cap for those in Social Security is about $159,000, and for those not in Social Security, it's about $191,000. AB 1383 would adjust the caps by aligning it to the updated Social Security wages based on January 1, 2027, and then have the rate for those not in Social Security by 135% of that base. For reference, the Social Security wage base in 2026 is $184,500. And when we talk about PEPRA and people are concerned, will this lead back to the crisis that we had with PEPRA? I say no. The adjustments made by AB 1383 are prospective and paid for by both the employees and employers. This measure does not provide retroactive benefits and ensures benefits are funded by contributions.
um we're gonna have thank you for that assembly member we will maybe ask this question do you want
to direct it to maybe we'll have it from the opposition and from the support to answer the question as well thank you i'm happy to go first thank you madam chair uh megan stubers on behalf of the california professional firefighters um on the fiscal responsibility question it's a very good question and we have thought i think very deeply about this question before we even introduced the bill, which has changed since it's come to your committee and the costs have actually reduced. A few things. As the opposition mentioned, CalPERS gave us an updated analysis based on the current version of the bill, estimating that everything in the bill rolled up together about a $233 million cost to CalPERS contracted agencies. There are 3,000 CalPERS contracted agencies. So that $233 million is spread amongst all 3,000 agencies, and it is split in half in terms of employer contributions. Half of that $233 million has to be paid for by the employees in our contributions to our retirement ourselves. So we have compared that to the savings that CalPERS has put out in their analysis from the first 10 years of PEPRA, which is about $5 billion, or since PEPRA has passed, CalPERS contracted agencies have saved about $5 billion. And in the next 10 years, they're estimating, I believe, $26.5 billion in savings to employers. So we are comparing the $233 million, again split in half, half of that will be borne by the employer, to the billions in savings that have already been accrued and will continue to accrue at a higher rate as classic employees or pre-PEPRA employees retire. So the retirement allowance for the PEPRA employees is much smaller, as we know, than the classic employee. So those dollars will continue to accrue at a higher rate than the first 12 years of PEPRA. I hope that helps.
Yes, thank you.
You can respond to the question. Thank you. So I think my colleague summed up a lot of how the bill is structured and the framing. I guess to maybe simplify it, there's really kind of two main pieces of the bill. There's the section of the bill that is specific just to public safety in reducing the retirement age and creating new benefit tiers. There's also the other portion of the bill that raises creditable compensation, effectively increasing the compensation that can be factored into pension benefits for the most highly compensated public employees. That applies to all public employees, not just public safety. By far, the most significant cost driver of the bill is in the creditable compensation cap increase. CalPERS estimates that the present value of benefits, effectively the long-term cost of that, of the creditable compensation increase would be $4.2 billion. Conversely, the reduction in retirement age for public safety is estimated to have $560 million over that same time period. So by far the largest cost driver is that creditable compensation increase, which again applies to all public sector employees. So that's a big difference from what you said.
I'm just trying to understand it more than. Yeah, the $4.8 billion number that he's using is over the life of that benefit.
So I was using numbers as like year over year what CalPERS is saying the cost to employees and employers will be that $233 million number. And the $4.8 billion number is what they refer to as I think the present value of future benefit number, which is the lifetime of those benefits for all those employees in the future. So it's not apples to apples, but it is a number that CalPERS produces.
I knew there was an explanation.
Thank you. Thank you. Is your question answered? Maybe just final, if he has a final comment. Okay, if a response to that.
Thank you. And to clarify, if we're talking about the annual costs for each of those two categories, the annual cost for the creditable compensation cap is $240 million, whereas the annual cost for the reduction retirement age new benefit tiers would be $38 million. So $241 million for top compensation, $38 million for the public safety new retirement years.
Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mente. Thank you. Any other questions, comments?
So I do have a comment and a couple of questions. One, I want to thank the Assemblymember for bringing this bill forward and working so diligently with sponsors to get to this point. It been a long time coming and really appreciate the comments that have been shared and the questions shared so far I do think that we absolutely agree and it very few things that Senator Strickland and I can agree on but we do agree that when a worker leaves home and doesn know if they will return, it's usually the firefighters and the police in our communities, our safety personnel, who unfortunately have to have that thought in the back of their minds every day. Many of us don't face imminent harm and death on the job every single day. And I think that that is why we are even having this conversation, because we recognize how important it is for us to make this a job that values those lives and that sacrifice. But at the same time, we know that we've had a very windy road and sometimes dark history when it comes to supporting and funding and making sure that our pension funds are solvent. And, you know, we have been lucky to be recession proof and not having lived through a recession in recent memory. but we know some of the past that not all pension stewards are the same, not all pay attention to the financial risk, not all are doing the work that needs to be done to ensure that an alarm is sounded when our pension and our economy start to face trouble. And so I know that you all are concerned with that too because we want every firefighter and safety personnel to be able to receive their retirement benefits and to have those funded. I do know we need to look at, and I talked with the Assemblymember about this and with the sponsors, I think we have to look at a way to create an alarm system, a notice system, that looks at our state's rainy day funds. I think that has been, in my time in the legislature, the warning sign when our economy is slowing, when the state is needing to spend, that that rainy day fund may be a way to sound an alarm and to notify our pension fund so that they are aware that it's time to pay close attention to what shifts and adjustments need to be made. And I thank you all for committing to continue to explore that and to find ways to do that. I agree with my dear colleague from Los Angeles. you know we know the toxins that are coming out of that East LA fire right now and you know as it's getting contained we know that there are going to be firefighters that are going to pay the price for inhaling whatever is coming out of those panels and and we know that the cost will will be too great and that's why we think they deserve a well a well supported pension opportunity here in the state of California. So I am prepared to support the bill today.
I look forward to us moving this vote, and we have a motion from Senator Strickland. And again, I want to thank all of the firefighters who took time out of their busy, what hopefully is a rest day, before going back on the job to share their testimony and support for this bill. I want to turn it back over to you, Assemblymember, to close,
and then we will take the vote up. Well I'd like to thank the, excuse me, the committee and the chairperson and all of the consultants for the work they did on the bill. I'd also like to thank all of my first responders for coming and standing with me as I stand with them today I will look at all the amendments and take them into consideration and work with our stakeholders to make the bill better So with that I ask for your aye vote
Thank you. And we have a motion from Senator Strickland. Please call the roll. The motion is do pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas. Aye.
Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Aye.
Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese.
Senator Durazo. Aye.
Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. Aye. Laird, aye. The bill has a vote of 4-0. It's on call. We'll take it up when the rest of our members return. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. We're going to let the room clear before we take up our next bill. I see Assemblymember Marasucci will take you up in just a few seconds. Thank you. To file item number three, AB605, Assemblymember, you may begin. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the front table. All right. I will. Yes.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I think I dodged your most popular bill, maybe. Thank you, Madam Chair and Senators. Thank you to the committee for working with me on this bill, and I would first like to commit to working on amendments in the next committee hearing to ensure that the proposed task force and their duties as being proposed in this bill do not conflict with Cal OSHA's processes. And so with that, I am here to present Assembly Bill 605, which seeks to address refinery staff shortages and worker safety as well as community safety by establishing a refinery safe staffing task force and requiring refineries to develop safe staffing management plans. A lot of people are surprised to hear that I think I might be the state legislator with the most, at least the assembly member with the most refineries in my district. I have the Chevron refinery in El Segundo, the Torrance refinery in Torrance. and until last year although we still have 20 employees operating I also have the Phillips 66 in Wilmington that is in the process of shutting down and as you will hear from our witnesses the announcement of the closure of the refinery You know it predictably led to a situation where a lot of refinery workers are looking for their next job or, you know, they're losing their jobs with the announcement. And so that raises critical concerns in terms of how safe is the refinery going to continue to be as it's winding down, especially where we're faced with the situation of people either losing their jobs or leaving to find their next job opportunities. And so that is at the heart of what this bill is trying to
address. I am pleased to be working with the United Steelworkers who represent the refinery workers at the refineries day in, day out. Representing the United Steelworkers is Norman Rogers, as well as a former Phillips 66 refinery employee, Lori Wallace, who will share her experience. You each have two minutes. Okay, very good. Good morning and thank you for the opportunity to speak. If we go back to September of 2020, that's when we started this journey that we're on now, which is that's when Governor Newsom made the, signed the executive order that there will be no new internal combustion engine passenger cars or trucks sold after 2035. So that was very clear that refining was going to start to contract. So that's put us in a position to see how clever we can be on how all that has to happen. And the different things have popped up. And as Assemblymember just mentioned, the shutdown piece hasn't been looked at. We have rules for while we're up and running and safety regulations for how all that's supposed to take place, but nothing for the shutdown. And so as we've seen twice now, in particular with Phillips 66, an announcement was made that they're going to close. People leave to go find other jobs before all the other good jobs are taken. That leaves behind a workforce that was 350 people down in the case of Phillips, down to 250, 225 doing the same amount of work. And that's put them on a schedule where they're working 13 days on, one day off, multiple hours, 12, 14-hour shifts. So there needs to be a plan in place on how we handle shutdowns. And this is what this bill is hoping to address, is that we come up with some solid recommendations on what that looks like. The nurses' unions have a document that show that link fatigue to a certain blood alcohol level. And you've got folks running refineries trying to shut them down, working to shut them down safely that are working under these conditions. And Lori can speak better to what the actual conditions were. Dear Chair and esteemed members of the committee, I work for Phillips 66 Wilmington Refinery as a process technician operator for nearly 20 years. And I am a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 675. I am here today to urge your strong support for the Assembly Bill 605. When Phillips 66 announced its planned closure, our workforce was completely devastated. But the hardship didn't stop there. In the months surrounding the announcement, severe staffing shortages forced my co-workers into grueling, unsafe schedules. As he said, we had worked not only just 12-hour shifts or 14-hour shifts. There were some that worked 16 and 18-hour shifts. And this wasn't for a normal turnaround situation. This is for months on end. I know for me, I did night shifts for almost half a year, if not a little bit longer. When you are working an excessive amount of hours or an excessive amount of days, you don't have time to do anything except for work and sleep. When you're going into work, you're so exhausted and overwhelmed by everything. You're trying to figure out who's going to do my dishes or my laundry or anything because you literally are just working and sleeping. There is no time for anything else. If you're lucky, you're getting some sleep. So we were trapped in a longer cycle of work shifts because of all of these people that were leaving the refinery. And bravo to them for getting those opportunities. But there is a whole entire workforce of us that were trying to still maintain the refinery for our company because we care. Because we care about the community, we care about each other, and we care about the company. So for those of us that left, it was really devastating. This completely destroyed any semblance of work-life balance for months on end. Our lives consisted of nothing but working and sleeping. This wasn't a brief temporary push for standard maintenance turnaround. This was a sustained chronic exhaustion. I saw firsthand how difficult it was for my coworkers just to survive, let alone do their jobs safely. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any Me Too witnesses in support of the bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
Good morning. Leo Dale on behalf of the Climate Center in strong support. Julia Spassian on behalf of California Labor for Climate Jobs in support. Christina Skaringer at the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Catherine Beer, Houston United Steelworkers District 12 in support. Tweener. Yeah. Okay.
Please go ahead.
Madam Chair and members, Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council. We have concerns and believe that the state should be spending resources on how to keep the refineries open rather than allocating all these resources to planning for their premature demise. Thank you.
Okay. We're registering that as a tweener. Do we have any opposition witnesses? Please come to the table. You have two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. In respectful opposition to AB 605, I want to start out with the premise of the bill. And it begins in the findings and declarations. It says, multiple refineries in California have closed or announced closure within recent years, and there is a likelihood that more will close in the foreseeable future in line with declining demand for refined products. I think it's important to note that you should reject this false premise that refinery closures are inevitable when state actions are making it harder for the remaining refineries to continue operating and investing here Refinery closures are not an unavoidable outcome and that is why we worked with the Newsom Administration we worked with the California Energy Commission we worked with USW and other stakeholders, and the legislature to find ways to stabilize the fuel market. The legislature took action last year on SB 237. There is more work to be done to ensure that refineries are viable, businesses able to operate and compete in a global market. I also want to address the premise of declining demand. That is just not the case that we are seeing in California. Demand is staying persistent. We use about 13 billion gallons of gasoline a year in California. That's 35 million gallons a day. And our member companies and the USW are the ones who are providing that to your constituents. we would invite the proponents, the author, to fight to ensure that we refineries are able to stay open and keep your members employed. But it's the state policies that are making us uncompetitive. And it's no mystery that California refineries are some of the least competitive in the world, and we need to change the policies to keep them open to provide your constituents with fuel. Thank you. Right on time. Any other opposition, me too's? Please step to the mic, state your name, position. Sir Horacio Gonzalez on behalf of California's Business Roundtable in opposition.
Okay, we'll bring it back to the dais members. Any comments, questions? Senator Durazo?
Yes. basically I think that what you all are asking is very reasonable you're losing your jobs and you're leaving others with more work and less people doing it but you deserve we ought to hold you up in esteem for all the work and what you've done, dedicated yourselves to allowing people to be able to jump in their cars or their trucks and go to work and go to school. Wherever you land on the issue of the climate issues, it doesn't matter. You ought to be thanked. And the worst thing in the world is to think that you don't have a way of knowing even the next day or a few days later. For whatever reasons, that's what you're facing. so I'd be glad to support you today I for one am grateful to you and we ought to do whatever we can to help you in whatever you want to call it transition whatever you want to call it there's there's a word for it but bottom line is you're losing many of you have lost your jobs what happens next we're not here to judge so I just want to I just want to say that to you So there was a minor issue, but I think you've addressed it, which is, is there duplication with the work that's being done? And I only say that not because just for duplication purposes, but time. We know some of the agencies also are taking far too long, and I don't want to add that more time would be added to this and take even longer to come up with what's needed. so that's my concern there. Alright, thank you.
And thank you for that Senator DeRosso and I also want to thank you and the sponsors for bringing this forward This is about safety This is about a plan And absolutely how much we rely on your industry on the workers who are doing the job as the Senator mentioned, of making sure folks can get around the state of California day to day to do the work that needs to get done. You know, I appreciate you also accepting the amendments. I think that was critically important because it's duplication, but also we want to make sure the plan happens. We want to make sure the agencies actually get the work done. And I think working with committee helps us to get closer to that outcome. The Standards Board within Cal OSHA will convene an advisory committee, and it will consist of representatives from industry, labor, the public, and other interest parties to begin drafting the standard. And I think that's what we want to see happen, and we want to see it move forward. And we know that these amendments will be taken up in EQ because we ran out of time. And so we're looking forward to SB 605 establishing this task force and making sure that a best practice is set in this industry. And, you know, hear you loud and clear. We know that we are in a moment of transitioning the transitions in some ways. And I think the state, as we work through how do we meet the climate and energy needs of the future, it is going to be an all-hands-on-deck scenario for some time to come. So I think this helps us just have an open and a proactive plan for the workers, which is critically important to this committee. And I think we did we get a motion? I'm not sure we have a motion yet, but great. We have a motion from Senator Rosso. Would you like to close, Assemblymember?
Thank you very much, Madam Chair, for working with us to make sure that this bill can move forward. We look forward to working with you on the specific amendments that would be taken up in the next committee. I just want to make it clear that, you know, as Senator Durazo and as you, Madam Chair, correctly focused on, you know, this is about making sure that the refinery workers are working in safe working conditions as the refineries are winding down. I also want to make it clear to the Western State Petroleum Association that this is not an anti-refinery bill. I mean, these the United Steelworkers rely on those refinery jobs. And so, you know, but but we can't put our heads in the sand and act like refineries are not closing. You know, WSPA is sitting right next to a actual refinery worker who lost her job because of the closing of Phillips 66. And so these refineries, you know, this is about if and when refineries close. How do we make sure that workers are continuing to work in safe working conditions, but also communities? You know, when the Torrance refinery exploded in 2015, I live just a couple miles from the Torrance refinery. And so this is not just about making sure that workers are being safe, but it's that communities are being safe from these refineries. As they're winding down, as they're operating with these bare-bones skeleton crews, how do we make sure that we continue to have workers and communities safe? So I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
And we have a motion from Senator DeRosso. Assistant, please call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality Senator Smaller Cuevas Aye Smaller Cuevas aye Senator Strickland Senator Cortese
Senator Durazo? Aye.
Durazo, aye.
Senator Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye. Okay. We have a vote of 3-0. The bill's on call. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We are moving on to file item number 5. I don't see Assemblyman Arons here, right? Okay, so we're going to move on to, yes, Assemblymember Ortega.
You have three bills, three bills before us, and we have to be out of this room by one, so we're going to, yeah, we need that representation for our overtime pay.
But until then, we have the good Assemblymember, and we'll start with file item number four. Five. I'm sorry, five. File item number five.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. I am, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 1859 today. California faces a severe enforcement gap when enforcing our public works labor law. The Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or DLSE, has a backlog of 47,000 wage theft claims. AB 1859 would allow JLMC representatives to physically visit public work job sites to ensure contractors are complying with wage and safety laws. It would also balance access with protections for contractors by ensuring that site visits do not disrupt work. AB 1859 would enhance the DLSE's enforcement capabilities without straining taxpayer resources. Most importantly, it ensures the contractors who use state dollars honor the contract they signed with us. Testifying in support today is Matthew Kremens with the International Union of Operating Engineers and Keith Dunn, Mike West, with the California State Building and Construction Council.
Sorry about that. Yes, you may proceed. You each have two minutes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Matt Kremens here on behalf of the California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of AB 1859, which would strengthen enforcement of our public works laws and assist the state's labor commissioner by requiring public works contractors to allow joint labor management committees to have reasonable access to their projects. Joint labor management committees, or JLMC's as they are otherwise known, are federally approved formal bodies consisting of equal representation of both labor and management. And these groups are designed to improve workplace conditions, safety, productivity, And simply put, these entities are the gold standard of labor and management collaboration. In the construction industry, JLMC's play a critical role and in many ways are already seen as the eyes and ears of the state's labor commissioner as they work day in and day out to ensure a level playing field for contractors and workers and ensure compliance with all state and federal laws that govern the construction industry. Under existing law, JLMC's already currently work hand-in-hand with the Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, and they do so by turning over finalized investigations to the labor commissioner, which can have the effect of significantly streamlining state investigations at no cost to the state. So with that being said, this bill simply seeks to provide job site access for joint labor management committees. Importantly, this bill does provide critical protections for contractors by making clear that JLMC access shall not impede or disrupt the performance of work. And it specifies that contractors shall not be liable for any violations of safety standards. And in closing on my end, I'm happy to report that we recently took amendments that removed the vast majority of the state. of contractor opposition to the bill. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your aye vote. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California. To expand on the remarks of my colleague, a JLMC often becomes aware that a project is significantly underbid compared to the rest of the pool of bidders. There's no way the low-road contractor can make up the difference between what is specified and the hours it takes to perform the work unless they plan to cheat the workers out of the correct wages. Monitoring the job by the JLMC to substantiate or discredit what is eventually submitted on the certified payroll reports and then can be part of a larger investigation by the Labor Commissioner. One real example in my experience is a project that was significantly underbid and for days they only had two painters on site who came late but left the paint rigs out before leaving early. Then miraculously many of the rooms and hallways were painted the next day. It turns out they ran a bunch of painters dressed as janitors in to take up the tools and do the painting work at night. This would not have been discovered unless we had caught them in the act. This example is just one of literally dozens of schemes to commit wage theft to benefit the low-road contractors and the end user, who are all complicit when they knowingly take a significantly lower bid on a project. Finally, the JLMC's have their own workers' comp insurance, personal protective equipment, and are only seeking to access the job sites to protect the workers from wage shift and our contractor partners from bidding against bad contractors on construction projects. Thank you so much.
Thank you. Any Me Too's in support of this bill, please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation.
Madam Chair and members, Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Madam Chair and members, Martin Vindul 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. Aloha. Mitchell Bechtel on behalf of the Operating Engineers, Local 3, in support.
Any other supports? Okay, we will move to opposition. If we have an opposition witness, please come to the table. Are there two opposition witnesses? Then we need a support witness to sit in the audience. You each have two minutes.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members.
Okay. Good morning, Chair and members.
James Thorewactor with the California State Council of Labor. here on behalf of 80,000 hardworking men and women throughout the state. I want to thank the author, her staff, and the committee for their hard work on this issue and the continued dialogue that we have. And it does pain me to be on the opposite side of my brothers from the trades and the operators on this issue because I think we can all agree about 98% of the time we're on the same side. This is one of those outliers, but I do think that there is a reasonable solution to this. So with that, today we're in a respectful, opposed, unless amended position today. I want to state clearly that the laborers completely agree with the author and the sponsors regarding the critical need to root out wage theft and protect prevailing wage standards. Our opposition is not with the bill's intent, but rather with the bill's implementation. As currently drafted, this bill completely fails to account for public works projects that are already operating under strict, comprehensive, state-mandated enforcement oversight. To fix this we have been asking for a simple common sense amendment to prevent costly and wasteful redundancy Our proposed amendment would create a carve for job sites that already have a state labor compliance program and LCP actively operating on a project under Labor Code Sections 1771.5 and 0.8. Projects with an approved LCP already possess a dedicated, legally recognized, and state-monitored framework designed to aggressively audit payrolls and enforce prevailing wage compliance. The reality of the construction industry is that our enforcement resources are finite. Independent JLMC's should be empowered to focus their investigations exactly where they need it the most. Unorganized public works, projects, unmonitored sites, and bad actors working in an underground economy. They should not be bogged down duplicating oversight and heavily monitored projects that are already being strictly policed by state approved programs. Our safe harbor language will ensure that this bill successfully targets the true bad actors, protects public infrastructure delivery from unnecessary friction, and maximizes enforcement resources where they actually matter. Until these amendments are adopted, we must respectfully remain opposed. Thank you.
You have two minutes.
Good morning, Chairwoman Smallwood Cuevas and members of the committee. Kirk Kimmelschew here this morning on behalf of the California Building Industry Association, also in respectful opposition of AB 1859. While we appreciate the author's goal of strengthening enforcement of prevailing wage and apprenticeship requirements on public works projects, AB 1859 raises significant concerns for private property owners and residential developers. For CBIA's members, many of our construction projects include both public works and private components. Large residential and mixed-use developments often contain public infrastructure improvements such as streets, utilities, and other public facilities that are constructed alongside private residential or commercial buildings. AB 1859 does not recognize this common development structure and provides no clear guidance to our members on how access would be limited solely to the public works portion of a project. In practice, this could require property owners to allow private parties onto areas of a construction site that are entirely private, creating uncertainty, disputes, delays, and inconsistent enforcement for our members. The bill also raises some specific practical concerns. Representatives of a joint labor management committee are private parties, not government officials, yet the bill would grant them access to private property without advance notice and without clear credentialing requirements. requirements. Property owners would have little ability to verify the legitimacy of individuals requesting entry, creating security concerns, and potential liability risks on these projects. Ultimately, it places our members in a challenging position, either allow third parties onto property without clear safeguards or face substantial penalties for asserting legitimate concerns regarding security, liability, and property rights. And for those reasons, we must respectfully oppose. Thank you. Mark Neuberger on behalf of the California State Association of Counties. We're opposed unless amended. I Daniel Garcia from Labor Local 185 here in Sacramento California I oppose it and let amend it Good morning Kira Ross On behalf of the City of Corona in opposition in the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts I oppose unless amended Thank you Alejandro Martinez, Local 270, San Leclerc County. I oppose unless amended. Olegari Guzman with Labor's Local 304 in Alameda County and I oppose unless amended. Mario Salgado, I'm here on behalf of the Laborers International Union in North America, and I'm here to oppose unless amendment. Hello, my name is Mauricio Flores, I'm Local 261 San Francisco, I'm here to oppose unless amended. Doyle Radford, Laborers Local 185, I oppose this bill. Jose Mexicano, Local 270 in San Jose, I oppose unless amended. Victor De La Torre, Local 261 in San Francisco County, and I oppose unless amended. Good morning, Doyle Radford Jr., Labor's Local 185. We oppose unless amended. Good afternoon. My name is Francisco Nunez. I'm with the Labor's Local 304 in Alameda County, and I'm here in opposition unless amended. Thank you.
Okay, looks like that is it for me, too. Any questions, comments from members? Senator Rosso?
Ah! Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the author. I know that she is working really hard, works on these issues all the time as her roots in justice and fairness for working people. So I will support. support, but I was very much sort of pleased, I think, up until now, pleased that a suggestion was made as to how to fix a problem as was identified by the opposition. So I'm just wondering if that's something that could be addressed in your opinion. Or is it something that, whatever it is, I would obviously, I trust that you know how to negotiate so that fairness comes from it. And I just want to just ditto that and hope that that is actually resolved as it was brought up by the laborers.
And so you're happy to answer now. If you want to answer in your close, it's up to you. I can answer now. Please.
I'm absolutely happy to continue the conversation. As you mentioned, I have over 25 years of organized labor experience and negotiating contracts and advocating for workers. and that is my number one goal in this bill. One of the points that was mentioned by the opposition that I want to kind of talk to a little bit is the fact that currently worksites are strictly policed. They are in fact not. And I've had hearing after hearing with the departments that are responsible with, you know, going to these worksites and the Department of Labor and addressing wage theft and in my opening statement I talked about what kind of backlog we currently have And so that department who is responsible for doing these things is actually not doing it which is the premise around giving the JLMNCs more power and opportunity to go in and address some of these issues that are currently not being addressed. You know, I had a hearing with the department. It's something that the chair and I have had conversations about. and it's not something that just started when we arrived it's happening for decades and so this is just another way for us to address the fact that the departments who are responsible for taking care of workers are not doing their jobs and you know I've also talked about staffing right now the Department of Fish and Wildlife has more staff than the Department of Labor so workers are not a priority in the state. And worker safety is not a priority and definitely not their wages. And that is why I have this bill today. That is why I will continue to work with the opposition and trying to work this out. And I appreciate that comment and where you landed, continuing to work
with the opposition who suggested there is an amendment in the works. I absolutely agree with the assembly member on this bill, our enforcement mechanisms are not adequate. They're not adequate to protect workers. And I think the more that we can have folks on site engaging in those work sites from across, whether it's construction, whether it's in hospitality, whether it's in janitorial, I think it's important because our state resources have not kept up with the schemes. that workers are facing day to day on job sites. And so I appreciate the bill. I'm appreciating the continued effort to continue to work together to get to a resolution so that we're all standing on the right side together with the workers. So with that, we have a motion. Do we have a motion from Senator DeRosso? Would you like to close?
I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
We have a motion from Senator DeRosso. Please call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Small Cuevas.
Aye.
Small Cuevas, aye.
Senator Strickland.
Senator Cortese.
Senator Durazo.
Aye.
Durazo, aye.
Senator Laird.
We have a vote of 2-0.
That bill is on call for when members return. We will move now to file item number 6, and that is AB 2321. witnesses key witnesses please come to the table and begin when you're ready assembly member
good afternoon madam chair and senators I would like to begin by accepting the committee amendments
I'm sorry we're doing a B 23 21 correct okay Cal OSHA is broken I just talked about that a minute ago and I'm actually really tired of their excuses. So are the widows in
the families of the three men who died on the job in my district at Alco, Iron, and Meadows. Their names were Ray Alfaro, Alberto Anaya, and Luis Fernando Guerrero. But this isn't just about my district, this is about all of your districts. The audit of Cal OSHA I requested last year found that in the last five years, over 8,000 fines were reduced by an average of more than half. 82% of so-called Cal OSHA investigations were fake. They just send a letter. Cal OSHA's Bureau of Investigation isn't getting the job done. Only 1.7% of serious cases are being referred for criminal prosecution. Cal OSHA is clearly too overburdened to investigate serious incidents, so we're sending help. AB 2321 will create a pilot program in Alameda and Santa Clara counties, which will refer workplace incidents involving a death to those county DAs for investigation. Witnesses with me today are Sarah Phlox with the California Federation of Labor.
May proceed. You have two minutes.
Madam Chair, Member Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in strong support. We've done a lot of work to push enforcement down to the local level, to public prosecutors, starting with the bill AB 594, a mainshine bill. And this is not to duplicate the work of the Labor Commissioner. It's to free up resources so that they are able to go after wage theft. Unfortunately, that bill was only focused on enforcing the labor code not related to health and safety. We followed up with subsequent bills trying to allow for public prosecutors at the local level to do that work on health and safety. There was an IOTC bill on on live event safety that allows for that. That is in effect right now. But what the Assemblymember is doing with this bill is saying we need all of the resources we have at our disposal to make sure that workplaces are safe and to prevent the deaths that she is talking about in her communities and across the state. So this pilot will give information about allowing district attorneys to take on these cases so that we can free up those precious resources at our enforcement agencies. We think this is a great bill and urge support. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any support me twos out there? Please come to the mic and state your name and affiliation.
Catherine Vieira, Houston, United Steelworkers, District 12, in strong support. Madam Chair and members, Martin Vindiola on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you. Julie Nielsen on behalf of the National Union of Healthcare Workers in support. Rocio Madrigal in support. I am one that does reports to Cal OSHA that get ignored and get closed within two days, and people do die. So please, I ask you to vote yes. Thank you.
We have opposition witnesses. Please have a seat at the table. You each have two minutes.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Robert Woodry, California Chamber of Commerce. We are respectfully opposed to AB 2321. To be clear, you're aware of the staffing charges at Cal OSHA, which the author flagged and the audit flagged as well. And as someone who attends most Cal OSHA meetings and reviewed the audit my understanding from the recent Cal OSHA work is they have added staff and are trying to address this but it not there yet certainly I like to thank committee staff for their detailed analysis and appreciate some of the amendments to limit the bill in certain areas particularly noting the removal of workers' comp terminology, which was kind of inconsistent with Cal OSHA work and kind of difficult to work operationally.
I just want to flag one other difference, and then I'll have my colleague Karen Tynan of Ogletree Deakin speak as a practitioner in the workplace safety space about some of the practical issues with this bill. One distinction I want to flag between this bill and 594, which was just referenced and flagged in the analysis as precedent. 594, I believe, allowed for the permission for district attorneys to step in and kind of where they had time work on wage theft. This bill has a number of mandatory transitions, and that mandatory issue is one of the concerns for us in how this would work out. With that, I'll pass to my colleague Karen Tynan to discuss more of the practical implications in a workplace safety context. Thank you. Greetings, Chairperson and members. I am a workplace safety practitioner, and I have many concerns with how this bill will negatively impact the workplace safety environment. And as a preliminary matter, there are a few technical issues, but we're pleased to work on those. but my biggest concern is the negative ways that criminal enforcement will change workplace safety cases. So first, prosecutors and their investigators are not workplace safety experts. Top Cal OSHA citations in California and the likely areas of expertise needed for these fatality investigations are electrical safety, lockout tagout, fall protection, both general industry and construction, powered industrial trucks, and heavy equipment. None of those fall within the proficiency seen in district attorney investigators. And as an example of benchmarking, this past year I've worked on fatality investigations involving hydrogen sulfide exposure, excavator rollovers, confined spaces, and falls, none of which fall within district attorney expertise. Second, the real world result of this legislation is we will be forced to advise our clients not to speak to investigators because it is too risky to do so. Just like every public defender in California tells their client, don't say anything to the police, every workplace safety attorney will basically be ethically required to do the same. This is going to slow down investigations and case resolution, which isn't the bill's intent, but it is a consequence. I'd also like to point out not only with interviews, but the standards for search warrants are very different with the DA versus Cal OSHA, and we think that will also hinder investigations and slow them down. And lastly, the bill essentially creates competing investigations with the Cal OSHA inspector from enforcement and the DA investigator investigating the same incident. And at present, the Cal OSHA investigator initiates and performs those preliminary tasks, and then a BOI referral occurs. Two minutes is up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Are there any opposition me to witnesses in the room okay seeing none I will come to the dais any questions or comments okay we have a motion I wanted to just say to you before we move to a close thank you for bringing this bill forward and this pilot I think we as we talked about in the other hearing we we need more boots on deck and I think this is a step in the right direction and I appreciate you working with our committee on this so that we are able to see the fruits of this effort and that we have a report that will be submitted to the legislature at four years so we can evaluate the success of the program and look at ways that it may be implemented in other parts of our state where we know the enforcement ranks are far too low and workers need more help on the ground. So I want to thank you for that. We have a motion from Senator DeRosso, and we'll ask you to close before we go to the vote. On behalf of the widows and their families, of the three men that I mentioned, Ray Alfaro, Alberto Anaya, and Luis Fernando Guerrero, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas? Aye. Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland. Senator Cortese. Senator Durazo. Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. We have a vote of 2-0 on that bill. It is on call, and we will move to file item number 7, and that is your bill, Assemblymember AB 2575. This is my last bill. Thank you for your patience. Thank you, Chair. AI may offer promise and healthcare workers are relying on it more and more. But what happens when AI gets it wrong? In the real world, clinical judgment relies on more data inputs. Healthcare workers use sight, sound, touch, and smell to make the right call. AI models can generate false alarms, miss serious conditions, and reflect the same biases that exist in the data they were trained on. AB 2575 is built around a principle, and healthcare artificial intelligence should support clinical judgment but never replace it. AI is a new, rapidly developing technology that we are still experimenting with. AB 2575 would provide guardrails to ensure these high-risk tools used to save human lives have human oversight. AB 2575 is about accountability, transparency, and patient safety. Lastly, I am committed to addressing the needs for clarification identified in the committee analysis. Testifying with me today are Melissa B. from the California Nurses Association and Sarah Flax with the California Labor Federation. Thank you, and you each have two minutes. Oh, okay, thank you. It's BB, sorry. It's okay. So good afternoon, Sharon members. My name is Melissa Beebe. I'm a registered nurse, proud union member of the California Nurses Association, who's co-sponsoring of AB 2575 and why I'm here today. So after more than 18 years as an oncology nurse, I know that safe patient care, it's never just about what's on the screen or on a chart. Patient care is about understanding the human being in front of me through assessment, observation, and evaluation. But when employers ask nurses to rely on technology that we cannot meaningfully evaluate or override, our patient's safety is at risk. Take, for example, an AI tool for sepsis. In oncology, a sepsis alert may be a very serious and urgent matter. A sepsis alert can trigger a whole chain of steps like repeat vital signs, blood draws, antibiotics, and other interventions. Sometimes that exactly what the patient needs But if the alert is based on incomplete or misleading or biased information automatically following it can mean unnecessary treatments longer hospital stays and my time and attention being pulled away from other patients who may actually be deteriorating. Nurses must be able to evaluate a sepsis alert against the patient in front of us. In those moments, nurses must be able to use our professional and clinical judgment, question whether the alert fits, and override inappropriate AI outputs when the patient's safety requires it. We should not be pressured by our employer to automatically defer to a machine. Importantly, clinicians should have the basic information about any artificial intelligence technology being used in patient care, and hospitals and tech developers should not be able to escape any responsibility for unsafe AI systems just because a clinician is somewhere in the loop. Nurses aren't anti-tech. We use technology every day to save lives, but when technology is used in patient care, nurses... Two minutes is up. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Yeah, you should listen to us. Thank you. Madam Chair, members, Sarah Phlox from the California Federation of Labor Unions. We're also a co-sponsor of this bill. I want to follow up on what Melissa said in that we are not anti-technology, the labor movement, the nurses. We just asked the question of who is controlling the technology, who does it benefit, and who does it harm? What AB 2575 does is it puts in place the guardrails to make sure we're maximizing equitable benefits for the public, for patients, and for workers, and that we are minimizing any harm. So what it really does is it puts people and patients above profits, and it does that in three very distinct ways. It creates the conditions so that nurses here and any health care worker have real oversight of these tools because they don't fear retaliation or discipline by their employers. It also has the transparency so they know that there's making informed decisions. and it has a piece that prevents developers from severing liability, which both makes sure that all parties are held accountable, but it also creates an incentive for them to develop the safest products that avoid patient harm. And so all of those together, we think, give a very good foundation for innovation. It doesn't stifle innovation. It creates a safe environment to use these high-tech tools. So we urge your support of this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have support Me Too's? Please step to the mic. State your name, affiliation, and position. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Mike West with the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California, also in support. Navneet Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association, in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME California, in support. Catherine Vieira-Houston, United State Workers District 12, in support. Julie Nielsen, National Union of Healthcare Workers, in support. Jennifer Robles, with Health Access California, in support. Mariko Yoshihara, on behalf of Tech Equity Action, in support. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association, in support. Thank you. June Sugar, RN, with the California Alliance for Retired Americans, in support. Good afternoon, Chair and members. J.P. Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association, co-sponsor of the bill. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Please come to the table, and we might need a support witness in the audience. Thank you. You each have two minutes. Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Mark Farouk with California Hospital Association in opposition. California's hospitals believe that a licensed professional, not software, must hold the final authority over patient care. Our members do not deploy autonomous AI to make clinical decisions, and we believe that keeping a clinician in the loop on any decision informed by an AI tool is foundational to AI deployment in healthcare. Hospitals are already deploying these tools to protect patients with clinicians exercising judgment on every output. With sepsis early warning systems that can flag deterioration hours before overt clinical signs prompting a nurse or physician to assess and act, AI-assisted imaging to detect strokes earlier, giving patients minutes potentially to prevent exacerbated consequences. Early cancer screenings and detection. These technologies are not deployed without thoughtful oversight, performance, monitoring, and training. AB 2575 will have broad application extending beyond AI-based tools, but also including legacy tools that are now embedded in electronic health record systems. Finally, we are extremely concerned about the patient impact related to provisions that will allow our worker to override a clinical decision support system without liability. For these reasons, we remain opposed. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and Members. George Sorris with the California Medical Association. We're here in opposition to AB 2575 by Assemblymember Ortega. Physicians strongly support the principle that clinical judgment, not artificial intelligence, must guide patient care. However, this bill creates new physician liability that will undermine accountability and create uncertainty regarding responsibilities for medical decisions. Regarding the labor provisions of this bill, first, they blur the lines of professional accountability. Physicians are ultimately responsible for the care outcomes and must be held to a consistent standard of care. This bill will create conflicting standards between labor law protections and existing professional licensing and malpractice frameworks. Second, this bill may encourage disputes over whether an employment action was based on the performance concerns or a health care worker's use of an AI tool. This will likely lead to increased litigation and administrative complaints rather than improving patient care. Third, physician practices need flexibility to establish evidence-based policies governing the use of emerging technologies. This bill will limit physician practices' ability to ensure consistent clinical protocols and quality assurance programs across their workforce. Finally, California already license and regulates physicians and other healthcare professionals through extensive professional practice acts. Disputes regarding clinical decision-making should primarily remain within the existing regulatory and professional oversight systems rather than creating a new labor law enforcement structure. We agree that AI should never replace independent clinical judgment. However the labor provisions in this bill risk creating confusion about accountability increasing legal exposure for physicians and complicating the implementation of safe and effective AI tools For these reasons, we urge your no vote today. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer questions. Okay, thank you. Any opposition, me too, please come to the mic. Name and affiliation. Jonathan Clay on behalf of Scripps Health in opposition. Zoe Johnson on behalf of California Life Sciences in opposition. Gilbert Lara on behalf of Biocom in opposition. John Winger on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, Avamed, the National Trade Association for the Medical Device Industry, also opposed. Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, opposed. Jen Chase on behalf of the University of California, in opposition. Annalie Augustine with the Civil Justice Association of California, also opposed. Thank you. Good afternoon. Carmen Nicole Cox on behalf of the California Children's Hospital Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Yareli Marion on behalf of the California Dental Association, respectfully opposed. MJDs on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in opposition. Patrick Foy with the California Kidney Care Alliance in respectful opposition. Thank you. Preston Young from Sutter Health here in opposition. Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Okay, seeing the end of the Me Too's, we will bring it to the DICE members. Any comments, questions? I just want to say thank you, Assemblymember, for this bill. We've had several bills having to do with AI guardrails, mine included, that have not seen the light of day, And so I'm very excited that we are continuing to figure out how to properly integrate this technology and really protecting the workers' right to make informed decisions based on their professional judgment. I have one thing that I wanted to mention, and I'm hoping that as this bill moves forward, there's a way to address this. And that has to do with your bill granting workers the ability to file a complaint with a labor commissioner against an employer who retaliates or discriminates against them. However, it doesn't give direction to the labor commissioner on what they're supposed to do when they find a violation. And I think remedy matters. It's very important that there are tools to remedy the situation. We need to ensure that there's accountability and that these protections deliver on their promise, and it's hard to do that when there isn't a full-on consequence at the end of that investigation. I know you have a bill that is triple referred, and so you will have some time to address these, but I thank you for your support for accepting our amendments and look forward to the bill moving forward. and we have a motion. We have a motion from Senator DeRosso. Would you like to close? Yes, I am committed to addressing the things you just mentioned. As we move forward, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Assistant, please call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technology, and Consumer Protection. Senator Simón Cuevas? Aye. Simón Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Turazo Turazo aye Senator Laird We have a vote of two to one that bill is on call Thank you Okay, so. Okay, we will move to file item number 10. Assemblymember Connolly, thank you for your patience. are welcome to sit at the front table and begin when you're ready. Thank you. Good afternoon, Sharon members. Proud to present AB 2227, which will provide comprehensive protections for domestic farm workers against wage theft. Domestic farm Farm workers are the backbone of California's agricultural industry, yet they often are the victims of labor violations such as wage theft at the hands of their employers and farm labor contractors or what we'll call FLC. FLCs are often the worst violators, accounting for one half of all federal wage and hour violations found in California's agricultural industry. Because of the prevalence of labor violations, the state requires FLCs to purchase a surety bond. This bond functions as an added protection from exploitation and harmful work conditions, allowing workers to access bond funds to compensate for stolen wages or fines. AB 2227 will strengthen the farm labor contract license renewal process by increasing the surety bond amount. This will ensure that FLCs are held accountable and cannot leave workers high and dry. It is critical that we guarantee farm workers the pay they deserve so they can continue to care for their families. With that, I will pass it to my witness Wilfredo Miranda Alvarado, a farm worker, and Felipe Rojas Flores, a staff attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance. Great, you each have two minutes. Un contratista licenciado se negó a pagarme y a mis tres compañeros más trabajo del salario correspondiente casi de una semana de trabajo. Cuando intentamos ponerlos en contacto con ellos, primero los ignoran, luego los bloquean nuestra llamada. El salario que me debí era casi toda la renta de un mes. Tuve que dedicar tiempo extra para encontrar un nuevo trabajo y recuperar ese dinero perdido. One of my friends lost his house because he couldn't pay the rent. Until today, it's been a year and I haven't paid what I'm going to do. I'm not the only one. I know 10 of my work colleagues who have been affected by it. I know people who also have occurred this. Most of them don't know how the process works, because they have been a lot of time or because they don't know. no saben a quiénes les pueden asistir para alcanzar los salarios que se les deben la propuesta de ley ab 2227 ayudar a personas como yo al simplificar el proceso y darnos la informaci necesaria para alcanzar nuestro sueldo perdido y aumentar I would like to help people like me to simplify the process and give us the information necessary to achieve our lost salary and increase the guarantee fund to the contractors who need to pay to cover the claims for salary. I urge you to support this law proposal. And I'll be providing the English translation. Good afternoon members of the committee. My name is Wilfedro Miranda. I am a farm worker in Tulare County here representing Unidos por la Gente. For the last four years I have worked in the fields through different farm labor contractors. Over this time I have been the victim of wage theft three different times from contractors who refused to pay me for hours work and wages they legally owe me. One licensed contractor refused to pay me and three of my co-workers were almost a week's worth. And when we tried to reach them, they ignored us first and then they blocked our cause. The wages I'm owed are almost one month's rent for me. And I had to spend extra time and money to get rides to different farms to find a new job to make up this money. One of my friends lost even his housing because he couldn't pay rent. To this day, it's been more than one year and I still haven't been paid what I'm owed. I'm not the only one. Amongst 10 of my friends, more than half of them told me it has happened to them and each of them know others that have happened to them too. Most give up because they don't know how to go through the process or it takes too long or they don't know who they can contact to get these wages they're owed. AB 2227 would help people like me by making the process easier, giving us information we need to make claims for our lost wages, and raising the bond amount contractors must pay to cover wage theft claims. I urge you to support this bill. Thank you. Do you have more testimony or were you just translating for him? I'll be providing my own testimony. Okay, go right ahead. Good afternoon. My name is Felipe Rojas-Lores. I'm a staff attorney with California Rural Legal Assistance for over five years. CRLA provides legal services for low-income and rural residents of California, including farm, excuse me, including agricultural workers, and recovering wages owed to them by farm labor contractors. CRLA advocates have direct experience and know very few agricultural workers file claims with an FOC bond. Reasons for not filing include workers, the difficult process, the time it takes, and the workers not knowing about the bond's existence. In TRLA's experience, it takes years before a wage claim is adjudicated due to the significant delays at the Labor Commissioner's Office. When we were invited to testify here today, we were reminded of five different clients. Collectively, these clients were owed $67,000 by a single FLC. Two of these clients waited over three years to recover their wages from the bond after filing an initial wage claim with the Labor Commissioner. CRA waited four and a half months for the Labor Commissioner to provide bond policy information pursuant to a PRA request before being able to recover from the bond. The next two clients waited over two years and three months between filing the wage claim and receiving a partial bond payment. The $50,000 bond amount was not enough to cover the combined judgment of these four clients, which left the fifth client without any bond funds to recover from. Had the bond requirements of AB 20,000 been in place at that time, this FIS worker would still be able to collect from the bond today. We urge you and your support on AB 2227 to take one step forward in holding farm labor contractors fully responsible for their labor and wages practices. Thank you. Thank you. Support Me Too's, please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position. Hello, Chair and Committee members. My name is Beth Spittler. On behalf of the California Food and Farming Network, Health in Partnership, Community Alliance with Family Farmers, California Environmental Justice Alliance Action, and Farm to People here in support. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Elisa Ambriz. On behalf of the California Farmworker Coalition, Center for Farmworker Families, Legal Aid at Work, Community Legal Services in East Palo Alto, Lideres Campesinas, Santa Clara County Wage Dev Coalition, in support. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Abraham Mendoza here on behalf of Central Coast Alliance United for a Sustainable Economy, Centro Binacional para el Desarrollo Indígena Oaxaqueño, Mixteco Indígena Community Organizing Project, and TODEC Legal Center in support. Thank you. la ley AB 2227. Gracias. Hello, my name is Jesus Luna, community organizer with Proyecto Mixtejo Indígena Impaso Robles in support of AB 2227. Buenas tardes a todos. Mi nombre es Eulalia Mendoza, organizadora comunitaria con la organización Proyecto Mixtejo Indígena. Estoy aquí en apoyo a la ley AB 2227. Hello, good afternoon. My name is Eulelia Mendoza. I'm a community organizer with Indigenous Mixteco Project and I'm also in support of AB 2227. Hello, my name is Susana Conceco, representing the Justicia Ambiental and the Group of Unidos por Nuestra Gente. I am an organizational organizer y apoyo la ley. Hello, my name is Susana Conceco, and I'm here with Environmental Justice Voice, and I'm here in support of AB 2227. Hello, my name is Yehaira Ramirez-Cigala. I'm here as a community member, former farm worker, and now a community educator here in support of the bill. Catalina Sanchez, on behalf of the co-sponsor California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation, and also registering support for Hijas del Campo, Centro de la Raza, and Equal Rights Advocates. Thank you. Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Mariko Yoshihara, registering support for North Bay Jobs with Justice, Los Angeles Food Policy Council, San Diego Food System Alliance, and Asian Pacific Islander Forward Movement. Thank you. Hello, Katie Valenzuela on behalf of the California Network for Immigrant and Worker Justice, a new addition in support. Thank you. Rocio Madrigal for California Farmworker Coalition. I process wage claims, as you heard earlier, as a committee. One of the steelworkers said there's 44,000 backed up claims in agriculture. I would dare to say ours are in the hundreds of thousands, and we wait three to five years. Thank you. Thank you. Okay that looks like the end of the Support Me Too Opposition witnesses please come to the table If you are in support witnesses please have a seat in the audience You each have two minutes. Good afternoon Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Kimberly Clark with the California Farm Labor Contractor Association. FLCs are integral to California agriculture, representing over 40% of the workforce. Most are small, family-owned businesses, and many started as farm workers themselves. We agree with the overarching goal to protect farm workers. Bad actors harm farm workers and undercut ethical, law-abiding employers. with just 5% of FLCs responsible for 65% of violations. However, we respectfully oppose AB 2227 unless amended to maintain FLC bonds tied to payroll. The bill aims to create parity between the FLC and foreign labor bonds. However, as the analysis of AB 1362 last year addressed, the bonds are purposely distinct. FLC bonds cover potential violations during employment. Thus, they are tied to the wages they are designed to protect. Foreign labor bonds are tied to gross receipts, covering potential harms during the recruitment or pre-hire process. The proposed shift from gross receipts also lacks a standard for verification. Unlike payroll, which is documented through EDD reports, gross receipts currently have no established method for verification and instead rely on self-reporting. We agree the Labor Commissioner should share information regarding the FLC bond with relevant parties if an employer fails to make whole an employee after a claim has been adjudicated, an all due process regarding notification and appeals has been respected. However, we encourage efficient and direct methods of communication rather than an expensive and time-consuming overhaul of the state's public database. Proponents continue to complain that FLC bonds regularly run out, yet have not provided evidence or data to support this claim. As many of the concerns, the proponents' voice stem from delays and issues with the Labor Commissioner's claims process. We hope to continue working with stakeholders and the committee to address the root cause of these issues, helping protect farm workers and the state's agricultural industry for Healthier California. Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Brian Little for California Farm Bureau, and I appreciate the opportunity to be here. I'd like to start by thanking the author for his efforts on the American wine bill that met an unfortunate end yesterday. American consumers deserve to know that when they buy what they think is a bottle of American wine, that it actually is, and we appreciate all your efforts in that regard. We are here in an opposed, less amended position on AB 2227 for the reasons that Kimberly just outlined in her testimony. The idea behind this, and we also, by the way, should express appreciation to the author and the sponsors for their ongoing conversations around trying to address some of our concerns about the bill. There are still some remaining, and as a result, we remain on an opposed, less amended position. The principal concern we continue to have is tying the required bond amount to gross receipts rather than payroll. A surety bond amounts to insurance policies designed to ensure the risk that farm workers have if they're not paid what they're due and owed. and provide a means to ensure that that actually winds up happening at some point. That risk is measured by the size of the payroll, not by the gross receipts of the employer. That a pretty important distinction and that one of the things that continues to have us be in an opposed and less amended position We hope to be able to continue conversations with the sponsor and with the author and try to iron out some of these issues that we remain continue to have and as a result we remain on an opposed and less amended position. Thank you. Thank you. Opposition Me Too's, please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position. Hello, good afternoon. Matthew Allen with Western Growers, also opposed. Thank you. Good afternoon, Michael Miller, California Association of Wine and Grape Growers. We are opposed to less amended. We thank the author for meeting with us. We look forward to continuing our conversations and removing our position at some point. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Taylor Truffle on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations, respectfully opposed to less amended. Good afternoon, Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition. Okay, we'll bring it back to the Dias members, comments, questions. Please, Senator Rosso. If I can, if I have your permission to address one of the speakers. Yes, please. One of the witnesses. So, I want to ask the Lord for that our government is not working as it should work so that you receive the salaries that you have worked so hard to obtain. So, I want to say that with this law proposal, I hope that this helps you achieve what is just in terms of your salaries. and we are doing some of us everything possible to help our community. Thank you for being here and for your value. Madam Chair, I just want to thank him and actually ask for to be forgiven that our government is not functioning the way that it should so that he gets what he deserves and what's fair and what's just. Absolutely, absolutely and thank you, and thank you gracias to the witness and justice delayed is justice denied and when an employer steals your wages, as you laid out it costs it costs the family, it costs the community and unfortunately we have a severe wage theft crisis in California this bill is seeking to address that I want to thank the author for bringing it forward and we have a motion from Senator Rosso and we invite you to close. Yeah, no, thank you, Madam Chair, and I appreciate the conversation. And yes, just to reaffirm, conversations are ongoing. We are aware of some of the opposition's concerns and intend to address this in a way where I think we can come to agreement. So with that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Please call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smaller Cuevas? Aye. Smaller Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? We have a vote of 2 to 1. That bill is on call. Thank you. Okay, we see Assemblymember Patrick Ahrens, who's been in and out patiently on file item number four, so we're moving up in the file, and that is AB 1564. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to come sit at the front table. Thank you so much Madam Chair And thank you Madam Chair and members When employees discuss workplace matters such as a discipline or grievance with their union representatives, they often believe that these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed. AB 1564 makes communication between an employee and their union representative confidential. which is essential to fostering trust and ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry from PORAC. Wonderful. You have two minutes. Madam Chair, members, Randy Perry with PORAC. The bill simply codifies PIRB law, case law. There have been several cases that have ruled that these are confidential in an effort to keep trust between a union rep and their member. Um, we've had some cases that have ruled in our favor, but it's not in statute. So they can just keep occurring and keep occurring and there's no penalties involved. Um, we are not asking for penalties in a bill. The bill simply codifies the perp rules. And the bottom line is if somebody is in being investigated by an employer, they call in their union rep. They talk with them about what are my options? What should I do here? and then they turn around and call the union rep and said, what did your union member just tell you about this? And we think it's wrong. Imperva has ruled that way and we're simply trying to codify. I'll just close with some of the opposition has been comparing this to a couple of bills that were vetoed back by Jerry Brown. Those were not confidentiality bills. They were privilege bills. the opposition their letter says that you know a union rep and a union member's conversation is not on par with a doctor or lawyer this is not a privilege we're not seeking a privilege that's a different level we're talking about it's just confidential and we're codifying per block thank you thank you are there any support me twos in the audience please come to the mic seeing them we will move to opposition is there an opposition witness or witnesses okay we see two Please come to the table. You each have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. My name is Eric Lawyer with the California State Association of Counties, respectfully opposed to AB 1564, a bill that would mirror an evidentiary privilege while hindering important workplace investigations. We respectfully request a no vote on AB 1564 today for three primary reasons. First, although the bill states that it is intended to be consistent with and not in conflict with William S. Hart Union High School District per decision, this bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision. This bill would forego the circumstantial analysis and weighing of employees' and employers' interest and would categorically prohibit certain lines of questioning, exceeding the scope of that decision. The need for this change has not been established. there is no evidence that PERB is not appropriately protecting employee interest in regard to employer questions. Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, this bill will still function like a privilege in some contexts. For example, in two-party litigation between an employer and an employee, if an employer is prohibited by AB 1564 from requesting a court to compel certain testimony, that effectively be off limits to discovery, with a similar result as a privilege. However, unlike privileges in professional contexts, such as attorney, client, or physician, patient, AB 1564 does not contain safeguards. There is no third-party regulator, such as the California Bar Association or California Medical Board. There are no provisions for addressing conflicts of interest and duties to multiple members of the bargaining unit, which are acutely concerning in this context, where a union agent may receive information where two employees are adverse to each other and an employer has an obligation to investigate, such as a workplace violence investigation. Unlike the 2024 version of this bill, AB 2421, this bill does not contain an exception for circumstances where the representative was a witness or party to any of the events forming the basis of a potential administrative, disciplinary, or criminal investigation. Third, as well be covered by my colleague from AXA, regardless of whether the bill's provisions are characterized as a Two minutes is up. Respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Good afternoon. Dorothy Johnson on behalf of the Association of California School Administrators. In respectful opposition to AB 1564 and picking up where my colleague left off, we do see this as interfering with our ability to conduct thorough, timely, and accurate investigations, even at the administrative level, before it reaches the criminal level. This is consistent with our opposition on the prior iterations of this bill when it has been brought before the legislature, for one of which the governor's veto message at the time, Governor Brown said, this bill would compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations into safety, harassment, and other allegations. As school employers take their commitment to students and other employees seriously, especially in light of the numerous AB 218-related claims for childhood sexual assault, The ability to discuss and investigate again at the administrative level is paramount to our commitment to that safety. Administrative investigations are critical to building evidence that could lead to potential criminal investigations that help remove bad actors from our school settings. We're also continuously concerned about the provision that employers may not even know they're asking for confidential information and therefore could be in violation. While we appreciate there's no penalty, that is still cause for concern that a confidential communication was made that could affect the day-to-day activities and block our access to that information. We respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Okay, thank you. Any opposition Me Too's come to the mic, state your name and affiliation. Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and Opposition. Lucy Salcido-Carter with the Alameda County Office of Education in respectful opposition, also representing California Association of School Business Officials, also in opposition. Sarah Ducat on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the League of California Cities in opposition. Jean Hurst here today on behalf of the Urban Counties of California, also respectfully opposed. Next. Ophelia Segetti on the behalf of the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposes this bill. Thank you. Seeing no other Me Too's, we'll move to the dais. Any comments, questions? Seeing none, we have a motion. Would you like to close, Assemblymember? Thank you, Senator. I just wanted to just note that this bill does not limit the ability of any local agency to conduct thorough criminal investigations. I would never author anything like that. The employer can interview potential parties and witnesses to the facts of the workplace incident or misconduct And finally this bill has no restrictions on union officers to testify as a participant witness And quite simply PERB has never permitted these inquiries into representational communications because they inherently chill union representation And I challenge the opposition to identify any PERB case permitting inquiries into representational communications. I care about this bill. I care about the fact that when we have confidential communication between employers and their union representatives that it's confidential. We do not want to have a situation where union members do not feel safe, do not feel comfortable to go to their shop steward or union representative and prefer to hide things. we all know what that leads to, which is worst outcomes not only for our community, but for our employers and employees, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Please call the roll. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Small Cuevas? Aye. Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? That bill has a vote of 3-0 on call. Thank you. Seeing Assemblymember Krell is with us patiently waiting, so we are going to move down to file item number 12, AB 2646. If you have witnesses, they're welcome to sit at the front table. Thank you. The last time I was in labor this long, I gave birth to a beautiful big boy. Well, maybe you'll give birth to a beautiful bill. Let's see what happens today. You may begin. Thank you, Madam Chair. and good afternoon senators. Today I have the honor of presenting you with Assembly Bill 2646. This is a simple yet essential bill that ensures that our farm workers get not even the wage that they deserve, but a wage floor of $19.75 an hour. As you probably know on this committee, our farm, our agricultural industry in California is close to a $60 billion industry, but all of that is on the backs of farm workers who literally do backbreaking work all day to put food on our table in all of our districts throughout our great state. All this bill does is set a wage floor of $1975 an hour. And as I've been meeting with stakeholders to present this bill, I've learned that many farms pay more than that. But by ensuring that we have this floor, we help people who have gone from barely getting by, frankly, to not getting by at all in this economy as the costs of everything have gone up for them, as they're dealing with the impacts of climate change, of wage theft, of pesticide-choked air, of sexual harassment and abuse in the fields, of the lowest wages in California for some of the most difficult work. With me today, I'm pleased to introduce you to Maria Contreras, who's a farm worker in California, I believe in the Stanislaus County area. And I'd like to call her to testify. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es María Contreras. En el nombre de los campesinos, estoy aquí para apoyar el proyecto de la ley AB 2646. Good morning. My name is María Contreras. On behalf of farm workers, I am here in support of AB 2646. He vivido en Modesto por m de 25 a Ahorita trabajo en tres temporadas diferentes piscando tomate cherry chavacanos I have lived in Modesto for more than 25 years Right now I work three different seasons picking tomatoes cherries and apricots I leave my house at 3 in the morning so I can start work at 5 a During the tomato season, I drive up two hours so I can get to work. All three of my jobs are hard. In the tomato fields, you work on your knees, filling two buckets per trip in each hand that weigh 25 pounds each. I fill 120 to 130 buckets a day. Desde que empieza el día, el sol me pega directamente y no hay sombra. Con los chavacanos y las cherries, uno tiene que cargar la escalera de un árbol a otro. Cuando un árbol no tiene mucha fruta, de todos modos, uno tiene que subirse para piscar la poquita fruta que tiene. From the moment the day begins, the sun beats down directly on me, and there is no shade. With apricots and cherries, you have to carry your ladder from one tree to another. When a tree does not have much fruit, you still have to climb up to pick the little fruit it has. I am a mother of six. Two of my children are grown, but four of my children are grown, but four of them still depend on me, along with my granddaughter. My biggest expenses are rent and car insurance. My rent is $2,000 a month, and my oldest son helps me. Uno de los sacrificios que hago para mantener a mi familia es manejar mi carro pequeño que no tiene aire acondicionado. Les pido que usen el poder que tienen para ayudarnos a proteger nuestros salarios. Y antemano, muchas gracias. One of the sacrifices I make to support my family is driving my small car, which does not have any air conditioning. I ask you to use the power you have to help us protect our wages. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have Me Too's in support of this bill? Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position. Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support. Okay, we will move to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? If so, please come to the table and support witnesses. Please have a seat in the audience. You each have two minutes. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Matthew Allen, representing Western Growers Association. Pleased to be here today and appreciate the opportunity to testify in opposition to AB 2646. This bill would increase the hourly wage for H-2A employees and the associated corresponding employees in California to $19.75 per hour. That represents a 17% wage increase. In addition, the hourly rate would continue to be increased each January based on the cost of living adjustment for Social Security benefits California agriculture depends on a reliable seasonal workforce When growers cannot find a sufficient number of domestic workers federal law specifically allows them to utilize the H-2A program to fill temporary labor shortages. While this bill explicitly avoids referencing this program, the definitions and structure clearly target this federally regulated program and the employers who utilize it. This will absolutely make it more difficult for farms in California to remain viable into the future. The context around this bill is material and matters. The H-2A program is already very complex and layered with built-in costs. Employers are required to provide housing and offer transportation, meals, or provisioning of kitchens. There are direct and substantial costs associated with each of those specific items as well. For example, providing utilities, gas, fuel for the transportation, all of those costs continue to go up. This all comes at a time when California is already facing rising food costs, shrinking ag acreage, and mounting regulatory burdens. As an example of that, a long-running study has been conducted going back to 2006, looking at cost per acre on the coast. And we're looking at $106 regulatory cost per acre back in 2006. Those numbers were evaluated and updated in 2024, and right now it's $1,600 per acre regulatory cost. That's over a 1,000% increase. For all these reasons, we're opposed to the bill. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition as a cost driver to AB 2646. We stand alongside Western growers in opposition to this bill. California agriculture is a $49 billion industry already facing rising labor costs, increased utility costs, expanded overtime mandates, and mounting environmental regulations. AB 2646 piles onto this by imposing a new sector-specific minimum wage mandate that an independent economic analysis estimates will cost California farms $256 million to $736 million per year. And those figures don't include the 218,000 primary crop workers who could also be impacted. The COLA mechanism compounds the problem permanently. Agricultural labor productivity has grown at just 0.7% annually over the past decade, yet the Social Security COLA has averaged 2.8%, which is four times faster. Tying ag wages to that index artificially inflates costs every year, regardless of how farms are actually performing. By layering state mandates on top of federal standards, it makes California a less viable place to operate. These mandates would directly increase food costs for consumers. It also threatens rural jobs and notably family farms, which is roughly 98% of California's agricultural businesses and a pivotal anchor to our rural communities. For these and other reasons, we oppose AB 2646 as a cost driver. Thank you. Any opposition may choose, please state your name and affiliation. Good afternoon again, Madam Chair and Committee Members, Brian Little for the California Farm Bureau, also in opposition for the reasons stated by the witnesses. Thank you. Kimberly Clark, California Farm Labor Contractors Association, respectfully opposed Michael Miller, California Association of Wine Group Growers We have growers who are going out of business right and left This bill will help put more growers out of business Thank you Good afternoon, Tricia Gerringer with Agricultural Council of California, respectfully opposed Good afternoon, Taylor Truffaut on behalf of a variety of agricultural associations We're in respectful opposition Marisol Ibarra-Buslama with California Advocate, also different agricultural groups. Catalina Sanchez, registering support for a bill on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation. Thank you. Okay, thank you. We will bring it to the dice. Any comments, questions? We have a motion. I move the bill. Thank you very much. And I also, if I can just comment about how disappointed it is to hear that $19.75 minimum wage for our farm workers is so difficult. Why is that so impossible to pay? they do on so little and they do so much. I hear every time there's a bill to improve people's working conditions or wages, there's this opposition. It's very disturbing and it's very disappointing. So I very proudly, this is the least, the least that we could do for these men and women who work so hard trying to raise a family. So I very proudly move the bill. Thank you for those comments. And we have a motion. Would you like to close? Thank you very much. And thanks to Senator Durazo for your comments and also for your work on Senate Bill, I think 525, which set a wage standard for health care workers. That's exactly what we're doing here. Clearly it's needed. Appreciate all of your work, this committee's work, and respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Please call the roll. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Small-Ruevas? Aye. Small-Ruevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird. We have a vote of 2 to 1. That bill is on call. Thank you. And I see we have Assemblymember Calra. Thank you. And we have about three minutes to be out of this room, so we are very excited that you're here. And that is file item number 11, AB 2495. All right. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. AB 2495 expands the scope of prohibited unfair immigration-related practices that employers use to intimidate and dissuade workers from asserting their workplace rights. I'm going to ask each of my witnesses to just go ahead and if they can try to give about a minute each. Haley McAllister, Senior Staff Attorney for Legal Aid at Work, and Sydney Fong, Policy Director with AAPI's for civic empowerment. Thank you very much. You do have two minutes, though, if you need to use it. Okay. Whew. Okay, they can take my time. Can you hear me with that? Hayley McAllister on behalf of Legal Aid at Work which is a statewide nonprofit that advocates for workplace rights including through legal clinics serving workers all across the state We also a proud co of AB 2495 In the current political climate that we're seeing, undocumented workers have to take real and significant risks when they step forward to assert their workplace rights, and they know that. And as a result, many workers are afraid to speak up even when they're subjected to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, or discrimination. That fear doesn't just harm the immigrant workers. It undermines enforcement of California's laws for all workers. So as advocates across the country, we're seeing employers weaponize the current overzealous tactics that immigration authorities are using. A few instances that have come up in our work recently is an employer announcing at a meeting, hey, my best friend works for ICE. And as long as there's no issues here, they're not going to come to our workplace. or a manager told their workforce that they should think about where they should hide when ICE does come and suggested that they hide in the trash or jump out the window. Another employer, business owner, suggests that talking to government enforcement agencies that enforce workplace protections will facilitate the deportation of those workers, insinuating that these labor agencies are going to deport them. Falsely, of course. This conduct effectively shuts down workers' rights before workers can assert them or even learn them. It falls through the cracks of our current regulatory scheme, and AB 2495 seeks to change that. Thank you. Hello, Chair and Members. My name is Sydney Fong. I'm the Policy Director at APIs for Civic Empowerment, API Force. We're a proud co-sponsor of AB 2495. According to a UC Merced analysis from last year, private sector employment declined sharply after the onslaught of ICE abductions last summer. ICE presence across our state has resulted in a climate of fear among our communities in every aspect of public life, and unscrupulous employers have exploited this fear by intimidating workers into silence through references to immigration enforcement. An immigrant worker who sought support from a Filipino worker center in Southern California had experienced this firsthand. He was a caregiver with a tenuous immigration status and was forced to work for 14 hour days, receiving only one hundred thirty dollars a day. And his boss spoke frequently about immigration raids and suggested that he avoid speaking about his immigration status with anyone in order to prevent authorities from investigating the care home. On at least one occasion, the boss explicitly threatened to call immigration enforcement after a mistake was made at work. And we believe no worker should be subjected to such a climate, yet this member's story is too common among immigrants and refugees. And that why we must strengthen our labor laws to protect workers against such abusive employer practices We seek to build upon existing protections in our labor code to cover these preemptive threats that coerce workers into silence and we urge an aye vote today on AB 2495. Thank you. Thank you. Any me to's in support please. Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you. Jean Hurst registering the support of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors. Rebecca Gonzalez, Western Center on Law and Poverty, in support. Monica Madrid, Coalition for Humane and Immigrant Rights, cheerleaders, prod co-sponsor. Emily Ayala with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, in support. Ken Wang, on behalf of the co-sponsors, California Employment Lawyers Association and Equal Rights Advocates, also registering support for California Network for Immigrant and Worker Justice. Thank you. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association and support. Thank you. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also conveying support from the California Nurses Association. Thank you. Thank you. Is there any opposition witness here with us? Seeing none. Any opposition Me Too's in the room? Seeing none. Members, comments, questions? We have a motion. Please close. I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you. We have a motion from Senator Durazo. Let's call the roll. The motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Senator Smaller-Juevas? Aye. Smaller-Juevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese? Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye. Senator Laird? We have a vote of two to one. Bill is on call. Thank you, Assemblymember. Thank you. Okay, we have our members, so we are going to start with the consent file. Assistant, please call the roll. On the consent calendar, Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. The consent calendar is out. Moving on to file item number one, that's AB 1054, Gibson. Motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. We have a vote of five to zero. That bill is out. Moving on to file item number two, AB 1383, McKenner. Motion is due pass to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is 4-0. The chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. Moving on to file item number 3, AB605, Marsucci. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Environmental Quality. The current vote is 3 The chair voting aye Senator Strickland No Strickland no Senator Cortese Aye Cortese aye We have a vote of 4 That bill is out Moving on to file item number 4, AB 1564, Aaron's. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The current vote is 3-0, with the chair and vice chair voting aye. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 5-0. That bill is out. Moving on to file item number 5, AB 1859, Ortega Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary The current vote is 2-0, with the chair voting aye Senator Strickland? No
Strickland, no
Senator Cortese? Aye Cortese, aye Senator Laird? Aye Laird, aye Okay, we have a vote of 4-1, that bill is out Moving on to file item number 6, AB 2321, Ortega Motion is due passed as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations The current vote is 2-0, with the chair voting aye. Senator Strickland?
No.
Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?
Aye.
Cortese, aye. Senator Laird?
Aye.
Laird, aye. We have a vote of 4-1. That bill is out. File item number 7, AB 2575, Ortega. The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Privacy, Digital Technology, and Consumer Protection. The current vote is 2-1, with the chair voting aye. And the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese?
Aye.
Cortese, aye. Senator Laird?
Aye.
Laird, aye. We have a vote of 4 to 1. That bill is out. Moving down to file item number 9, AB 2129, Flora. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. The current vote is 4 to 0, with the chair and vice chair voting aye, Senator Cortese.
Aye.
Cortese, aye. We have a vote of 5 to 0. That bill is out. AB 2227, file item number 10, Connolly. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is 2-1 with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 4-1. That bill is out. AB 2995, file item 11, Calbra. Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. The current vote is 2-1. The chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. Order 1, that bill is out. File item 12, AB 2646, Krell. Motion is due passed 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 Laird? Aye. Laird, aye. We have a vote of 4 to 1. That bill is out. And that concludes our committee meeting for today. Senate Committee on Labor, Public Employment, and Retirement is adjourned.