Assembly Labor And Employment Committee

Thank you. the CEQA exemptions passed through the Budget Act last year in SB 131. Last year, the legislature passed Senate Bill 131 through the budget process, which created over a dozen new CEQA exemptions. Many of these CEQA exemptions are sensible and promote needed development that doesn't harm the environment or jeopardize human health. However, the bill also created an unprecedented CEQA exemption for advanced manufacturing, which was broadly defined as well as neglecting to include protections for workers, habitat, and tribal resources. As you will recall, many elected members, including many on your committee here today, raised serious concerns about this policy when it was jammed through the legislature at the end of session. The bill passed on the condition that further changes would be taken to revisit the definition for advanced manufacturing and add stronger protections for habitat for sensitive species and for tribal resources. SB 954 follows through on those commitments. Speaking specifically to the labor piece, SB 954 adds critical protections for workers on advanced manufacturing sites seeking a CEQA exemption. Specifically, the bill requires skilled and trained workforce and prevailing wage for workers at advanced manufacturing facilities, including both construction and operation at these facilities. SB 954 also goes further with labor protections by requiring that project applicants meet high road employment standards, which includes good wages above the local or regional living standard, commitments to invest in employee training, incorporating worker voice, and requiring safe and healthy working conditions. As the committee analysis notes, high road employment standards are becoming the standard. These labor protections are rigorous, but they are rigorous for a reason. Advanced manufacturing, as defined in SB 954, includes very polluting and high-risk industries like semiconductors that have a history of harming the health of workers. A CEQA exemption for manufacturing of any kind is unprecedented, and so requiring that these manufacturing projects are labor leaders ensures that we are not sacrificing workers' rights to a safe environment in their workplace and in the communities where they live. SB 954 also adds environmental guardrails to the advanced manufacturing CEQA exemption, including requiring that CEQA be triggered for facilities near sensitive receptors or if facilities emit significant amounts of air pollution. Taken together, SB 954 meets the promise of cleanup on SB 131 and provides a path forward to streamline CEQA while retaining important protections for workers, the environment, and communities. With me as lead witnesses today, I have Elmer Lazardi from the Labor Federation and Gabriel

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Gabriel Tolson, and I'm here in support of SB 954 on behalf of the Planning and Conservation League.

Apologies. Thanks.

This bill represents a full year of advocacy by more than 200 environmental justice, public health, conservation, and labor organizations, along with commitments from more than 30 legislators to fix the, quote, advanced manufacturing CEQA exemption enacted under SB 131 last year. That exemption applied to more than 80 categories of industrial projects, many of which use and might release chemicals that can cause cancer, birth defects, and other health problems, even when the facilities are located near homes, schools, daycare centers, or hospitals. Never before had the legislature allowed such hazardous land uses to bypass requirements for transparency, community safety, and habitat protection. The importance of these protections continues to be demonstrated by recent emergencies in Southern California. In late May of this year, as Elmer mentioned, explosion risks at the Garden Grove GKN Aerospace Facility, which was built before CEQA, forced the evacuation of more than 50,000 residents. Around the same time, a fire at a tighter recycling facility in Southgate sent thick black smoke into surrounding communities and prompted a shelter-in-place order. That incident occurred only a few miles south of the former Exide Battery Recycling Facility, which emitted toxic lead pollution into nearby neighborhoods for decades and has already cost the public more than $770 million in cleanup expenses. For more than 50 years, CEQA has allowed community members and workers to participate in planning decisions when facilities like these are proposed. Mitigation measures secured through CEQA have often included the installation of air filters in surrounding homes and schools, the replacement of hazardous chemicals with safer alternatives, training and resources for local emergency services, response departments and conservation of habitat for sensitive species. These protections must be restored for projects like GKN Aerospace, Exide, and the other hazardous project types exempted under SB 131. I thank you for your time and respectfully urge your aye vote today on SB 954. Thank you.

members Jacob Evans with Sierra California and support from Mended to strengthen the guardrails in the bill and also registering the same position for the Western Center on law and poverty Green Foothills and Californians against waste thank you good afternoon Christine is Grange with the Center for biological diversity and strong support thank

Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty, support if amended. Katie Valenzuela on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment, Clean Water Action, California Nurses for Environmental Health and Justice, Center for Environmental Health and PSIRA in the support if amended.

Mariela Aracho, Leadership Council for Justice and Accountability in support.

Vanessa Flores on behalf of Clean and Healthy California in support. Marquis King-Meso, Natural Resources Defense Council, support if amended. Thank you for your leadership. Hi Marie Lu on behalf of CEHA, Mothers Out Front in Silicon Valley, Endangered Habitat leads and the Environmental Action Committee of West Marin in support if amended. Thank you. Judy Yee, State Building and Construction Chase Council in support. Thank you. Chloe Shea on behalf of California Environmental Voters in support, also expressing support for Environmental Action Committee of West Marin, Indivisible Santa Cruz County, California Coastal Protection Network, in support of amended positions for Center for Biological Diversity, Center on Race, Poverty, and the Environment. Thank you. Good afternoon. Mitch Steiger with CFT, a union of educators and classified professionals, also in support. Hello. Ada Welder with Earth Justice here in support. Frankie Gracie on behalf of the Blue Green Alliance in support. Sam Appel on behalf of UAW Region 6 in support. Hi, Natalie Brown on behalf of Defenders of Wildlife, the Sonoma Land Trust, Environmental Defense Fund, Pacific Forest Trust, and the Nature Conservancy in support. Also voicing a support if amended position on behalf of Restore the Delta, Resource Renewal Institute, the Environmental Protection Information Center, and the San Francisco Baykeeper. Thank you so much. Hi, I'm Junie Bedain, UAW 4811 member in support. Thank you. I'm Ernest Walker, an organizer with UAW 4011. I'm in support. I'm Teresa Nguyen, a member of UAW 4811 in support. Good afternoon, Chair members. J.P. Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support.

Sorry, Madam Chair and members, Connor Gusman, behalf of Teamsters, California, and unite here in support. Sorry for being late. Good afternoon. I'm Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to SB 954. We appreciate Senator Blake Spears' continued efforts to clean up this bill, and we have no objection to the public works portion. However, there are still critical concerns. Our concerns are with the private entity piece specifically the skilled and trained workforce mandate and the labor peace agreement requirement The skilled and trained workforce provisions for private manufacturers applies to every contractor and subcontractor at every tier and carries steep penalties including per month for a missed report and $2,000 per day per worker for non-compliance. These are costly compliance burdens layered onto a private manufacturer simply trying to use a CEQA exemption to build a facility. To our knowledge, the labor peace agreement provision that conditions an environmental exemption on an agreement would be unprecedented in CEQA law. A labor peace agreement requires an employer to remain neutral in any union organizing effort, often before a single worker has been hired or a project has broken ground. Consider a manufacturer evaluating where to locate a new facility. If California requires a labor peace agreement just to access this exemption and a competing state does not, that's a real factor in site selection decision. Their agreement would be required before the facility is ever built or a single job is created, and California risk losing the very investment this exemption is designed to attract. California has already lost 600,000 manufacturing jobs since 2000, nearly 36% of the entire sector. CEQA is an environmental review statute. It was never intended to be a vehicle for extracting labor peace agreements that have nothing to do with environmental impact. For these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 954. Excuse me. Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Luis Morante on behalf of the Bay Area Council. The Bay Area Council represents about 400 of the largest employers in the region. We're the first business group in California to back AB 32 because we believe California should lead the world in building a clean economy. But we worry California is becoming a cautionary tale of what not to do. California has some of the cleanest electricity, the toughest efficiency standards, and the cleanest fuels in the country. If this bill wants to maximize global environmental impact and local job benefits of advanced manufacturing, we should be keeping that manufacturing here under our standards. But this bill functionally repeals the CEQA exemption, encouraging that to happen. As written, SB 954 goes beyond cleanup. Its new land use requirements, certification process, labor requirements make the bill more difficult in many cases than actually just going through the CEQA process. Some of these requirements in the bill, such as the LEED certification, are impossible to perform during permitting because LEED certification happens after construction. We're not opposed to environmental guardrails. We are opposed to requirements that are impossible to meet and that drive away the projects, jobs, and climate benefits that we should be competing for. Consider Anthro Energy, a Bay Area battery company. California awarded Anthro more than $5 million through the Energy Commission. But last December, Anthro announced their first large-scale factory, not here but in Louisville, Kentucky, where roughly two-thirds of the electricity still comes from burning coal. That's largely because they figured that building in California was too hard, again, largely because of CEQA. That company's carbon footprint didn't shrink because it moved out of the state. It grew, but it was out of sight and off our books, and that's just not a strategy for fighting climate change. For these reasons, we must respectfully oppose SB 954. Thank you.

Paul Schaefer with the California Council for Affordable Housing and respectful opposition. Thank you. Afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Los Angeles Area Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition. Thank you. Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association also in opposition Catherine Charles on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition in opposition Thank you Good afternoon Madam Chair and members Raymond Contreras with Lighthouse Public Affairs on behalf of Abundant Housing, Los Angeles, SPUR, Circulate Planning and Policy, Student Homes Coalition, and California in opposition. Thank you. Hi, Jenny Aguilar on behalf of California Business Properties Association, NAOP California and California Business Roundtable in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Jacob Brim with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition.

Assemblymember Ward.

Resource subcommittee. No, we're still in our subcommittee. Okay. We'll move it when we have a quorum. Thank you

Thank you. I apologize for that. But, yes, we do have quorums, so we can establish that. Please, Secretary, please call the roll. Ortega.

Ortega here. Alanis.

Any additional comments?

And with that, would you like to close?

Thank you. Secretary, please call the roll. File item number two, SB 954, Blakespeare. Motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega?

Ortega, aye. Alanis?

El Huwari, aye. Kalra?

Kalra, aye. Lee?

Lee, aye. Ward?

Ward, aye. 5-0. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Next up, we have, I saw this, Senator Gonzalez here.

I'm going to grab the witnesses. Excuse me, Madam Chair. They're here somewhere.

If we can move the consent calendar.

Aye.

I'm here to present Senate Bill 966, which will codify critical safety standards and protect refinery workers from rollback regulations. In 2012, a fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond endangered 19 workers and resulted in 15,000 residents seeking medical care. an investigation actually found the disaster could have been prevented if the refinery had acted on worker safety concerns. In response to disasters like this, OSHA, or the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board, adopted updated process safety management regulations in 2017 with strengthened worker protections, including the right to select their own representatives to participate in safety proceedings at refineries, report hazards anonymously, access safety information, and initiate stop work procedures. Now under pressure from refineries, new regulations have been proposed that will weaken these hard-won protections. Refinery workers are on the front lines of hazardous conditions and have direct experience in process safety management. They deserve a seat at the table. And 966 makes that right permanent by codifying the existing worker representation and participation standards from the 2017 regulations safeguarding these essential protections from regulatory rollback and industry pressures. Testifying in support today, I have Norman Rogers from the United Steelworkers Local 675,

I respectfully ask for an aye vote, Madam Chair.

Hi, I'm Lori Wallace again. Thank you. And thank you for giving me the time to share with you. As a worker that was recently laid off with Phillips 66, I can tell you that with 20 years of expertise when I looking at a piece of equipment and knowing that we going to have to do maintenance on it I should be in the room to talk I should be able to tell them if there are things about that piece of equipment that they don know and only I know because I been working on it for 20 years When you remove my ability to speak and say things that I think might be a safety hazard as an employee in situations like this is when you cause the bigger hazards. Everything that we do is not only to protect ourselves, but it's to protect the communities. And taking away our voice is actually going to hurt not only the communities, but us. I know from experience in working with equipment that because I was in the room in certain situations, I was able to raise concerns that the upper management didn't know or wasn't aware of because they aren't the ones working on the equipment every day. So I am asking that you understand how important it is for everybody to have a voice for the safety of the community and the employees. And I also ask that you give us an eye on this. Thank you.

Hello, Katie Valenzuela on behalf of Communities for a Better Environment and Support. Thank you. Frankie Gracie with the Blue Green Alliance in support. Julia Sebastian with California Labor for Climate Jobs in support. Mitch Steiger with CFT in support. Christina Scaringer, the Center for Biological Diversity in support. Shea B. Hannah on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Zach Leary on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. I want to urge extreme caution as you examine this bill. As you know, we've worked extremely close with the Newsom Administration, with the California Energy Commission, Commission with a number of stakeholders that regulate our industry, including the legislature, on stabilizing oil refineries and the fuel market that you have in California, and I think that remains a priority. Unfortunately, it's this type of regulatory and legislative whiplash that creates a business environment that is very difficult to operate in. As it pertains to the lawsuit and the DIR regulations. We did ultimately sue over the DIR final regulations in 2019, and we sued in federal court because we believe parts of the provisions were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Ultimately, in 2024, after careful negotiations with the Department of Justice, EPA, Cal OSHA, DIR Standards Board, we ultimately came to a settlement agreement to address this very issue because we believed at that time that that regulation was preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. Fast forward now to this bill, it would reinstate that very provision that we believe was preempted. So whether it's a regulation or statute, we believe it could potentially be preempted by the federal law and therefore we could end up in this very same situation So for those reasons we are in strong opposition to SB 966 We think it these types of regulatory and legislative whiplash that create that difficult business environment to operate in. Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?

Yeah, I want to thank my witnesses for being here. They're actually on the ground, have been working in refineries, and I just really appreciate their testimony because they're the ones that actually know the health and safety concerns at our refineries. And while I respect the opposition, the federal preemption issue is just opinion at this point. No court has actually ruled that there's been a federal preemption. And so with that, I will continue to say that, you know, at our refineries, we need to make sure that there is employee participation and that there is worker participation so we can prevent disasters from happening. With that, I respectfully ask for an aye vote.

Aye.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair and members. Good afternoon. I am proud to present SB 1203. This is the Stand for Security Act. And this bill seeks to modernize training standards, strengthen accountability, and establish a clear professional pathway for private security guards across California. I want to reaffirm my commitment to take the future amendments that would require BSIS to conduct a regional training capacity analysis to identify and ensure that qualified third-party organizations are ready to provide de-escalation training. to delay the employer's prohibition from providing the de-escalation training requirements for two years and remove the exemption of the church, mosque, or other place of worship private security officers' training requirement under SB 1203. At the outset, it is important to understand the scale and the evolution of this workforce. There are approximately 1.2 million security guards in the country, making the private security industry, and I want you all to be clear and understand this, the third largest industry in the United States. There are 330,000 licensed security officers, and they protect apartment buildings, hospitals, transit systems, retail centers, schools, offices, entertainment venues, and neighborhoods across the state. They outnumber our sworn force of police officers three to one. So when there is an emergency, the first person who is going to respond more than likely is going to be a security officer. They are expected to de-escalate and assess risk and to protect the public often before our first responders. And increasingly, these workers are not simply protecting property. And we know the mental health crisis that we have in California and how we're trying to get ahead of it. But these workers face it every single day. They also face substance abuse emergencies. They are also dealing with our homeless population and some of that instability, trauma and violence, unpredictable confrontations. And across the nation, security officers are increasingly being assaulted, injured and even killed on the job. According to federal workforce fatality data and industry reporting, security guards face workplace violence rates significantly higher than many occupations because they routinely interact with unstable and hostile individuals. often alone, often unarmed, and often, as we are here today, without the training infrastructure that we must provide to ensure public safety. And yet, under current law, they receive just eight hours of initial training with 32 hours thereafter. Oftentimes this training is performed on the job. And what that means is just as you're here hearing this hearing today, if you were a security officer, you might have a laptop in front of you where you're doing your training module and also conducting this hearing. And so that is an unacceptable reality. This is a $34 billion industry. The average worker earns roughly $38,000 per year, and we know that places them right at and below our poverty level here in California. We are simply asking workers who are earning poverty-level wages to manage some of the most volatile public situations in the state. And our question is, is that fair? Is that fair to the workers? Earlier this year, millions of Americans watched a viral video, and this was something that disturbed me profoundly, of a distressed black homeless woman being punched in the face by a security officer during a confrontation. At the same time, we know of security officers who were told by management to go deal with a theft, which resulted in one of the workers being injured and stabbed and then was later terminated. And we'll hear more about that situation. So these are moments that are happening as we are not ensuring that these workers are adequately trained to be able to do the job that we demand and expect them to do. From a policy perspective, when we underinvest in training and advancement in a workforce like this, we risk reinforcing patterns of occupational segregation and limited mobility. And why do I say that? Because these workers are largely black and brown young men. And why shouldn't we be investing in their upskilling? Why can't this be a feeder into other career opportunities and first response? Much of it is because the industry is standing in the way of that opportunity. We want to use black and brown bodies to protect these buildings, but we don't want to make sure that black and brown men and women are trained. So SB 1203 takes practical steps forward. This builds strength and security skills training by requiring eight hours of specific de-escalation instruction. It reviews wages and working conditions. It holds employers accountable through stronger reporting and enforcement, and it confronts implicit bias and racial profiling in the field. This bill is not about adding burden. It's about aligning standards with reality. And with me today, proud to have, is Dr. Enrique Lopez-Lira, director of the Low-Wage Work Program at UC Berkeley Center for Labor Studies,

Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?

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

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

Thank you.

I want to make sure the author knows I will make sure they review the amendments.

Seeing no other comments in opposition, I will now turn it over to members on the dais, Assemblymember Calra and Lee.

Seeing no other comments from members, I would like to make my own. Just want to thank the author. And I want to thank all the workers for keeping us safe across the state, from San Diego to Reading and everywhere in between, including the happiest place on earth. It's making sure that you have the training and the compensation to go with the work that you do every day. It's the least we can do. And so you have my full support. Muchas gracias a todos que han venido hoy. De muy lejos y muy temprano. With that, this bill has an eye recommendation. Senator, would you like to close?

Item number five SB 1203 Smallwood Cuevas motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Public Safety.

Ortega, aye.

Alaniz, no.

No.

Calra?

Calra, aye.

Aye.

Ward?

Ward, aye. That bill has four ayes, one no. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you.

Senator, would you be ready for SB1284?

Oh, it's all yours. We're ready.

Do you want to go first?

Okay, thanks. Buenas tardes para todas y para todos. Mi nombre es Eduard John Hoyos. Soy padre de tres hijos, y junto con mi esposa hemos trabajado durante toda nuestra vida para sacar adelante a nuestra familia. Gracias a ese esfuerzo, dos de nuestros hijos están en la universidad, y nuestra hija mayor is doing a research in environmental sciences. I work in Cupertino for a contractor who provides cleaning services for a great technology company. I also work in the SEU and I am part of the executive committee During these years we have seen how the work conditions have changed We also have seen how some of the Mesa Ejecutive During these years we have seen how the conditions of work have changed We also have seen how some contractors reduce salaries and replace workers by employees without a sindical protection. These practices break the conditions and limit the access to essential benefits, especially the medical care. He has seen how this situation affects my colleagues and their families. Many essential workers do not have access to a medical coverage asequible and provided by their employees and they end up paying public programs like Medicar to receive medical care. The reality is that when the employees do not fully accept their responsibility, the cost of the health of their workers ends up falling over the state and the constituents of California. So today I am here. I believe that we are working on the people who contribute to the success and the enriqueceding of large companies and technology companies we are receiving access to medical care and quality and a legal conditions. For these reasons, the Ley SB 1284 is a step ahead important and necessary. This legislation will help to strengthen our medical care system and to promote more responsibility by the employees. I ask you to... Thank you. Good afternoon, committee members. My name is Araceli Rueda, and I'll be translating for Mr. Hoyos. Good afternoon. My name is Edward John Hoyos. I am the father of three children, and together with my wife, we have worked our entire lives to provide for our family. Thanks to that hard work, two of our children are currently attending university, and our oldest daughter is pursuing a master's degree in environmental sciences. For the past four years, I have worked in Cupertino for a contractor that provides cleaning services to a large global tech company. I am also a member of SEIU-USWW and serve on the executive board. Over the years, we have seen working conditions change. We have also seen some contractors coat wages and replace workers with employees who do not have union protections. These practices weaken working conditions and limit access to essential benefits, especially health care. I have first hand seen, I have, I have seen firsthand how the situation affects my coworkers and their families. Many essential workers do not have access to affordable health coverage provided by their employers and end up relying on public programs such as Medi-Cal to receive basic medical care. The reality is that when employers do not fully take responsibility, the cost of caring for their workers' health falls on the state and on California taxpayers. This is why I am here today. I firmly believe that those of us who contribute every day to the success and prosperity of the biggest tech companies deserve access to quality health care and dignified work conditions. For these reasons, SB 1284 represents an important and necessary step forward. This legislation will help strengthen our health care system and promote greater employer accountability. Please vote in support for SB 1284 Thank you Great job Go ahead buddy Thank you Good afternoon Chair and members I Devin Gray I president of End Poverty in California and we proud co of SB1284 As many of you know, California, despite our immense wealth, has the joint highest poverty rate in the nation. And unfortunately, some of our largest employers have decided that that's someone else's problem by paying poverty wages and often failing to offer employees affordable health coverage. health coverage. This, of course, leads to millions of Californians who indeed have jobs relying on Medi-Cal. In fact, as the senator mentioned, nearly one in five of all California workers are enrolled on Medi-Cal. My organization has spent the last four years traveling to 26 counties across the state to convene and listen to people living in poverty. And everywhere, urban, rural, suburban, from the Oregon border down to San Diego and our coastal and inland communities, what we hear every time is people who say, I'm working hard, I'm doing everything right, and I'm still not making enough money to get by, let alone get ahead. I don't believe this is the consequence of personal failings. Rather, it's a consequence of a system that allows for large employers to too often be able to pay poverty wages without accountability. And what this bill helps create is that accountability. That accountability doesn't just help the underpaid child care worker in Fresno or the garment worker in LA. It also helps all of us as taxpayers who will otherwise be tasked with filling the gaps in Medi-Cal that will be created as HR1 comes into effect and we see a trillion-dollar cut from Medicaid over the next decade. SB-1284 works by posing important questions where we've lacked answers. It asks, which employers have the most workers' independence on Medi-Cal, and what does that cost the state and taxpayers each year? With annual public reporting, this legislature gains the evidence that it needs to act on wages, on coverage requirements, on employer responsibility. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and members. Beth Malnowski, the SEO California Proud Co-Sponsor. I'm taking advantage of your aye votes today. Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of USW on Western State Council. Proud co-sponsor. Thank you. Good afternoon, I'm with the American Federation of State County Municipal Employees in support. My name is Jerry Longoria, I support this bill. My name is Miguel Lopez, organizer with USWW, also in support. Peace and enemies, I have USWW in support. My name is Sebastian Navarro-Tisole, I'm a member from USWW and I support 1284. I'm Ariel Park, I'm a member of SEIU-USWW. I'm also on the executive board and I strongly support this bill. My name is Daniel, custodial at Disneyland and I support. Again, my name is Allison Huber and I support SB1284. Thank you. Hello there. there. Wayman feathery again, Los Angeles, California, and I wholeheartedly support this bill. Latasha re US WW and I support this bill. My name is Hector. I'm from Disney. I work in the entertainment department and I support this bill. My deal these are the genital service support. Good afternoon again My name is Akiba Carter and I with SEIU USW and I am in support of SB 1204 Afternoon again My name is James Lyons Los Angeles California At USWW I in support of this bill Gilberto Rubio, security officer and SEIU member. I support Bill 1284. My name is Miguel. I support SB 1284. Thank you. My name is Larry Taylor. Thank you for supporting this bill in advance. Good afternoon, Tina Kramer, and I support SB1284. Good afternoon Esther Sandoval, baby matron of Disney and I also support SB 1284. My name is Eugene Marvel III, I support SB 1284. Good afternoon, I'm Alexander Nunez and I support SB 1284. Hi, my name is Warren Reed from Los Angeles, security officer and I support SB 1284. Once again, Kevin Adams, I support SB1284 as a California worker. Betsy Ramirez, and I support SB1284. Buenas tardes, mi nombre es Ana Mesa, y estoy aquí para apoyar la 1284. Hola, buenas tardes, mi nombre es Angelina Diego. I'm here to support SB1284. Good afternoon. My name is Viviana Restrepo. I'm here to support SB1284. My name is Halyard Freider, and I support SB1284. Good afternoon. My name is Alfredo Lahut. I'm here supporting the SB1284. Good afternoon. My name is Julia Ramirez. I support the 1284. Thank you. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Fernando Mondragon. I support la 1284. Buenas tardes. Mi nombre es Tatiana Nunez. Y estoy aquí para apoyar la SB1284. Gracias. I just want to say a much in this to support SB1284. Thank you. Gustavo Garcia in support of this bill. Malik Aaron in support of SB1284 Hola, buenas tardes. Soy Carolina Mendoza y estamos aquí para apoyar a la 284 Mi nombre es Veronica Bravo. Estoy aquí para apoyar a la 284 Hola, mi nombre es Alma Chavez y estoy aquí para apoyar a la 284 Thank you. 1284. My name is Anthony Guzman and I support 1284. Mi nombre es Tatiana Chaparro y estoy para apoyar la SB 284. Sergio Castellanos, apoyo a la 12B S84. Mi nombre es Luis Rodríguez y estoy para apoyar a la 1284. Thank you gentlemen and women David Matos Moran United States Marine veteran I support SB 1203 thank you. Hi again Sarah Bakari and I support SB 1284 thank you for your time. When I started my number is a still your pool of all social type water. Good afternoon. My name is Viseta Casarubias. I support the 1284. Jennifer Dyer, and yes, I support SB1284.

Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty and Support.

Yes. All right.

Jennifer Robles with Health Access California in support. Loyal Terry with Economic Security California Action in support. Thank you. Connor Gossman-O'Halfa, Teamsters, California in support. Omar Lazardi, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Julie Nielsen, National Union of Healthcare Workers in support. Hi, Gabriela Chavez with United Domestic Workers in strong support.

Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to SB1284. We appreciate the bill's transparency goals, but a genuinely complete picture would account for the many factors driving Medi-Cal enrollment beyond employer decision. This bill does not do that. The bill's premise that employers with workers on Medi-Cal are shifting obligations onto taxpayers does not reflect how the program actually works. Enrollment is shaped by numerous factors, including workers who choose Medi-Cal over offered coverage, part-time or seasonal schedules, new hire waiting periods, and household income dynamics. A full-time worker earning California's minimum wage may qualify simply by having a child or working part-time. This is not an employer failure. That is the program functioning as designed. Listing an employer's name next to a Medi-Cal enrollment count without any of this context implies sole responsibility for an outcome shaped by state policy, federal rules, and individual worker circumstances no employer has legal authority to override. We would also note that public employers, including state agencies, are absent from this reporting requirement, despite the fact that thousands of public sector workers qualify for Medi-Cal by income threshold alone. Transparency that applies to only one sector of the economy is an incomplete and unequal standard. For these reasons, we respectfully oppose SB 1284. Mr Chair Chris McKeeley here on behalf of the Society for Human Resource Management We think that the evidence sought by the author and proponents could be gleaned more from aggregate data Individualized is not required which is proposed in the legislation. We view it as a public shaming measure instead. The only other time that California has engaged in public shaming of individual employers or businesses, and in fact, to some individuals, is with tax scoff laws. And those folks, of course, have had their due process rights adjudicated because they have been determined to, in fact, owe those dollars to the state of California before their names are actually publicized. I hearken back to October of 2017, when then-Governor Jerry Brown vetoed a public shaming bill dealing with pay transparency and indicated that that would probably lead to litigation against those businesses that were named. And so for those reasons, SHRM continues to express respectful opposition to this measure. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just on the last point that was made by Mr. McKeely on the pay disparity. Did you want to?

Good afternoon. Jacob Brent with the California Retailers Association and Respectful Opposition. Thank you. I'm familiar with that. I had one bill one year that had to do with disclosing pay and what have you. And the pay disparity issue, an argument could be made on litigation because you're talking about maybe two people in the same classification. That is very different. This has to do with Medi-Cal enrollment, so I don't think it opens itself up to that type of litigation. That being said, I don't think there's anything shameful about being on Medi-Cal, first of all. I think that there is something, I think, shameful about employers that have large swaths of their employees on Medi-Cal by choice in order to increase their profit margins. There are certainly going to be some companies, and because of their business model, maybe they're seasonal, what have you. And the reality is there's nothing that stops an employer from sharing more information, if they so choose, to give context to the data. This is not about anecdotes. We can all find an anecdote about a reason why someone can't work full time. They have to take care of their elderly parent or a child. This is about cumulative data from each corporation or each company. and getting that full picture. And I think, unfortunately, the business plan by design of some of these companies is to have the taxpayers subsidize some of the costs that otherwise they would have to pay for. So keeping people as part-time workers rather than giving full-time employment, there are some very wealthy, some of the biggest corporations in the nation do that by practice. And so what this data will help us do is make that determination. Hey, there are some companies that are doing it. This is the manner in which they operate their business. They have seasonal because of the kind of business they do. Okay. But there are some other companies that are intentionally not hiring full time. They're keeping people within the parameters of being eligible for Medi-Cal. what are some policies we can do or how can we work with those companies to get more of their folks in under their health care or help with ACA subsidies This is not all about sticks There are definitely carrots that can come from this data as well and working with our business community And so I think it very hard for us to develop policy or long-term planning for jobs for the future and high road employment when we don't have the data. And in fact, I was on the future of work commission that one of the outcomes of that commission that also had business representatives on that commission, folks in the chamber on that commission, was that we need data in order to determine how we create hybrid employment into the future. And so this is an important piece of that and will help us, help better inform us of how we should approach these issues in the future. And yes, if there are business practices that push folks on to Medi-Cal roles at taxpayer expense, we should know that. And it's really important for us to have that kind of data. And so I would certainly make a motion on this, would like to be added as a co-author, and appreciate the Senator for bringing this forward. Thank you, and I think

All right, I'm just going to ditto everything Assemblymember Calra said, and I want to thank your witness. Even being modest, working for a tech company in Cupertino. I wonder what that one could be. But I really do appreciate you coming here and sharing your story. I do think it is really important that this data is out there so we can better, like my colleague said, better understand the role that our employers have and the role the public sector has in making sure that everyone has health care. Because at the end of the day, someone's paying for it, and we have to make sure what is the most equitable and just way of paying for it. And I would love to be added as a co-author as well. Thank you. Please add me as a co-author as well. Thank you so much for the work that you're doing to make sure employers are paying their fair share and really working on the disclosure part of this means that we're one step closer. Given that we are in a time in our state where we have faced a deficit and we know we need to keep preparing for the future, this is an opportunity to really look at how we can actually address that. Thank you.

No, I think just generally speaking, I think having a full transparency measure, again, just kind of want to reemphasize from testimony that this is sector-specific to private industry. And again, just based on salaries of public sector workers alone, they could qualify for Medi-Cal based on that. And so I think just considering the multiple factors why an employee could be on Medi-Cal is something we're looking for in the bill. And this is just pinpointing a single factor as private employers. Thank you.

Well, thank you for this discussion. And we, as I mentioned, we don't want to be an outlier. This issue is being taken up in places like New Jersey, which has, the governor has introduced a fair share strategy, which is an actual bill that is bringing business to the table to pay a premium for those employees who are on Medi-Cal. The same is happening in Colorado and Maryland and other places. And so we're a nation state, and I think California should lead on this. and we have diverse businesses that would benefit from our state deficit being reduced and us being able to invest in many other places by ensuring that we do all that we can to fund our Medi-Cal program and to pay for those workers who may be on it. So with that I respectfully ask for your aye vote on disclosure and transparency Thank you Senator Unfortunately right now I not here with you Hopefully on the floor I will be but I know Chair Ortega has a recommendation of an aye and please take the roll

I have a motion and a second.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. This bill has two purposes, but the mechanism is actually very simple. The first purpose, and it's been a longstanding issue, is we want to improve, substantially improve the quality of our workforce data. data collection and sharing between the new Interagency Council, the Workforce Development Board and others, so that we can actually do a much better job of assuring that the programs that we're offering, both in the public sector and those that we regulate, are creating the kinds of pathways to high roads jobs that Californians are looking for. And so this bill is intended to do. That's the easy part. The second is that, as you've heard and as you all know, under H.R. 1, there are new requirements for data collection as part of the recertification for applicants from Medi-Cal in California for CalFresh. And those new data elements don't fit with our existing data collection system, and therefore the state's ability to automatically verify eligibility for 80-plus percent of the applicants has been compromised. The administration's done a lot of work to meet the need in the moment, so the state has a contract with Equifax in order to accomplish that in the near term. That's $12 per ping for every single employee, so it's not a long-term sustainable solution. So this bill simply adds that required data element, which is hours worked, to the unemployment insurance wage reporting system and makes additional changes to that system in order to improve our workforce data, in order to accomplish both goals. Better data in order to improve workforce development programs and outcomes, and then secondarily to assure that we can avoid hundreds of thousands of Californians losing their Medi-Cal and CalFresh eligibility, not because they don't qualify, but because they fall through the cracks of these new data requirements and semi-annual requirements. So that's the purpose of the bill. I'd like to introduce our witnesses, Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties, and then Maxwell Johnson with California Competes, and with that, I would ask for an aye vote.

Thank you. Justin Garrett with the California State Association of Counties, representing all 58 counties. CSAC is in strong support of SB 1054 and thankful to the author for his leadership on this issue. This bill is needed because HR1 creates significant risk for people losing their health coverage and food benefits, and counties are on the front lines of helping people maintain that coverage for both Medi and CalFresh and need all the resources and data sources available for this work So SB 1054 an important tool in the toolbox for counties in the state They help prevent vulnerable Californians from unnecessarily losing health care and nutrition assistance H.I.1 creates new and expanded work requirements for CalFresh, which went into effect this month, and then for Medi-Cal, which is going to effect on January 1st. These requirements require recipients to demonstrate 80 hours per month of work, education, or volunteering, volunteering or job training, and counties are responsible for working with recipients and ensuring they have the proper documentation of hours worked, which is time-consuming and challenging. And the significant procedural and paperwork burden will in itself cause people to lose coverage even when they're eligible and have met the work requirements. And so SB 1054 will ease that burden by requiring EDD to collect hours worked data from employers and facilitate this information sharing with DHCS and CDSS. This data collection and sharing will allow for streamlined verification that someone has met the work requirements and will allow them to maintain the coverage and benefits that they're eligible for. So we ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Maxwell Johnson and I'm here on behalf of California Competes, Higher Education for a Strong Economy, who is proud to co-sponsor Senate Bill 1054. This legislation, as you've heard, would modify our existing wage data reporting by adding a small number of targeted known elements, including on employees' hours worked and occupation, and by increasing the reporting frequency from a quarterly to a monthly cadence. These are straightforward changes that could have meaningful impacts across public benefit systems, our workforce systems, and our education system. As you've heard, the more timely wage and work hours information would help streamline certain benefit applications and renewals. In starting this month, many adults must meet these worker community engagement requirements to continue receiving CalFresh for more than three months, and beginning in January, many adults will face similar requirements to qualify for and remain enrolled in Medi-Cal. Enhanced wage data, however, would also help automate the Medi-Cal eligibility determinations and similarly streamline those for CalFresh, reducing administrative burden and helping prevent improper benefit loss. The added wage data would also help California better understand the impact of our current education and job training investments, however, while improving how the state plans for and coordinates future spending. Current wage data can tell us how much someone has earned, but not in what job or for how many hours of work. That greatly limits our ability to understand whether education and job training programs are helping people reach their career goals and connect to quality employment. It also makes it harder for colleges and training providers to assess and improve their programs based on student outcomes. Adding this information to our state's cradle-to-career data system would provide a clearer picture of how people move through education and workforce training and into the labor market. This could support the creation, for instance, of dashboards and other tools that help students make informed choices about where to enroll, what to study, and what pathways best align with their career goals. I respectfully urge your support for SB1054, which is a practical and timely approach, but also draws on the experiences of numerous states that have already undertaken similar data enhancements. Thank you.

Loyalty on behalf of Economic Security California Action, proud support. Thank you. Sarah Brennan with Weidemann Group on behalf of Institute for Responsive Gov. We thank the author for meeting with us and are in proud support. Good afternoon. Linda Way with Western Center on Law and Poverty in support. Hi Jenny Aguilar on behalf of Edge Coalition California in support of the bill Thank you Hi Anai Matias Santiago with Latina Advocates here on behalf of Hispanas Organized for Political Equality and Support Thank you

Andrea lunch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce just want to say thank you to the author and we're going to continue the discussion discussions to ensure small businesses can provide that reporting. So thank you

Just to say, to thank the chamber as well for their comments, because obviously we want to make sure that people can comply and can report. They and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and others have been working closely with us, as well as with the administration, on how to make sure that this works. Obviously, under H.R. 1, every small business will also have to provide some mechanism for their employees to verify that data, too. And so our hope is this simplified regular data that's timed more with payroll reporting than anything else will help small businesses as well. And, of course, they want their employees to not lose eligibility for Medi-Cal as well. So it's a useful and important step to work forward. I do also want to highlight the committee analysis raises several technical questions, including things like how will it intersect with workforce Pell and others. We are absolutely committed to working through those issues. as well as additional ones that we expect will come from EDD on implementation as we go forward. But I appreciate all of the support for the bill and the work to try to assure that California can use the data that we collect and the systems that we have in order to mitigate the impacts of HR1 on folks who are fully qualified, but otherwise might fall through the cracks. And with that, I would ask for an I vote.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. It is my pleasure to present to you SB 1032, the Staffing Agency Fair Employment or SAFE Act. SB 1032 will create a clear, common-sense regulatory framework for temporary staffing agencies, similar to what already exists for contractors and other high-risk industries. California has the largest temporary staffing market in the nation, with staffing firms generating over $41 billion in annual revenue and employing millions of workers over the course of a year. Despite this scale, California lacks a dedicated regulatory framework for temporary staffing agencies, allowing gaps in oversight that puts workers, honest businesses, and taxpayers at risk. This fragmented labor enforcement system leaves workers and families exposed. This bill addresses this issue by establishing clear oversight, real accountability, and required registration so staffing agencies are complying with the law before harm can occur. SB 1032 would align temporary staffing agencies with the existing regulatory approach in other industries to protect workers and promote compliance. Here to testify in support are Alberto Torrico on behalf of UFCW Western States Council and James Phillips, partner with Envero Staffing Group.

Do we have additional witnesses in support?

Seeing no other witnesses, do we have a main witness in opposition?

The PRA in this bill is set up to allow a registered staffing agency to sue an unregistered staffing agency. It's anti-competitive and creates an opportunity for a larger resource staffing agency to go after the little competitors. Let me be clear, we're not opposed to registration or the core goals of this bill to require the industry to register with the Department of Industrial Relations. but we are opposed to creating a scheme that will end up benefiting and incentivizing the use of PEOs, which is not to the benefit of the workers. There's a lot happening in this bill. I'm happy to answer questions, but because our concerns and amendments have yet to be addressed, I would respectfully ask your no vote.

Thank you. Do we have other witnesses in opposition? Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition Mike Robeson here on behalf of the American Staffing Association in opposition Austin Rogelstad, sharing opposition for the following staffing firms. Balance Diversity, Bolt Staffing, ATR International, Synapse, Talent Group, and the Generation Group. Thank you. Thank you. See no other witnesses. I'll turn it over to the dias for questions or comments. We have a motion a second senator, would you? Oh, sorry. I did not see you.

Thank you for the question, Mr. Vice Chairman. The licensing requirements include a requirement to file workers' compensation coverage. So the idea of the bill is twofold. At the front end, if you're required to, as part of your license, you're required to show proof of workers' compensation. You have one mechanism at the front end. You have a second mechanism at the back end, which has been referenced, which is the private right of action, which means if you're a licensed operator and you discover an unlicensed operator, you can go to court and get an injunction to shut them down. So there's two mechanisms for enforcement, but the front-end enforcement is really important for workers' comp. I do agree that there is a workers' comp problem. It's significant, and some of them are underreporting. In this industry, many of them are no workers' compensation whatsoever, and there's no way to verify that because there's no licensing scheme.

There is no licensing. There's no registration as of now.

The private right of action is something that there's a similar bill, AB 1171 by Rubio in 2023, and that was with the cannabis industry, which authorizes a person licensed under the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act to bring an action in superior court against a person engaging in commercial cannabis activity without a license as specified. So this is a continuation, not a continuation, but that is one of the examples of a private right of action where someone is unlicensed. The person who is licensed, who has gone through the process, has workers' compensation, and finds an unlicensed staffing agency has a private right of action against them. After this bill? Yes. Okay. And then you're with California Staffing Association? I think that's what I wrote down.

I would just add existing law requires that they have workers' compensation. It's the law to have workers' comp for your employees. So to say that without registration you don't, I think is kind of a false statement. I also would just add on the kind of... Use of the cannabis industry as an example. The cannabis law requires that in order for an action to prevail in the private right of action, there has to be actual harm resulting from the unlicensed commercial cannabis activity. This private right of action has no harm necessary. It's just a registered staffing company can go after an unregistered staffing company just on the basis of being registered or not.

If I may respond. And if somebody registers and says they have $1 that they're in workers' comp insurance, I am certain whoever registers them is going to flag that. I'll tell you, the good thing is that we are surrounded here at this table by good actors. And so it's very difficult. It's not those who are at this table that are causing the problem. It's those who don't have workers' comp insurance, who are staffing agencies. They contract with employers who now have these employees working for them. Neither one of them has workers' comp for them. The person is injured, and they have no recourse. The Unashared Employers Fund, that's all we have available for them. So this is the only way, because there is nothing else. There's the only way that by having these staffing agencies register with the state of California, we now have a way to show that they do have workers' comp insurance.

Thank you for that question. AB 1515, by this Assembly Labor Committee, which is another bill that either you have heard or you will hear, aims to regulate the PEO industry by defining key terms and prohibiting a person from providing advertising or otherwise holding oneself out as providing professional employer services in the state unless the person registers with the department. Thank you.

I think what we're trying to do is we're trying to find a way to make sure that the workers are protected. And I think in a way this is also for the staffing agencies to be protected. You register. The fee is $600. Actually, it isn't set. The director will be the one to set it. But the fees so far that we have seen are $500, $600. Initially, when we introduced this bill, we had put it at $2,000 or $5,000. And as a result of conversations with the representatives, we then said the director will set it. And we already know what the director has set for other industries. Five to six hundred dollars is what we have seen. So we imagine that it's going to be the same thing. And if it isn't, it's something that we can address. But I think this is a protection for both the staffing agencies that are legitimately doing business, just as my witnesses also. and they all encounter those who are not legitimately doing business. And who is the one who is going to suffer? It's going to be the taxpayers. It's going to be those workers who are injured on the job and have no workers' comp insurance. And this is the closest we're coming to finally getting this industry registered. We're not talking about a small industry. As I said in my talking points, they generate over $41 billion in annual revenue and employ millions of employees here in California. So it's not a small industry, and I think that this is something we owe the workers and the legitimate staffing agencies to find a way to be registered, to show you do have workers' comp insurance to cover your employees as you send them out to employers.

The United Food and Commercial Workers represents employers across a broad section of industries, farms farm workers packing industries meatpacking grocery stores cannabis shops Many of these shops are organized what we refer to as wall which means all the employees are unions but many of these companies are not wall and they avail themselves of staffing agencies to fill those positions janitorial and others That results in an undercutting of the wages for those workers and staffing agencies, and if the staffing agencies are unlicensed, don't have workers comp, the wages are even further undercut. So we're very much interested in raising the standard of living for employees and staffing agencies as well.

Any other questions? Okay, seeing none, I would just like to thank the author for bringing this bill forward. This is an industry that you mentioned makes over $41 billion annually. So we're not talking about a small mom and pop, you know, employer industry. We're talking about billions of dollars. And, you know, to the opposition, you know, I would in future hearings, I would really appreciate if you will choose your words a little bit more carefully. The senator is an attorney herself. And I know for a fact that some of the comments that were made were not false. because we looked a lot at this bill and went thoroughly and looked at other bills related to this industry. She is an attorney herself, so is very aware of the legal ramifications that are part of this piece of legislation. With that, Senator, would you like to close? Thank you very much, and thank you for the questions of the robust discussion. I sincerely appreciate that. And I do appreciate the opposition because it's their comments, although we didn't take all of the proposed amendments, it's many of these discussions that we had that helped us make to write a better bill. And with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Secretary, please call the roll. File item number nine, SB 1032 Reyes. Motion is due pass and we refer to Committee on Judiciary. Ortega?

Ortega, aye.

No.

No.

El-Hawari?

bill is out. Thank you. Assembly member Ward is going to go ahead and present for Senator item number 11 SB 1299 whenever you are ready. Thank you Madam Chair.

Do we have additional witnesses in support? Judy with the State Building and Construction Trades Council in support. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, turning it over to the dais. We had a motion and a second. Would you like to close?

Secretary, please call the roll. File item number 11, SB 1299, Araguin. Motion is due pass and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations.

Aye.

Alaniz?

Alaniz, aye.

Aye.

El-Hawari?

Aye.

Lee?

Lee, aye.

Aye.

Six ayes. Six ayes, that measure is... Six ayes, that measure is... out. We will now go back to Okay, okay, file item number seven SB 1024 menjivar motion is do pass and we refer to

Chen. Chen, aye.

Item number three, SB 966, Gonzalez. Motion is due, passed, and we refer to Committee on Appropriations.

Chen, no. El-Hawari? Ward? Aye.

I have four ayes and two noes. We have four ayes and two noes. That measure is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Item file, item number five, SB 1203, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due, pass, and re-refer to Committee on Public Safety.

No.

El Hawari? Only four ayes. Four ayes. Two no's. Two no's. We will leave the roll open for absent members.

File item number 6, SB 1284, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due, pass, and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations.

Aye.

Five ayes and two no's. Five ayes and two no's. We'll leave the roll open.

That measure is out. Yep. And then that is it.

Thank you . . Okay, file item number five, SB 1203, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due passed and re-referred to Committee on Public Safety.

Aye El Huari aye Five ayes two noes Five ayes two noes That measure is out File item number 11 SB 1299 Aragon the motion is due pass and we refer to committee on appropriations a Hawaii nice that has seven nights that measure is out that concludes labor and employment committee Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.