April 8, 2026 · Labor And Employment · 22,896 words · 26 speakers · 240 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you
Good afternoon. Welcome to the Assembly Labor and Employment Committee hearing. In order to be able to hear as much from the public within the limits of our time, we will not permit conduct that disrupts, disturbs, or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of the legislative proceedings. Commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed. We will begin our hearing as a subcommittee, and we will be going out of order, starting with item number eight. Assemblymember Calra, whenever you're ready.
AB 1697. Thank you, Madam Chair. of AB 1697 will delay the implementation of AB 692, which I authored by one year, until January 1st, 2027, and add an urgency clause. AB 692 debt traps was signed a law last year to prohibit employers from using debt as an exploitative tool to trap workers in their jobs or basic on-the-job training, orientation equipment loans, or other financial arrangements necessary for them to perform their work duties. While the bill was chapter, there were some concerns raised about how this bill would apply to those with ongoing collective bargaining. As requested by the governor in a signing letter, AB 1697 would delay the implementation of AB 692 to allow for more time to address the concern around collective bargaining agreements. I respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Do we have any witnesses in support?
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members, Silvio Farrar on behalf of the National Football League in support.
Thank you. Seeing no others in support, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, Assemblymember Calroy, would you like to close?
Respectfully ask for an aye vote at the appropriate time. Thank you.
Thank you. We will now move to item number nine, AB 2495.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Yeah, your witness is coming. Yeah. AB, and I believe there's another witness on the way. They're in security. They're in security. They're coming up. AB 2495 expands the scope of prohibited, unfair immigration-related practices that employers use to intimidate and dissuade workers from asserting their workplace rights. Anti-immigrant national rhetoric has emboldened bad-faith employers to increasingly deter immigrant workers complaining about violation of their workplace rights by making bail threats, chilling statements, or implicit warnings about immigration consequences. We seen so many examples of this not just here in California but throughout this nation of really unscrupulous employers that take advantage of the current environment not just the environment in terms of the public sentiment but the legal environment that's also being created at a federal level with ICE raids and just the fear that's being instilled into our community. When this type of employer coercion succeeds, unlawful conduct That goes unreported. Workplace standards erode. And law-abiding employers are undercut. And it really devalues and I think goes to the very dignity of work. And we don't want workers, we don't want families to be living in the shadows. We don't want them to be fearful. And we certainly don't want to allow for employers to intimidate our workers, particularly regarding immigration or perceived immigration status. So AB 2495 simply amends existing labor protections to establish that all immigration-related threats are unlawful, not just termination or threats that lead to some finality, but at any point during employment, these are clearly unlawful and workers need to be protected. With me to provide supporting testimony on the way, Junwen Trujillo, Chairless Director of Workers' Right in Labor Legal Services, and Haley McAllister, Senior Staff Attorney with Legal Aid at Work.
Thank you, and good afternoon, everybody. I'm appearing on behalf of Legal Aid at Work, which is a statewide nonprofit that advocates for workplace rights, including through direct services clinics across the state. and it's also a proud co-sponsor of AB 2495. Across the country and here in California, immigrant and undocumented communities are living in heightened fear of immigration enforcement. Over the past year, immigration enforcement actions have become more aggressive and more public, and authorities target immigrant communities in their homes, in hospitals, on their way to school, and at work. In this political climate, undocumented workers must take real and significant risks when they step forward to actively assert their workplace rights. As a result, many workers are afraid to speak up, even when they're subjected to wage theft, unsafe working conditions, or discrimination. This fear doesn't just harm immigrant workers. It undermines enforcement of California's workplace laws for everyone. bad faith employers are exploiting this fear. We are seeing employers weaponize immigration status not in response to direct complaints, but preemptively to silence workers before they ever can raise an issue. Advocates, including Legal Aid at Work, have seen versions of these scenarios regularly. For example, in one of our cases, an employer announced at an all-hands meeting, hey, my best friend works for ICE, and he said, so long as there's no issues here, ICE won't come to this workplace. Or in another instance, a manager suggests to the workers that they should think about where they're going to hide when ICE does come and suggests that they jump out the window or hide in the garbage. In another scenario, employers suggest talking to, that speaking with government agencies that enforce workplace protections will result in those agencies deporting the workers. In these situations, no worker has complained, but the message is clear. stay quiet or face potential deportation. This conduct effectively shuts down workers' rights before they can assert them, and it slipping through the cracks of current California protections AB 2495 aims to close that gap and ensure that employers can preemptively silence workers into accepting substandard working conditions Thank you Thank you
And straight from the single operable elevator in the building, we have Junwen Trujillo,
Chirla's Director of Workers' Rights and Labor Legal Services. Welcome. Hello, Chair and members. Again, my name is Junon Trujillo, director of workers' rights at CHERLA. In 2024 and 2025, we represented dozens of workers who worked at poultry companies, and a pattern became immediately evident. Workers who were unaware and who had been unaware for decades that the labor code protects them were coerced into providing labor using immigration status as leverage and immigration-related threats for decades. after becoming aware that they had labor protections, they were too afraid to make any reports, and their employer discouraged them from making those reports using immigration-related threats. Under current labor code provisions, these workers were not protected because their situation did not fit a classic retaliation pattern. They had never exercised the right. They didn't know they had those rights and hadn't been retaliated against, but they had faced coercion from the outset. At these poultry companies, we also saw new arrivals, minors, people who had just turned 18 who did not speak Spanish. They only spoke Guatemalan languages like Iche, who didn't have access to labor rights information, similarly coerced. And as you can see, immigration-based coercion is not new, but bad actors are feeling emboldened to use immigration threats. And in 2025 and 2026, we have received more calls of workers who are being threatened and who are afraid to make any reports. So by adding coercion to the labor code and a subsection distinct from retaliation, so it's obvious that there are two different things, we can ensure protections for the most vulnerable workers, such as new arrivals. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have other witnesses in support?
Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Monica Majore with the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights Chirla, a proud co-sponsor in support. Sydney Fong on behalf of APIs for Civic Empowerment, proud co-sponsor in support. Yvonne Fernandez, California Labor Fed, in support. Ken Wang on behalf of the co-sponsors, Equal Rights Advocates and California Employment Lawyers Association in support. Thank you. Yes, and Chair Members, Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support. Chair Lindbergh on behalf of the Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support and also voicing support today for Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you. Gabriella Fosier with Sierra Club California. We did miss the deadline to submit a letter in support, but I just wanted to be on record that we're here in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair, Committee members. Brian Maramontes with California Teachers Association in support. Bernice Singh with all of us in N Sacramento in support. Sam Fishman, Legal Services for Prisoners with Children in support. Thank you. Catherine Beery, Houston, United Steelworkers District 12 in support.
Thank you. Before we bring up any opposition, I do want to acknowledge Assemblymember Lackey, who is subbing today as our vice chair. Welcome. Here, any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I turn it over. Oh, we're still in the subcommittee, but any questions or comments from committee members? Okay, thank you.
Can we establish?
Oh, okay. We'll take a moment, before you close, we'll take a moment to establish quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.
Ortega. Here. Mackey. Here. Chen. Awari. Power. Here. Lee? Ward.
We have quorum, so we have a motion.
I'll second. I will second.
Would you like to close?
Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to everyone that came here in support. I want to thank the Chair and Assemblymember Lee also for being co-authors. I'm going to ask for an aye vote.
Okay. Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Yeah.
No one came up. File item number 9, AB 2495, Calra.
Ortega? Aye.
Ortega, aye.
Lackey? No.
Ortega, sorry, Lackey, no.
Chen? Not voting.
Chen not voting.
El Huari? Calra? Aye.
Calra, aye.
Lee? Aye.
Lee, aye.
Ward?
that's three votes we have we'll leave the roll open perhaps and members we will now go back to file order um we'll go with item number two yes we'll go with a file item number two ab2511 by assembly member
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. AB 2511 requires the Department of Industrial Relations to work with other state agencies to examine pay disparities between behavioral health providers and medical surgical care providers. The DIR will collect data from health care plans and insurers to perform this study and will share the findings with the legislature. California faces a behavioral health crisis that jeopardizes the economic stability and public safety of millions of our residents. And in a time of great uncertainty, we need to ensure that we are protecting Californians. With me today is Sarah Sorkin, a marriage family therapist, and Ben Eichert, the Director of Public Policy and Legislative Affairs for the National Union of Healthcare Workers.
As a licensed marriage and family therapist, I have provided direct care to patients in both private and public settings and have witnessed the negative consequences resulting from the chronic systemic undervaluing of mental health and substance use disorder services. Prohibitively low reimbursement rates have kept many of my peers from accepting insurance, and this is compounded by the barriers they experience to even getting reimbursed by insurance companies. I haven't worked in a setting without high turnover of my colleagues. Due to the mismatch in the amount of financial investment, education, and training it takes to obtain and maintain a license to practice, the acuity of conditions and level of responsibility and skill required to effectively address these conditions, and overwhelming workloads and moral injury with compensation that doesn reflect our worth The recent 2024 Research Triangle Institute study showed that office visit in reimbursement levels were much lower for behavioral health providers than medical surgical providers This pokes holes in the argument that clinician shortages are the primary cause of the problems with staffing and adequate in-network provider networks. Personally, when I transition to private practice, I don't plan to take insurance as long as reimbursement rates remain low and getting reimbursed remains a challenge. Lack of access to behavioral health services causes worsening conditions, the need for more intensive, expensive care, interference with functioning and family and work roles, increased disability and need for public assistance, problems maintaining housing, and suicides and overdoses. To address our serious problem of lack of access to behavioral health services in our state, a comparable worst study is essential to understanding the problem and intervening effectively. Thank you.
Thank you.
Madam Chair and committee members, thank you. I'm Benjamin Eicher, the Public Policy Director at the National Union of Healthcare Workers. We're the state's largest union of licensed private sector behavioral health providers and the proud sponsor of AB2511. In 2024, a California Health Care Foundation survey found that more than half of Californians have trouble finding a mental health provider who takes their insurance. That's compared to only 14 percent who report difficulty finding providers who take their insurance for physical care. When forced out of network, families face average balance bills of $861 per episode. Unfortunately, many decide to go without care, which leads some of them to decompensate and require expensive emergency interventions. In other words, the shortage of in-network behavioral health providers imposes significant cost burdens on California consumers. Ample evidence shows that behavioral health providers are not incentivized to join insurance networks because their compensation is significantly lower than that of their peers who provide physical care. The study proposed by AB 2511 will demonstrate if and in what form these inequalities exist and clarify their role in driving behavioral health providers away from insurance networks and limiting access to behavioral health care for Californians. I want to briefly address one of the concerns raised about the bill. Kaiser Permanente claims that behavioral health providers and medical surgical providers are simply too distinct to be compared. But this claim is disingenuous. In 2024, Kaiser itself told regulators and documents filed regarding compliance with the Federal Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act that they used the same factors to, quote, establish reimbursement rates among both MedSurg and mental health substance use disorder providers, end quote. And further, that, quote, similarly situated providers should have similar rates, end quote. In other words, Kaiser has explicitly stated that behavioral health and medical surgical providers can be compared, that the state should compare them, and that when it does compare them, it should find that similarly situated providers are being compensated at similar rates. Ensuring that Californians who need behavioral health care can access it affordably is important work that the legislature has made a priority. We appreciate the committee's consideration of this bill, and I respectfully ask for your aye vote on AB 2511. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Good afternoon. Tyler Rindy on behalf of the California Psychological Association in support. Thank you Madi Lopez California Nurses Association in support Good afternoon Bindu Mukamala with the National Association of Social Workers in support as well as on behalf of the Steinberg Institute. Good afternoon. Shane Gussman on behalf of the Machinist and Unite Here in support.
Thank you. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
Madam Chair and members, my name is Olga Shiloh. I'm here on the behalf of the California Association of Health Plans. We appreciate the intent behind AB 2511 to improve access to behavioral health care, and we share that goal. However, we must respectfully oppose the bill at this time. AP 2511 would require health plans to submit highly detailed payment data across multiple payment pathways, including payments to providers, intermediaries, and health systems. Much of this information is already reported under existing requirements, and this bill would layer on new reporting requirements, creating significant administrative burdens for both the health care system and the state, and pulling time and resources away from patient care. The payment information subject to disclosure under this bill is also highly sensitive and proprietary. Making this data available raises serious concerns about data security and competitive harm. In practice, it can weaken contract negotiations and encourage market behavior that ultimately puts upper pressure on premiums for employers and consumers. This bill further shifts this reporting to a different agency at the Department of Industrial Relations, duplicating existing regulatory oversight without addressing the underlying access challenges or workforce shortages we are trying to solve. CAP recognizes that California faces a well-documented shortage of behavioral health providers, particularly those willing to contract with plans and insurers. More broadly, thin networks and high out-of-network charges are driven by that shortage and by market dynamics where providers can remain out-of-network, set their own rates, and build full charges. Unfortunately, this weakens incentives to participate in networks and pushes health care costs even higher. Ultimately, 2511 is a costly data collection exercise, does not meaningfully expand access to care, support workforce development, or strengthen enforcement of existing mental health parity laws. While CAP is committed to working with the author, if the bill moves forward today, we remain respectfully opposed at this time. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. David Gonzalez on behalf of America's Physician Group's APG. I want to apologize to the committee and to the author for our late letter. We got that a little bit late, so I apologize for that. But I appreciate the opportunity to comment. So APG, our providers focus on providing value-based care in the CAP-to-8 setting. And in California, we're very proud of the fact that our providers have really high scores. in terms of value-based outcomes, in terms of bending the affordability curve in the right way and keeping those costs down. And so very proud of that. And I want to emphasize that that comes from the work of our members, so our health care professionals. That's their good work. So California is very fortunate in that we have some very great health care professionals that are part of our groups that provide excellent care. And we're helping to bend that cost curve and provide incredibly great quality of care. And so this is not in opposition to the concern about that. And frankly, we have concerns about the workforce as well. It's an aging workforce. There's not a lot of people. We all know the problem of recruiting people in the rural areas so it a complicated issue and we with you on the problem The problem that we have is that as providers in California we facing a deluge of bad information right At the federal level, through HR1, we're seeing catastrophic cuts to our programs. I don't think we even realize in California just yet what that means in terms of our delivery system, but they're apocalyptic. I can tell you that. We're talking to our clinics. We're talking to our infrastructure system, And these are huge, massive cuts that will have incredible impacts on the delivery of care. And this is stuff that we provide updates to our providers, and it's always bad news at a weekly level. And these are providers we're trying to get excited about providing health care in California. It's just really, really consistently bad news. So I think we all share that problem. And at the same time, we're also being told to do more with less. And so whether it's the state payers saying to do more with MLR, so medical loss ratios, where I spend less administrative costs and do more for health care, which we're supportive of. But these types of issues sort of take some of that and requires us to spend some of those resources more on administrative issues. Same with the commercial payers as well. The reimbursement issues are getting tough, and so we're having to do more with less. And so for those reasons, we are opposed, but we completely sympathize with the issue. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?
Hi, Angela Hill, the California Medical Association, in respectful opposition. Hi, Ronnie Berduga here with Kaiser Permanente, in respectful opposition. Thank you. Leah Barrows on behalf of California Hospital Association with a more nuanced opposed unless amended position. Andrea Lanchon, behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce, in respectful opposition.
I like all the respectful opposition as opposed to just opposition. Seeing no other witnesses with respectful opposition, I will now move it over to the members. Any questions or comments?
Yes, Assemblymember. Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to respectfully thank the author for bringing this bill forward and recognizing the importance of behavioral health in that for so many years, it was certainly when we were growing up, and I was growing up a little older, but when I was growing up, it was considered kind of subsidiary to physical health. I think now we all know how important behavioral health is. However, we need data in order to ensure that we are preparing for the workforce that we need if we truly, truly want to expand services in behavioral health. And witnesses noted already that this information is already reported. If it hadn't been reported, I would imagine the cost would be, you could make an argument there would be some cost. Well, the information is already there. Health insurance companies, hospitals, they're some of the most detailed oriented businesses you will find in any industry. They have all the data available. The question is whether they want to make it available for the purposes of this bill. I think it's a worthy purpose if our goal is to ensure that people are being compensated and we can make sure we have a workforce for the future. And transparency, you know, if there's a fear that transparency will impact market pressure, Typically, transparency on data creates market pressure to reduce costs. Right now, we have an industry, a health insurance industry in particular, that is shrouded intentionally in secrecy. We don't know why our premiums go up double digits every year. They just happen to. And so the fact that you're willing to and want to dive into this to get the right information so we can make better decisions, I think is admirable and necessary. I'd like to move the bill and I'd like to be added as a co-author. Thank you.
We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? Seeing none, you have a strong eye recommendation from me. And thanks again for bringing this bill forward. Secretary, can you please call the roll? File item number two, AB 2511.
I'm sorry.
Would you like to close?
Yes. Respectfully ask for your aye.
File item number two, AB 2511, Aaron's motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Health.
Ortega? Aye.
Ortega, aye.
Lackey? Not voting.
Lackey, not voting.
Chen? El-Hawari? Kalra? Aye.
Kalra, aye.
Lee? Aye.
Lee, aye. Ward? We have three ayes. We'll leave the roll open for remaining members.
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
Thank you.
Okay.
Our following item is item number four, AB 2157. Assemblymember Connolly, whenever you are ready.
Thank you. Madam Chair and members, proud to present AB 2157 today, which will make the Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund pilot program, commonly known as DOGWUF, as we'll refer to today, permanent in California statute. Currently, DOGWUF is the only program that helps address the needs of displaced workers in the oil and gas sector by supporting them in training and transitioning into jobs that match their skills, expertise, and offer comparable wages. As the global economy shifts away from oil and gas production, both extraction and refining, operational closures have displaced thousands of workers throughout the state. In 2020 and 2021, the Marathon refinery closure in Martinez and the Phillips 66 refinery closure in Santa Maria displaced over 600 full-time workers. In October of 2024, the Phillips 66 refinery in Carson announced its plan to close by the fourth quarter of 2025, with approximately 900 employees and contractors expected to lose their jobs. Additionally, Valero refineries in both Benicia and Wilmington have announced their closures this year. Whether or not you believe refineries should or should not be closing, the reality is that people are losing their jobs in both the oil and gas sector, and they need help. It's important to recognize that displacement in the oil and gas sector is particularly difficult for workers. Almost a third of employees are age 50 or older and most have spent decades in the industry receiving their training on the job Traditional retraining pathways such as multi apprenticeship programs in the industrial sector may not be realistic or appropriate for these workers Most importantly, it also may not be what workers want. This is why the Dogwood program is so important. It has created the opportunity for workers to engage in diverse pathways to new employment in multiple sectors of the economy. Currently, the Dogworth program is set to expire on March 31st of next year, even though displaced workers will need support long after 2027. AB 2157 addresses this issue by eliminating the sunset date for the Dogworth program and making it permanent. It also requires the EDD, who administers the program, to analyze the pilot program and make recommendations on making it a permanent program that supports displaced fossil fuel workers. Providing support for these workers during their time of need should not be controversial. Simply put, it's the right thing to do. With me to testify in support of AB 2157 today is Rosie Romo, Program Director of California Oil Worker Readiness Program, which is funded by DAGWA, and Lori Wallace, a Phillips 66 Process Technician oil refiner who was recently displaced. Welcome.
Thank you, Chair and Committee members, for your time today. I add my voice to those uplifting the importance of eliminating the March 2027 sunset date for the Dog Wolf pilot program. The numbers demonstrate the critical need. Most recently, 350 workers lost their jobs at Phillips 66 facilities in Carson and Wilmington. And just prior to that, 70 lost their jobs at the Phillips 66 Santa Maria site when their Rodeo facility switched to renewable diesel. And let's not forget the 350 unemployed when the Martinez refinery shut down and became a renewable diesel site as well. These figures do not include the contract workforce who saw work go away, and we are waiting to see what the impact of the Valero site's closing will be. Transforming the current pilot program into something more longstanding involves members, often second, third, and fourth generations, who have been working these jobs for the last hundreds of years. DogWoof provides them the opportunity to take their acquired skills, research available job markets, and take courses to help advance toward a new career. Knowing DogWoof is there to help alleviate some of the financial worry in their professional development and meaningfully demonstrates while navigating job loss, their union, community groups, and the state of California care about the future and is equally invested in helping them achieve future occupational success. It's understood that this is a pilot program with a looming deadline. Yet a quick review of the Dogwood timeline shows in reality that it has been a very short window where there has been access to the funding. Governor Newsom signed SB191 to fund this in June of 2022. But it wasn't until September of 2024 that we actually had signed contracts from EDD. Since then, we've been working diligently to both fly and build the plane at the same time. With so many moving parts to coordinate between Cal jobs, EDD and Corp, we understand building this would be would come with even more issues and setbacks. However, where the program should be after five years is simply unattainable, given it took more time to get the funds released and contracts signed than for workers to be able to utilize the program. The need that was addressed within SB 191 back in 2022 still exists and it growing and therefore I respectfully request that you yay to the vote to continue to educate displaced workers Thank you Thank you.
Dear esteemed members of the committee, I have worked as a process technician oil refiner at Phillips 66 Wilmington Refinery for the past 19 years following a one-year internship. I am also a member of the United Steelworkers Local 675. Last October, when Phillips 66 announced the planned closure of our refinery, my coworkers and I were devastated. Most refiners start this career with only a high school education and gain their extensive specialized expertise through decades of on-the-job training. However, the nature of our work, 12-hour rotating shifts, often working 13 days in a row, leave zero room for work-life balance, let alone the chance to further our education while employed. As a result of the increased work hours during the closure of the refinery, I have been unable to utilize the majority of the Dog Wolf grant for myself to get my engineering degree so that I might apply for the process safety management opening at Cal OSHA. The Displaced Oil and Gas Workers Fund is the only lifeline available to bridge the gap during this transition. Many of us are older and cannot simply start over at the bottom of a new apprenticeship. We are trying to pivot into careers where our vast technical skills can be applied. And so that you guys know, I am 50 years old. The current funding is to sunset on March of 2027. This timeline does not give me or my fellow workers enough time to complete the training and successfully pivot. Without this fund, I will struggle immensely to secure my family's future. My co-worker, Wilfredo Cruz, who used this program to transition into cybersecurity, said it best. This grant was instrumental in helping me move into a safer environment that prioritized both professional growth and the well-being of my family. That was his comment. But me and him have different scenarios, as I was only let go last week. I am here to request that you remove the March 2020 sunset date to ensure all of us have the same opportunity. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Gabriella Fossey with Sierra Club, California, in support. Thank you. Hi, Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support. Julie Spassion with the California Labor for Climate Jobs in support. Catherine Beary, Houston United Steelworkers District 12 in support. Frankie Gracie on behalf of the Blue-Green Alliance in support. Jim Lindberg, Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.
Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, turning it over to the committee. Any questions or comments? We have a motion and a second. Would you like to close?
Respectfully ask for an aye vote.
Secretary, can you please call the roll? File item number four AB 2157 Connolly The motion is do pass and re to Committee on Appropriations Ortega Aye Ortega aye Lackey Not voting Lackey not voting Chen El Kalra Aye Kalra aye
Lee? Aye.
Lee, aye.
Ward? Aye.
Ward, aye. That bill is out, but we will hold the roll open for absent members.
Thank you.
Okay. We were going a little bit out of foul order again. Item number 7, AB 2530, Assemblymember Coloza.
Whenever you're ready. Let's wait for my witness. Hi.
All right.
Good afternoon. Thank you, Chair and members of the committee for the opportunity to present AB 2530, which would require a 60-day notice to public employers before layoffs, relocations, and closures. Thank you as well to the committee consultants and staff for all their hard work on this bill. I would like to accept the committee's amendments that would narrow the bill to public agencies and require notification to employees of the sale of the company. AB 2530 brings the California Fair Notice Act into closer alignment with the Federal Warrant Act, which stands for the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification. This is an important and timely step towards strengthening protections for workers across our state. At its core, this bill is about fairness, transparency, and dignity in the workplace. When businesses face difficult decisions like downsizing or closing, workers deserve advance notice so they can prepare and support families in transition to new opportunities. Aligning our state law with a federal framework creates clarity for employers and consistency for employees. AB 2530 is especially significant because, as I mentioned, it applies to both public and private employers. Because too often we know that conversations about layoffs focus solely on private sector, but public sector employees, as many of us are in this room, keep our state and our communities running. And we know that given the state's budget deficit, the things that are happening across the country now more than ever, we know that we need to do more to strengthen these protections and give advance notice to protect workers' rights. I also just want to express that, you know, AB 2530 doesn't prevent layoffs. It doesn't stop the realities of the economy and what's going on in the world, but it just makes sure that we give that advance notice and respect to workers so that they can make a plan and figure out how to transition to their next opportunity. Today, I have with me to support AB 2530 is Sandra Barrow with SEIU California. Thank you, Madam Chair and members, and thank you, Assemblymember, for authoring this bill. Sandra Barrero on behalf of SEIU California. Classified employees and teachers are provided 60 days layoff notice statutorily in Ed Code, but all other public employees have to bargain for advance notice. So this means that notice provided to public employees is inconsistent across the state. While some employers could provide By 60 days, I've seen other contracts ranging from 10 to 30 days. As more workers live paycheck to paycheck, that's not enough notice to keep the lights on and food in the fridge, especially when bills are due every month. We're also seeing massive layoffs resulting from H.R.1 and skyrocketing gas prices due to Trump's war in Iran. So the situation is likely to get worse. And during the pandemic, we saw that SEIU members working in EDD bear the brunt of the public's blame when the system is overwhelmed and understaffed. By requiring 60 days advance notice, this bill would allow EDD to prevent delays so workers can pay their bills on time and stay financially afloat. And some workers might be able to find a job within 60 days and never have to file a UI claim. I respectfully request your support. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support? Seeing none, do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Come on up.
Sorry, a bit of a tweener. Appreciate the grace. Dorothy Johnson, I'm at the Association of California School Administrators. We're working with the author's office to make sure that this doesn't apply to education agencies, which have statutory requirements for layoff notices and that process as well.
Thank you. Thank you. Seeing no other comments in opposition, I'm turning it over to our members. Oh, sorry. Is there one more?
Android Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We just want to thank the author for working with us on our concerns, and we'll be submitting a letter to that effect. Thank you.
Thank you. Okay, seeing no other comments in opposition, we will now move to the dais. Any questions or comments from members?
Yes.
Great.
Thank you for this work and this expansion. I'm just wondering, describe for me a situation where this might apply because there's something I might be confused or I'm sort of missing in here where obviously, yes, we'd want to be able to provide the 60-day notice and let the worker become aware of a potential decision And in the case of, for example, our teachers, the notices go out there. Hopefully and often, you know, we end up successfully at the local level bargaining that. And then, like, you know, the jobs are never lost to you. But you have to do that setutorily to give them the opportunity. I would hate if that is going to spur, like, you know, some people to – I know on one hand you have to balance that risk and think, okay, am I likely to sort of, like, you know, lose the job in the next fiscal year? But on the other hand, this requires, in the case of the sale or part of all of an employer's business, but these are public agencies that aren't going to be sold. So when might this apply? Can you give me a scenario that we're trying to protect here?
Yeah, thank you for your question, Assemblymember Ward. You know, one of the things and one of the intents of this bill was to include, as we mentioned, public agencies into the California Warren Act. I think this is a good example of something where the federal government actually has stronger protections with notifying employees. So we worked with this committee on amendments for this to only apply to public agencies. So some of the language to apologize might be a little bit confusing as it relates to talking about businesses. But this is narrowed now just to include public agencies. I do think that's important. There some notices that you know we talked about where you know are already occurring as Sandra mentioned because that already included in their bargaining like LEAs And so this would include a public agencies that don't already have that notification. It would apply. I'm happy to work with the opposition to clarify any additional language. But one example that we saw, for instance, is the city of San Francisco has about a $1 billion deficit, and they are issuing layoff notices. Thankfully, their contract includes a 60-day notice period. So those employees are given 60 days notice to look for another opportunity and to make a plan. We are working to prevent future instances if these layoffs were to happen at a public agency end. And so I think for me, one of the things that I wanted to do to be a responsible public employer was to make sure that we're doing our part and the things that we're requiring private agencies, companies to do, we're also requiring the same from ourselves as a public employer.
Thank you. And I just realized that we had amendments that were not here at the desk that were not a part of the analysis, and that's great. I will digest those, and I certainly support the intent that you're seeking here. And I guess, and again, just like sort of looking at the digest really fast, because the sale, the bill is going to require, in the case of a sale of an employer's business, that the seller would be responsible for providing any notice to the mass layoff, yada, yada, and then make the purchaser responsible for providing the notice following the effective date of the sale. But there's no purchaser of a government entity.
Yeah, there's some language that we're working to clean up because originally the bill was, let's see, there's some clarifying language there.
I see a passage of Post-its at the time. And so you're improving upon.
Correct.
The part of the business. Got it. Okay. All right. So it's not necessarily a bill to limit the public employees.
Correct.
Happy to support you. Happy to follow up afterward as well.
If there's anything confusing, we're working with a committee and appreciate the work of the staff to help clean up some of the language of the bill. But mostly the main thing to take away is that the amendments narrow the bill to include public agencies as we are one of the state's largest employers. Given all the budget deficits that are going on right now and some of the projected layoffs that we're already hearing happen, We want to make sure that public workers are protected and they get the notice that they need should any layoffs happen.
As do I. Thank you.
Okay. So do we have any other questions or comments? Seeing none, would you like to close?
Respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you, Chair.
Okay. Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Yes.
Do we have a motion and a second?
Okay. We have a motion to second. File item number 7, AB 2530, Colosa. Motion is due, pass as amended, and re-referred to Committee on Judiciary. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? No voting. Lackey, not voting. Chen? Not voting. Chen, not voting. El Hawari? Kalra? Aye Kalra aye Lee Aye Lee aye Ward Aye Ward aye That bill is out but we will leave it on call for absent members
Thank you.
Okay.
Thank you so much. Okay. We will now move to item number five and six. Assembly member Chabot, whenever you are ready. We have a motion and a second whenever you're ready.
This is on 2488, correct? Yes. We're starting there. Oh, jinx.
Okay, thank you so much.
Happy to be here today to present on 2488, which is the Workplace Safety Inspector Study. California's Division of Occupational Safety and Health, or DOSH, plays a critical role in protecting the health and safety of over 20 million workers across the state. These inspectors are responsible for investigating complaints, conducting workplace inspections, and enforcing safety laws and keeping workers safe on the job. However, DOSH has been chronically short-staffed, undermining its ability to carry out this mission. For example, in 2023-24, DOSH had a vacancy rate of 32%, with even higher shortages in certain regions and positions. This level of understaffing limits inspections, delays responses to safety concerns, and weakens enforcement of workplace protections. These vacancies are driven by challenges like slow hiring processes, rigid qualification standards, and limited workforce development pathways. AB 2488 takes a data-driven approach to address the root cause of these vacancies. The bill directs the Department of Industrial Relations to partner with the University of California to conduct a comprehensive study on the causes of these vacancies. It also requires identifying new workforce pipelines, improving recruitment and retention strategies, and incorporating input from key stakeholders. This effort will help the state build stronger, more diverse, and more effective safety inspection workforce. Ultimately, AB 2488 ensures California is better equipped to enforce workplace safety laws and protect workers across all industries. Here to testify in support is Lori Wallace from United Steelworkers, Local 675, and a member and a former refinery worker, and Jordan Uter from WorkSafe.
Hi again. Hi. For the last 20 years, I have worked as the process technician oil refiner at Phillips 66 Refinery in Wilmington. I am also a proud member of the United Steelworkers Local 675. When Phillips 66 announced the closure last year, hundreds of us lost our jobs. I immediately look for ways to transition my decades of experience in refinery operations and process safety management into a role at Cal OSHA. Protecting workers and our community was my key goal. Cal OSHA has specialized units responsible for overseeing the state 13 refineries yet many of these critical positions remain vacant while experienced workers like me are being laid off The barrier is simple Cal OSHA positions often require a college engineering degree. For those of us who have spent 20 years on rotating shifts and mandatory overtime, pursuing a four-year degree was nearly impossible. However, we have received hundreds of hours of specialized hands-on health and safety training. At my refinery, I worked around tanks with a five-mile blast radius. Who better to understand how to enforce safety rules than the workers who live them every day? Currently, I do not even qualify to apply for these enforcement rules. We are missing a bridge between the veteran workers and the agencies that need our expertise. AB 2488 solves this by creating a recruitment and training pathway for skilled workers to join Cal OSHA. I urge you to support AB 2488 to ensure that decades of safety expertise do not go to waste. Thank you. Madam Chair and members of the
committee, my name is Jordan Uter and I'm the Legal and Policy Associate for WorkSafe. We are a proud sponsor of AB 2488. Thank you for the opportunity to address you today. California's workplace safety enforcement system is failing and workers are paying for it with their health, their livelihoods, and their lives. As of November 2025, 100 Cal OSHA field inspector positions sit vacant. That is a 33% vacancy rate. Nine district offices are operating at a 50% capacity or worse. The result is a ratio of one field inspector for every 99,000 California workers. In comparison, Oregon protects its workers at a ratio of 1 to 23,000. Washington, 1 to 28,000. California is falling behind. The California State Auditor found last July that Cal OSHA resolved 82% of validated worker complaints, not with inspections, but with letters, form letters sent in lieu of enforcement. And that practice has continued until 2025. Meanwhile, citations in high-hazard industries such as construction, manufacturing, transportation, and health care have declined sharply. Generally, when enforcement disappears, deterrence disappears with it. Employers who cut corners on safety face no consequence. Hazards go uncorrected and workers get hurt or worse. And this burden does not fall equally. Because of occupational segregation, Black and Latinx immigrant workers are concentrated disproportionately in most dangerous and lowest-wage industries, for example, warehousing, agriculture, meat processing, and manufacturing. In those sectors where much of the workforce is immigrant and non-English speaking, a culturally competent enforcement agency is a legal and moral necessity. The COVID pandemic reminded every one of us what is at stake when workplace protections fail. We learned that lesson at enormous cost. We cannot now allow Cal OSHA to wither through disinvestment and neglect. So filling these vacancies requires more than traditional recruiting strategies. The state must remove the structural barriers to entry, invest in targeted and diverse recruitment, and build accessible workforce pathways that bring skilled, multilingual workers into the compliance officer pipeline. The committee should be clear-eyed about what this staffing crisis actually is, a policy choice made over decades to place the cost of workplace injury onto workers and families, rather than onto the employers whose unsafe conditions cause the harm. California can do better. The workers in the state deserve no less, and therefore we respectfully urge this committee to pass AB 2488, which would design a workforce training and recruitment program that could diversify and increase the candidate pool of CalOSHA inspectors.
Thank you. Thank you.
Hi, Catalina Sanchez on behalf of the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support.
Thank you. Additional witnesses in support?
Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California in support. Thank you. Julie Sebastian with California Labor for Climate Jobs in support. Aspen New Era, Houston United Steelworkers District 12 in support. Judy Yee State Billing Trades in support. J.B. Hannah with the California Nurses Association in support.
Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
today's a strange day it's a good day it's a good day seeing no other witnesses and opposition keep it going for my next bill turn it over to our dais for any comments from our
members
we had a motion and a second I will comment
Thank you for bringing this bill forward. It is an issue that I've been working since I got to the legislature, and the audit that you mentioned is one that I requested. When I heard about the vacancies and other issues that are happening within the OSHA, the Department of OSHA, not just leading to workplace injuries, but workplace deaths. And so really, you know, commend you for bringing this bill forward. 33% vacancy rate is just unacceptable. And, you know, one of the main problems that I've had with this number is that it's been going on for decades. It is not new. And so for me to, you know, just to continue to hear from this department excuse after excuse as to why they haven't filled this vacancies is completely absurd. And glad that we're moving this bill forward to hopefully find some more additional answers to help address this critical issue. So thank you. With that, we have a motion and a second. Would you like to close? Well, thank you for your leadership on this.
It is, you know, it's systemic. It's clear at this point. It's systemic. And so if you want to change it, you have to change the system. You know, workers have fought tooth and nail for safer work conditions. We have to make sure that we can enforce it to protect them. And, you know, clearly there's qualified workers out there who want to do this work, and we have to figure out how to change the system to make sure that they can so that workers are protected in California. Thank you so much. Thank you. All right. File item number five, AB 2488, Chiavo. Motion is due pass
and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Elhawari? Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye.
That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Is that enough Whenever you ready we item number six
Yes. Thank you so much.
So, Madam Chair and members, thank you for the opportunity to present AB 2545, the AI Deployment and Workforce Development Assessment. Before we dive in, I just wanted to thank the committee for their thoughtful analysis and share that we've been working closely with Cal Chamber to address some of their technical concerns. And I think through the amendments, they have main concerns addressed, but we'll let them speak for themselves. but appreciate the productive dialogue. And, you know, I think it's best to start this discussion with a reality check that's provided in the committee's own analysis. Economists are deeply divided on how AI will reshape our world, but they agree on one point, which is if this technology advances quickly, millions of jobs will be lost. So we have to be clear, this is something that should concern everyone. Even AI developers and tech leaders are warning that their product could cause mass employment disruption. Anthropic's CEO has said that technology could eliminate half of entry-level white-collar work, while Microsoft's AI chief predicted that most professional work will be replaced within a year to 18 months. So not only is this a serious concern, but it's an urgent one. We're We're already seeing the first wave of impact in the first few months of 2026. We have witnessed massive layoffs in an industry that's rebranding these layoffs as restructuring. If you look at the handout that we're going to pass around, you already did, that already got passed around, thank you. You know, you can see that major firms are laying off workers to fund multibillion-dollar AI infrastructure. And, you know, adding these up, it's 127,000 workers just in the first few months of 2026, one of the largest being Oracle, which is cutting up to 30,000 workers while ramping up their spending on AI data centers. UPS has closed 24 buildings and is cutting 30,000 jobs as well, part of their expansion of automation. Block, Dell, Citigroup are all in the process of cutting thousands of jobs. And it's not because of a bad economy or these companies are struggling. They're making money. But their CEOs explicitly state that the AI tools have made large portions of their workforce redundant. We're already seeing medical researchers, software engineers, and project leads being programmed out of a job by the very tools that they helped build. A new recurring report released by Anthropic on the labor market impacts of AI suggests that workers most vulnerable to this displacement are likely to be older, female, more educated, higher income. This may not only be part of this. While this may only be part of the story estimates and projections and expectations are all that the AI revolution hits the core of the middle class which is 75 of our economy We also have to look at our students. We're hearing reports of young people graduating with massive school loans that they can't pay back because entry-level positions are disappearing. Even fresh graduates out of law school are struggling to get junior associate roles because if the entry level of the workforce is erased by AI, how do we maintain a pipeline of future leadership? We've already seen what happens when we're blindsided by a massive shift of employment. During the pandemic, 8.6 million Californians filed for unemployment. It cost the state $35 billion, and it left us with over $20 billion in debt. We didn't see that coming, but with AI, we can. If even a fraction of the AI displacement predictions come true, we must have a plan on how we're both going to support displaced workers to find new employment and pay for the safety net needed in the interim. We cannot have a future where a few tech corporations continue to make record profits while California's workers and middle class are completely left behind. Experts estimate that 300 million jobs could be displaced globally in the next 10 years. This translates to billions of dollars in added strain on unemployment, insurance, CalFresh, Medi-Cal, job retraining, our public education institutions, and we must have a plan for tomorrow on how to manage that strain. AB 2545 is an attempt to address these potential impacts before it's too late by doing two things. It establishes the AI worker impact data assessment project within EDD to study these industry ships and also the data that's still needed that we don't have yet. And the second is, while we didn't have language ready by the deadline, we are going to also include an amendment to ensure that the study also includes recommendations on how we ensure that our safety net programs remain solvent. And I thought it was important to include that in the discussion today, even though it's not yet in the bill, because we need to know how we're going to support these displaced workers until they are retrained and back on their feet. There's so many important conversations happening now around AI, having human overrides, ensuring it's a tool and not a boss, protecting our kids. And while there's certainly still time for us to and we must impact how AI is implemented, we simultaneously need to ensure that we have data and research needed to plan for a stable financial future. So while this is simply a study bill, I also think it's forcing us to have one of the most important conversations of this moment. And what will AI's true impact on workers be and how do we plan for that economic fallout? California leads in innovation and we must lead in finding a path to a sustainable future for all of us. I am joined by Sarah Flox from the California Labor Federation and Sam Gordon from Tech Equity to testify as well.
Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions. In the 1980s and 90s we saw deindustrialization hollow out entire regions of this country devastating workers and communities and leaving a legacy of destruction we live with today of opioid addiction of polarization of long unemployment Today, we are facing a crisis of dehumanization. We are seeing the mass elimination and replacement of humans and human workers with artificial intelligence. And this is happening on a scale and with a velocity where it may not be possible for the economy and for policy makers to catch up and prevent this destruction. The Challenger Jobs report that tracks layoffs said that the first time AI related layoffs were reported was in 2023. Two years later, there were 72,000 jobs that were related to AI, that were eliminated because of AI. You heard from the author that in just 2026, that number has grown exponentially. We are facing a crisis and we need information so that policymakers can act because we cannot trust these companies to do it themselves. They come back with the promise of like, well, new jobs will be created and they'll be safer and they'll be higher skilled and better paid. What are they? Simply having a study that can identify where jobs are going to be besides what they say, which is construction and care jobs, which are physically demanding and may destroy workers and, you know, not allow them the long careers that they want if we destroy all the jobs that involve thinking. And the other piece is that all of this elimination of human jobs is being done because they are sucking data, they are extracting data out of workers and out of all of us, to be real. and just saying none of us are being compensated for that, yet they're able to train their products and make money. So I think this is an important bill. I just hope, I wish that it would just happen tomorrow and urge support.
Hi, good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. My name's Samantha Gordon. I'm with TechEquity. Thank you for the opportunity to testify in support. The author reviewed sort of the headlines. You all know you're on the Labor Committee. This is in the news every single day, right? These layoffs are happening. And I think it's important to point out that not only are people advertising that these layoffs are happening, the public is very concerned. There's been poll after poll, national polls, polls in California. It doesn't matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, what your gender is, what your race is, what your background is. Everyone is concerned that they're going to lose their job to AI. And so I just want to underscore, I want to put my nerd hat on because we do a lot of research on this. the sort of importance of this bill and really getting our arms around what data exists, what data doesn't exist, and what does that mean for not only workers, but also for the safety net and the programs that we are responsible to provide to people in those transitions. So right now, a lot of the studies that are coming out are based on this idea of task exposure. So they take sort of voluntary AI usage, what you and I might do with a chat bot, and look at what types of tasks we ask the bot to do, and then determine could that sort of task be done fully by an AI and not by a human expert. And then they extrapolate from there, okay, how exposed is a job that has these sorts of tasks in it to displacement? So that information is really helpful, right, because it tells us signals about where the technology is going, who's likely to be, you know, impacted. whether that's older women or young college graduates or what types of jobs, but it doesn't give us a full enough picture to make really strong economic sort of predictions and make sure our fund is ready, right? So as the author said, if even a fraction of what the tech CEOs are saying becomes true, whether it's hyperbole or not, if a fraction of it becomes true, we are woefully underprepared, woefully. And so at this moment, we need to really assess what can the state do? What is it already doing? EDD does great work on labor market indicators. What is the federal government doing? How can we pull all of that together and make really smart recommendations?
Thank you. Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Hi, Chair and members. J.P. Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support.
Catherine Beer, Houston United State Workers District 12 in support.
Shane Gusman on behalf of SAG-AFTRA and the Teamsters in support.
Good afternoon.
Hope Wallen, registered nurse with California Nurses Association. I support.
Hi, Jane Church on RN, California Nurses Association in support. Thank you.
So seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
Andrea Lynch here. I'm just going to provide a comment. Andrea Lynch here on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce. We appreciate the offer's willingness to work with us and have representation from the business community on this labor task force group. We think it's imperative that employers are at the table to discuss issues related to AI, to make proactive decisions on how to best serve the workforce and address future workforce needs. And so we appreciate the author's willingness to work with us. I also wanted to briefly mention the amendment regarding the displaced workers. So we'll address that at a later time and look forward to seeing those red lines. Thank you.
Do we have additional comments in opposition? Seeing none, turn it over to the dais for any comments or questions from members.
Yes. I want to thank the author for bringing this forward. I think it's really important for us. I think there's a lot of AI legislation, understandably, being brought forward over the last couple of years. But I think having this project done that really tells us what's going to happen to our labor force, because ultimately, as a legislature, ensuring that we have quality jobs, not just now, but for the foreseeable future, is an extraordinary, I think, priority of ours. These companies, and you give a list, all these companies, it's not about whether these companies care or don't care about workers. They're agnostic. It doesn't matter to them whether they employ 100,000 or a million workers. It's about profit margin and what will help them maximize that. That's not our priority. Of course, we want these companies to be successful, and I think this analysis will be part of that in terms of how do we ensure we both make sure there are jobs of the future for Californians and we can continue to innovate as well It not either or but I do think that the priority of protecting our workers is paramount And this project will allow us to have the right information and the right folks to help guide us through that process. So I appreciate you putting this forward. Thank you.
Can I just make one comment on that? I appreciate that. And I think, I don't know if people read, there was this theoretical memo that came out by Satrini Research in February, and it was circulated amongst, I think, a lot of Wall Street-type folks. It actually tanked the stock market for a little bit because it freaked people out so much about all of the white-collar jobs that are going to be replaced. And it went through a scenario that was pretty extensive. It took many, many pages. And I encourage everyone to read through it, just to think through how this can impact every aspect of work. And one of the things that it talked about in the business sector is how, you know, there's this drive for businesses to make more profit.
It makes logical sense in a lot of ways for these businesses because they're going to be getting something that, you know, can work 24 hours for free, no sick days, right? But essentially, at the end of the day, we are all in the same boat, because if workers are massively displaced, there will be no one to buy your product. There will be no taxes for governments to be stood up. And you're going to have five to ten companies that are making literally trillions of dollars, more money than our government has. in the state of California, and probably more powerful than governments. And so in a lot of ways, this displacement and using it as a displacement instead of a tool and augmentation is really leading to your own demise for so many businesses who actually need people to be able to pay their mortgage and buy insurance and pay for products and buy cars and all of those things, right? How is that going to happen if people do not have a job? Thank you. Would you like to add to your closing? Respectfully request an aye vote. Thank you so much. I see we had a motion and a second. Did we have a motion? Second. Secretary, please call the roll. File item number six, AB 2545, Chiavo. The motion is due passed and we refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Elhawari? Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That bill is out. We'll leave it open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you so much. Okay. Okay, now we will move to item number 10, Assemblymember Ward, AB 2027. Whenever you are ready Well, thank you, Madam Chair and members. I am grateful for the opportunity to present my triple referred bill, AB 2027, and I want to thank your committee staff hard work on this bill. AB 2027 addresses a growing gap in our labor laws as artificial intelligence becomes more prevalent in our workplace. Today, worker data is powering the AI economy. Employers are increasingly collecting detailed information about how workers perform their jobs through surveillance tools, software systems, and day-to-day workflows. That data is then being used to train AI systems which can replicate, automate, or replace those same workers. In other words, workers are being asked, often unknowingly, to train their own replacements. While California has been a national leader in protecting consumer data, we have not yet begun to extend similar protections to workers in the workplace. This bill, AB 2027, establishes clear and reasonable guardrails. First, it limits the collection and use of worker data to what is strictly necessary to administer the employee-employment relationship. Secondly, it prohibits employers from using worker data to train or deploy AI systems intended to replace workers. And third, it prevents the sale or sharing of worker data to third parties for the purpose of outside job automation. The bill also ensures that vendors are held to the same standard. Companies providing workplace technologies cannot use worker data to train their own AI products or share that data with others to automate jobs. Importantly, AB 2027 includes strong accountability measures. It provides enforcement through the Labor Commissioner and gives workers the ability to seek relief if their rights are violated. These protections are necessary because the impacts are already being felt across all industries. Workers in call centers, logistics, and tech, as you heard from the previous bill, are increasingly being asked to document their work in ways that are later used to automate their roles. And as history has shown, the impacts of technological displacement fall hardest on low-income and marginalized workers. So AB 2027 is about fairness, dignity, and economic security. Let me be clear. This does not ban artificial intelligence in the workplace. It simply ensures that innovation does not come at the expense of workers being used as a free resource to train the systems that replace them. We also recognize concerns raised by stakeholders in the committee regarding implementation definitions and scope, and we're committed to refining the bill and taking amendments to ensure that it's both effective and workable. California has always led the way in setting responsible standards for emerging technologies. AB 2027 continues that leadership by ensuring that as AI advances, our workers are protected. With me today in support are Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Federation and Shane Guzman on behalf of the California Teamsters Public Affairs Council. Hello, Madam Chair and members. Yvonne Fernandez with the California Labor Fed, proud co-sponsor of AB 2027. This year, the Labor Fed is sponsoring a package of bills, some that you have already seen, establishing technology rights as the new labor standards for the 21st century. And this is an integral part of that package because of the pressing need to prevent worker data from being used to eviscerate millions of jobs. Every day, there's an article published about the looming threat of AI-induced job loss. And these articles often include anecdotes from big tech executives acknowledging this fact. The CEO of Anthropic has previously predicted that unemployment can spike up to 20% in the next five years, and just recently the head of Microsoft's AI division said that white-collar work, for the most part, can be automated in the next two years. But what's conveniently left out of these talking points is the fact that these tools still rely on workers and still relies on their data Data is gold in this AI economy and it necessary to train and develop agentic systems because these systems are only as useful as the data that they are trained on So if the goal is to quickly automate these jobs for corporate profit, then data from a worker on how they actually do their jobs is becoming extremely valuable. And we believe that workers should not be forced to train their replacements. For example, call center workers have dealt with forced AI integration for many years. By listening in on these conversations, AI agents are now able to draft scripts and even answer some calls. I'm sure many members on this committee may have already interacted with an AI agent over the phone. And as these systems continue to learn, everyday Californians grow increasingly vulnerable to de-skilling and replacement. And with nearly every job in the knowledge industry being impacted by AI, workers have no escape or protection. AB 2027 establishes nation-leading protections by prohibiting employers and AI vendors from using worker data for automation purposes. And I also want to state our goal is not to prevent employers from using routine systems like email servers or sharing information for payroll purposes. Our goal is to prevent the undignified scenario of a worker contributing to the stripping of their livelihood. And for this reason, I respectfully urge your I vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, Shane Gussman on behalf of Teamsters California, the proud co-sponsor of the bill, and also the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here, the Utility Workers Union of America, the Machinists Union, and the Engineers and Scientists of California all in support of the bill. We feel that workers desperately need this bill. It accomplishes some very important things for workers as they face what's happening very rapidly in the workplace with AI. Number one, it protects worker privacy. I think there's an assumption out there that workers, once they enter the workplace, have no privacy or no right to privacy. And it's not true. And I think we need to step in and protect that. The other thing is mentioned by the previous witness is that when you require a worker to train their own replacement, It's incredibly exploitive, but it's exponentially so when they're training a machine to replace them. And at least when a worker trains another worker to replace them, they get paid to do it. In this instance, their data is being taken and sold, and the employer is making money off of it, and then replacing them with a machine. The other thing is that selling employee data and allowing that data to train replacements is only exacerbating the problems that we already see, and I've talked about in this committee, with the growth of AI surveillance and monitoring in the workplace. Workers are being demoralized in the workplace. It's impacting safety, and it's impacting productivity. So we strongly support this bill. A witness to the previous bill talked about the data, the public opinion polling, how people are concerned about AI in the workplace. Part of that polling also shows that the public doesn't trust the AI companies or the companies that utilize the AI to police themselves. They want the government to step in, and that's across all party lines, across all demographics. So we think this bill is appropriate and falls within that, and we urge your aye vote. Thank you. Do we have additional comments and support? Thank you. Good afternoon chair committee members Brian Miramontes with the California Teachers Association and support thank you. Katherine Villara Houston United Steel Workers District 12 in support. Samantha Gordon with Tech Equity in support. Carlos Lopez California School Employees Association in support. Chay P. Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support. I've also been asked to provide support on behalf of the California Faculty Association. Thank you. Judy He, State Bill Insurance, in support. Jason Henderson, on behalf of the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges, in support. Hope Wallen, Registered Nurse, on behalf of California Nurses Association, in support. Jane Churchon, California Nurses Association, in support. Seeing no other witnesses, any Any main witnesses in opposition? Thank you. Whenever you're ready, your seats are getting cold. It's just warming up. Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to AB 2027. Two overarching concerns we want to address with AB 2027 are the overly broad definition of worker data and two, restrictions on an employer's use to only what is strictly necessary. Sorry. So worker data is defined in relevant part as the following. Information that identifies, relates to, describes, is reasonably capable of being associated with, or could reasonably be linked directly or indirectly with the personal information relating to a worker, regardless of how the information is collected, inferred, or obtained, including but not limited to a worker's biometric data, employment history, or personal identifying information. The sweeping language potentially captures all workplace information, including email communications and payroll systems. Because these terms are highly subjective and undefined, employers are left without clear guidance on what information is actually covered. Further, this creates confusion regarding what data may be lawfully collected or used in the ordinary course of business and makes compliance difficult. Second, employers' use of the worker data is limited to only what is strictly necessary, but AB 2027 fails to define what that actually means. By broadly restricting the use of worker data, the bill fails to distinguish between technologies that replace workers and tools that assist employees in performing routine tasks more efficiently, including tools that support accessibility for workers with disabilities, as discussed in our opposition letter. As drafted, this language risks discouraging responsible innovation and limiting workplace technologies that improve productivity, accuracy, and job quality. For these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 2027 and respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Good afternoon. I'm Eric Luris, speaking on behalf of the California State Association of Counties in respectful opposition to AB 2027. First, we understand the concerns that motivated the author and sponsor. However, we are concerned the bill could severely limit or outright prohibit the use of tools already being used by public agencies to improve delivery of services, mitigate disaster risk, strengthen the social safety net, and empower the public workforce to grow, develop, and replace rote tasks with more meaningful work. This bill will prohibit employers from deploying artificial intelligence tools if they are trained with worker data to replicate automate or replace a worker job What does that mean exactly Consider the example of an AI tool used to detect water contamination which is currently in use That tool has been developed with the input of professionals, the exact type of training that could warrant prohibition of a tool by this bill. Something like a water contamination detection tool could easily meet the definition of automating or replicating a worker's job. But does it mean that all water quality scientists are replaced by robots or AI? No. It helps those professionals detect problems more rapidly in more locations than they could without it. I mentioned just one example of the types of AI tools that supplement the work of public employees. Public agencies also use AI to detect earthquakes and wildfire, enhance road and dam safety, reduce energy demands for wastewater treatment, and accelerate permitting following the wildfires in Los Angeles, to name just a few examples. We believe in the responsible, transparent, and ethical use of artificial intelligence. We believe in protecting workers from mass displacement. We believe it's critical to protect the privacy of the public we serve and our public employees. Public agencies have zero interest in replacing public sector employees with machines. We do believe in using new technology to better serve residents of California and improve conditions for the public workforce. AB 2027 would go too far in limiting these technologies, and for that reason, I respectfully ask for your no vote. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments in opposition? Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. In opposition, thank you. Sarah DeKett on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California, the Urban Counties of California, and the California Special District Association. In respectful opposition. Good afternoon, Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association. In opposition. Good afternoon, Chair members. We'll keep the respectful going. Melissa Kalsichuk on behalf of Western Growers in respectful opposition. Good afternoon. Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon. Nick Chappie on behalf of the California Trucking Association in respectful opposition. Thank you. Good afternoon, Chair members. Jose Torres with TechNet in opposition. Good afternoon, Elizabeth Esquivel with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, also in opposition. Seeing no other comments in opposition, I will now turn it over to the Dias for comments or questions from members. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'd like to move the bill and appreciate the author for his work in this space and for this legislation. And, you know, whenever I hear opposition to this kind of legislation about being too broad, too vague, that's where I encourage, rather than just blanket opposition, to actually help better define it. If there's an issue with, well, it means all emails, well, then define, okay, we don't mean this. If it's going to impact being able to use water quality tools by a water engineer, then say, okay, we want to make sure safety tools in this regard. I think that part of the reason I sometimes sense that that isn't offered up as an option is because I don't think employers want any of these tools to be questioned. And at the end of the day, as we've seen with other legislation that's come before us, either in this or other committees, these tools and this oversight of workers, and workers recognize it. We all recognize it. When you go to work, we have cameras. It not like we are saying that we can never ever be under some kind of supervision or there aren some tools that can help us do our job better no matter what the work is That where you sit down with workers whether they represented or not and say hey how do we improve the quality of your work make it safer make it more efficient But that's not what happens. And so we know what these tools are being used for and their surveillance is being used for because we see it happen all the time. We see it in these warehouses. We see it both in public and private sector employment all too often. And so I think that I would really just encourage folks that are opposed to come to the table and actually have the conversations where we can fine tune it as well as we possibly can. So it's a product that works for everyone. But the underlying goal is absolutely necessary. And so I appreciate the author for bringing it forward. Seeing no other questions or comments, would you like to close? Well, thank you, Madam Chair. I want to start, I think, where my colleague left off and just let you and the committee know that folks have been coming to the table. We started those active conversations. There's a lot to get right in here, and the definitions really do matter, because I heard a lot that we actually do agree on right now, and I believe we have sincerity from a lot of our partners out there, too, that do share the value to make sure that we are not trying to irresponsibly as a state allow for the automation and subjugation of our workers who ultimately are going to be subject to mass displacement. We know that that is a real threat that might be the biggest multi-generational shift in the labor force coming forward. And our diligence requires us now, this year, to be able to help provide some of those guardrails, maybe 2027 as a vehicle, maybe one of the primary vehicles to be able to afford that. I think as this bill moves forward a couple of things. One, on a lot of those definitions, we do want to get that right because I think that we need to continue that conversation. we're thinking about existing tools that are out there, whether email systems or existing technologies are there. I would argue, and if it's a matter of refining some of that definition, hopefully we can at least sort of check that one and get that one off at the table because, of course, many of those tools aren't capable of actually replicating the job. And so that probably is not the main issue that this bill, if and as it continues to move forward, is really going to come to bear. Some of the other issues, yes, we are committed to work on definitions that define what is strictly necessary in terms of that relationship and other elements as well that were raised here today and also in the opposition's letter. These are bona fide issues that we do want to be able to get right. But what we're not going to give ground on and what we are going to hone in on is a fundamental philosophy of how we respect work and who is producing that work. and that now that we have technology, in this case AI, coming into a system, you can't just drop as an employer an AI system in the workplace and have it just pick up and start doing the work. It's stupid. It needs to be trained. It needs those inputs. But once it gets those inputs and starts to learn and correct, it becomes smart. It becomes able and capable of maybe doing those jobs. Now, if some of those jobs, as we all probably would agree, can facilitate a healthy relationship, I can imagine a lot of employees would want to be able to use the systems because, one, it probably makes their job more efficient. They probably get to slough off a lot of the boring stuff, and they get to spend their time as an employee doing even more interesting and more advanced aspects of their job, a job for which they have trained themselves, they have committed themselves, they have dedicated themselves to be a part of the success of that profession, but ultimately the success of that company. But if those inputs that are training this system to become smart are ultimately intended to be able to replace that job Well I sorry but that employee has agency over that work because his or hers or theirs input created the intelligence to be able to perform that work, and that means you just can't throw them out onto the street. Because they have that agency, because they actually are now the lead agent providing that ongoing and cyclical work going forward right now, I believe they have some ownership over that. I think we should believe that as a state. And so I think that's where we want to make sure that, as a principle, we are holding on to is this issue as this bill continues to move forward. And when we do so, we realize that the workforce is going to be as best protected as it can be, and hopefully we can find what that synergistic relationship looks forward to in the workplace in the near future because people are scared. And so I'm excited for the development of this bill, I think because it can really set that standard, not just to protect California workers, but hopefully a model for all workers in the country that are going to be grappling with the very same issue. And with that, I respectfully request your aye vote. Thank you. And for those reasons, you have a strong aye. And we had a motion in a second. Secretary, please call the roll. File item number 10, AB 2027 Ward. Motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Chen? Not voting. Chen, not voting. El Hawari? Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That bill is out. We'll leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. We will now move to item 11 and 12. Assemblymember Lee, whenever you are ready. I'm going to start with AB 2095, the Fair Chance Act. Thank you, Madam Chair and colleagues. I am presenting AB 2095, which amends the Fair Chance Act. This act was passed in 2017, effective in 2018, building on prior ban the box legislation related to government employees. As was well described in the committee analysis, the Fair Chance Act and similar laws around the country are premised on the idea that a person's conviction history should not preclude them from getting a job if that history has nothing to do with the job duties. When people have served their time, they should get a fair chance to be gainfully employed, earn a living, provide for their family, and contribute to their community. This is why 37 states and the federal government have banned the box laws for hiring. The bill seeks to clarify how the act works and make some common sense changes, like not requiring the job applicant to pay for the background check, clarifying that the act applies when a person is applying for a promotion or different job with the current employer, requiring that assessments that describe why conviction history is irrelevant to their job duties should be in writing, and not allowing prospective employers to induce an applicant to volunteer their own potential conviction history. It has been eight years since the Fair Chance Act was enacted, and this bill will close some gaps and clarify some processes so that basic idea of the Fair Chance Act can work better. With me today, I have Molly Lau with Legal Aid at Work and Nedrick Miller with Prisoners with Children. Thank you, Assemblymember Lee. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and Members. My name is Molly Lam, a staff attorney with Legal Aid at Work, and I'm here in strong support of AB 2095. So as Assemblymember Lee said, California took an important step in 2018 when it enacted the Fair Chance Act, ensuring that people are judged first on their qualifications instead of their past by delaying background checks until the conditional job offer is given. But today, too many qualified applicants are still being unfairly excluded from employment due to old or irrelevant conviction histories. Every day I work with discouraged job applicants who have been denied jobs, oftentimes dozens of jobs, without any notice or explanation, and this is due to some of the issues that this bill aims to address. AB 2095 is necessary because it closes gaps that allow this discrimination to continue. For example, it requires employers to show that a conviction is directly related to the job and not just use convictions as a blanket ban to deny someone work. It brings transparency to the hiring process by requiring employers to provide a job-related written explanation, and this explanation is already required under the original Fair Chance Act. It just requires it to be written. And this bill recognizes a simple truth, and that is that people reentering society deserve a real second chance. Employment is one of the strongest predictors of successful reentry. When people can work, they support their families and communities and are far less likely to return to incarceration. But when barriers remain, we all pay the price through higher turnover and insufficient talent pools. AB 2095 also supports workforce participation by removing unnecessary barriers for rehabilitated individuals. When more people access stable employment, communities benefit from increased economic stability. So we ask that if employers consider criminal history, the inquiry is one focused on fairness, accountability, and relevance, and that's the focus of AB 2095. Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nedrick Miller, and I'm here on behalf of the Fair Chance Coalition Legal Services for Prisoners with Children, all of us and none, and we stand in strong support of AB 2095. In 2022, I was working while attending Sacramento State University as a full-time student, and I was doing everything accordingly to build a better future for myself. But these efforts were cut short by my employer's ignorance and stigma, driven by stereotypes about people with records. One day, while working, it started like any other day. I was running my register, stocking goods, and helping customers. A new manager had recently transferred to the store, and we started talking. During lunch, we realized we had something in common. We both grew up in South Los Angeles. He asked me what brought me to Northern California. In that moment, I chose to be honest. I shared my story, my past mistakes, the consequences, the work I had done to rebuild my life. What I didn't know was about a week later, the same manager ran my background check multiple times until he found a conviction from 1999. After that, he pushed HR to terminate me, saying he and other employees felt unsafe. When I came back to work after class, I was told that day that that would be my last. He said HR overlooked my history, and now they were correcting it. The only thing they offered me, which was a gift, was a chance to finish out my final shift because I was a good employee. I was confused. I had worked there for nine months. I had done my job well. I had even been asked to step into a leadership role and still my past outweighed everything I had done right. Later I learned through my employee email that my background check had been run repeatedly until they found a reason to let me go My story is not unique It reflects what so many people face after returning home We are told to work hard to change to rebuild but when we do the same system blocks us from moving forward We cannot say we believe in second chances while allowing people to be punished repeatedly for their past. AB 2095 is about making fair chance higher than real, and it closes the gaps that still allow this kind of discrimination to happen. Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support? Hi, I'm Sandra Johnson, and I'm here in support on behalf of Legal Aid at Work, and also on behalf of Western Center of Law and Poverty. Thank you. Mariko Yoshihara on behalf of the California Coalition for Worker Power and the California Employment Lawyers Association in support. Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Jordan Uter on behalf of WorkSafe in support. Bernice Singh with all of us, Hernandez Sacramento in support. Margo Duncan, Legal Service for Prisoners with Children, I support. Sam Fishman, Legal Services of Prisoners of Children, proud co-sponsor. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon. Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition to SB 951. I want to start by saying that we believe that the Fair Chance Act is a great opportunity to provide meaningful employment opportunities to those who are formerly incarcerated or have convictions. And we support the framework of the Fair Chance Act. Our concerns lie with the expansion of the Fair Chance Act to create administrative burdens and conflicting regulatory framework within the existing Fair Chance Act. Specifically, I want to draw your attention to three overarching issues. One, the overly broad scope. Two, extensive note of requirement. And three, conflict with existing law. Sorry. Give me just a moment. First, AB 29D5 establishes a presumption that a conviction is not sufficiently job-related whenever an applicant has either completed a sentence or obtained a license or credential. This approach not only prejudges the outcome of an individualized assessment, but also restricts an employer's ability to evaluate the specific risks associated with particular positions. More concerning is the presumption that there is no nexus between a particular conviction or a job applies broadly regardless of the nature of the gravity of the underlying offense or the duties of the position, including roles that involve access to vulnerable populations, confidential information, or sensitive environments. In practice, this could create uncertainty for employers attempting to make good-faith, safety-based hiring decisions. Our second concern is the mandatory disclosure of individual assessments, which increases litigation risks. AB 2095 would require employers to provide a written explanation of their reasoning. This could create an additional compliance burden and increase litigation risk without improving applicant protections Under the existing Fair Chance Act employers are already required to conduct individualized assessments and provide written notice when making preliminary adverse decision based on conviction history. Requiring employers to disclose the detailed reasoning underlying its decision is not only administrative burden, but also may compel employers to produce sensitive internal analysis that could be later used to challenge good faith hiring decisions. As I previously mentioned, existing law already provides applicants with meaningful notice and recourse to challenge preliminary hiring decisions. For these and other reasons, we respectfully oppose AB 2085 and respectfully ask for your no vote. Lots of adjustments. Sorry, Madam Chair. Chris McKaylee here on behalf of SHRM, the Society for Human Resource Management, in respectful opposition, although we should probably stop using that since we are always respectful in our legislative proceedings. We were involved in some of the original legislation by former Assemblyman Dickinson on the Fair Chance Act, and as Ms. Lynch indicated, believe that it strikes the right balance, current law that is. We have three concerns. The first is in the amendments to 12952C6 on the ability to suspend. It says for a reasonable amount of time, and that obviously doesn't have any specificity to it. So what is the meaning of reasonable amount? As Ms. Lynch had indicated, I think we also share the concerns about not only the removal of some of the current exemptions in 129.52, but also adding some additional requirements on exemptions in proposed subdivision D. And the last item I'll highlight is in subdivision E, allowing differences with local ordinances. We think that the Fair Chance Act should be applied statewide and that we should not have differing local ordinances. With that, Madam Chair, we respectfully ask for a no vote. Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition? Good afternoon, Emily Doe with California's Cardinals, respectfully opposed. Mark Farouk on behalf of the California Hospital Association in opposition. Seeing no other comments in opposition, I'll turn it over to the dais. We have a motion and a second. Assemblymember Lackey? Yeah, first off, I'd just like to state a couple things real quickly. I completely support the energy behind the Fair Chance Act. But I do believe, as the opposition has indicated, that this takes a step to where it becomes too broad and that it's a case-by-case consideration on when it's more appropriate to move forward in this thing. But what I find to be frustrating is even earlier today, we had a provision proposed that has gone by the letters GTFO. And that's get the federal people out of our society. And I find it hypocritical and a little bit frustrating that this legislature feels it's more hurtful to enforce the law than to break it. And that exactly the mood that exists right now and I don understand it But nonetheless I sorry that I won be able to support this I want to commend and thank the author for taking a deep dive onto this, because I particularly want to thank your witness for being here to present. There's probably no more powerful testimony than a personal story that demonstrates how the Fair Chance Act has not given you a fair chance that you deserved, and that that is beyond disrespectful, incredibly hurtful. And we deserve to be able to relook at this and look for improvements that are going to make sure that so many like you as well are given the support beyond support or given the equality that we are we are seeking here to make sure that that your future is successful. And I think that what I'm hearing is hopefully a lot of issues on definitional issues that possibly I know the author would be continue to be committed to be able to work on. but clearly there is room for improvement. And I think the structure here is really great to be able to move forward. I'm happy to support the bill here today as well. Thank you. Seeing no other comments, Assemblymember Lee, would you like to close? Yes. I'll acknowledge there's always room for improvement in the bill. So I look forward to further discussions about this, but, you know, much of the arguments provided today against the bill is the same kind of arguments provided against the fair chance act the first time in 2017. And that's what this is about, giving people a fair chance, a fair chance to get a job, to pay the rent and to feed their families. And this is about making sure that Californians recognize that you are more than just your criminal history, more than just a conviction, and that people ought to have a job. I mean, the fundamental thing is the reality is people that exit our carceral system, they have to live somehow. And if we aren't calling for universal basic income or something, then they need to get a job. And I think it's fair that people get their own careers and figure it out and ask that you respectfully vote aye on this bill. Thank you. Thank you. Secretary, we have a motion and a second. Please call the roll. File item number 11, AB 2095 Lee. Motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? No. Lackey, no. Chen? No. Chen, no. El-Hawari? Colra? Aye. Culver, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That bill is out. We'll keep the roll open for absent members. Thank you. All right. I have one more bill. This one will be AB 2653. No, no, you're not. Thank you, Madam Chair. This is AB 2653, the California Sweatshop Free AI Procurement Act. This bill would extend state government procurement supply chain labor standards to AI products. It's described in committee analysis, existing laws, its minimum labor standards for products purchased by the state, including no forced labor, compliance with applicable state and federal laws, ensuring workers are paid wages of benefit that comply with applicable local, state, or national laws where the work is performed, ensuring overtime hours are voluntary and properly compensated, ensuring no child labor complying with the labor laws of the jurisdiction but not younger than 15 years of age. When we think of AI products, we think of chatbots or tools that can often make photos into videos or answer random questions or even write legal briefs for entertainment purposes, of course. In general, we don't think about thousands and thousands of hours of human work need to train the AI models and to maintain the products as subscribers use and interface. Here are two examples of labor situations that are problematic in the current environment. First, training the AI model by cataloging every single millimeter of images with a human clicking and tagging each aspect of the image and telling the model what that aspect is. This can be innocuous images like people playing in the park with the co-worker, with worker tagging each tree, each bush, sky, each person, each part of each person, etc. But it is also more hazardous content, images of violence, criminal abuse, graphic pornography. But the work is the same, tagging each aspect of the images, each wound, each weapon, each interaction. Second, the hiring and the workload management structure can be problematic. With the primary AI company having subcontradict the work. Most immediately, this can create a disconnect of accountability if there are labor violations like wage theft. But it also allows for misclassification of employees as independent contractors whose only interaction with their employer is through an online platform from which they receive instructions and content to work on. Both these examples can happen in California, in other U.S. states, and in other countries. All with workers are building AI products that companies will want to sell to the state of California. AI products are exciting and represent new potential for workplaces in every industry and in government. but many of the workers building these products are suffering due to the lack of basic labor standards. Workers cataloging and tagging content to train AI models should be protected the same way as any person working with hazardous material, content that can induce depression, anxiety, or even nightmares. Working conditions that should ensure proper training, services, wages, hours, and legal protections. We established sweatshop protections in our procurement process to ensure that California taxpayer dollars are not supporting unacceptable labor conditions and violations. With a new frontier of artificial intelligence products, we need to extend those protections. With me today to speak in support is Frank Arce, Executive Vice President of the Communications Workers of America, District 9. Mitchell Kernut, representing the Alphabet Workers Union. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Frank Arce. I am the Vice President, International Vice President of Communication Workers of America, District 9, covering California, Nevada, Hawaii, Guam, and Pacific Islands. This is a bill that protects the workers who are training AI and keeping inappropriate images and videos from reaching our computer screens. As AI becomes integrated into our daily lives, we need to take steps to prevent inappropriate images and video from getting on your computer screen, your neighbor's computer screens, and your children's computer screens. In fact, last week, Governor Newsom issued an executive order requiring any AI company contracting within the state of California to take steps to prevent inappropriate images and video from being displayed. This public safety goal cannot be achieved without the workers, such as content moderators and others, who sit in front of their computer screens looking at inappropriate images on video for 10, 12, and sometimes 14 hours a day to reduce the chances that those videos end up on your computer screens. Those are workers in California, but also in other countries such as Kenya and the Philippines and across all of Latin America. sometimes just making $2 an hour and not being allowed to take their rest breaks. As you can imagine with this type of work, how important those rest breaks are to avoid trauma and PTSD. AB 2653 requires AI companies who enter into contracts with the state of California to follow some basic human rights and labor protections for workers in the supply chain whether they are in our state or around the world This is simply about how we are spending taxpayer dollars, and it should not go to AI companies who exploit their workers, whether they're here in California or anywhere else in the world. Thank you, and we ask you to support AB 2653. My name is Mitchell Kernott. I work remotely for Accenture as a vendor contractor for Google, and I also serve as the elected chair for Temps Vendors and Contractors, or TVC, workers like me within the Alphabet Workers Union, a proud co-sponsor of this bill that represents workers throughout Google's supply chain. Across the tech industry, AI products billed as miraculous are being sold for millions of dollars, but they're not miraculous. Our members here in California and the rest of the United States and workers across the world in countries like the Philippines and Kenya are responsible for creating and maintaining these experiences. Today, I want to highlight the stories of AI raiders. These workers look at the output of AI algorithms and the prompts users send them to make sure that incorrect, graphic, violent, and traumatic content doesn't make its way to you. In the case of Kern Gill II, a search quality rater, that means logging in every day to check an internal system for tasks, AI prompts, and outputs that he must rate for quality and or appropriateness within a small time frame. He could be checking for grammar, usefulness, hate speech, or pornography. Workers like Kern can spend eight-hour days checking for work only to find less than an hour of pay. And Kern himself has showed us a $70 paycheck for two full weeks of work. But busy days can also include the potential deluge of graphic content, and it can be dangerous for workers to turn down tasks when they don't know how many will be available. In place of real mental health support, workers like Kern get an impersonal 800 number and support team email addresses that don't disclose the names of his managers. Make no mistake, AI products cannot be safely offered to you without this work. The workers who do that work deserve safety, livable wages, and recognition for the service they provide to these companies and their users. AB 2653 would require that companies who want to do business with the state of California and receive taxpayer dollars disclose these supply chains, bringing workers out of the shadows and improving their working conditions. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have additional comments in support? J.B. Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association in support Sarah Flox California Federation of Labor Unions in support Samantha Gordon Tech Equity proud co-sponsor also offering support for equal rights advocates and the Alliance for Californians ACE Action Thank you You are close Catherine Beer at Houston, United Steel Workers District 12 in support. Good afternoon, Megan Abel, registering support for Kapoor Center Advocacy, American Federation of Musicians, Indivisible California State Strong, and Western Center on Law and Poverty. Thank you. Ken Wang on behalf of the California Working Family Coalition in support. Thank you. Thank you. Any main witnesses in opposition? You don't have to rush. It's late enough. I don't want to make you wait more. Good afternoon, Madam Chair and members. Robert Moutry for the California Chamber of Commerce, and we are respectfully opposed to AB 2653 I want to thank staff for the committee analysis I want to be clear certainly we not here to fight about most of the anti laws were covered, and I appreciate the issues the author flagged, right? Hours, concern, being paid for the work you do. I also appreciate the flag on the governor's executive order on this issue, directing DGS and Department of Technology to work in this space. I want to flag it, loosely touch on what the bill does, and then I'll get to our concerns. You know, we would summarize it as it adds a new definition to the procurement laws in California already related to AI products that require data enrichment and then changes procurement for those products and changes procurement for all other products. We see changes in both of those scopes. I first want to flag that definition, AI products that require data enrichment. We read that as so broad that it's hard for us to, and we talked about this in our office, to find an AI product that we don't think would be included. I know there was much discussion about identifying images, but we see this as touching all AI products that the state might use in procurement. Turning to the changes, I won't have time to deal with all of them, but our overall concern is that we view many of the provisions in this bill, they seem vague or difficult to clearly follow, meaning that it will be hard for us to get into a procurement process without being certain that we are actually meeting this, without violating what we should do. One flag, the bill calls for a living wage. That was mentioned. And it's difficult for us to operationalize, as an example, what a living wage is to prove and certify that we do it when we're looking across regions and nations, as opposed to a clear what is that number kind of issue. I appreciate the goal. Just think that as the companies that will have to certify that we have met exactly this, we need that to be precise. I want to flag that's as to AI products. Two other changes in the bill makes applicable to all procurement, not just AI products in our read. contractors must guarantee a workplace free of quote psychological harm you know obviously understand the concept but again we aren't sure how to operationalize that concept across regions countries and nations you know what is free from psychological harm for us to certify last piece I want to flag is there is a an advisement that we must affirmatively and routinely share a statement with workers affirming their rights to free speech association and many other things just concerned that we don't want to advise on that in countries where that may not be the right. Obviously, in America, that is. Thank you for the extra time. Do we have additional comments in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the dais for any questions or comments. Seeing none, we have a motion and a second. Assembly Member Lee, would you like to close or answer any of the opposition? Yes, thank you. I look forward to continue working this bill. It is a triple referred bill, so there are two other committees that it will be moving forward as well. But I do think it is very important that if the state gets involved with AI technology, it should be exploitation-free, no matter if it's a worker in California or working in the Philippines. We know now there is exploitation of human, exploitation working on AI in the private sector, of course, but we do not want to use our taxpayer dollars to support that. And I look forward to continue working on the bill in the next committees. We're certainly asking for your aye vote. Thank you. With a motion and a second, Secretary, please call the roll. File item number 12, AB 2653, Lee. Motion is due passed and re-referred to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? Not voting. Lackey, not voting. Chen? Chen, not voting. El-Hawari? Aye. El-Hawari, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That bill is out Thank you With everyone here can we do a call for the consent calendar Second. Motion and second. Secretary, please call the roll on consent. File item number one, AB 1961, Arons. Motion is due passed and re-referred to Committee on Judiciary. With a recommendation to the consent calendar, Ortega. Aye. Ortega, aye. I'm sorry, Lackey. Aye. Lackey, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Elhawari? Aye. Elhawari, aye. Colra? Aye. Colra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Consent calendar is out. I have one more. Okay. Oh, one more. File item number three, AB 2150, Haney. Motion is due passed and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations with a recommendation to the consent calendar. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Lackey? Aye. Lackey, aye. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. El-Hawari? Aye. El-Hawari, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Consent calendar is out. We will now move to our final two bills by me, Assemblymember Lackey. Thank you. I will now present AB 2321. Good afternoon, Chair and members. CalOSHA is broken, and I'm tired of excuses. So are the widows and families of the three men who died on the job in my district at Alco, Iron, and Metals. Their names were Ray Alfaro, Alberto Anaya, and Luis Fernando Guerrero. But this isn't just in my district. This is about all of your districts. Cases are not being investigated. Employers know that they aren't going to be held accountable. This was made clear and documented in the audit of Cal OSHA that I requested. You've all seen the hearing and you've heard of the findings. In the last five years, over 8,000 fines were reduced by an average of more than half. 82% of so-called OSHA investigations I call fake because they just send a letter. Cal OSHA Bureau of Investigation, or BOI, which is responsible for reviewing and investigating fatalities of serious cases, isn't getting the job done. The audit showed that they referred just 1.7% of serious cases for criminal prosecution. In California, you basically have to die at work for the BOI to investigate your case. But even then, your case may go unaddressed. In the audit hearing, I asked Cal OSHA, when do you decide to investigate a work place for serious safety issues or death? Is it after the first death? Is it after the second death? Or is it after the third death? They didn't have an answer. So, I am here presenting AB 2321 to provide them some assistance. Because like I said at the beginning, I'm tired of excuses. And I'm tired of hearing the response from that department that they're just short staffed. And that's been happening for decades. Upon appropriation, what AB 2321 will do is empower public prosecutors to investigate cases where there is a fatality or permanent disability. This is an approach the legislature has had success with for wage and hour cases. It will authorize the state legislature to appropriate existing funds from the Occupational Safety and Health Fund for the Labor and Workforce Development Fund that are currently going unused. The auditor found that this fund had a balance of over $200 million as of 2024. AB 2321 will require BOI to establish written policies and procedures for the process of reviewing cases and deciding whether to investigate or refer them for prosecution. Following recommendations by the auditor, what this bill will not do is waste state resources. The funding for the bill comes from a pool of money that is currently going unused. This is money that could be going to save lives, but is now being wasted, gathering dust while workers die on the job. Another argument I've heard is that the BOI has hired more staff and is now up to 11 investigators. They've gone from 1 to 11. I would like for them to tell the widow that I sat with who carries the death of her husband on her cell phone and tell her that 11 investigators is now acceptable in the state of California. So with that, I want to introduce my witness who is here, Sarah Phlox, with the California Federation of Labor. Mr. Vice Chair, members of the committee, Sarah Phlox, California Federation of Labor Unions. California has some of the strongest health and safety and labor laws in the country, but they are meaningless unless we have robust enforcement. And this bill is building on a model that exists and works, that until Cal OSHA is fully staffed and has the procedures to enforce the law, we need to find other avenues for the laws to be enforced. This focuses on the most egregious and criminal violations of the law, to be clear. And so what it does is it allows public prosecutors at the local level to pursue these cases after investigations have been done, after citations have been made. And we know that this works. This has been in place for enforcement of labor law and has been used by city attorneys And then actually Assemblymember Ward carried a bill a couple years ago that expanded a small part of the labor code covering live events for health and safety to public prosecutors as well. This is also very smart because it is paired with a budget appropriation. This is upon appropriation when these departments are fully funded and able to take on these cases. What we hope is that public prosecutors will go after the biggest bad actors, sending a chill and a message through the industry that health and safety laws matter. The lives of workers matter to the state of California, and these laws will be enforced. So we urge your support and thank the author for bringing this forward. I also have with me Aaron Hickey for any technical questions that you may have. I'm sorry I missed that. I just have Aaron here with me in case anyone has any technical questions. Okay, very, very good. Okay, do we have anybody who'd like to express their support for this measure? Please come forward, identify yourself. Catherine Behr, Houston United Steelworkers District 12 in support. Thank you. Do you have any formal opposition that would like to present? Thank you, Mr. Chair and Madam Chair and members. Robert Munchie, California Chamber of Commerce. I'll try to be as brief as possible. I was at the audit presentation with the member, obviously cannot speak for the failures at CalOcean in terms of their enforcement. And I've had, I will say, member companies complain to me that they will show up to settlement conferences and cases unready to discuss cases. So I can't speak to those issues. Our concern here is not around their staffing issue. It's focused on kind of one specific portion of the bill, not the crafting of regulations around cases, but specifically the automatic forwarding of certain cases to criminal prosecutors. We don't think that is the best step forward. My twin brother is a prosecutor, and I will tell you he's always underwater and not getting to cases. That's a whole different budget issue. So we don't see that as an improvement to the workflow. And second, having spoken to defense attorneys in the space, they've told me that oftentimes when they do work with prosecutors, they are slower because they don't know workplace safety as well. So our concerns come from that portion, but sympathetic to the concerns raised by the author on staffing and can't speak to those, really. Thank you. Do you have any other persons who would like to express opposition? Seeing none, we'll go back to the dais. Anybody have any remarks, questions? We already have a motion. I would just say that we know that the state doesn't have enough resources, and so going to public prosecutors, especially those counties that have shown a willingness, and helping to fund them through an existing fund that has resources makes the most sense to me if we actually care about cracking down on this conduct. I really don't think the employers are worried about the workload of public prosecutors. I think they're worried about actually being prosecuted. And so I fully support this and thank the chair for bringing it forward. Thank you. Member Lee, go ahead. Thank you. I also want to thank the author for bringing this bill. I would love to be joined as co-author if possible. But I do think this is important I going to call it where I suppose to But I think this is also in keeping with if OSHA our OSHA is not willing to fulfill their responsibility then just like many local prosecutors who are also going after wage theft and also other unsafe environments then we should also allow more people more prosecutors to fulfill the law If they're breaking the law criminally, then they ought to be held responsible. So local prosecutors also make sense. So I am happy to support this bill. Thank you. Any other questions or comments? Madam, you may close. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Okay. We have a first and a second, correct? Or do we not? I don't think we do. No, we had a first, second, and a third. Yes. Oh, that's right. We did. We had a flurry going on there. Okay. Go ahead and call for the roll, please. File item number 13, AB 2321, Ortega. Motion is due, passed, and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega?
Aye.
Ortega, aye. Lackey?
Not voting.
Lackey, not voting. Chen?
Not voting.
Chen, not voting. El Huari?
Aye.
El Huari, aye. Cholra?
Aye.
Cholra, aye. Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Ward?
Aye.
Ward, aye. Measure passed.
Thank you.
Ready for your next one.
Yes.
I will now present AB 2575.
Thank you, Chair and members, for the opportunity to present AB 2575. This is also a triple referral, so I'm in that club with you guys. AB 2575 is built around a simple principle. In healthcare, artificial intelligence should only support clinical judgment, not replace it. AI may offer promise, but in real-world settings, these tools can still get it wrong. They can generate false alarms and miss serious conditions. AI can also reflect the same bias that already exists in data they were trained on. Knowing these faults, our frontline healthcare workers find themselves in an impossible double bind. Their employers are using these tools and making workers follow the output. But if the AI is wrong and the patient is harmed, it is the workers and not the AI who face liability. Follow the machine, get blamed, override the machine, risk retaliation. When an AI tool goes awry because of the developers or an employer's failure to develop safeguards, someone can try to hold them liable. But developers and employers can use a legal loophole called superseding clause by pointing the finger at healthcare workers and failing to catch the AI's mistake. When they win using this loophole, they face zero liability, even if their negligence caused harm. To address this, AB 2575 has three key provisions. First, the bill prohibits employers from retaliating against a healthcare worker for using their professional judgment to either override or follow an AI recommendation. Second, the bill requires AI tools to carry an attrition facts label that lets healthcare workers know the risk and intended uses of the tools they use. Third, it prevents a developer or employer from using the superseding clause loophole to shift blame to healthcare workers and avoid liability for their mistakes made in patient care The purpose of AB 2575 is not to stifle innovation We know that it being used We know that it's an everyday where some of us use it here whenever we have a cold and we want to find out what's happening. So it's not the goal of this bill to stop that. The goal of this bill is for accountability, transparency, and patient safety. When human lives are at risk, human health care professionals should be the ultimate decision makers, not AI. Here to testify in support are California Nurses Association Diane McClure and Sarah Phlox from the California Labor Federation.
Good afternoon, Chair and members.
My name is Diane McClure. I'm a registered nurse and board member of the California Nurses Association. This bill addresses a reality many nurses and other health care workers are confronting today. Our employers are telling us we must use AI systems without basic information about these tools and without clear protections to object to and override them without fear of retaliation. As nurses, we ask, what is the tool doing? What data is it using? what are his risks and limitations and is it working? But we aren't getting any answers. When employers expect nurses to rely on technology that we cannot meaningfully evaluate, object to, or override, our patient's safety is at risk. After more than 35 years as a registered nurse, I know that safe patient care is never just about what is on a screen or in a chart. Patient care is about understanding the human being in front of us through assessment, listening, observation, and evaluation. For example, in the emergency department, an AI triage tool might estimate a patient's severity of illness and assign the patient a low priority score based on the information entered into the system when they walked in the door. But a patient's conditions may change. A triage nurse may look, touch, or even smell a patient and immediately know something is off. Maybe they're pale or their skin is cool to the touch. They're barely holding themselves upright or minimizing symptoms because they're scared. The nurse knows through her professional judgment that the patient needs care sooner than the AI tool predicted. Using our judgment as nurses, we must be able to care for our patients without being pressured by our employer to defer to a machine. and hospitals and tech developers should not be able to escape responsibility for unsafe AI systems just because a clinician is somewhere in the loop. This is not really a debate about technology. Nurses simply want to ensure that we can still question, intervene, and protect our patients when there's something wrong with the tools our employers are asking us to use in patient care. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
You may proceed.
Mr. Chair, member of Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions, and we're proud to co-sponsor this bill. That's part of our AI package. And I want to start with the opposition coalition letter, because one of the lines that they wrote was that we have a shared obligation and commitment to ensure that these AI tools are developed and deployed responsibly, equitably, and transparently. Well, that is great because what AB 2575 does is codify the guardrails that are necessary to make sure that AI tools meet those lofty goals. It is not enough to have a commitment and an obligation on the part of an employer. You have to have laws in place to make sure that humans are in command. It's not enough to have them in the loop. Not when you have massive amounts of data filled, put into a black box algorithm that's spitting out an output to a nurse or a healthcare worker that already has a hundred other things going on. You need to have the conditions to make sure that human is in command. That includes transparency, and that includes what's most important for Labor Committee is what's in the Labor Code, which is protection from retaliation and discipline, the freedom to make decisions to override or to follow this machine that your employer purchased. And so we think this is a very common sense bill. It's a model for other industries and we urge your support.
Thank you very much. Is there anybody else would like to come and express your support for this measure? Please state your name, organization, and your position.
Thank You Mr. Vice Chair and members. J.B. Hanna on behalf of the California Nurses Association, proud to sponsor this measure. Thank you. Thank you.
Catherine Beery-Houston, United Stowler District 12, in strong support. Thank you.
Hope Wallen, registered nurse with California Nurses Association, and I support.
Jane Churchon, registered nurse, California Nurses Association, in support.
Judy Yee, state bill and trade, support.
Carlos Lopez, California School Employees Association, in support.
Good afternoon. Jennifer Robles with Health Access California, also on behalf of Western Center Law and Poverty, in support.
Chiana Somali, AFSCME, California, in support. Thank you.
Megan Abel, Tech Equity Action, in support.
Okay, thank you very much. Opposition, do we have any formal opposition? Please come forward. State your position. You each have two minutes.
Thank you. Thank you, Chair and members. Alexis Rodriguez here with the California Chamber of Commerce in opposition to AB 2575. AB 2575 seeks to impose numerous notification and disclosure requirements on health care facilities using AI tools and systems. This bill will negatively impact these tools that are already safely and effectively used in health care every day. AI tools and systems have the ability to improve the early detection of life-threatening conditions. AI is already helping clinicians detect sepsis sooner, improve their accuracy of cancer screenings, assist with screening patients' medication orders, and more. To be clear, CalChamber believes AI in healthcare should not replace providers. It is there to support them in the practice of medicine. Medical professionals can and should use their professional judgment when using AI tools. With that said, AB 2575 would impose liability on healthcare entities and AI developers whenever there is harm resulting from a professional using an AI tool. If a patient is harmed, there should be thorough investigation on who or which tool is truly at fault. Strict liability on the healthcare facility and developer will only discourage the use of AI in healthcare and dissuade innovation and creative tools in the future We share the goal of responsible AI use in health care but unfortunately AB 2575 only moves us in the wrong direction For those reasons we respectfully urge a no vote
Thank you. Thank you. You may proceed, sir. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Mark Farouk,
on behalf of the California Hospital Association, representing nearly 400 hospitals and health systems. I want to start off by saying we are opposed to AB 2575, but I want to start off by saying that California's hospitals and health systems stand by the responsible deployment of artificial intelligence tools to assist, not replace, medical professionals, and improve patient outcomes through improved detection and screening. Our members maintain detailed governance frameworks, risk assessments, and oversight of AI technology that is used in their facilities. AI is assisting in saving lives and improving patient outcomes, while also removing some of the administrative burdens from health professionals. Even with the proposed amendments that are outlining the analysis, significant issues remain. The overly broad definition of covered tool includes not only artificial intelligence, but also clinical decision support systems, which will sweep in technologies that have been around for decades. I just want to note that health care providers in California are required to comply with something known as the data exchange framework to ensure the sharing of medical records across different health systems so that patients can access those records. This is enabled through electronic medical record platforms. Those platforms have this technology embedded. The provisions of this bill will make it extremely difficult to maintain those systems and to be able to comply with existing law related to the data exchange framework. Additionally, the multiple disclosures still required in the bill, even with the amendments, include 12 separate data points that go far beyond even the requirements that the FDA has for approving new medical technology. Additionally, the bill requires disclosures of data that providers may not even have available. Finally, we are concerned that the bill creates a strict liability standard on the developer and the facility for harm ultimately caused by an individual overriding the system. By doing so, the bill is empowering individuals to override AI outputs, absolving them from any accountability if their independent judgment caused the harm to the patient. There is no mechanism for evaluating whether an override itself was reasonable. Again, for these reasons, we are opposed, but just would like to finish off by saying We use AI to assist medical professionals, not replace their judgment. Thank you.
Okay, anybody else who would like to express their opposition, please come forward and you know the rules.
George Sorris with the California Medical Association in opposition.
Mr. Chair, Chris McKeeley on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California in opposition.
Thank you.
Mr. Chair and members, MJ Diaz on behalf of Kaiser Permanente in opposition.
John Winger on behalf of the Advanced Medical Technology Association, Abamed, in opposition.
Chair and members, Luis Sanchez on behalf of the California Association of Health Plans, in opposition.
Thank you, Chair and members.
Ryan Perrini on behalf of ATA Action, the advocacy arm of the American Telemedicine Association, in opposition.
Thank you.
Chair and committee members Gilbert Lara with Biocom in opposition Good afternoon Zoe Johnson on behalf of California Life Sciences in opposition Good afternoon Chair Members Jose Torres with TechNet in opposition
Bring it back to the dais. Any comments, questions, motions? First and second. No other comments, questions?
Senate member, you may close.
I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay. Madam Secretary, I think we're ready. File item number 14, AB 2575, Ortega. Motion is due, pass, and re-refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ortega?
Aye.
Ortega, aye. Lackey?
Sorry, no.
Lackey, no. Chen?
Chen, no.
Elhawari?
Aye.
Elhawari, aye. Kalra?
Aye.
Kalra, aye. Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Ward.
Ward aye.
Measure passes. And before we move too deeply, I'd like to do a vote change.
AB 2511.
And I'll tell. I know how to announce it.
Yeah, I'd like to do a vote change AB 2511 not voting to no.
Okay, Lackey not voting to no. Thank you. File item number eight, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll. File item number eight, AB 1697, cholera. Motion is due pass as amended and re-referred to committee on appropriations. Ortega.
Aye.
Ortega, aye. Lackey?
No.
Lackey, no. Chen? 1697 now. 1697.
Aye.
Chen, aye. El Huari?
Aye.
El Huari, aye. Calra?
Aye.
Calra, aye. Lee?
Aye.
Lee, aye. Ward?
Aye.
Ward, aye. That bill is out. Maybe just start with the beginning. Okay. File item number two, AB 2511, Aaron. Motion is due, passed, and re-referred to Committee on Health. Chen? No.
Chen, no.
El Hawari? Aye.
El Hawari, aye.
I think there's more. Oh, I'm sorry. Ward? Aye.
Ward, aye.
Bell is out. File item number four, AB 2157 Connelly. Motion is due passed and we refer to Committee on Appropriations. Chen? No.
Chen, no.
El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. That bell is out file item number five AB 2488 Chiavo Motion is due passed and we refer to committee on appropriations. El Huari? Aye. El Huari, aye. That bill is out. File item number six, AB 2545, Chiavo. Motion is due passed and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer Protection. El Huwari? Aye. El Huwari, aye. That bill is out. File item number seven, AB 2530, Colosa. Motion is due, passed as amended, and we refer to committee on judiciary. El Huwari? Aye. El Huwari, aye. That bill is out. File item number eight, AB 1690. Oh, we just did that. Sorry, Sorry. File item number nine, AB 2495, cholera. Motion is due. Pass and we refer to committee on judiciary. El Huwari. Aye. El Huwari. Aye. Ward. Aye. Ward. Aye. That bill is out. File item number 10, AB 2027, Ward. Motion is due. Pass and we refer to committee on privacy and protection. El Huwari. Aye. El Huwari. Aye. That bill is out. File item number 11, AB 2095, Lee. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary. El Hawari?
Aye.
El Hawari, aye. That bill is out. File item number 12, AB 2653, Lee. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Privacy and Protection. I'm sorry, and Consumer Protection. That bill is passed. Never mind. Move it up. You did that one, yes. Yes. That's it. Are we good? Okay.
Seeing no further business, we are adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you.