June 10, 2026 · Labor And Employment · 11,472 words · 13 speakers · 114 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. Thank you.
Good afternoon. We would love to get started. If I can get members of the Labor and Employment Committee to come on over, we have authors ready to present. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.
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 conduct that disrupts disturbs or otherwise impedes the orderly conduct of legislative proceedings commenters who impede the orderly conduct of this meeting may be ruled out of order and may be removed we will begin as a subcommittee senator small We have item number one whenever you are ready. And thank you for being on time.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I am now. 09, which strengthens enforcement of public works laws to ensure workers are paid the wages they earn. It also protects responsible contractors, and it's a safeguard for taxpayer dollars. When the state spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid fairly. Responsible contractors should be able to compete on a level playing field, and taxpayers should know their money is supporting lawful, high-quality work. But that is not always what happens. Wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects, and penalties have not been meaningfully updated in over a decade. Bad actors are too often able to treat violations as just the cost of doing business. But for workers, this is not an abstract. A construction worker can put in long hours of hard work on a public works project, expecting a fair paycheck, only to find out that they were underpaid and misclassified. That missing pay means rent, it means groceries, it means gas in their car and money to get to the next job. SB 909 fixes this by directing penalties toward enforcement and ensuring bad actors no longer outcompete contractors who do follow the law. This is about protecting workers. It's about ensuring fair competition and making sure taxpayer dollars support lawful work. With me to testify today is Matthew Cremins with the International Union of Operating Engineers and Elmer Lazardi.
No this is not Elmer Lazardi Voila Sarah Phlox with the California Federation of Labor Thank you Madam Chair and members Matt Kremens here on behalf of the California-Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB 909, which would modernize public works contractor registration fees, update penalties for prevailing wage violations, and seek to take a critical step to ensure that our state's labor compliance capabilities are as robust as the laws that we currently have in statute. It is often said members in this building that a budget is a reflection of our priorities and I truly think the same thing can be said about our enforcement of our state labor laws and that in many ways It is truly a choice. We're either willing to do what it takes to protect workers in this state or we are not As I know this committee knows well wage theft and misclassification in the construction industry remains rampant With a use with a recent UC Berkeley study finding that one in five construction workers will experience wage theft throughout their careers And this growing frequency of wage theft can also be seen at the Labor Commissioner's office, where a recent audit found that the State Labor Commissioner had 47,000 backlog wage theft claims that are taking an average of 854 days to issue decisions on. So with that being said, this bill simply seeks to take a small but important step to ensure that we are better prioritizing enforcement, and it's going to do so in three ways. First and foremost, it's going to increase the amount that the Labor Commissioner can set Public Works contractor registration fees, which importantly is the only sole dedicated source of funding for enforcement currently. It's going to increase prevailing wage penalties for the first time since 2012 to ensure that those continue to act as a deterrent for contractors seeking to violate the law. And lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the bill is going to require that 50% of public works penalties that are collected by the Labor Commissioner must go back into the Public Works Enforcement Fund. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your aye vote.
Madam Chair, members, Sarah Flux, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are also a co-sponsor of this bill. And we would like to thank the author and also the chair for their work on enforcement. it because California does have some of the best, if not the best, labor laws and protections for workers in the state, yet none of that matters if those laws are not enforced. We need robust enforcement agencies, both to make sure that workers are made whole after wage theft and to deter bad behavior by employers. And we need to have the penalties that are set at a level, So it's just not the cost of doing business to steal wages from workers. And so this bill is a very smart combination in that it increases the penalties on employers to make sure that they are paying the prevailing wage. But it also reinvests those funds into the agencies that need to be doing the work. And this is a piece of a larger puzzle to make sure that there's adequate staffing and that there is aggressive enforcement, proactive enforcement of these laws. So we thank the author and the other sponsor for bringing this forward and urge an aye vote.
Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Mike West on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council of California in support.
Madam Chair and members, Martin Vindial on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers,
the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.
Vince Seguru on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support.
Navneep Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support Good afternoon James director of the California State Council of Laborers in proud support Thank you
Keith Umamoto from California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.
Seeing no other witnesses in support, do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California, and we respectfully oppose Senate Bill 909. Let me start by saying that AGC supports strong and fair enforcement of public works laws. Responsible contractors want a level playing field, and we support efforts to ensure workers are paid correctly and protects projects comply with the law. Our concern with the bill is not the goal, it's the structure. This bill increases the statutory cap on annual fees, which would increase burdens on small and mid-sized contractors. Additionally, it would increase daily civil penalties, leading to further potential financial risk for contractors in the case of clerical or unintentional errors. As prime contractors are liable for subcontractor compliance, this risk compounds. At the same time, the bill significantly increases penalties across multiple areas, prevailing wage, payroll records, and apprenticeship compliance. The bill also directs 50% of penalty revenue into the enforcement fund. That raises a structural concern for us because it creates a dynamic where the enforcement system is partially funded by the penalties it generates. We're also concerned that increasing fees and penalties does not address the underlying issue that's been identified by the proponents and by the state auditor, namely delays in backlogs and enforcement. If anything, increasing penalties without improving administrative capacity risks more disputes, more appeals, and longer resolution timelines. And ultimately, these increased costs and risks will be reflected in higher bids, reduced competition, and increased costs for public agencies and taxpayers. We support fair enforcement fair enforcement, but SB 909 creates a system with a greater cost greater risk and less transparency without solving the core challenges and enforcement and for those reasons we respectfully have to oppose this measure.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?
Good afternoon chair and members Naomi Padron on behalf of the American Subcontractors Association of California. We would echo the concerns outlined by my colleague at AJC. Thank you. Thank you. Seeing all their witnesses in opposition. Do we have any comments from the diet?
Oh, do we have? Oh, let's take a minute to establish quorum. Secretary, please call the roll.
Ortega? Here. Alanis? Here. Chen? Arambula? Here. Kalra? Lee? Ward? Here. Move the bill. Thank you.
We have a motion and a second. Seeing no other comments, I do have some comments myself. I actually, as was mentioned, I've spent a lot of time in the last three years working on the issue of wage theft and more time on the issue of enforcement.
That's right.
And while I am recommending an eye today, I would like the author and the supporters to continue thinking about the enforcement piece of this. As was mentioned, we have over 40%. 37,000 wage theft backlog right now and, you know, requiring more of the DIR when right now they're not doing their job, I think is something for us to look at and consider. Unfortunately, you know, with two audits that I've looked through and done now, it's clear to me that in the state we care more about fish and wildlife than we do about workers. and I've stated this in other committees so you know I'm I do have concern about how this is actually going to be enforced but with that said I understand the bigger picture and what you're trying to accomplish here today with that I I will be giving it an eye recommendation seeing no other comments secretary would you like to call the roll or oh sorry I apologize oh no I
Would you like to close?
Well, thank you, Madam Chair. And you know I share your concerns about the protection of workers and the lack of investment by the state of California in enforcement of the laws that we pass to protect working people. What I appreciate about this bill is that it's a revenue generator at a time when the state does not. We have a serious convergence and compression around our fiscal outlook. And just like our workers are struggling with rising costs of eggs and milk and gas, we've got to look at raising the penalties and making sure that they're keeping pace with what makes it important for contractors to pay attention to. So I share your concerns. We hope that this will help generate income and revenue to increase enforcement and to make it more fair so that those lawful contractors who are doing the right thing are rewarded. and those who are not are forced to make sure that they support and follow California law. So with that, I respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Okay, Secretary, please call the law.
File item number one, SB 909, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due pass and re-referred to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Kalra? Lee? Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. We will leave the roll open for absent members. Thank you. Thank you. Yes.
We will go a bit out of order. Seeing item number four, Senator Reyes, SB 951. Whenever you are ready, Senator.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair and committee members. Today I am presenting SB 951, the California Worker Technological Displacement Act. Artificial intelligence is rapidly transforming our economy and workplaces. The governor's recent executive order makes that very clear. The question is no longer whether AI will impact workers. The question is how California will respond. SB 951 is that response. According to the Challenger jobs report AI has already been linked to nearly 72 job cuts nationwide including approximately 55 in 2025 alone In California that number is from 10 to 31 job losses Major employers, including Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Intel, UPS, Citigroup, Salesforce, and Oracle, have all publicly announced significant workforce reductions associated with AI adoption. And the workers who are on the brink of losing their jobs to automation should not have to wait months for a report before receiving basic notice and transparency. This bill requires employers to provide a 60-day advance notice when 25 or more workers are displaced by technology. It also provides California with critical information about how artificial intelligence and automation are affecting jobs and workforce trends, so future policy decisions can be driven by facts rather than assumptions. Most importantly, SB 951 recognizes a simple principle. When technology replaces workers, those workers deserve notice, transparency, and an opportunity to prepare. California has always led the nation in both innovation and worker protection. I urge employers and members of this committee to embrace technological advance while ensuring workers are not left behind. Here to testify in support of the bill is Sarah Flox with the California Labor Federation.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Members, Sarah Flox, California Federation of Labor Unions. We are the sponsor of SB 951. So the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act was a response to the deindustrialization and automation that devastated entire communities and regions of this country starting in the 1980s. Today, artificial intelligence tools threaten a dehumanization of the economy, hitting large swaths of this nation, potentially creating catastrophic job loss everywhere in the state, from warehouses to the tech industry to the financial administration, customer service and entertainment industries. tech companies say that AI will create new jobs in its place and increase productivity that benefits everyone. Yet tech CEOs have yet to say what jobs will be created for whom and how many of them. And AI is very different than any technology. It moves at a speed and velocity and has a scope that is unmatched. And it's moving so fast that the economy is not having enough time to create the jobs to replace what is lost, and society has not had the time to adjust. There is not enough retraining in the world if there are no jobs that we can train workers to take. But catastrophic job loss caused by AI is not inevitable. It is a political choice. It is a choice that all of us have to make. We can respond to the human wreckage caused by AI after it happens, or we can proactively put in place the policies that slow it and make sure the benefits of AI are equitably distributed Right now our safety net is frayed and broken Our UI system is insolvent and we don have the resources to deal with this SB 951 gives policymakers the data they need to make those hard choices and it gives it to them in real time and for those reasons we urge an aye vote. Thank you. Do we have
additional witnesses in support.
Naphne Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association
in support. Good afternoon chair committee members Brian Mary Montes the California Teachers Association in support. Good afternoon Mitch Steiger with CFT a union of educators and classified professionals also in support. Janice Somalia, Ask Me California, in support. Thank you. Good afternoon, Violet Spidler, on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Tech Equity Action, in support. Chay Bihanna, on behalf of the California Nurses Association, in support. Megan Varbey, with Kaiser Advocacy, on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, in support. Good afternoon, Eric Paredes, with the California Faculty Association, in support.
Keith Imamoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support.
Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
Good afternoon. I am Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and and respectful opposition to SB 951. We appreciate the author has worked with us in good faith on amendments. This matters and we are grateful, gratefully appreciative for the continued dialogue. However, there are still critical concerns with the bill. Few people in this room have sat on both sides of a layoff. I say that not just as an advocate, but as someone who has lived it. I've been laid off before and spent months without work. That layoff led to my tenure at ADD. I understand deeply how destabilizing job loss can be. I've also administered CalWARN notices on behalf of an employer, and I know how emotionally charged and nuanced that process is. These are never easy decisions, and California employers do not make them lightly. That shared understanding is exactly why we believe Governor Newsom's executive order is the right next step. The order reflects a serious, comprehensive commitment to this issue. Notably, it directs the LDWA in consultation with both labor and employers to deliver recommendations on modernizing CalWARN. It also directs the EDD to publish ongoing data on AI's impact on hiring and workforce decisions. This is the exactly kind of grounded, collaborative process and a question this consequential deserves. Moving forward before those findings are in hand risks locking in the wrong policy at exactly the wrong moment. We also want to flag two areas where we believe the bill would benefit from further refinement. The 25-worker threshold, half of CalWarn's 50, would extend significant compliance obligations to small and mid-sized employers who are least equipped to absorb them. And the right-to-first bid creates an untested preferential hiring obligation that does not exist under CalWarn and raises significant operation on legal questions about how employers manage internal postings, qualifications, and restructuring decisions. We believe a workable solution is within reach and remain committed to finding it together. And the PAC there runs through the executive order process, not around it. For these and other reasons we respectfully ask for your no vote Good afternoon Good afternoon Madam Chair Chris McKaylee here in respectful opposition to SB 951 on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California. Four specific items. The first is in 1414.1E, which is the definition of worker. We don't believe that independent contractors should be included. These are often limited-term workers who have an agreement. That agreement almost always contains, for example, provisions related to their termination. The second item is we believe that under 14.14.3 C6 that the notice requirement could actually result in the release of AI technology, which we believe is appropriately proprietary to the owner and do not think that that information should be released. The third item is in 14.8A, which is a new private right of action, along with some of the vague causation standards, which we believe exist in the bill, makes it very problematic, and we believe that will result in excessive litigation. We're also concerned in that provision on not only could the individual sue, but also his or her worker representative. We do have some history with that, for example, in the unfair competition law, and we think that that opens up for additional and unnecessary litigation. The last item I will mention, Madam Chair, Bloomberg Law earlier this year talked about last year's in 2025 New York did an AI-warn law, and of the initial 160 mass termination notices, they didn't attribute solely to AI in a single one of those, because obviously there are multiple factors often that take effect. So thank you, Madam Chair.
Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. Erin Avery, California Special District Association, respectfully with an opposed and less amended position. Thank you. Sarah DeKett on behalf of the rural county representatives of California and the urban counties of California with an opposed and less amended position. Good afternoon, Matt Easley on behalf of the California Chapters of the Associated General Contractors. Here with a respectful opposed and less amended. Good afternoon, Chair members. Melissa Kalsachuk with Western Growers in opposition. Thank you. Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. Respectful opposition. Good afternoon, Julissa Cajar-Cardenas on behalf of the California State Association of Counties and respectfully opposed and less amended. Thank you. Ethan Nygler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts. Respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair. Jaiakiannis with Sloan Higgins Jensen. Respectfully opposed on behalf of the California Fuels Convenience Alliance. Thank you. And having come on behalf of the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Good afternoon, Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Unions in opposition. Thank you. Hi, Chairwoman, members of the Committee, Rachel O'Brien, California Groceries Association, opposed. Robert Singleton, with Chamber of Progress, also of an opposed unless amended position. Good afternoon, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions Management, or PRISM, respectfully opposed unless amended. Thank you. Good afternoon, Andrew Martinez, the Community College League of California, opposed unless amended, hope to work it out. Thank you. Jacob Brim with the California Retailers Association in respectful opposition
Seeing no other comments in opposition, I will turn it over to the Dias for any comments. Assemblymember Ward.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Senator, for bringing this issue forward. I think a lot of us are waking up to the threats and the challenges that we have out there with AI now coming into our daily experiences. And while we are hoping for some synergistic and, you know, really co-beneficial futures, you know, we raise some, I think to your witnesses, you know, verbiage, you know, the right to be able to think proactively around this. I don't disagree, and I applaud our governor for thinking about the executive order that is going to set some things in motion, and credit where credit is due. Something's happening in Washington, D.C., thankfully, because a lot of us don't foresee a lot happening there. I'm still doubtful that much will, but there are some things in motion. And that said, I don't want to just rest for a while that the executive order and gathering information and reporting information back is sufficient given the speed at which this is coming at us right now. And we have existing law on the books right now when it comes to the workforce and you have mass displacement that is coming out here. And I see this is really an offshoot of that, threatening this current threatened issue that we have here together and really trying to tie to some standard that we have to make sure that at the end of the day, individuals that are part of a larger employment operation, when there is something pending or something likely to come in the near future, that they got that opportunity to be able to stand on their own two feet and maybe find another job, find another opportunities, because those opportunities, if this trajectory continues, might become more and more limited as time goes on. And we want people to make sure that they are able to have the opportunity for gainful employment to be able to make sure that they're treated well as in respect as employees and so this threat I think variation that we have here under SB 947 is essential because it is linking you know a very current issue that we have right now with sort of our practices on how we deal with that in the employer employee relationships right now I'm encouraged to hear that we're having ongoing conversations and some of these things are solvable because you know working on a certain number at the level the size of business and everything does get into that meaningful conversations around the size of a small business or a medium-sized business opportunity. I think that that is something that can be resolved through ongoing conversation. And then I'd like to learn more about this right to first bid and if there are some legal problems as well that might come out of that too. I know that this, our author here is very astute and able to be able to reconcile a lot of that and make sure that, you know, a final product is not something that's indefensible, that we want to be able to get this right without losing sight of the core principle that we must do. You know, I'm curious a little bit if the author or somebody else I didn't hear, I'd like to hear a little bit more maybe from public sector employers and possibly how that's relating to employees that are largely a unionized workforce, probably largely are going to be able to have ongoing labor management conversations as opposed to like, you know, this technology coming into the workplace. But they sort of distinguished, I saw a thread here for an opposed and less amended position and what can we do to better harmonize this issue with the public sector? Through the chair.
We've been in conversations with the public sector. This is a new requirement for them, and so we have been successful with the LEAs, for example, that they already give a notice annually. And so we figured out a way that they don't have to duplicate that notice, But if there are if AI is replacing workers in the public sector and the governor has made it clear with his five sandbox projects that he wants to integrate AI into the public workforce very quickly We want to know if there is any impact either on layoffs, but this bill also includes what is called a cessation in hiring. If they're positions that you just stop hiring for because artificial intelligence is taking its place, for example, Salesforce, they announced a while ago that they were just not going to hire coders or I believe in sales representatives. They were just going to use AI from then on. And so we want to be able to capture that as well, because that is something that artificial intelligence is doing that's really hitting young people who are graduating from college. But you're not going to capture that. They've never had a job, so they're not captured as unemployed. But you have this huge block of people who might have gone to the public sector because it's a good, steady job, but they can't find a job because AI has taken it. So we just want to capture that information so all of you have it when you're starting to make decisions.
And then I think kind of relate to, I'm sorry, did you, if the opposition has thoughts?
Madam Chair, if I may respond to that. I've worked in public sector and administered layoff in both public and private sector. And so typically in public sector, there's collective bargaining agreements cover the layoff notice. And so this would be duplicative in regards to that. So it's a different process. And so it's separate. I mean, currently public entities do not have to comply with CalWARN unless they're like a quasi-government entity. So that's a huge educational piece as well for public employers who don't necessarily have to comply with CalWARN because it's usually in their collective bargaining agreement. And so I think to the author, that's something that, you know, we can kind of have some closer study if it has this bill continues to be able to move forward, being consistent, I think, with how we're able to work on that classic sector. And you might be able to learn things from that, too, that can apply to other areas that have highly unionized labor components.
If I think about many of our grocers or many other sort of industry areas that are highly unionized, a lot of that conversation can come through in labor management conversations that also may not create a duplicative action here. We want to be symbiotic with existing practices. But importantly, what we're getting out of this, if this is going to be an important law to be assigned, billed assigned into law, is the opportunity to be able to get the data. I think it's really, that real-time information is going to be essential for us to be able to think of how we're going to be responsive next year. We are going to have to be responsive next year as this thing is, as they started rapidly coming into our lives right now. And so thank you for being in the driver's seat with us on this issue. I'm happy to move the bill today and support it, and we'll look forward to its progress as it goes forward. Thank you.
If I may also, I think it is important that we recognize that there are two parts to it. One is the notice, and the other is the gathering of information. We need to know what we're going to be doing next year in our policies, and it's only through having this data. In appropriations, we did take the amendment, as was mentioned by my expert witness, regarding our LEAs. We found a way to, as was mentioned, how to do that. And with our public sector, it is a little more difficult, but certainly what is put together here if there is when we have collective bargaining that is something that we take seriously also It something extremely important to us Thank you for that
Any other comments? Seeing none, I do have a comment. First of all, I want to appreciate the author for bringing this forward. I think it's already been mentioned in terms of AI and the impact that it's having in our workforce. The reality is that we are being left behind. that there is this big freeze, as it's being called, or hiring stagnation is on the rise, especially amongst our recent college graduates who are concerned about their future and the inability to get a job. And as was mentioned, this is moving very rapidly, and we're constantly trying to play catch-up. And so this will give us the ability to look into the future and also think about planning. How do we address these real issues in real time? So I appreciate this bill. I have a high recommendation today. And with that, see another comment. Secretary, can you please call the roll?
Yeah, we had a motion and a second. Thank you, Chris. Appreciate that. Yes. Okay. File item number four, SB 951 Reyes. Motion is due pass and re-refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alaniz? Not voting. Alaniz, not voting. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Calra? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That measure is out. That measure is out.
Yes, let's go ahead and take the consent calendar as we wait for other authors.
Okay. File item number 2, SB 1316, Smallwood Cuevas. File item number 5, SB 1046, Blakespear. And file item number 6, SB 1059. Motion for SB 1316, Smallwood Cuevas is due, pass, and re-refer to Committee on Judiciary with a recommendation to consent calendar. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Kalra? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Ward, aye. SB 1046, Blakesphere, do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations with recommendation to consent calendar. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Kalra? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. SB 1059 Archuleta, do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alanis? Aye. Alanis, aye. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Cara? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Consent calendar is out. We will leave the roll open for absent members. All right.
We Senator McNerney Senator Durazo or Senator Cortese if your staff is listening please send them over to Labor and Employment
Thank you. Thank you.
Welcome, Senator DeRozzo, whenever you are ready. Item number 7, SB 1149.
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for allowing me to present SBA 1149. This bill allows workers to use bereavement leave following the death of a quote unquote designated person, which is defined as an individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is equivalent of a family relationship. Existing law allows most workers to take up to five days of unpaid, job-protected bereavement leave following the deaths of a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent, or grandchild. To use this law, an employee must work for an employer with five or more employees, and the employee must have worked for that employer for at least 30 days prior to the commencement of their leave. leave must also be completed within three months of the family member's death. In today's world, more and more people have strong bonds with and rely upon the support of their chosen and extended family members. Our caregiving laws reflect that reality, and it is time our bereavement leave laws do too. Here with me today to testify and support are Nina Wheeler Harwell from AARP and Q Wilson, who has a personal story. Before they begin, I'd like to ask the chair's permission for one of my witnesses to show a photo during their testimony.
Yes.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Madam Chair and members of the committee, my name is Q Wilson and I'm here today in support of SB 1149. In 2023, my long-term partner Joe was diagnosed with an abdominal cancer. We spent nearly two years navigating treatments, surgeries, uncertainty, and hope. Then in February of 2025, everything changed. I received a phone call that no one is ever prepared for. Something had gone wrong during the surgery. I was told that Joe was dying and I needed to come to the hospital to say goodbye. After 13 years together, I was losing the person I loved the most. It was the worst day of my life. I brought a photo with me today. It shows me sitting at Joe's bedside. This is our last photo together. It shows me sitting beside Joe, holding their hand during their final hours. When I look at that picture, I remember the grief, the shock, the overwhelming sadness of losing the person I loved. But I also remember something else. Even as I sat there holding Joe's hand and trying to be fully present for them, part of my mind was consumed with worry about work. I worried about what would happen when I return, would I still have a job, would I be granted time to handle the practical realities that come with losing a loved one and to attend the funeral. No one should have to carry those concerns while saying goodbye. SB 1149 recognizes that families come in many forms. Chosen family and extended family are often the people who care for us, support us, and stand beside us through life's hardest moments. When we lose them, the grief is real, regardless of whether the relationship fits into a narrow legal definition. This bill would provide workers with the time and job protection they need during one of the most difficult experiences a person can face. I respectfully ask for your support of SB 1149. Thank you.
And good afternoon. My name is Nina Weiler-Harwell. Good afternoon, Chair and members. Nina Weiler-Harwell with AARP on behalf of our 3.2 million members. We are a proud co-sponsor of SB 1149. As already mentioned, SB 1149 would update California's bereavement leave law passed in 2023 by allowing workers to use this unpaid but job-protected benefit to grieve for the loss of a chosen family member, also known as a designated person under the law. Last year, California updated its paid family leave law to enable chosen family to take paid family leave to care for a loved one with a serious illness. This bill continues the mission of modernizing California caregiving leave laws to address the realities of California families in the 21st century AARP supports this bill because it critical to so many older Californians who aren aging in the same family structures they were raised in Today, older Californians are more likely to be solo-agers, also more likely to have never married, and more likely to have no children. Instead, they rely on family and friends, Sorry, extended family, neighbors and friends for support, care and social connection. Older Californians from diverse communities are also more likely to be part of multi-generational families, which often include chosen family.
ARP believes SB 1149 is vital because it recognizes California must keep pace with the changes in the American family structure. California has already ensured that paid family leave reflects these changing dynamics. So let's do the same now for bereavement leave. We thank you for your time today, and we urge your support for SB 1149. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Good afternoon. Carly Holka with the California Peace Association in support. Good afternoon. on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, End Child Poverty California, Jewish Center for Justice, Lion Martin Community Health Services, Parent Voices California, Trans Can Work, Santa Clara County Wage Theft Coalition, and the Alzheimer's Association in support. Hello, Madam Chair. Yvonne Fernandez on behalf of the California Labor Fed in support. Good afternoon. Erin Hill on behalf of Western Center on Law Poverty in support.
Navneep Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.
Angela Pontus on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice, proud co-sponsor in support. Also registering support for the following California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Partnership to End Domestic Violence, Friends Committee on Legislation, LA Best Babies Network, Nourishing Justly, and Orange County Equality Coalition. Thank you. Hello, Keith and Momoto of the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support. Hello, I'm Chris Henning with United Auto Workers Region 6 in support. And I would also like to register support on behalf of the following organizations, Black Californians United for Early Care and Education, the California Domestic Workers Coalition, California Federation of Business and Professional Women, as well as held in partnership. Thank you. Magali Zagal on behalf of Equality California in support. Megan Varvey with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of Cameo Network in support. Chair committee members, Brian Miramontes with the California Teachers Association in support. Catalina Sanchez with the California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support, and also registering support for Breastfeed LA, Caring Across Generations, Hand in Hand, the Domestic Employers Network, and Nevada County Citizens for Choice. Thank you. Good afternoon. Erica Cermeño with Legal Aid at Work, registering support as well for Poder Latinx, Universidad Popular, WorkSafe, and the Working Partnerships USA. Mimi Demiso sponsor sorry Mimi Demiso executive director of Our Family Coalition We a sponsor of this bill This deeply impacts LGBTQ families and also LGBTQ elders who rely on chosen family networks I would also like to register the other sponsors California Coalition of Family Caregiving Association of California Caregiver Resource Centers California Work and Family Coalition and Equal Rights Advocates We all sponsors Aston Georgia Williams with the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network in strong support. Thank you. JP Hannah with the California Nurses Association in support.
Seeing no other witnesses in support. Do we have any main witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll turn it over to the dais. Any comments?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I want to thank the Senator for continuing to work on this issue. issue. This is an LGBTQ caucus legislative caucus priority bill as well. And we're grateful for your allyship and strong dedication to be able to make our laws equal in this space, as we've done, as you heard, through paid family leave, you know, was a success. But, you know, we had some work to do in this space, too, because there is no distinction between that love and relationship from those that are covered under existing law here today who might be a nuclear family member and that of a chosen life partner or somebody else that is equally, if sometimes not more, strong of a bond. and the loss and the hurt and the pain and the grieving are something that is just the worst and rightfully due to be respected as something that we respond to equally under the law. And so I'm very strong to, very, very, very proud that you're working on this bill and this issue here. I'd love to have you, have me as a co-author, if you're willing, and happy to move the bill. Sorry. Thank you.
Any other comments? Seeing none, I would just like to thank your witness today for sharing your personal story and putting a face to the legislation that we will be voting on, so thank you. Senator, would you like to close?
Just thank you for your comments and I respectfully ask for an aye vote. Thank you.
Okay, we have a motion and a second. Secretary, please call the roll.
File item number 7, SB 1149, Dorosso. Motion is do pass and re-refer to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega? Aye. Ortega, aye. Alaniz? Aye. Alaniz, aye. Chen? Arambula? Aye. Arambula, aye. Kalra? Lee? Aye. Lee, aye. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. Five ayes, that measure is out.
Thank you.
Aye.
Thank you, everybody.
I know, today. Please, please, please, please. Thank you Thank you. . I have scheduled. I think we wanted to . It's out of nowhere. . Thank you. Thank you.
Welcome, Senator. We will now go to item number three, SB 947, Senator McNerney. Whenever you are ready.
Honest and distinguished members of the committee, today I'm presenting SB 947, which is what we're calling the No Robo Bosses Act of 2026. I want to thank the committee staff for their work and apologize for making you wait for me to come here this afternoon. We are at a critical decision point. When we decide how a machine should be integrated into our lives, technology, including AI, has made an important role in our lives in medical and many other areas. But right now, there are no real guardrails on how it's used in the workplace. and it is being used extensively in the workplace. The algorithms are being used to make firing and discipline decisions. Human beings should make these decisions. They should be made by people who can apply judgment, context, and compassion to their decision-making. SB 947 sets a common sense standard. It requires a human review when an automated decision assists in discipline, termination, or deactivation decision. This bill also bans predictive behavior analysis because no one should be punished for something they haven't done yet. Too many working families are living paycheck to paycheck. We can't leave their livelihoods to systems that can be biased or make mistakes without some human oversight. California workers deserve dignity and a real person using judgment and compassion making the final call about their jobs. Today with me in testimony, I have Ivan Fernandez on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. Ivan. Hello, Madam Chair and members of the committee. Ivan Fernandez with the California Federation of Labor Unions, proud sponsor of the No Robot Bosses Act. The committee has already seen a number of our bills that the Labor Fed is sponsoring to establish worker technology rights for the 21st century. SB 947 serves as an integral part of this package because of the growing need to regulate automated management. Since last year, a 2025 resume builder report indicated that about 60% of managers use AI systems to make critical employment-related decisions, such as firing, determinations, and layoffs. The report also indicated that of those employers that use AI to impact the livelihood of a worker about 20 allowed the AI system to make the final determination without any human input or oversight So today employers are still capable and clearly eager to automate managerial decisions. Yet, automated management continues to pose serious harms to workers. Algorithmic management often results in endless speed and efficiency increases, and workers are likely to become fatigued, leading to injuries and immense stress. This is seen in Amazon warehouses, where their unpaid time system is used to flag workers who happen to pass their allotted time off even by a few minutes. As the system flags workers, reports have indicated that firing paperwork is automatically generated. No worker should have their livelihood stripped away because an algorithm is incapable of understanding the nuances of everyday human life, and no employer should be rubber-stamping ADS outputs to fire a worker. These issues, unfortunately, also exist beyond Amazon warehouses. In healthcare, a platform known as ShiftKey has been reportedly providing disparate wages to nurses who sign up for shifts due to the platform's algorithm. It is unclear what the platform is drawing on to offer these wages, so nurses are forced to deal with potential algorithmic bias. And this is the landscape that workers are facing every single day across the state. As the senator described, SB 947 does not ban the use of automated decision systems, but instead creates necessary guard rules and just requires meaningful human oversight when these tools are being used. Lastly, I'd like to note that the corroborating evidence process and the prohibition on predictive behavior have always been central components of this bill and of last year's SB 7. I'd like to reiterate that our position has remained consistent from last year's iteration of the bill. I respectfully urge a vote at the appropriate time. Thank you. Madam Chair, members of the committee, Shane Gussman on behalf of the Teamsters, proud co-sponsor of the bill, also here on behalf of the Machinist Union, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here, and the Utility Workers Union of America, all in support of the bill. The crux of it for us is that we are seeing in our workplaces the adoption of this technology as a management tool moving rapidly. And the technology is developing rapidly, but it's not perfect. As my colleague pointed out, it makes mistakes, including discrimination. And so our view of it is we need to put some guardrails on this because there are none. And there should, on the most important decision besides hiring someone, firing someone, we need to have some humanity there. And so we urge your support for this bill.
Do we have additional witnesses in support?
Nathneet Puryear on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support. Mitch Steiger with CFT, also in support. Prime Mayor Montez with the California Teachers Association in support. Janice O'Malley, AFSCME, California in support. Violet Swidler on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association and Tech Equity Action in support. Eric Paredes with the California Faculty Association in support Megan Barbe with Kaiser Advocacy on behalf of the Electronic Frontier Foundation in support Keith Momoto with the California Alliance for Retired Americans in support JP Hanna with the California Nurses Association in support Seeing no other witnesses in support any main witnesses in opposition Good afternoon Andrea Lynch on behalf of the California Chamber of Commerce and respectful opposition to SB 947 SB 947 is a rerun of SB 7, which is a hard-fought fight through this legislature last year and ultimately vetoed for being too broad. We were disappointed to find that SB 947 is broader than SB 7 was at veto. The amendments negotiated during last year's floor process, many of them have been scaled back. We appreciate that one was restored in committee, but multiple others remain undone. My members, therefore, regrettably feel like we are starting from square zero. On substance, we have significant outstanding concerns, including the new corroboration language creates real compliance problems for employers. The data access provisions are overbroad, and the bill's treatment of independent contractors remains unresolved. There are many more issues, but the bottom line is this. SB 7 was vetoed, and SB 947 doesn't answer that veto. It expands this. For these and other reasons, we respectfully ask for your no vote. Madam Chair, Chris McKaylee, on behalf of the Civil Justice Association of California, some specific items, and two of them at least are similar to what you heard me talk about on Ms. Reyes' bill. First, as Ms. Lynch alluded to, the definition of worker in this bill, just like in the other one, includes independent contractors. We have not done that in the California Labor Code and shouldn't do it here. That provision should be removed. These are individuals who are not employees. They are treated differently. Those independent contractor agreements set forth those provisions and how they operate and certainly termination provisions. So we believe that section should be eliminated, independent contractors. Second is the private right of action, an aggressive one to say the least. It includes the opportunity to obtain punitive damages. What Ms. Lynch indicated earlier, this was one of the provisions that on the assembly floor in SB 7 was removed before it passed off. We believe that that provision should be removed here as well. Two other minor items. The first is there's an inclusion of resides or transacts business where a lawsuit can be filed. We believe that that will lead to forum shopping and some previous legislation. that provision, TransAx business was taken away or repealed from that provision. And then the last item is that this allows local ordinances as well. We believe that if you are going to do something along these lines on a statewide basis, it should preempt any local provisions. There should be one statewide standard. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose the bill, Madam Chair. Thank you.
Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Aaron Avery, California Special District Association, respectfully opposed. Good afternoon, Matt Easley on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California and San Diego Chapter, here respectfully opposed. Sarah Duquette on behalf of the Rural County Representatives of California and the Urban Counties of California, respectfully opposed. Good afternoon, Michelle on behalf of California Association of School Business Officials and on behalf of my colleagues at the Association of California School Administrators in opposition. Good afternoon Ethan Nagler on behalf of the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in respectful opposition Good afternoon Jacob Brent with California retailers Association in respectful opposition Sarah Bridges on behalf of the California manufacturers and Technology Association in respectful opposition Good afternoon chair members Melissa calls the Chuck with Western growers in respectful opposition Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Sophia Quach on behalf of the Bay Area Council in respectful opposition. Eileen Ricker with California's Credit Unions in respectful opposition. Robert Singleton in Chamber of Progress also respectfully opposed. Hi, Chair and members, Rachel O'Brien, California Gross Association in opposition. Good afternoon, Brian Little, California Farm Bureau in opposition. And I've been coming after the California League of Food Producers in opposition. Madam Chair and members, Dylan Hoffman on behalf of Public Risk Innovation Solutions Management, Prism, respectfully opposed. Good afternoon. Timothy Burr on behalf of Lyft in opposition. Thank you.
Seeing no other comments in opposition, I'll turn it over to the Dias Assemblymember Ward.
Thank you. I want to thank the senator for staying on this issue. Obviously, there's a lot here that is substantially similar to SB 7, for which I strongly supported, and the principles here are something I continue to be unwavering on. Nobody should be, I think, subject to some kind of automated decision that's just looking at data and information and doesn't have that human kind of component to be able to double-check and participate in a life-changing and critical decision about their opportunities and their futures. And that's all I think that you're asking for through the concept of this bill. That, you know, noting that and also being practical about, you know, the outcome last year of SB 7, I guess I'd be wondering, we would want this effort and this concept to be successful. So what do you foresee as this bill moves forward as the kind of direction that you would be able to make this without losing effect of those principles, something that's going to be able to meet the stated objections of the governor?
That's a handy question. Thank you. I think one of the issues is how do we protect workers and not open it up to massive lawsuits and legal challenges? And that's the fine line that we're trying to accomplish here. I know that a lot of people have heartburn with the private right of action. and I'm certainly willing to look at how we can work on that specific issue. I do think that including independent contractors is important because independent contractors are probably the most vulnerable people out there and the people that are the most in need of reliable income without being subject to arbitrary dismissal or demotion. So I think those are the two key areas. I appreciate Mr. McKayley's comment on statewide standards, that's something we'll have to look at. And I think those are kind of the key issues that we'd like to make sure that are moving forward. But actually, I mean, it really comes down to this, that we want to let AI continue to infiltrate our lives without any sort of, without sufficient protection. And my answer is we need to find ways to protect it. there's going to be some starts and stops. We're going to do the best we can, and we're working with folks on both sides of the issue. We'll have to find a way forward because we can't let AI become our masters.
Well, I think that holding onto that is sort of like, you know, hopefully a more common goal that I think we can find, I think through Omegon Conversation, a way that this could work in practice, like I said, without undercutting. I think the intent of what we're doing with a focus on the workers, a really good answer for me. I trust that this is going to kind of continue over the summer in that working on that technicalities of the bill and happy to be able to support it today. Thank you. Move to both seconds.
We have a motion in a second. Would you like to close?
Sure. Let's keep people at the center of the workplace. AI needs to be safe and beneficial and that's that that's what our ultimate goal is and we're certainly interested in perfecting the bill but at this point the basics are there protect workers from automated decision-making systems by putting a human being in the loop I respectfully ask for an aye vote thank you senator secretary would you like to please call the roll by item Number three SB 947 McNerney motion is due pass and we refer to committee on privacy and consumer protection Ortega I or take a eye Alanis Alanis no Chen Arambula Arambula I cholera Lee Lee I ward ward I That has four eyes one no that measure is out
Thank you.
Right. Thank you Thank you Thank you. . Thank you.
Senator Cortese, item number 8, SB 1185, whenever you are ready.
Thank you very much, Chair Ortega and members. I'm very happy to be here to present SB 1185, which applies skilled and trained workforce standards to pharmaceutical facilities. Existing law prescribes skilled and trained workforce standards on a variety of high-risk public and private construction projects, including refineries, commercial hydrogen manufacturing, biofuels manufacturing, and carbon dioxide capture. Pharmaceutical facilities are among the most technically complex construction environments in the modern economy, and the integrity of construction is inseparable from the purity of the final product. Even minor construction or maintenance errors can lead to biohazard exposure, product loss, costly facility shutdowns, and catastrophic disruptions in the medical supply chain. SP 1185 reinforces the state's high-quality, skilled workforce on sites where construction safety is essential to protecting public health and maintain a secure medical supply chain. With us today to testify in support is Keith Dunn with State Building and Construction Trades Council of California at the appropriate time, I'd like to ask for your aye vote. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair, committee members, Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. First, let me start with where we agree with the opposition. California's life sciences and pharma industries are extraordinary. We're very proud that California is home to the researchers, innovators, and companies developing the next generation of life-saving medicines. But there a difference between admitting life therapy and safely constructing the complex facilities where those therapies are manufactured SB 1185 is about the second point Some of the opposition arguments make it sound like tomorrow morning a union electrician is going to walk into a clean room grab a laptop, and start recalibrating proprietary biotechnology equipment. This is not what SB 1185 does. It doesn't replace scientists. It doesn't replace company employees. It does not replace original equipment manufacturers or specialized technicians who service proprietary technologies. This bill only applies to construction trades, the men and women building and maintaining the highly specialized environments that allow these companies to succeed. Opponents also argue that these facilities are highly regulated by the FDA. We agree. That actually helps prove our point. If the medicine requires the highest standards, if the manufacturing process requires the highest standards, if contamination control requires the highest standards, why would we accept a lower standard for the workforce building the facilities that protect all of these elements? Forgive me as I state the obvious. We all know that the foundation matters, and in this case, literally. A world-class laboratory should not be built on a lowest bid workforce. The opposition also raises concerns about workforce shortages. California's union apprenticeship system is one of the largest privately funded workforce development systems in the country. We train the next generation before the industry needs them without asking taxpayers to pay the bill. And even though we disagree with any fears of a workforce shortage, in true partnership, SB 1185 includes safeguards against this unlikely threat. If qualified workers are unavailable after a request through the hiring halls after 48 hours, contractors are not prevented from obtaining workers elsewhere. If there's a true emergency affecting health, safety, or the environment, SB 1185 provides workers the opportunity to address that emergency right away. Finally, we reject the idea that a strong workforce and those standards make California less competitive. California is the fourth largest economy in the world and home to world-class pharma and life science companies because we have the best universities, the best scientists, the most innovative companies, and I would also argue the most skilled workforce in the world. 1185 is not anti-biotech. It protects the infrastructure that allows biotech to thrive. SB 1185 is the foundation of our innovation economy, and great science deserves great construction. We'd like to ask for your support. Thank you.
Do we have additional witnesses in support? Madam Chair and members,
Martin Vendial on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.
Vince Segrue on behalf of Sheet Metal Workers Local 104 in support.
Omar Lizardi on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support.
Do we have any main witnesses in opposition?
Hi, Jenny Aguilar on behalf of the California Business Properties Association in opposition. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California.
Let me begin by saying that AGC absolutely supports the development of apprenticeship programs and safe construction practices. The question before the committee is not whether training matters. The question is whether there is a demonstrated need to impose a permanent skilled and trained workforce mandate on an entire private industry Historically when the legislature has extended skilled and trained workforce requirements into private industry it has done so in response to specific public safety concerns. The best example is SB 54, the refinery safety legislation enacted following the 2012 Chevron Richmond refinery fire. That legislation was rooted in a documented catastrophic incident, extensive investigations and concerns involving facilities already regulated as high-hazard operations under California's Risk Management Program. Imagine a hydrocarbon vapor cloud, 15,000 residents seeking medical attention, 19 employees hurt in that fire, investigations by Cal OSHA and the United States federal government. And at the conclusion of that, there was an assumption, and it was a very good one, that we needed to do better by these dangerous operations. This bill, however, presents a very different situation. The bill identifies no pattern of construction failures, workforce deficiencies, catastrophic incidences, or public safety concerns associated with pharmaceutical facility construction. There have been no refinery-style disasters, no chemical safety board investigations, and no legislative finding demonstrating that existing construction safety standards are inadequate. Put simply, what problem are we solving? California already licenses contractors and forces workplace safety standards through CalOSHA and maintains some of the strongest labor and safety protections in the nation. Yet this bill would impose a permanent mandate on all future construction, alteration, repair, installation, demolition, and maintenance work at pharmaceutical facilities for the life of the facility. It would also create significant reporting obligations, compliance requirements, and potential penalties for private owners and contractors. The result will be fewer eligible contractors, less competition, higher project costs, and potential delays to facilities that are critical to California's growing life sciences and biotechnology sectors. For those reasons, we respectfully oppose this measure.
Thank you. Do we have additional witnesses in opposition?
Hi, thank you, Chair. Mark Watts representing Wareham Development Company. They're a developer of numerous multi-tenant commercial, mixed commercial, and office space throughout the Bay Area. We've been in touch with the author's office and with the sponsor, and we're trying to work out some minor, very minor technical language changes. So thank you. Chair and committee members, Gilbert Laurie here on behalf of Biocom in opposition. Thank you. Hi, Jenny Aguilar again on behalf of California Business Properties Association in opposition. Thank you. Sarah Bridges on behalf of California Manufacturers and Technology Association in opposition. Thanks. Good afternoon. Philip Herrera representing my growing life science companies here in California in opposition. Thank you. John McHale on behalf of American Council of Engineering Companies of California, Calgeo, and Associated Builders and Contractors of California in opposition. Thank you. Dean Grafiel with Capital Advocacy here on behalf of the California Life Sciences. We're opposed. Thank you.
Seeing no other witnesses in opposition, any comments or questions from the dais? Senator, would you like to address some of the opposition comments in your closing?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Appreciate it very much and appreciate... The analysis by this committee, I appreciate very much the eloquent opposition arguments. At the same time, I can only imagine what might have been had we had SB 54 before the refineries got themselves into the situation that they did. no one will ever know for sure, but that was certainly the thought process a couple years ago when I followed as an author with SB 740. What if we can now take next-level related industry when it comes to hazardous materials and jump on that now and bring the skilled and trained workforce perhaps before the next tragedy? And I actually wish in some ways that that bill would have gone further, not necessarily into this space, but into some where we're seeing explosions and problems happening in other industries that probably could have been covered already by a bill like this. The OSHA argument is a great argument, as you know, Madam Chair, if we can ever get OSHA to do their jobs. And, you know, that's the real problem. I actually would concede that if we had OSHA not just fully funded, but fully staffed, which is the problem there, and then doing their work, once they're fully staffed, I think it gives committees like this and legislators like us an opportunity to further direct them to come in and do what needs to be done. And I'm not sure any of that does away with the need for a skilled and trained workforce or the prudence of doing it. But that's where we are. And I think we're finding ourselves as legislators proactively trying to bring in safety standards at a higher level through apprenticeships, through the skilled and trained workforce and workplace standards that we have available to us to essentially do the work that, you know, that the public sector should have been doing in the first place over on the private sector side. The bottom line here is I believe, and I don't say this with absolute accuracy, but I believe that 95% of the facilities that we're talking about are currently being built with skilled and trained labor. I don't think this is a radical leap forward, I think. But I do think it sort of plugs the gap over what may be the last 5%. That said, if I've adequately responded, Madam Chair, I would respectfully ask for your aye vote.
Yes, and for those reasons, I have an aye record today. As you mentioned, it's something that it's preventable, right? We want to do things before they happen. And understand you will continue working with the opposition to address some of the other concerns that have been brought up.
Yeah, we're always very happy to have opposition that we can work with, and we appreciate their recommendations going forward. Thank you.
Sounds good. Secretary, can you please call the roll?
File item number 8, SB 1185, Cortese. Motion is due pass and we refer to Committee on Appropriations. Ortega?
Aye.
Ortega, aye. Alanis? Chen?
Aye.
Chen, aye. Arambula?
Aye.
Arambula, aye. Kalra? Aye Kalra aye Lee Aye Lee aye Ward Five ayes That measure is out Thank you
Is there any bills here that you co-authored that are going to leave? Not today, but if there was, I would be there. Nice. All right. Secretary, can you please call for the absent members? Yes.
Consent calendar. File item number two, SB 1316, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due pass, and we refer to Committee on Judiciary with recommendation to consent calendar. Chen. Chen, aye. and Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. That measure is out. Seven ayes. File item number five, SB 1046, Blake Spear. Motion is due passed and we refer to Committee on Appropriations with the recommendation to consent calendar. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Seven ayes. That item is out. File item number six, SB 1059, Art Joletta. The motion is due pass and re-referred to committee on appropriations with the recommendation to the consent calendar. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Cara? Aye. Cara, aye. Seven ayes. That measure is out. File item number one, SB 909, Smallwood Cuevas. Motion is due passed and we refer to Committee on Appropriations. Chen? Chen, aye. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Lee? SB 909, Smallwood, Cuevas? Aye. Lee, aye. That measure is out. Seven ayes. Final item number three, SB 947, McNerney. Motion is due passed and we refer to Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Chen? Chen not voting. Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. The measure has five ayes. It is out. File item number four, SB 951 Reyes. Motion is due, passed, and we refer to the Committee on Privacy and Consumer Protection. Chen? Not voting. Chen not voting. And Kalra? Aye. Kalra, aye. Five ayes. That measure has five ayes. It is out. File item number 7, SB 1149, Durazo. Motion is due, passed, and we refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Chen? Aye. Chen, aye. Calra? Aye. Calra, aye. Seven ayes. Seven ayes. That measure is out. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. No. No. Okay, final item number seven, SB 11. I'm sorry, that's the wrong one. Final item number eight, SB 1185 Cortese. Motion is due, pass, and we refer to committee on approves. Ward? Aye. Ward, aye. That measure is out. Seeing no other business, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.