Senate Business, Labor, & Technology [Mar 19, 2026 - Upon Adjournment]

Hi, good afternoon, everyone. My name is Fernando Barron. I'm here with my co-worker, Natalia. We're here with the CLC. We're offering simultaneous interpretation from English to Spanish, Spanish to English. If you need or would like interpretation, we do have devices in the back. If you have any troubles with devices, please let us know. They're very simple, straightforward. You just prop them in your ear. Plus sign is to raise the volume. Minus is to turn the volume down. We do have some people online as well, so we're offering interpretation. Again, the purpose of us being here is so everyone can speak and be heard in the language of their heart. We do want to do a quick reminder when speaking, please take your time, especially when it comes to dates, numbers, all that time, just so we can offer appropriate interpretation. If you guys want to prop the devices in here just to do a quick mic check, just to make sure they're on for everybody up front.

Seems to be working. Okay. And just quickly again, in Espanol, mi nombre es Genaro Barron. I'm here with my friend Natalia. We're here from the CLC. We're offering simultaneous interpretation. For all of those who like or need interpretation, please visit us in the back table. As for those who are visiting us on the internet. The purpose of being here is to be able to speak and be heard in the video of their heart. Thank you for having us. We'll start next time. Thank you.

Here.

Present.

Here.

Here.

Here.

Thank you, Chair Danielson, for that introduction. So we'll go ahead and get started with introduction on Senate Bill 121. Senator Simpson, Senator Rodriguez, Mr. Minor-Alier, Mr. Majority Leader, who wants to go first?

Thank you, Mr. Minority Leader. Mr. Majority Leader. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members. It's nice to be in the Business, Labor and Technology Committee. Colorado has earned a reputation for a lot of things, the Rocky Mountains, Red Rocks Amphitheater, South Park, Casa Bonita, and a conspiracy theory-riddled airport. But as one of the top agricultural producers in the country, Colorado is also known for what comes from our land, Palisade peaches, Pueblo chilies, Rocky Ford melons, Colorado beef, just to name a few. From the rural eastern plains, western slopes, and the rich agricultural heritage of the San Louis Valley, farming touches every county in Colorado, and we have farm workers to thank for that. For decades, these workers were excluded from basic labor protections that most other workers take for granted. That was wrong, and in 2021, the Colorado legislature passed Senate Bill 2187, a landmark law that finally extended key protections for agricultural workers like minimum wage protections, water breaks, and the right to organize. Protecting workers was the right thing to do then, it still is. But as many of you know, sometimes policies can have unintended consequences when we let them work for a while, as we've seen in other states that have passed similar type of laws. The enhanced overtime provisions of 87 were a good example of well-intentioned policy with unintended and harmful consequences that lowered the threshold has meant that workers are scheduled for fewer hours than before. For hourly workers, a reduction in hours translate to a reduction pay. Shrinking paychecks have forced workers to take more extreme measures like acquiring second jobs in the gig economy, leaving Colorado for neighboring states without overtime thresholds, or other protections that benefit him. Colorado is not an outlier in this. Data from other states with similar overtime laws for the ag industry show that many workers lost nearly $100 a week or $2,000 a year because farms simply can't cut back hours rather than paying overtime. This is not what any of us intended when we fought for extended labor protections. It is not as though farms can simply absorb these pressures by raising their prices with pay for increased costs. Ag producers are subject to commodity pricing, which means the market determines their prices for them. Additionally, the most recent census from the United States Department of Ag shows that 80% of the farms in our state are legally considered family farms. The Colorado farm earns a net income of just $50,000 annually, a razor-thin margin that makes unexpected costs, increases nearly impossible to manage in an industry where forces beyond your control tell you what you can sell your products for. We have to recognize the reality of agriculture work. Farming is not a typical nine-to-five job. Crops don't grow on a schedule. Livestock cannot wait for business hours in order for their needs to be met. A hailstorm doesn't check the overtime clock before destroying a field. A cold snap doesn't pause because a rancher has hit 40 hours that week. Farm work happens when the work needs to happen. rules that work for some industries meant hours get cut crews are reduced or operations are scaled back in its entirety If we care about protecting workers and supporting rural communities and keeping family farms in Colorado we need policies that actually work That's why I'm proud to sponsor Cinebell 121. It raises the agricultural overtime threshold to 60 hours. This did not take away from the ability to earn overtime pay or the coral protections that the farm workers won in 2021. Many other states have worked on reducing this. Three or four other states have done this work and reduced the overtime threshold. and after years of policy being paced, it's having unintended consequences there. Many of those states are looking at tax cuts and measures to offset the overtime pays that the agriculture industry can't take. And as we in the state of Colorado that have to deal with our table restrictions who are looking to cut our budget, we can't raise costs to pay off the work we have for other ones. So similar to our budget crisis is similar to what we're imposing on the agriculture industry by asking them to give more with what they don't have and can't get. This is a structural conversation that we cannot regulate in Colorado to drive it out. If we let Colorado ag producers raise prices, they would go to other states to buy their product. If we even did it in the United States, then we would go to other countries to provide our food. If that's the direction we want to go or we want to drive this market into large corporate farms because the smallest farms can't survive, I think that's not the service we want to do and provide for our Colorado agriculture industry, which is one of the largest ag industries in the state. Thank you.

It's nice to be here today on this side of the dais. As you know, in 2021, I was the sponsor, one of the main sponsors of the bill that set the first real protections for farm workers in the state of Colorado. for years and years and years agricultural workers were exempt from even the most basic human rights like protections concerning overtime minimum wage the right to protect yourself from retaliation the right to organize heat, food, water, housing the measure was really extensive and established a lot of really important rights since then in the rule making process, we've kind of set the boundaries to the initial policy that we created. I kind of want to go, and obviously overtime was part of that, I kind of want to go backwards just a little bit to remind the committee of the purpose for that initial bill and the purpose for this one that I'm bringing forward today. I think we can all acknowledge that the exclusion of domestic workers and farm workers from the basic protections of the Fair Labor Standard Act of 1938, it draws attention to kind of an ugly past of ours and the roots of both of those industries and the workers that provide the work. So in an attempt to address that after many, many years, the bill that we ended up with and the rules that accompanied it, I thought, did strike a good balance on a number of things. And again, what we went through that year when we passed the bill was weeks and months of negotiation and complication. ...mpromise, collaboration, even if organizations representing producers around the state never got to a position of support, the proponents and me as the sponsor, we really bent over backwards to find the common ground where it was workable, even if it wasn't ideal. And so I thought that's where we landed on overtime. The farm worker movement, starting back in the 60s, and I should also mention the timing of today, with Dolores Huerta and the news from yesterday. It draws attention back on her work and what was happening. And we're talking about the late 50s and early 60s. And it took Colorado all the way until 2021 to establish or to accomplish what these people have been fighting for for literally 70 years now. and you all know too that I grew up on a farm we produce crops and livestock so I'm not unaware of the challenges that face the industry or the workers that make it run I did the work and so did generations of my family before me on larger farms the farm workers work long really physically demanding hours Just to keep food on the table, they should deserve the basic overtime protections that every other worker in the state has. Is their work any less valuable? Is it any less difficult? It's not, as you know. And in fact, the inverse. What we require of some of these workers is extremely demanding, so much so that there's a shortage in the workforce because it is difficult to get people to take these jobs. It is hard work. There are extreme conditions, whether it's heat or cold. Sometimes for months on end, it can be very isolating depending on which industry you're in. And, you know, compensating workers for overtime pay is critical. And the way that we crafted the original measure accommodated for the high times, the harvest times, up to 22 weeks. You could pay your workers 56. You didn't have to pay overtime until you reached the threshold of 56 hours per week. That's two entire extra work days crammed into another work week in the most demanding and difficult physical situations. So in the 22 weeks, the current law, as it reads, do not have to be consecutive. and in non-harvest times or high season times the way we defined it in the law it's 48 hours a week so even when there isn't that extreme demand on the workforce they still have to work one entire work day over the 40 hours a week that most people in Colorado have to work to qualify for overtime. I do not think that that's ideal for the workers but it was the outcome of the rulemaking process that was extensive and considered the uniqueness of the industry. Moving on to the 40-hour threshold, I think that 40-hour work week should be a 40-hour work week no matter what industry you're in. As I said before, someone's work is no less valuable because they happen to work in a different industry. I think Senate Bill 121 rolls back existing overtime protections. And we, I don't think, should be in the business right now of rolling back protections for some of the most vulnerable workers in the country some of the most vulnerable workers in the state And so in an effort to put farm workers on a level playing field with the rest of the state I introduced a measure to say, you know what, it's time to consider what a 40-hour work week looks like for the workers who do power this most critical industry, an incredibly important piece of the Colorado economy and not just that, the national economy. and so in an effort to bring equality and I think bring farm workers in line with the rest of the workforce across the state that's why I introduced the measure to establish a 40 hour work week for farm workers acknowledging their difficult work the troubled past, our history and what we currently require of them rather than roll back overtime protections we should increase protections for these vulnerable workers Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Senator, and I appreciate the opportunity to testify before this committee and to be back in this august chamber. It's wonderful to join you. As stated, my name is Polly Baca. I'm a former state senator, and I was the first woman of color elected to the Colorado State Senate. And I'm here because of a measure that's very important to me. My family is, well, I've lived in this part of the country, Colorado, New Mexico. My family has been here for 13 generations. My family comes from Well County. When I was growing up in Well County, my parents were farm workers, and I was part of that whole family, and I understood the work that was required. And I'm here because I feel I'm passionate about the importance of treating farm workers equally as they are treated as other workers. There's no reason in the world why we ought to discriminate against farm workers, and their labor is so essential and critical to our economy and to our country. As a consequence, I carried an amendment to the Denver Party platform this past weekend that said, ending the historic and discriminatory exclusions of agriculture workers, domestic workers, teachers, and other public employees in Colorado from the right to earn overtime pay after 40 hours worked in a week will ensure that all workers have equitable access to business labor protections in our state, alongside minimum wage, rest breaks, and safety protections. So I'm here to argue that it's important that we have equity, equity for farm workers as well as other workers. And there no reason in the world why they ought to be treated differently than other workers and why they ought to be denied the right to overtime And as a consequence I am here to urge that we support the Senate Bill 26081 as introduced by Senator Jesse Daniels I also want to argue that, just as a little bit more background, as a supporter of the 2021 Farm Worker Bill of Rights that establishes labor standards and protections require and requires the state to establish strong overtime rules for agricultural workers, let me just state that this legislation is aimed at correcting the historic inequity and racism that was in place when I was a child. And I don't think any of us want that to continue. I think all of us would argue that workers ought to be treated equally, and that's why I'm here to support the legislation that is currently before you. I might also add that in my time as a state legislator, I did do additional work that required that farmers ought to provide sanitation facilities for their workers. And I guess I'm just here again to restate the fact that it's important to have overtime provisions for farm laborers, as it is for other workers. I don't think we want to discriminate against any workers, and I know my time is, I guess it's up. So thank you very much for your attention. and I appreciate the opportunity to come before this committee.

Good morning, Chair and members of the committee. My name is Zenaida Huerta, and I'm the Government Affairs Coordinator for the UFW Foundation, a national farmworker-serving organization that works directly with agricultural workers and their families. We respectfully urge you to oppose SB 121. Under current Colorado rules, agricultural workers began earning overtime after 48 hours in a week with a high season exemption that allows overtime to be delayed until 56 hours for up to 22 weeks each year. That already places agricultural workers on a different standard than most workers in Colorado who receive overtime after 40 hours. SB 121 would move the threshold even further by allowing agricultural employers to require up to 60 hours of work in a week before overtime protections apply. In practice, that means agricultural workers could be required to work up to 20 hours longer than most workers in Colorado before earning overtime pay. This is not simply a technical change. It is a policy decision about whether Colorado will move toward equal labor standards or away from them. When Congress enacted the Fair Labor Standards Act in 1938, agricultural workers were deliberately excluded from protections like overtime. That exclusion reflected racial inequities within the agricultural labor workforce and left farm workers outside of basic labor protections for generations. Colorado began addressing that inequity with the Agricultural Workers' Right Act in 2021 and by directing the Department of Labor to establish overtime rules for agricultural workers. That process represented an important step in signaling toward farm worker protections with the standards that apply across the broader workforce. SB 121 would reverse that progress. If the legislature rolls back overtime protections just a few years after extending them it sets a concerning precedent that labor standards for farm workers can be weakened when industry pressure arises For that reason we support efforts that move Colorado towards parity in overtime protections including SB 81 which would establish a 40-hour overtime threshold for agricultural workers. A 40-hour standard reflects the baseline that already applies to most sectors of the economy and ensures that farm workers are not held to a fundamentally different labor standard. Overtime protections exist to ensure that workers are compensated fairly for long hours. More fundamentally, overtime laws set the structure of the work week by signaling that extremely long hours should be the exception rather than the norm. Agricultural work is physically demanding and often dangerous, which makes meaningful overtime protections particularly important. Colorado has already taken steps towards fairness. SB 121 moves the state in the opposite direction. For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to oppose the bill. Thank you for this time.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Hunter Knapp. I am the development director of Project Protect Food Systems Workers. I respectfully urge you to vote yes on SB 81 and vote no on SB 121. The Colorado overtime pay rules were created through an extensive stakeholder process that included more than 250 comments from employers, workers, advocates, and other members of the public. According to more than 1,000 interviews of Colorado farm workers over the past two years, although the system is not perfect, the current overtime protections are working as intended by providing premium pay to some individuals working extremely long hours while removing the incentive to structure farming practices in a way that is proven to harm worker health. Opponents of overtime pay are relying heavily on a California study referenced by the Senate Majority Leader that simply does not reflect the reality of agriculture in Colorado. The study by Dr. Hill only covers crop workers, leaving out the dairy and livestock sectors that represent 40% of Colorado's hired agricultural workers and 50% of its farm labor expenses. More importantly, California's law includes overtime after eight hours in a day and double pay after 12, while Colorado has no similar daily overtime protections. The California data is fundamentally incomparable to what is happening now in Colorado, where workers still do not have daily overtime pay even after 12 hours. The study shows economic impacts that are larger than we would expect even from a full implementation of SB 81. When Dr. Hill studied the potential implementation of overtime in Colorado, she found that labor expenses as a share of gross farm income ranged from 7% to 12%, far lower than the figure put forward by industry lobbying groups. This is supported by data from the USDA's Economic Research Service that showed that labor costs as a share of gross farm income did not increase over the past 20 years from 2003 to 2023, although actual farm worker wages steadily increased. When opponents of agricultural worker overtime pay claim that farms cannot afford a massive increase in labor costs, they are misrepresenting the facts. For a non-seasonal worker working 60 hours per week, year-round, the current rules increase labor costs and worker pay by only 10% compared to states with no overtime protections at all. For seasonal operations, this increase drops to 1% to 2%. Overtime protections are not only about worker pay, but also about ensuring they have time for essential activities outside of work. Other than the lack of health insurance and the high cost of care in the U.S., workers reported that the inability to take time off work was the most significant barrier prevented them from getting health care services they need. The evidence from Colorado clearly does not support rolling back protections that are working as intended, and I urge you to oppose SB 121 and support equitable overtime pay with SB 81. Thank you for your time.

Good morning. My name is Kirsten Forseth, and I'm here representing the Colorado AFL-CIO in opposition to increasing the threshold for overtime for agricultural workers and in support of decreasing the overtime threshold for agricultural workers. Overtime has been a fundamental worker protection since Congress passed the Fair Labor Standards Act toward the end of the Great Depression, relieving workers who were being overworked and unfairly compensated. They were literally being worked to death. Overtime serves two purposes. One, it discourages employers from forcing workers to work excessive hours, which is vitally important in physically exhausting jobs. Second, it compensates workers for the time they are working through that exhaustion. Decreasing hours worked by an individual is half of the goal of overtime protections. Human beings need rest, hydration, food, and protection from excessive and prolonged heat. Increasing the hours required to work will result in potentially six days of work for 12 hours, or worse, five days a week for even more hours. Just imagine that for a minute. Before overtime regulations were introduced in 1938, working hours were often exceedingly long and brutal for the average American worker. Blue-collar employees in industrial settings often worked 10 to 16 hours a day, Many employers took advantage of high poverty rates to force their employees to work around the clock. The exclusion of agricultural workers from overtime was a deliberate policy choice rooted in the racial politics of the New Deal era, designed to exclude the predominantly black and Latino workforce that made up the agricultural labor force. Colorado has acknowledged this discrimination explicitly in its own statutes. Continuing to deny these workers overtime protection today is not a neutral business decision. It is a continuation of that legacy. During this hearing, the agricultural industry and growers will argue they know what is best for their workers. Let's call this argument for what it is, paternalistic, self-serving, and insulting to the workers it claims to speak for. Agricultural employers do not know what is best for their workers. They know what is best for their bottom line. They are not the same thing. These are the same employers who have fought every single expansion of worker protection in this industry for decades. They have fought minimum wage protections for farm workers. They have fought heat illness standards. They have fought the right to organize. And now, after years of forcing workers to labor without any overtime protections whatsoever, protections that every other worker in this state takes for granted, they will sit before you and claim they are doing it for the workers. This committee has a choice to protect the lives and welfare of agricultural workers from exploitation or to continue a legacy that these workers are less than other workers and deserve less than working conditions Thank you Ms Forseth

Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question is for Mr. Knapp. What does the data Project Protect collect to show about workers receiving overtime pay?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you. Mr. Chairman and thank you Senator. I think it is absolutely essential that we recognize that farm workers are hard workers and like my parents they worked around the clock you know they have families to support they have responsibilities and they ought not to be treated in a discriminatory manner different from other workers. You know, workers, 40-hour work week is a work week that is, that is, that is, that is, has been established as a fair work week for all workers. Why should farm workers be denied anything less than that? And if you have to work more than that, then you ought to be compensated. That's only fair. I don't understand the difference that people would suggest, the difference between farm workers and other workers, whomever they might be in our entire economy. You know, workers are workers. They perform, you know, a good job for us as a community and as a country. And they ought to be compensated for their work. I'm not saying that they ought not to work overtime. Yes, work overtime, but then be fairly compensated. And if that means, you know, just as, you know, other prices in our economy are raised to compensate workers, then let's do that. But let's take care of the people at the bottom, the people that we are always dependent upon. And those are the essential workers of our economy. they must be compensated in a manner that that is equitable and that is that is fair and as my my parents would have never been able to to raise three daughters and and have all of us go to college although we all got scholarships but they would have never been able to do that had they not been able to My father was eventually able to get a job in Greeley that paid a minimum wage You know, you have to recognize that farmworker families also have kids, and those kids ought to have the same benefits as the other kids in our society. And that means that their parents ought to be paid a livable wage so they also can participate fully in our economy.

Further questions for this panel? All right. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and retire the panel. Thank you for your presence and your testimony. in favor of 121 my first panel has congressman salazar and adrian card Congressman, if you would like to begin whenever you're ready.

Congressman, we are over time, so if you can start to wrap it up real quick.

Congressman, we are over a minute over, so we've got one more sentence here.

Thank you. Mr. Card, please go ahead whenever you're ready.

Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel?

You bet.

Sorry.

Thank you. The survey did not ask that question, but the anecdote that I can tell you from the work that I do with the Colorado Fruit and Vegetable Growers Association, hearing from those vegetable and fruit producers around the state, unlike workers that reside in the United States, H2A workers, they don't bring families with them. Not always. Sometimes they do. they're often coming to the United States to work as many hours as possible, to make as much money as possible, and then return to their home country with lots of U.S. dollars to be able to spend those in a great currency equivalency. So I think that those workers, some of the anecdote as well, there's some concern that the reduction in hours in Colorado may make Colorado less competitive compared to other states that offer H-2A employment. That's what I've heard so far.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Card, thank you. And Congressman Salazar, it's good to see you. Thanks for being here. Mr. Card, you alluded to the overtime wages. How are the overtime wages changing the production practices from your survey?

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Liston and maybe a question for either one of you I don't want to leave you out Congressman Salazar

some of the specialty crops and so forth Do you see the shifts in the various crops, and how are these labor-intensive, be it the mechanization and so forth? Can you elaborate a little bit on your own experiences?

No, go ahead. Senator Liston. Well, I'm curious. You both referred to the H-2A employees, and you just said that they're paid very handsomely. So a lot of these employees that come across the border, across the sea, I guess they could come from a lot of places. You said that they're pretty pleased with what they're paid. What would they be paid if they were across the border somewhere? I mean, can you give us some kind of idea because they're coming over voluntarily, is that correct? Congressman, I saw your hand go up first.

Day?

Wow.

On the other H2A things what about people like sheep herders How are you going to they have to be with the herd of sheep all 24 hours right Are we going to be paying them double overtime for 16 hours

We have reached the time limit for questions on this panel, so we'll go ahead and retire this panel. And thank you for your presence. So, next panel, look, you can never have too much gavel. Up next I have, and please forgive me if I have some mispronunciation. I'm going to do my best. FATUMA IMAD, STACY SUNIGA, ESPERANZA SARCEDO, AND ZOALA GOMEZ.

we have you on zoom um and i'm going to go i think we'll go in person first and we'll go to zoom so uh miss sunica yes please go ahead and proceed thank you uh good morning mr chair and members

Thank you. Online, the first I have is Fatuma Ahmad.

Go ahead and wrap up your comments.

The next on my list is Esperanza Saucedo. Ma'am, I don't know if you're muted, but we can see you speaking, but we can't hear you speaking. Still not hearing you. Still nothing. Let's try one more time, ma'am. Yep, we're not hearing you, so what we'll do is we'll give you an opportunity to work on that and we'll go to Ms. Gomez in the meantime. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll go back to try Ms. Saucedo, if you want to try again here. Do we have Ms. Saucedo?

We can hear you.

Ms. Saucedo, I don't know if you can hear us. Your screen froze. If you can hear us, please try to say something. Otherwise, we'll open up to questions.

We can. We lost you with a minute left on your time. So we'll go ahead and give you that.

Committee members, questions for this panel.

Ms. Ossedo. Yes. In the time that I lived here, and like I said, my mom's a farm worker, I've only seen them look for additional jobs during the winter when there is no work. Other than that, they work, you know, the whole season. All right.

and then patterns of reduced hours, is that something you have seen over the last couple of years during the harvest season? seeing them uh lose some hours but there is uh when they first gear get here especially the h2a workers they don't work as much just because they're prepping for the you know height demand towards the end of the summer when they do work a lot so it just it depends on the weather it depends on what part of the season they're in.

on the MESA Yes I have Senator Judah Thank you And this is to anyone on this panel Do you feel like workers feel safe talking about what they need More overtime? Anything?

I see your hand go up, Ms. Gomez. I would say, yes, people continue to be resilient about, not resilient about talking or sharing experiences. They continue to be scared about retaliation. in the network we have built a really solid community where some come and share their experiences but more on a personal level where they even ask please don't share these or don't talk about this I'm just kind of venting but also we've had experiences where you know some farmers have been much better after the provisions in 2021 to their workers. So it's been a balance and a learning curve for everyone. So I think after the provisions of 2021, we really made progress on some things. And all of this will just reverse the things that we have improved on. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Hobu Luque. I work for Five Rivers. I'm in a cattle feeding business. I work in Cursey, Colorado currently. I've worked prior in Arizona and Texas, originally from Mexico. I crossed the border when I was 23 years of age under a work visa. And I currently serve as a general manager for the Cuner feedlot in Cursing. So there we feed about 80,000 head of cattle and cattle. So I'm very familiar with the topics here. I urge you to strongly support Senate Bill 121 and oppose 81. Two different approaches. I understand the nature of both. but the realities of our business are way different than the industrial side of things. Like many of the prior representatives have alluded to and talked about in detail, we are at the mercy of the care of animals, And our business is 365 days a year. I think the question was asked about if we were to have to work around the clock, how do we manage overtime? Where does the 50% increase in pay come from? Why 40 hours? Why 48? The reality is our business is to bring affordable food to the table, and an arbitrary rule like this really makes the Colorado facilities in our business uncompetitive. Other states are not abiding by the same rules. Other countries are not abiding by the same rules. We sell a commodity. It doesn't follow that. We sell the same, and it is pushing us to reduce hours, find ways to maintain a healthy bottom line. And I agree with the thought that it pushes the smaller operations, of course, harder. They're most vulnerable. They have less capital to work with, less resources. And that consolidation has been happening forever, right? We see larger get bigger and the smaller go away. And I think that's a threat. That's a threat for not only agriculture, other businesses as well, and it's not healthy. It's not helping the long-term viability of employment. So your proposition or Senate Bill 181, it's a short-term, short-sighted goal to help farm workers. having the flexibility of Senate Bill 121 it's a longer term viability option where we create more employment we're not driven, we're forced to automation in a lot of these jobs and those jobs are not coming back if we go to automation so thank you for allowing me to speak thank you

right good morning chair members of the community my name is Mike Drayth I've worked in agriculture for 17 years along the front range and now out east with Kelsavik farms a small grains operation in Bennett I want to begin by saying that I appreciate the intention behind the agricultural overtime bill it was created to help workers like me however in my experience has ended up doing the exact opposite agriculture isn't a job that fits neatly into a limited schedule many of our tasks require long drives just to get to the field and once we there the work takes the time it takes whether crops equipment do not operate on clock when the work needs to be done we need the hours to do it Before the 2021 bill went into effect I could work hours necessary to support my family I wanted to work. My employer wanted to give me the hours, but now because they are trying to manage rising labor costs, I'm often sent home early or told not to come in at all. I'm losing hours that I'm willing to and able to work. As a result, I'm losing income. To make up for the lost income, I've had to take on second jobs, which means even more time away from my family. The bill was meant to help me has actually created more financial strain and less time at home. It has affected my household in a very real and negative way. I do not believe the bill is helping workers like me. it's hurting us financially personally and professionally returning to a 60-hour threshold would be far more realistic for agriculture and far more supportive of the people who keep this industry going i'm proud of the work i do i just want the chance to do it in conclusion i would ask the senate committee to oppose senate bill sb 81 and support the senate bill sb 26 121 Thank you for listening and considering the real-world impact these rules have on families like mine. Thank you, and God bless.

Hi, my name is Mireya Montoya, and I'm here interpreting for Noah. I would like to share his experience regarding the impact of the reduction in hours. He has shared that he helped support his family members in Mexico, which increases his financial responsibilities. He doesn't feel right not working those hours while his family is waiting for his financial support. Because of these circumstances, he believes that reducing work hours would be unfair to workers in similar situations. Thank you.

I see Senator Catlin's hand go up first. Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair. My question will be for both of you. In your cattle operation, how many employees do you have in that feedlot?

And how many people work on the farm that you work on, sir? Around 20, Senator Kellen. So in the feedlot operation, are you having to curtail hours for certain people? Are you having to increase the number of employees? How do you go about managing labor in a large operation like that? Mr. Luque.

One quick follow-up question, and that would be for you, sir. Is the farm that you work for, are they managing hours on that 20-person employee list where you get some weeks you may get some, other weeks you don't? And is that impacting your income? Mr. Grass. Because of the fact that we have been in a slow part of the season so far this year, we all have been going home early. we will manage that later in the year as we have heavier times where we need to work longer hours with planting coming up and those kind of things I suppose they gear up and allow you to work more hours we're going to have to thank you very much

In total, shy of 600.

So you mentioned Mr. Luque, so I'll let you answer that first and then go to Mr. Dress. Please. Absolutely.

in my years of experience, I've never been mistreated on a farm. I've always felt like the farmers are grateful for what I'm there doing. And the farm I'm at now, they're amazing. They have the nicest facilities you could ever think of. I mean, I guarantee you that some of the bathrooms here and stuff aren't as nice as we got over there and stuff. And they're always bringing us snacks and stuff. and during harvest they provide meals. I mean, I've never felt like that at all.

We are at time for this panel, so we'll go ahead and retire the panel. Thank you for your –

We can hear you. Go ahead and give your testimony real quick. Thank you.

thank you uh committee members questions real real quick we we're at our max bell allow for for a quick question.

Mr. Wallace.

thank you very much for being here and for your testimony i have up next zach workowitz ricardo perez charlie brennan and jennifer rodriguez and keeping with how we've got today we'll start in person so that will uh in order of Sign up, Mr. Brennan.

Thank you.

We will go to Zach Workowitz.

Yeah, and we have Ricardo Perez on our list, but we're not seeing him. Seeing that popping up, we'll go ahead and begin questions from committee members. Questions for this panel? Okay. I'm not seeing any questions, so we'll go ahead and retire this panel. Up next, and final panel, we have Tyler Garrett, Bruce Talbot, Brett Rutledge, and Robert Cicada. Mr. Garrett, please go ahead.

Thank you. Mr. Ciccata?

Thank you. Online, we have Bruce Talbot.

75 H-2A contract employees, and 30 to 40 local employees for packing and harvest. The H-2A contract employees are now the heart of our production and make up about 90% of our field crews. We are predominantly men, they are predominantly men and have their families at home in Mexico or Central America. Availability of corresponding local workers in Colorado agriculture is very limited and most of those who are available are approaching retirement age. The H-2A workers are here specifically to work and make a living and will make five to six times in eight months what a peer in Mexico will make working the full year. They are very disappointed when their hours are capped by the overtime penalty and they are required to sit idle. Unlike local workers, they are not allowed to get a second job to make up for lost hours. In peach production, labor makes up 80 to 85% of my cost of production after fixed costs have been covered. We live and die as a business based on the efficiency and ultimate cost of our labor. Most employers would love to pay their employees more if they could, whether as a base wage or overtime, as we need them to thrive, but we must remain economically viable. Our internal estimates are that the current overtime rule costs our average eight-month employ between $3,000 and $4,000 annually. The 40-hour thresholds would cost them closer to $7,000 to $10,000 each. In preparing for the potential risk of reduced hours per worker, we have just now completing our new 48-bed bunkhouse complex to bring in more people if necessary. Even under current rules, we are seeing a decline in the produce industry in the U.S., having now become a net importing country. Many producers now grow in multiple states and multiple countries. As production becomes less viable in one area, they incrementally shift that production outside of the western U.S. and Colorado toward the southeast or south of the border. Of the three remaining vegetable operations in Mesa County, two are for sale and most likely will become subdivisions. Recognizing the damage done to agricultural workers by overtime requirements, states like California, Washington, and New York are working on various approaches such as tax credits to encourage employers to offer overtime. States are struggling to find the money to support these programs and the grower community is reluctant to participate when programs do exist. Thank you for your support of Colorado Agriculture. Thank you. We have Bruce Rutledge. Brett Rutledge, sorry. Brett, if you can hear us, we'll give you just a moment to try to come online. Oh, we now see your screen. Brett if you can hear us please proceed yes I can hear you I trying to get my video up We just heard you so you got audio now Now you got video Perfect. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, members of this committee, for your time today. My name is Brett Rutledge, and I'm a diversified farmer and rancher from northeast Colorado. My brother and I raise several crops, raise cattle and pigs in the Yuma area. I'm a fourth generation on a centennial farm, and my two college-aged sons, who have started a show goat business, will be the fifth generation to join our family farm. I've been a member of the Water Quality Control Commission and also served eight-plus years on the Ag Commission. In two of those years, I was chair. I'm currently treasurer of the Colorado Livestock Association and president of the Colorado Pork Producers Council. Thank you for allowing me time to address this committee. I'm here to speak in support of SB 26-121, for increasing the overtime threshold from 48 to 60 hours. I'm speaking in support of this bill, as the bill is a good one for agricultural workforce and the industry at large. Since the passing of agricultural labor law in 2021, we have had to design new work schedules and hire additional employees. Due to this labor law, we have had to scale back and lower volume in production to comply with the hours restriction and to remain in business. Unfortunately, this has led to our loyal, long-time employees having their hours limited. Because of the overtime restriction, these employees are earning less wages because of not being able to work more hours. They are finding themselves with less money in their pockets at the end of the pay period. These employees earn more than $20 per hour, and overtime would cost an additional $30 per hour. By increasing the overtime threshold from 48 to 60 hours, our employees could earn an additional $12,000 more per year. A substantial difference in impact on their quality of life. With everyone facing the cost of inflation, raising the overtime threshold affords employees the opportunity to work the additional hours that they would like to and have a bigger paycheck to take home to support their families. The ag industry operates on tight margins with little room for error and downtime. The ag industry will need to continue paying attention to the hours of their employees and the bottom line as usual. By allowing seasoned, long-term employees to work up to 60 hours, the farm can run more efficiently and with less mistakes and downtime, often caused by new, less experienced employees. Ag employers will benefit by having experienced and dedicated employees that can work the additional hours and bring home a bigger paycheck. In my experience, those who work in the ag industry have a strong work ethic. They want to work and they want to get the job done. The 48-hour overtime law has created a restrictive work environment, which employers cannot afford to give the employees additional hours. The results in this result is smaller paychecks for employees. The agricultural operators pay step-by in overall output. With a 60-hour overtime threshold, our experienced employees will be able to work the hours they want to work, and the ag operations can optimize production and boost overall output, supporting the communities that rely on the ag industry. Thank you. allowing the overtime threshold to be 60 hours a week is beneficial sustaining our future in agricultural communities thank you for your time today and you for consideration of this important matter i ask you again to vote yes on Senate Bill 121 and oppose 81 Thank you Thank you Mr Rutledge I've got a question first for Mr. Talbot. You brought up the tax credit efforts. In other states that have more stringent overtime standards than what we have in Colorado, if hypothetically there were a tax credit that were able to reimburse at say 50% of the overtime costs to a producer for the overtime paid, would that make a meaningful difference in the affordability and sustainability of that standard? It would be helpful, but we will manage to minimize overtime exposure. We're never going to plan to do overtime. We occasionally get caught there due to storms, due to harvest restrictions, due to individual jobs that are time sensitive. But even with the overtime penalty cut in half, that would be appreciated, but we're still going to manage to minimize that. Mr. Garrett, I guess my next question is for you regarding FLSA. I've heard some really compelling stuff around the struggles that the fixed price of the commodities involved in agriculture pose that's unique to that industry. If there were some form of federal standard, is there some form of federal overtime standard? that your organization could get behind if it was a national uniform overtime threshold? Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I think that that would honestly help at the end of the day. I think, you know, we would have to have discussions about what that would look like and what it would be. But I'll say a national overtime standard would set Colorado on a level playing field compared to what we have right now where only six states in the country have ag overtime. And so farm workers would be leaving Colorado, and that's what we're hearing is some of them are leaving Colorado because they can work more hours in other states, even though they have less protections there. Senator Catlin. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Sakata, thank you for being here. We appreciate farmers out there doing the job for us out in the community. My question will be in regards to Colorado ag. Are we strengthening or are we weakening here in the state of Colorado as far as family farms are concerned? Mr. Scotto. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for the question. Yeah, the USDA Ag Census indicates that we're losing ground. That we're, you know, the last, from the last five-year period, we've lost over 2,800 farmers across Colorado. And I think as testimony was made, it was 1.6 million acres of agricultural land that has been decreasing in Colorado. And unfortunately, we're leading the nation in that category. I've got one more question for you, sir. I'm sorry, Mr. Chair. Being in the Ag Commissioner's seat, are we seeing much abuse of our ag labor in the state of Colorado? Mr. Staccato. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I surely hope not. If we, if we, if anybody knows of any, I hope they would report it to us, report it to the Department of Labor because we really need to take care of that. Thank you, sir. Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. To you, Mr. Garrett. I always see you, but we never have a chance to talk, so this might be one of the first times. So what is the overall consequences of increasing the production costs for the producers? Mr. Sakata. No, Mr. Garrett. Sorry, Mr. Garrett. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm trying a different microphone to see if it stops ringing. You know, one thing, I pulled up the U.S. court's data on Chapter 12 bankruptcies before I came in, and I looked at the rate from 24 to 25. If you look at the average rate of the U.S., it increased from 24 to 25 by 46 percent. And if you look at the average of the six states that have ag overtime, it raised by 58 percent. And Colorado is 50% from 24 to 25. The other thing is what we're going to continue to see is that some producers can absorb the costs, some really large producers. But what you're going to see is the producers that I represent, those family farmers and ranchers, they're going to go out of business. Those people who have been in business for a long time and have large operations, they may be able to absorb some of the costs, absorb other operations. but family farmers and ranchers, if those are who we care about, they cannot absorb these costs. Beginning farmers and ranchers can't absorb these costs, and you're just going to continue to see them go out of business, and so we'll see a further consolidation and concentration of the agricultural sector in Colorado. Senator Judah. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I'll make this quick. Mr. Ciccata, if CDA would need to spend money to educate workers about any changes to overtime pay, what would that look like? Mr. Ciccata. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator, for that question. Being new to this position as acting commissioner, I would have to research and take a look and ask our department leads what it would take. Our ag worker program now is outreaching to ag workers to help them understand everything from the new rules that were implemented about using short handle hose, about the shade requirements. So, but the specifics I'd have to get back to you. Yeah. We are over time on this panel so we'll go ahead and retire this panel. This is the last panel that we have. So that will bring us to. Are there any other witnesses hanging out? Okay. Okay. So I have signed up now Paula Schreifer, Jonathan Rodriguez, Alexis Albanese, Levy Cisneros. And Ms. Shreifer, go ahead and begin whenever you're ready. Ms. Shreifer, go ahead and begin whenever you're ready. So we go with Jonathan Rodriguez Thank you everyone I worked as a farmer and farm worker for nine seasons and I'm currently a member of the leadership of Mahai Farmers. I'm good at my work, and when you're good at something, you want to be rewarded. When you go above and beyond, you should want to be rewarded in the same way as your peers are in other industries. I want to encourage my elected officials to vote no on 121 and yes on 81. I believe that farmers and farm workers deserve legal rights to match their peers. I also want to live in a state where we stand up for humans, where we aren't afraid to acknowledge that inequity and racism are a part of our story. I want to work in an industry where farms invest in their workers, and I want to encourage our industry to responsibly manage our people so that we are more efficient and we all have higher worker satisfaction. I believe that investing in your people will always pay off. I believe that rolling back overtime rules affects me and my livelihood and my family. I thank you for the opportunity to talk with you this afternoon. Thank you. Alexis Albenez. Hi, my name is Alexis Albenez. I'm also part of the leadership team for Mile High Farmers. I've been farming for seven years in different agricultural spaces, indoor and outdoor, around the different metro area. I'm here today to oppose SB 21. And the reason why I'm opposing this is because I feel that it's harmful to farm workers financially, mentally, and physically as well. I would like to say that this can put a financial strain on farm workers because as opposed to other people in other industries, even if in other industries, even if they are seasonal employees, they do get to make overtime. And I also have seen that they also can make time and a half as well on holidays, even if they are seasonal employees. I'm also opposing this because there's rising costs in bills, there's rising costs in resources. and even if you are a farmer who is an individual and a family, it can be mentally stressful because you have to think about, like, if there's rising costs and I can't make overtime or they don't want to up our pay, then I do have to in some way resort to getting a second job. I have in the past, even when I was working on a farm, I did have to work a second job as well. because it's financially stressful. Like sometimes you can't rely on an agricultural job because of the way some of the laws work as well. I would also say that this can also mentally affect a farmer in the workplace while they're farming because they have to think about like, they have to think about, they're also thinking about their financial stress as well. And that can also affect a person about how they show up to work. Thank you Thank you Mr Cisneros Thank you Thank you Mr Cisneros Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. My name is Levi Cisneros. I'm here to represent the agriculture, the ag workers, and oppose the 60-hour bill, SB 26-101, or 121. And I hear this bottom line that's been coming up with everyone, and it seems like the bottom line is resting upon the ag workers that are keeping this industry alive. And so I would recommend raising that bottom line to where these ag workers are getting paid. If you get paid more, you work harder. I myself have been a former farm worker in places where I was a skilled worker. I was running the machinery and looking at people that are struggling to work these long hours and picking it up for them so that they can provide for their families. I myself don't have kids, but they do. And to address them taking this money and being able to go back to Mexico and live way better is not the case anymore. I've spent my last two years in the wintertime offseason in Mexico, and the dollar does not stretch as it used to. So the denomination, you know, is far lower to get money out from a U.S. bank. It costs a lot more, 10%, 12% to get it out of an ATM. So, you know, them making that extra money is crucial for their living because their family also has to pay these high prices in gas and the prices for living. I want to address one other thing with the sheep herders. Just because it came up, sheep herders are faced with the harshest conditions, as I know, as we know, and they're alone. So sheep herders should get paid an extra amount because they're the ones taking care of your herd and they're alone. We've seen the reality series of loan. People bank it less than 10 days because of that harsh condition that they're exposed to. So I oppose strongly to oppose for the 60 hours and support the 40 hours. Thank you for your time. Thank you. I got word that we do have Mr. Perez online. So if that is still the case, please proceed. There we go. MR PEREZ GO AHEAD AND BEGIN IF YOU READY YES THANK YOU GOOD AFTERNOON Mr Perez go ahead and begin if you ready Yes thank you Good afternoon My name is Ricardo Perez, and I am the director of the Hispanic Affairs Project, HAP, a non-profit organization promoting the integration of immigrant and refugee families in western Colorado. The farm workers and their families are facing a very hard time in this period of our history, you know. Everyone recognizes how farm workers are essential and sustaining the whole rural industries in Colorado, but a few times we have the opportunity to act in their support. This is the time for Colorado. again I am hearing support to the bill SB 2601 and against the SB 261 to 1 federal government is already doing a good job intimidating immigrant communities farm workers humble families at the same time the cost of living is higher as never. And here is how the life goes in rural communities. We are seeing cases of labor abuse in the ag industry. Right now we are supporting a family working for the employer for 15 years. A year ago the worker had an accident in the workplace and the employer asked not to report to the workers comp. The physical condition of the worker got worse and the employer fired the person evicting his family as well because the family was living in the property in the land. Other employers are firing and then contracting new workers offering less payment. We are seeing labor abuses. 20% of our community members are farm workers and what I hear from them is the high level of stress for the cost of living when the salary is still very low, impossible to sustain a family. And this is burning also our state federal funding. I am asking our state legislators to review any bill or change of any agriculture policy in the perspective of those who are sustaining the industry. I mean, the workers. And also, I am asking to consider the long-term sustainability for this industry. in the long term in the long term i am confident to say that we can replace working workers in many industry industries but i don't think is the case for the agriculture one and we need to care for our communities and we need to care for our history and industry sustaining important part of our economy. Thank you. Thank you. Committee members, questions for this panel? Seeing none, we'll go ahead and retire this panel. Thank you for your testimony. I have five people remaining that are now, that have signed up. It appears, if I'm reading this correctly, that there are three in a support of 121 position, two remaining in support of 81 positions. So we'll have two separate panels with the supporters of 121. If I'm reading this correctly, I have Reese Melton, Dwayne Nava, and that's actually it. go with mr melton first please begin whenever you're ready thank you chair and members of the committee my name is reese melton and i'm the director of natural resources for rio blanco county and the white river and douglas creek conservation districts first on behalf of the county we support senate bill 121 as agriculture is not just another industry in Rio Blanco County. It's one of the cornerstones of our economy, our heritage, and our way of life. As recognized in our land and natural resource plan, maintaining natural and traditional land uses such as farming, livestock grazing, is crucial to sustaining our community and small family ranches and farms still remain a critical component. As a county, we have a responsibility through our own adopted policies to protect the economic well-being of our citizens. Our land use policies are intended to protect and enhance our local economy, ensure community stability, and provide for the health, safety, and welfare of our residents, including those family farms and ranches. That responsibility requires us to carefully evaluate how proposed legislation will impact the viability of the family agricultural operations in our community. We emphasize that policies affecting agriculture must be grounded in the realities of these rural operations. During peak seasons, long hours are not optional. They are necessary. Producers cannot reduce hours without risking crops, livestock, and ultimately their livelihoods. These increased labor costs at the current thresholds have serious financial impact on our family operations that have sustained our communities for generations. These impacts would extend beyond individual producers and affect our broader rural economy in Rio Blanco. We firmly support the increase in thresholds that 121 offers to our operators. We also support the bill's exemptions and we encourage thoughtful and flexible rulemaking moving forward. It is critical that the state continues to engage with rural counties, producers, and stakeholders to ensure implementation reflects the unique conditions of western Colorado. From the conservation district's perspective, our producers work tirelessly not only to raise crops and livestock but also to incorporate their own conservation practices to improve soil health, limit erosion, improve wildlife habitat, and protect water resources. Whether it's long hours calving in the spring or reseeding critical wildlife forage on their private land, these projects and duties cannot adhere to a 40-hour work week. These extended work hours are not only essential to properly care for livestock and crops, but are required for landowners to implement the best conservation practices on their farms and ranches. Firmly, we ask this committee to support 121 and acknowledge the unique work hours demanded by the agricultural whale life and applying voluntary but necessary conservation practices. Thank you. Thank you. Dwayne Nava. Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Dwayne Nava, President and CEO of the Greater Pueblo Chamber. I'm here today on behalf of the chamber and the Pueblo Chili Growers Association in support of Senate Bill 121 in opposition of Senate Bill 81. Let me start with this. Agricultural workers deserve fair pay, and we support policies that move us in that direction. But agriculture is not like any other industry, and that distinction matters. Our growers operate in a world defined by seasonality, weather and narrow harvest windows When a crop like Pueblo Chili is ready it doesn wait and neither can the workforce That means long hours and short intense periods of time The question before you isn whether workers should be protected It how to do it in a way that doesn break the system that supports them Senate Bill 121 gets that balance right. By establishing a 60-hour overtime threshold, it recognizes the realities of agriculture while still ensuring workers are compensated when hours become truly excessive. It provides the flexibility growers need during critical harvest windows without abandoning the goal of fair labor standards. That kind of balance is essential because when the threshold is set too low, as proposed in Senate Bill 81, the consequences are immediate and real. Growers are forced into impossible choices, cutting hours, leaving crops and fields, taking on labor costs that simply they cannot absorb or shift production out of Colorado entirely. None of these outcomes help workers. In fact, they lead to fewer hours, fewer jobs, and fewer farms. Many of our chili growers are small, multi-generational operations operating on razor-thin margins. They are already dealing with rising costs in water, fuel, labor, and compliance. A rigid overtime structure, like said of Bill 81, doesn't just increase costs. It destabilizes the entire business model. And when agriculture suffers, the impact goes beyond the farm. Agriculture fuels our local economy. It supports restaurants, retailers, and tourism. And it anchors major events like the Povo Chile and Frijolay Festival. When our growers struggle, our entire business community fills it. We believe that there is a better path forward, one that recognizes the unique nature of agriculture instead of forcing a one-size-fits-all mandate. Senate Bill 121 represents that path. Senate Bill 81 does not. You cannot regulate agriculture like a 9-to-5 job because it isn't one. Support that works. Vote yes. Senate Bill 121 and no 181. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Nava. We have Mr. Orff is signed up here, and there's a Haley Carrillo that signed up in person. Is Haley in the room? Okay, we'll go ahead to Mr. Orff. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and good afternoon, I believe, at this point. No, yes, committee. My name is Richard Orff. I'm here on behalf of the Associated Governments of Northwest Colorado, supporting Senate Bill 121 in respectful opposition to Senate Bill 81. We do want to thank the Majority Leader Rodriguez, Minority Leader Simpson, and Senator Danielson for their consideration to try to find a balance between the fairness of worker pay and making sure that the agricultural market in Colorado remains viable. AGNC is a council of governments. We're an enterprise zone. We're an economic development organization in northwest Colorado, including the counties and municipal members within Rio Blanco, Garfield, Mesa, Moffitt. We have associate members in Delta, Montrose, and Grand Counties. Of the few pillars available in economic diversity in northwest Colorado, agriculture is one of the sturdiest. It is a bedrock. It is foundational to our region. We will echo the statements made by so many others within the ag community, as you have heard from the CSU extension, and we would love to see that survey. Northwest Colorado does have many high-intensity labor products that are Colorado-specific and Colorado-proud. Palisade peaches, Olathe sweet corn, Pueblo chilies, Rocky Ford cantaloupe, apples from Hotchkiss, San Luis Valley potatoes, lamb, beef, the product list goes on. Products that other legislation this body just recently recognized was worth protecting against a national market because our quality and brand is worth protecting in a commodified global market. We asked this committee to find that appropriate balance in wage fairness and economic viability which is not just national but as I said again a global market Ag is not the same as other industries Even ag to ag is not the straight equivalency Depending on the crop depending on the livestock depending on the operation depending on the location for many of the reasons You've heard already in this committee a GNC does support Senate bill 121 and does respectfully oppose Senate bill 81. Thank you for the time and I'll keep it short Thank you committee members questions for this panel All right seeing none. Thank you. We'll retire at the panel remaining signed up, I have Jason August, Valerie Collins, Sitlali Kiroz, and I believe that is it. So we'll go ahead and have this panel. And gentlemen, if you'd like to begin. One, two. Thank you very much. Chairman, Senator Daneson, good to see you again. I'm here today to stand on my square. I look around this room, I see Nilsil Numini, the great model of the capital of the state of Colorado, which means nothing without the divine will. What does that mean? Today we have two choices. A choice for exploitation or a choice for fairness. We want to be exploiters, or do we want to be fair and just people? And today we have that decision to make. It is a very, very serious decision to make. We're at a time where we're at war. We are at a time where we're at spiritual war of high and low places. And do we want to be slave masters in this time, or do we want to be liberators? By charging and requiring a 60-hour minimum to reach overtime is just another form of exploitation. That's why I oppose the Senate Bill 121. I feel that everybody should be treated equally and everybody should be treated fairly, no matter what industry you are in and no matter what type of work you do. and if it comes down to businesses have to go out of business because they can't afford to pay people fairly then let them go out of business and somebody will come in and do the work but to hear excuses about oh I cannot afford this because I will suffer the business will suffer that's not right people need to be treated fairly mental health is important physical health is important spiritual health is important And we have a choice, and we have the ability to make that choice today that will serve the future generations. Your grandchildren, your great-great-grandchildren will have to live with these choices that we are making today. And we want to make them look back at you and be like, my great-great-grandparents did the wrong thing, where they were exploiting people where they had the chance not to. and now we are here to do the right thing. So I urge you to please do not vote for Bill SB 121 and do vote for Bill SB 81 and history will judge you kindly and the Most High will judge you kindly and according to our motto of the state nil sini nominate nothing without divine will, and the divine will will judge us all accordingly. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. I have Valerie Collins. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Valerie Collins, and I'm an attorney at Towards Justice, which is a worker-centered nonprofit legal organization in favor of worker justice and economic justice. I'd like to start just by actually reading what this bill, SB 121, deletes.

Thank you. So the last that I have on my list currently is Sitlali Kiros. If you are available online or in person, we'd love to hear your testimony. Okay, so I'm told that Sitlali is not here. Okay. Question for our online panel. Seeing none, we'll go ahead and retire that panel. Is there anybody else in the room or online that wishes to testify on Senate Bill 81 and or 121?

Okay. Please go ahead and introduce yourself and begin.

Seeing none, we'll go ahead and retire this panel. We do not have anybody else lined up to testify. We've already asked for, if there's your final call, we'll go ahead and close the testimony phase at this time and go into the amendment phase.

Okay.

If you'd like to, if you'd like to, you can.

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Okay, we are at the amendment phase. Sponsors.

present them in the order that you would like. Somebody has to move them.

Senator Liston. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll move Amendment L-002 to Senate Bill 121 and Amendment

Thank you, Mr. Chair. As the bill was introduced and provided to the committee, the bill had a fiscal note of $39,000. And after discussions with the fiscal analysts, the department and the JBC staff, you know, we didn't think that the bill would have a fiscal note because we were just changing a number and setting it in statute. And because the system requires the comp system and the data system to implement changes before they do this annually, because every year they're required to do changes rulemaking to the work comp system, to the comp pay system. I can't remember the right technically. We extended the date, and that didn't exclude the discussions of them having rulemaking authority and changing. So we took what was currently in the definitions of the rulemaking to put in statute, which doesn't change the 12-hour-a-day threshold, doesn't change any of the current rulemaking. The only tweak we're making is moving the threshold from the 48 to the 60 and changing that, but we're implementing the rest of the standards into statute, so the rulemaking process isn't required because we're taking what they've done and putting it into statute. and there is a memo that's been given to you that removes the fiscal note requirement of adding the amendment. It removes the fiscal note from the bill because there's no longer that system to require.

Mr. Chair, thank you. And that's the explanation of L-003. Change the implementation date to January 1st. I appreciate that.

By the way, my name is Claire Pramick. I work in the Legislative Council Office writing fiscal notes. I was just looking at L2 in terms of what's in the comps already, and I know that there are definitions in the comps. I didn't have time to actually make sure that they were the same or if they were just being updated. Because I think the intent is to not have to go to do rulemaking to determine what those are.

So the memo shows that the adoption of L002 and L003 would have no fiscal impacts in budget year 25-26 and out year 26-27. This is partly on the backdating of the implementation until January 1, 2027.

I think that the change will happen when they open up the comps review for the 2027. They've just published the 2026 comps, which is comps number 40. So this would be something that they do every year.

So I don't see that it's going to make any change further down the road that's going to cause a fiscal impact.

Yes.

No problem.

Okay, we will have a Centroil 5.

Thank you so much for coming up here. Sorry to bother you. But I guess I just have a question. If we're changing the wage structure, won't we have to open back up the rulemaking process to implement the statute? And Ms. Leone.

justice. These definitions were pulled from the comp system. We pulled them from the comp system to implement into statute, which is why it's taking away from the fiscal, which is these definitions I mean if we want to pull I guess somebody from CDLA up here but that where these These were taken from the comp system to implement into statute So taken directly from existing rulemaking Senator Janison. I think that's getting at my question of the change in the policy that's proposed in both of these amendments. if the overtime changes from 56 and 48, and it's not something that's automatically done each year, we will have to do new rulemaking to implement this piece. Correct?

Yeah.

Do you want to bring up something? Okay. Thank you. There is a motion on L-002.

I appreciate you.

Okay.

Is that inaccurate?

Yeah.

Why don't I let Senator Danielson express her concern?

So comps will be updated annually because the effective date is moved from, it would have been May or June, to January 1st, 2027. Yeah. It should be rolled into their annual rulemaking for comps. Thank you. That they were going to roll into anyway. Correct. Appreciate that.

But is that clear? Is there rulemaking on the wage orders? I'm sorry? As part of the annual process, because that's the crux of it, is whether or not this will indeed then drive a fiscal note down the line because we have to do rulemaking. Ms. Promock?

Thank you.

I'm good. Do you want to?

Senators Catlin?

Judah? No.

Aye. Yes.

No.

Yes.

Is there a motion on L-003? It's been made. Okay. Okay, so there is a motion on the table for L-003. Is there objection to L-003? Seeing objection, Mr. Hachal,

Yes.

Liston?

No.

Yes.

Further amendments from the sponsors? Further amendments from committee members? Senator Simpson, would you like to move Senate Bill 121? We'd like to, but I probably... Oh, you're not on the committee right now. Senator Liston, would you like to move Bill 121?

That is a proper motion. Closing In comments from committee members, refer the vote.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I want to thank everyone who testified today, and it was incredibly compelling testimony, and it very much helped me understand this process a lot better. I have to agree with my chair that this is very frustrating. our country and our state are doing a huge disservice to our farm owners and our farm workers. And quite frankly, I'm disgusted by how people are having to find ways to survive to do this. And I mean that for both. Our small farm owners are struggling. That's not lost upon me. And I serve with people who tell me about their farm life all the time. And I'm very grateful for those experiences and for those testimonies that personally, you know, I get to personally hear those things. That said, I just can't get past our workers. And I wish I had a magic wand. I am incredibly frustrated and upset. And so I will be respectfully a no today. But please know that even with my conversations with my good senator here, I think we all agree that a lot of work still has to be done here. But I will be a no. And I just want to say that on the record respectfully that I do understand where you're coming from. And I do understand the position of our farm workers. but I can't ignore the realities of our farm workers. So thank you for everything you've done here and thank you again to all the witnesses who testified. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senators Catlin?

Judah?

Liston?

Danielson?

Mr. Chair?

that passes on a vote of 3 to 2.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Seeing none, Ms. Rachel, will you please pull the committee members? Senators Catlin?

Judah?

Liston?

Danielson?

Mr. Chair?

I'm not going to make that motion, sir.

Senator Liston. I make a motion to postpone indefinitely. using a reverse roll call.