Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee, Wednesday, March 18, 2026
No chapters available yet
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Assembly Public Employment and Retirement Committee California State Assembly
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 3
My name is Andrew Martinez, and I work at UCLA as a senior custodian on behalf of AFSCME three thousand two hundred ninety nine, the frontline service workers at the University of California we support. For decades, our U employer, UC, has contracted out our jobs and replaced us with lower paid people who didn't get good benefits. Today, our collective bargaining agreements include an arbitration process as a way to settle disputes related to contracting out our jobs. The problem is that UC is ignoring this agreed on process and ignoring arbitrators' decisions. So even if we win at arbitration, UC doesn't, follow an arbitrator's decision and instead make us do it all over again and again at our own expense and years of delay.
At UCLA, it took four years, three arbitrations, a court proceeding. That was for cafeteria workers who were contracted out by UC and shouldn't have been. This cycle of deliberate noncompliance makes a mockery of the arbitration system that both parties agree to honor. We are asking that you act so agreements and arbitration decisions mean something. Thank you for your consideration.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any more any support from the audience? Please step up to the microphone. Give your name, organization, and your position.
Speaker 5
Good morning, ma'am, chair and members. Mari Lopez with the California Nurses Association in support.
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair and members. Connor Guzman on behalf of Teamsters California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no other witnesses in support, are there any witnesses in opposition?
Speaker 7
Thank you. Appreciate it. Good morning, madam chair and members. Tyler Aguilar on behalf of the University of California. We are respectfully opposed to AB fifty eighty two, which establishes a new unfair practice under HERA related to arbitration decisions.
First and foremost, the university values the collective bargaining process and works in good faith with our labor partners to resolve disputes. Relating to contract for services, however, this bill significantly alters the mutually agreed upon framework for grievances by imposing statutory liabilities and penalties that were never negotiated at the bargaining table. Critical concern for this bill is how it transforms one localized arbitration decision into a system wide compliance trigger because you see such a large decentralized institution. A decision at one campus regarding a specific service could immediately freeze essential operations at another. Using broad language for the term same or similar services means a ruling at Davis, for example, could reclassify a good faith procurement decision at Santa Cruz as a repeat violation, especially a big impact to our medical centers, which must retain the flexibility to contract for services where allowed under policy to maintain continuity in, patient care and emergency response.
The threat of daily fines for these routine decisions creates an unacceptable level of operational risk for the university as well the bill's penalty structure creates unpredictable financial exposure, penalties of a thousand dollars per day. It can be backdated to the date of the unfair practice charge filing. This means that the university could face massive fines even before a neutral arbitrator even hears the case, which as we know can sometimes take anywhere from nine months to eighteen months. So in conclusion, this uncertainty created by AB fifteen eighty two would effectively force and across the board ban on contracting for services even where narrow exceptions are vital for serving our students and patients. So for these reasons, we are respectfully opposed to AB fifteen eighty two.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any other witness in opposition? Please come to the mic. Seeing none, we'll bring it back to the desk.
Are there any comments or questions from the desk members? Would you like to would you like to close?
Speaker 2
I when the appropriate time comes out, we would respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. And, colleagues, AB eighteen fifty two is about respect. I'm sorry, 18 82. I am really something's wrong with me this morning. AB fifteen eighty two is about respect, respect for workers who make this state function every single day.
Our public servants are not asking for special treatment. They're asking for what they've earned, a secure, reliable retirement after a lifetime of service. The bill reinforces that promise and strengthens the systems that that they depend on. At a time when too many workers are being asked to do more with less, we have a responsibility to stand firmly on the side of labor to protect their future, not weaken it. Let's be clear.
When we protect pensions, we protect working families. And so we'll come back to, to this when we get a quorum, but I think we may have a quorum. Madam secretary, would you like to call the row?
Speaker 1
So we need a motion and a second before we have a motion from assembly member Nguyen and a second from assembly member Garcia. Can you please call the roll?
Speaker 5
Item number two. Item number two, a b fifteen eighty two, Ortega. The motion is do pass and we refer to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon. Aye.
McKinnon. Aye. Lackey. Alaniz.
Speaker 5
Garcia, I. Nguyen? I. Nguyen, I. Rodriguez, we have sufficient votes.
We'll place it on call for absent members.
Speaker 2
Thank you, madam chair and members of the committee for allowing me to present AB eighteen eighteen today. AB eighteen eighteen eliminates the antiquated code section in the Higher Education Employer Employee Relations Act, HERA, that is no longer used for its original purpose. HERA was a statute passed in 1978 that allowed for workers at the California State University and University of California to unionize. At that time, the annual budgets for CSU and UC were appropriated line item by line item in the state budget, including how much the segments were to use for employee compensation. In this context, CSU needed a provision to allow for returning to the bargaining table if the state didn't allocate enough funds to pay their employees.
Now, however, the state budget allocates the CSU lump sum funding for which the segment has broad discretion on how to spend. Yet the CSU still uses this code section to cancel collective bargaining contracts and force unions back to the bargaining table whenever it decides the state did not provide enough funding. This creates an imbalance that disrupts the purpose of collective bargaining. AB eighteen eighteen seeks to remove this unnecessary code section to restore balance in the collective bargaining process so that both parties involved uphold their end of the of their agreements. Here to testify with me today is Jason Ravenowitz, secretary general of the Teamsters Local twenty ten and Ernesto Torres, vice president of Teamsters Local twenty ten.
Speaker 9
you. Good morning, committee members. I'm Jason Rabinowitz, secretary treasurer of Teamsters Local twenty ten, proudly representing over 26,000 workers in California education, including 1,100 skilled trades workers across 22 CSU campuses whose work makes the CSU work every day. AB eighteen eighteen will eliminate outdated and problematic statutory language that CSU has exploited to avoid its basic collective bargaining obligations that every other employer and public sector follows. To bargain in good faith with the unions that represent its workers and to honor duly negotiated agreements with those unions.
Unfortunately, CSU's conduct under the existing language has resulted in significant harm to public workers and disruption to public service. In 2025, CSU failed to honor and implement contractual raises with Teamsters Local twenty ten and other unions despite receiving full funding from the legislature. Alone among public employers in California, CSU gave no raises to any workers, staff, or faculty except for huge raises that they gave out to already overpaid executives. Their actions caused real hardship for CSU workers and their families and also resulted in the Teamsters being forced to wage an unprecedented week long strike across the system, significantly disrupting services to the students and the state. AB eighteen eighteen would prevent these problems in the future by simply requiring CSU to do what every other public employer does, bargain in good faith with the unions and honor its agreements with workers.
We ask for your support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning. Good morning. My name is Ernesto Torres, Teamsters twenty ten vice president, skilled trades director, and project supervisor at Cal State San Bernardino. I'm here to voice our need for a bill AB eighteen eighteen. I have worked for the Cal State University system for almost ten years.
Time and again, the CSU uses excuses not to pay our contractual raises. They find loopholes not to honor our contracts. Yet 1,100 skilled trades workers at every Cal State University honor their commitment every single day. They keep the lights on. They keep you hot and cold.
They keep our buildings looking great and freshly painted. We keep public service vehicles maintained to protect and answer any call to keep our campuses safe. We make sure our students can learn in nice, functioning, safe spaces. We do our part without excuses. We ask this body to support this bill.
Our future and our students depend on it. It's not fair for the CSU to take and manipulate legislative educational funds to benefit their own pockets. They turn around and cut the working class, yet their salaries continue to grow year after year regardless of any contingency in the state budget. We ask you to support bill a b eighteen eighteen. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please come to the mic. Give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 13
Doug Subers on behalf of the California State University Employees Union in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any, witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You have two minutes. Thank you.
Speaker 14
Good morning, chair and members. I'm Adriana Gomez, legislative advocate with the CSU office of the chancellor here to speak in respectful opposition to AB eighteen eighteen. We appreciate and share your support for our 1,100 Teamsters employees across the CSU who play a critical and valued role in keeping our universities operational for more than 470,000 students. The CSU also remains committed to negotiating in good faith and to reaching a resolution with Teamsters. The 2024 ratified collective bargaining agreement, which was agreed to and ratified by Teamsters and its membership included clear provisions tying certain salary increases to the receipt of approximately $240,000,000 in new unallocated ongoing state funding in the twenty five-twenty six budget.
The state budget fell short of providing that new unallocated ongoing funding, and this then triggered the mutually agreed salary reopening process under which Teamsters and the CSU have participated in mediation through PERB. A fact finding report resulting of this process also has recently became public and confirms that the CSU has honored the terms both parties agreed to. Proponents of this measure have expressed the bill is necessary because we are utilizing a loophole to back out of contracts, but that is not the case. Given the specific language both parties agree to regarding required funding levels. I also wanna emphasize that state appropriations are foundational to university financial planning.
The CSU cannot commit to ongoing compensation increases without certainty regarding state funding levels we will receive, which are not finalized until June. This bill could limit future agreements to one year terms or delay the finalization of contracts as committing to ongoing compensations without guaranteed ongoing funding would expose the university to significant financial risk and potentially divert resources from core student services. For these reasons, CSU respectfully requests a no vote on AB eighteen eighteen. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in opposition? Seeing no witnesses, we'll bring it back to the dais. Are does any members have any questions or comments? Assembly member, you may close.
Speaker 1
Thank move the bill. I have a first from, assembly member Boyner and a second from assembly member Nguyen. AB eighteen eighteen is about standing up for the workers who show up for all of us. Our public employees dedicate their careers to serving California, and they deserve a system that treats them with fairness, transparency, and respect. The bill moves us in that direction by strengthening protections and reinforcing the promise made to working people.
At the end of the day, this is about dignity on the job and security and retirement. When when we invest in workers, we invest, in the strength of our state. With that, madam, secretary, can you call the roll?
Speaker 5
Item number three, a b eighteen eighteen Ortega. The motion is do pass and be referred to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Wynn. Aye. Michelle Rodriguez. The bill has sufficient votes. We'll put it on call.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Next, we'll have, a b fifteen sixty four, Aaron's. Members, is there anyone that would like to remove the item from the consent calendar?
If not, madam secretary, can you call the roll? For a. Motion by, assembly member Lackey, second by assembly member Nguyen. You may call the roll.
Speaker 5
On the consent calendar is item number four, a b eighteen forty one, Ramos. The motion is due passed and be referred to the committee on appropriations Aye. With recommendation to the consent calendar. McKinnon. Aye.
McKinnon. Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Burner. Garcia. Aye. Garcia. Nguyen.
I. Nguyen. Michelle Rodriguez. We have sufficient votes, so place it on call.
Speaker 15
Good morning, madam chair and members. When employees discuss work matters such as discipline or grievances with their union representatives, they often believe these conversations are confidential. However, current state law does not explicitly prohibit employers from compelling employees or their union representatives to disclose what they discussed. AB fifteen sixty four makes communication between an employee and their union representative confidential, which is essential to fostering trust and ensuring effective representation. With me today is Randy Perry with Porac and David Mustagni, legal counsel for Porac.
Speaker 8
Yeah. Madam chair members, Randy Perry on behalf of PORAC. The bill simply codifies current case law from PERB. There have been a couple of cases that have ruled as confidential. We're not talking about privilege here.
We're talking about confidentiality. I'm gonna pass the rest of my time over to David Mustang, our counsel.
Speaker 16
Madam chair and committee members, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this important bill. As a labor lawyer with twenty seven years of representing public employees and their unions, I can tell you this bill is of vital importance. It's a modest balanced measure that codifies long standing per precedent, making it an unfair labor practice for a public employer to question or to compel the disclosure of confidential communications between a union member and a union representative with respect to matters within the scope of representation. I wanna quickly address what this bill doesn't do. Critics have suggested it creates a privilege or hinders investigations.
It does neither. This is not an evidentiary privilege under the evidence code. It applies only to public employers and is enforced solely through PERB. It expressly exempts criminal investigations and does not supersede the Public Safety Officer's Bill of Rights or government code section thirty three zero three. Employers remain free under this bill to question any percipient witness about facts of an incident.
The bill only protects secondhand representational discussions that have no legitimate evidentiary value and serve only to chill protected activity and invade the representational relationship. And lastly, some school administrators claim this bill hinders a b two eighteen investigations. This is also not true. A b two eighteen extends time for childhood sexual assault victims to sue. It doesn't mandate investigation tactics.
Schools can still question any witness about firsthand knowledge of an alleged assault, ensuring that they can still conduct a robust investigation. The bill only protects representation related communications like pre interview discussions between a rep and a member, and those lack any evidentiary value. Compelling union reps to disclose this type of information will unlawfully commandeer them and force them to impeach their own members, which chills trust in the union. So we respectfully request your yes vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Please give your name, organization, and position.
Speaker 13
Good morning, madam chair and members. Doug Subers on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters in support.
Speaker 12
Madam chair and members, Pat Moran with Aaron Reed and Associates representing the Orange County Employees Association and
Speaker 6
Good morning, chair and members. Connor Gassman on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 7
the Riverside Sheriff Association support and, the other, police officer associations, listed in our support letter. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you. Are there any witnesses in opposition? Thank you. You have two minutes.
Speaker 18
Good morning, madam chair and members. My name is Aaron Avery with the California Special Districts Association respectfully opposed to AB fifteen sixty four, a bill that would mirror an evidentiary privilege while hindering important workplace investigations. We respectfully ask for a no vote today for three reasons. First, the bill states that it is intended to be consistent with and not in conflict with the William S Hart Union High School District per decision. But the but the bill's restrictions go well beyond that decision.
This bill would forgo the circumstantial analysis and wank of of employees and employers interests that were conducted in that decision and would categorically prohibit certain lines of questioning exceeding the scope of that decision. The need for this change has not been established. There is no evidence that Purv is not protecting employee interests in this regard. Second, by preventing employer questioning of certain individuals with potentially relevant information, the bill would still function like a privilege in some context. For example, in two party litigation, we're an employer between an employer and an employee.
If an employer is prohibited by this bill from requesting a court to compel certain testimony, that testimony may effectively be off limits to discovery which is a similar result to a privilege. However, unlike a privilege in professional context such as attorney client or physician patient, this bill does not contain any of the same guardrails. There is no third party regulators such as the state bar or the California Medical Association. The bill does not contain provisions for addressing conflicts of interest or issues where there might be competing information shared with a union representative in a workplace violence situation that an employer has a duty to investigate. And unlike the twenty twenty four version of this bill, a b twenty four twenty one by assembly member Lowe, this bill does not contain an exception where the representative is not a is a witness or a party to the underlying facts.
We respectfully ask for your no vote today. Thank you.
Speaker 4
you. Good morning, madam chair and members. Dorothy Johnson, behalf of the Association of California School Administrators, respectfully opposed to AB fifteen sixty four, which is consistent with our opposition on the prior iterations of this bill. For one of which bills, governor Brown's veto message read, this bill would compromise the ability of employers to conduct investigations, indirectly safety harassment, and other allegations. We we do see harmful this bill is harmful for students and employees who benefit from the ability of school employers to conduct administrative investigations, that are thorough, accurate, and timely.
I appreciate the sponsors raising the concern about a b two eighteen investigations, for schools to ensure the safety again of students and employees against childhood sexual assault. Those often start as administrative investigations. It is rare for an individual to be caught in an egregious act of misconduct against a student. Rather, administrative investigations reveal noncriminal acts, things that may seem mundane such as texting, emailing, rides home for students after school or activities, that could be going on for months before an egregious act is committed or even discovered. So, again, these administrative investigations are key for building evidence that could lead to criminal investigations and ultimately removing bad actors from our schools.
We're also deeply concerned that it is very difficult for an employer to know when they could be violating this potential new law and restrictions on communicating and and posing questions on staff because only the employee and the representative know what was made in that confidential communication. This will affect day to day activities and critical school operations. So for these reasons, we are respectfully opposed. I'd also like to express opposition from my colleagues at the California Association of School Business Officials, Casbo. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in in opposition? Please step to the mic. Give your name, your, organization, and your position.
Speaker 12
Good morning. Eric Larr on behalf of the California State Association of Counties, the Urban Counties of California, and the California Association of Recreation and Park Districts in respectful opposition.
Speaker 4
Good morning. Brianna Brands on behalf of the California county superintendents also in respectful opposition.
Speaker 14
Sarah Decad on behalf of the rural county representatives of California in respectful opposition.
Speaker 3
Good morning, Johnny Pina with the League of California Cities in respectful opposition. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Good morning. Andrea Lynch on behalf of California Chamber of Commerce in respectful opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Seeing no more, witnesses, bring it back to the dais. Any assembly members have any questions or comments? Second. This bill was moved by assembly member Nguyen, seconded by assembly member Voiner.
Burner. Burner. Sorry. Would you like to close, assembly member?
Speaker 15
Thank you so much. I'm really proud to author this bill. I think it's very important that we ensure that our employees can go to their union representatives without fear of retaliation. And I'm proud to have a track record for always protecting students or any vulnerable communities, and I would never do what the respectful opposition suggests, respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 5
Item number one, a b fifteen sixty four, Erins. The motion is due passed and we refer to the committee on appropriations. McKinnon. Aye. McKinnon.
Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Garcia. Nguyen. Nguyen. Aye. Michelle Rodriguez.
Michelle Rodriguez, I, we have that bill is out on seven to zero.
Speaker 1
Next, we'll have AB eighteen forty four, Assembly Member Pacheco. Good morning. Good morning. Good
Speaker 19
morning, fabulous madam chair. And, of course, fabulous members. I I wanna thank you all for allowing me to present my bill, a b eighteen forty four. I wanna start by thanking the committee staff for their work on this bill, and I accept the committee amendments, which are technical and helpful. AB eighteen forty four updates the judge's retirement system too or JRS two to allow judges to designate a non spouse beneficiary to receive survivor retirement benefits and to ensure that all vested judges can access survivor benefit protections.
Under current law, JRS two, judges may generally designate only a spouse or a registered domestic partner to receive ongoing survivor pension benefits. Unmarried judges, including those who have long term partners, adult children, or other dependents cannot designate anyone to receive the continuing pension payments after their death. In addition, current law requires judges to serve twenty years before electing a survivor benefit option despite some judges being fully vested and eligible to retire with fewer years of service. AV eighteen forty four ensures fair and consistent treatment of judges and aligns JRS two with every other major public retirement system in California. And with me today in support is Mike Belote on behalf of the California Judges Association.
Speaker 20
Thank you, madam chair and members. Mike Belodo on behalf of the Judges Association. As noted, this is very simple and clarifying. Obviously, there are judges who are widowed, never married, and they ought to be able to designate somebody else besides a spouse, which they don't have. Obviously, also, though, it matters whether you're designating an infant versus designating a 70 year old person.
As pointed out correctly in the analysis, it has to be revenue neutral, and we pledged to amend the bill to make sure that is clear. Secondly, there's two ways to become vested in the judge's retirement system, either 20 and age 65 or five years and age 70. All this does is it picks up the age 70 with five year people in order to allow designation of an optional settlement. And with that, we ask for an I vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there any other witnesses in support? Seeing none, are there any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, I'll bring it back to the dais. Second.
Assembly well, I think miss assembly member Rodriguez moved the bill, and assembly member Burner second the bill. Yeah. Madam, would you like to close?
Speaker 5
Thank you. Item number 5ABAB1844. Pacheco, the motion is due passed as amended. McKinnar. Aye.
McKinnar. Aye. Lackie.
Speaker 5
Garcia. Nguyen. Nguyen I. Michelle Rodriguez. I.
Rodriguez I. The bill is out seven to zero.
Speaker 1
Thank you, assembly member. Thank you. Fabulous assembly member. Thank you. We need to open the roll for add ons.
Thank you.
Speaker 5
Item number two, a b fifteen eighty two. Ortega, the current motion is five to zero. Burner?
Speaker 5
Michelle Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out seven to zero. Item number three, a b eighteen eighteen, Ortega. The current vote is six to zero. Michelle Rodriguez.
Aye. Rodriguez, aye. That bill is out seven to zero. Consent calendar item number four, a B1841, Ramos. I.
Rodriguez. Rodriguez. I. I
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.