Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee
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
Senate Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee California State Senate
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 4
This change is needed. Resolving labor disputes through the courts is often slower, more costly, and lacks the specialized expertise that PERB provides. By moving these disputes to PERB, SB eleven sixty six creates a fair and streamlined process for both workers and employers, ensuring that AC Transit employees have the same just treatment that other public employees currently enjoy. With me to testify in support of SB eleven sixty six are A. J.
Martin and Nick Cobell from ASME Local three thousand nine hundred sixteen, representing the members of the AC Transit District.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. Your witnesses are welcome to sit at the table. And each You each have two minutes.
Speaker 6
Greetings. Is it on? Testing, one, two, three. Greetings, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Nick Kobel, and I'm a data engineer at, AC Transit and a local member a member of the AFSME Local three thousand nine hundred and sixteen.
I'm here today to encourage you, to encourage the California State Senate to support SB eleven sixty six, placing AC Transit employees under PERB jurisdiction, the same rights already afforded to millions of public sector employees in California. This bill will help both the union and the district to resolve critical issues related to bargaining unit determination, benefits, and resolution of unfair labor practices. While AFSME, Local three thousand nine hundred sixteen, and AC Transit often work in partnership to resolve issues and grievances, grievances, PERB will help the union have a new tool in our toolbox to ensure good faith negotiations, with our employer and to keep costs down and services running. Our last arbitration cost the union over $20,000 with similar costs to our employer. We expect to have several more of these costs this upcoming year, particularly as we fight to regain classifications that AC Transit improperly removed from our bargaining unit over the last few years.
We believe this bill will help streamline problem resolution and help us get back to, delivering public transit service that residents of AC Transit, residents of the AC Transit service area rely on. Thank you for your time.
Speaker 7
Madam Chair and committee members, my name is H. A. Martin. I am the transit schedules manager at AC Transit, and I'm an at large representative serving on AC on ASME's '3 thousand nine hundred sixteen executive board. This is my third term representing my fellow coworkers on our executive board in my eighteenth year at AC Transit.
I'm here to speak in support of SB eleven sixty six, which would place AC Transit under the purview of the Public Employees Relations Board. Other transit districts of similar size throughout the state of California, including BART, VTA, Santa Cruz Metro, and even SACRT right here in Sacramento, have all moved to PERB in recent years. AC Transit would be the next in this modernization trend. PERB will help both AC Transit and our ASME local resolve disputes early with a minimum of cost without having to engage in an expensive arbitration process. PERB provides specialized expertise in public sector relations that leads to faster, more consistent, and more fair outcomes.
PERB will strengthen the working relationship with clear rules and trusted processes. It is time for AC Transit employees, represented by ASME three thousand nine hundred sixteen, to join the millions of public employees already subject to PERB. This concludes my statement, and ASME three thousand nine hundred and sixteen appreciates the committee's consideration of this important legislation.
Speaker 2
Thank you very much. We now will move to any other me too's in support of this bill. Please step forward, state your name and affiliation. Good morning, Madam Chair. Janice O'Malley with AFSCME California, and we are proud cosponsors.
Thank you. Okay. Any other in supports?
Speaker 8
Madam chair and members, Scott Wetch on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers in support of the bill.
Speaker 2
Don't see any other support witnesses. Are there witnesses here speaking in opposition to this bill today? If so, step forward. K. Seeing none, any me too's?
Any in betweeners? K. Seeing none, we will move now to the dais. Senator Laird.
Speaker 9
Thank you very much. And I noticed the author skipped over the most recent bill for the mighty Santa Cruz Metropolitan Transit District.
Speaker 9
Yes. And I think that that bill and this bill make the point that if you are in a worker organization and you have to go to court as opposed to PERB, usually the agency has deep pockets as opposed to the union and that doesn't allow there to be like appropriate, whatever it is, justice in the situation. And so that is why these have gone ahead and I really support it. The thing I discovered for some of the past ones, because then Assembly Member Lowe, it took him three cycles to get BART done. It really was moving the actual board to neutrality or support.
People wanted me to do the bill for Santa Cruz for two or three sessions. It was only when a majority of the board members signed a letter saying they would support it, meaning they would not contest it either in court or otherwise, was a significant thing. Later today, I think in this room, the rules committee will be confirming a member of the PERB board. I met yesterday with that member, and it sounds like they do not have many cases moving through on these. The significance of that is that when the playing field is leveled, it is rare that people actually go to PERB because then they are resolving the issue at the local level in a way that people feel like there's fairness.
Usually I like to give a heads up on a question and I didn't. So has AC Transit taken a position on this? Are they neutral? What They are neutral currently.
Speaker 4
Steve Wallach, their lobbyist is here. When he came to the room, I said, you speaking on the bill? They are neutral. Then that's And we're and we're in conversation with them. So.
Speaker 9
Great. Then that's very significant. I will look forward to moving this at the appropriate
Speaker 2
Thank you so much. Any other senators wish to speak? Okay. Well, that's a a great way to move to you, Mr. Senator.
And would you like to close?
Speaker 4
Sure. Well, thank you, Senator, for your comments. I think you really made the case for why this bill is important because right now, AC Transit employees would have to file a written superior court. It's very time consuming. It's very expensive.
I think you noted the disparity in terms of the resources of the workers and their bargaining unit and management. It's also expensive for management as well at a time when AC Transit and our regional transit agencies are facing budget challenges. And so, if we can save money to make sure that money goes into operations, we can create a fair process for everyone, I think it's a win win. Respectfully ask for your iPhone.
Speaker 1
Motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Judiciary. Senator Smolutkuevas?
Speaker 2
This motion has a three to one vote, and it is on call. And when the other members go, we'll
Speaker 2
Alright, everybody. We are moving quickly. Let's see that senator Cabaldin is here, so we're gonna go back up to file item number one. That's s b ten fifty four. Senator, you may proceed when ready.
Speaker 11
Madam chair and members, thank you so much. I'm here to present s b ten fifty four. And this bill has both immediate and long term, implications, and one is a little bit nerdy and another one is a little bit urgent. SB ten fifty four proposes to add a couple of data elements essentially to the base wage data file for unemployment insurance reporting And that has two consequences. First, it will first and importantly, will allow the state and DHS I'm sorry, both Medi Cal and we hope also with DSS to be able to expedite our automated processing and other processing of of Medi Cal redeterminations to meet the moment of HR one.
We are currently at the state level, as many of you know, relying on a contract or a series of contracts including with Equifax in order to do this, but we need to be able to collect that data ourselves both to make sure that we can't we're not our contract isn't price gouged, but also in order to be able to provide that information throughout the to the counties as well and to collect data for employees beyond those covered by payroll processing firms like Equifax. So that's job one here is to try to meet that moment of HR one to assure that hundreds of thousands or millions of Californians don't lose their coverage inadvertently simply for not having the data validation at the local level to be able to verify hours worked. So that's number one. Number two though is an issue I've been working on for a couple of decades when I was Vice Chancellor of the Community Colleges. We crafted one of the first multi agency agreements between state agencies to for the first time share data that we have between EDD, ETP at the time, the community colleges, the state workforce board and others to assure that the investments that we're making in workforce development and retraining, things like refinery work or retraining in my own district, that they're effective.
And that those investments are paying off. Not just our own programs, but also things that we conducted the sunset review last week for the Bureau of Private Postsecondary Education, and many of the colleges there make claims about job placement and wages, which we can't we can't they can't and we can't verify them. And that's partly because we don't have more fine grained wage data, but also because we don't have good occupation information in that data set. And that makes it impossible for us to say, did folks who are coming into a local job training program or into a trade college or into community college and they take a program in order to enter that sector. Do they get jobs and are they and what are their wages?
Kind of the basics for assuring that we have accountability for public programs and that researchers and others can help us understand at the state level as well how to design and implement better programs. So, SB ten fifty four would meet that gap by including occupation and also the hours worked and a couple of other data elements in order to make our ability to oversee and hold accountable our workforce development programs and buy accountable also just effective for the people that we are trying to serve on a long term basis. And so that's the point of the bill. I do want to note that I am absolutely enthusiastically accepting the excellent amendments proposed in the committee analysis as well to assure that the bill accomplishes what it is intended to do. And I would like to introduce our witnesses on the bill as well
Speaker 11
Max Maxwell Johnson who's with the with California Competes and Zima Creason with the California Edge Coalition.
Speaker 2
Okay. Great. And each witness has two minutes, and you can proceed as soon as he's done.
Speaker 3
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Maxwell Johnson. I'm a senior policy and research analyst with Higher Education for a Strong Economy and here to voice our strong support for Senate Bill ten fifty four. We see this as essential.
California invests tens of billions of dollars in education and training programs. And as the senator mentioned, we lack the data to understand whether these investments are truly helping Californians meet their career goals and achieve economic mobility and in helping the state meet its economic and workforce development needs. SB ten fifty four can change that by allowing us to answer key questions like, for instance, do education and training programs connect people to the right jobs, including, in particular, high demand occupations that address labor market shortages. This bill also allows California to respond quickly and efficiently to federal changes in CalFresh, Medi Cal, and student financial aid. New federal work requirements for CalFresh and Medi Cal could threaten the benefit access for more than 4,000,000 Californians.
The data enhancements in SB ten fifty four could protect the most vulnerable Californians from losing these critical social safety nets by reducing administrative burden for both residents and the state, including by helping to support greater automate greater automation of verification. Additionally, the proposal positions California to seize new federal opportunities. Students in high quality short term programs will soon have access to grant aid through the new workforce Pell program, but for that to happen, states must have the ability to track detailed program detailed employment outcomes for these students starting in 2029. Currently, California doesn't have the capability to do this, but SB ten fifty four provides the state the data in order to meet workforce Pell's requirements. Through the addition of just a small number of known data elements to existing data systems, this bill would have far reaching impact in supporting more Californians in reaching economic stability across education, social safety net programs, and state planning and accountability.
Other states numerous other states have implemented similar enhancements successfully and are benefiting from the ripple effects of strong data systems.
Speaker 3
so please. I urge your support for SB ten fifty four, and we see this as a rare opportunity. This is both straightforward and offers improvements across so many key policy areas.
Speaker 12
Good morning, chair and members. My name is Zima Creason. I'm the executive director of the California EDGE Coalition. I'm also a trustee serving on the San Juan Unified Board of Education, tenth largest district in California, located right here in Sacramento County. But I am here with my EDGE hat on today.
The California EDGE Coalition advocates for education and workforce investments as well as systems change through nonpartisan policy engagement that expands access to high quality jobs, economic mobility, and families sustaining prosperity for all Californians. EDGE is proud to cosponsor SB ten fifty four because it's a practical response to the new federal work verification pressures. As H. R. One creates more verification requirements, counties will need better tools, not more paperwork and not more red tape.
SB ten fifty four helps California prepare by improving the reporting and sharing of hours worked and other employment data so public benefit eligibility can be verified more accurately and efficiently. That matters for working families, and that's why we're involved in this bill. When verification systems are inefficient, eligible people can lose health care or food assistance not because they are ineligible, but because the system cannot verify their work in time. This bill supports key statewide priorities, strengthening the social safety net, helping Californians comply with new rules, and preserving access to food security and health coverage that make work and education possible. It also advances the broader priority of using better cross system data and policy alignment to improve economic mobility and reduce administrative friction for both counties and workers.
For these reasons, EDGE supports SB ten fifty four, and I thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2
Thank you both for your testimony. Next, we'll hear from everyone in support of the bill. Me Toos, please step to the mic. Name and affiliation, please.
Speaker 2
Khoisi Turn on behalf of the Coalition of California Welfare Rights Organization in support.
Speaker 16
Good morning. Kate Laddish. I'm president of the California IHSS Consumer Alliance and chair of the Yolo County In Home Supportive Services Advisory Committee, both organizations in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Please. Doctor. Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Colin Stamler with Brownstein on behalf of the Baird Council in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Doctor. Great. Thank you. Okay. Now, we will move to opposition.
Are there any opposition witnesses here today? Seeing none, any opposition me too's? Seeing none, we'll come to the dais.
Speaker 2
Move the bill. Okay. So we have a bill moved by senator Strickland. I just wanna say to the author, thank you very much for for bringing this forward, and, we know that we don't want one worker to lose their health care. So critically important in this moment, especially given the devastation of HR one in so many ways.
I did wanna ask one question because I've been in conversations with DHS quite a bit, and they are doing everything that they can to soften some of these requirements to figure out waivers. My my question is, I think it's important so often we can work in silos. We don't know what the other hand is doing, and, and in the end, it comes back and it bites us when we're trying to implement. So I just wanted to get a sense of how you're working with the different agencies, as this bill is moving forward and what kinds of, steps and procedures, protocols that we may be putting in place through our own negotiations between our health systems and the federal government? Just how are those conversations going?
Speaker 11
Thank you, Madam Chair. And it's a very, very important point. Like, challenges that both Californians and then all the agencies that are trying to meet this meet this this immediate urgent need are it is right now. And as you know, the bill doesn't have an urgency clause. We are trying to build the capacity of the of the state and the and its agencies to be able to respond effectively and to pivot and adapt.
So we know that, and as highlighted, that those agencies are doing everything that they can. And we held a hearing at the budget committee as well about this. They're doing everything that we can. Not don't want to divert them from that mission while also giving them the tools, additional tools to be able to respond. But they are going to need to do whatever they need to do right now while this data adding these data elements to give them the capacity to have a better toolbox that doesn't depend on private contractors in every in every sense and it gives them that that flexibility is the goal here.
Speaker 2
Well, I appreciate that and I know that you're gonna do everything you can to continue that dialogue to make sure that we are all moving and building the capacity we need to fight this. So I will be supporting the bill and you're welcome to close.
Speaker 18
No. Just just very quickly, I just want to compliment the the author. I think this is a great bill. And to have the insight into our agencies and our what already exists in our departments to say how do we use that. And I I'm just really, really glad for this for all the reasons that everybody's already pointed off.
I think another reason that I think this is a great bill is because the director of EDD, Nancy Farias, is really great, hardworking. She's done a lot to change the the agency, and I think the combination of the drive and the purpose and and a department like that will will really be helpful. So I just want to thank the author.
Speaker 11
Just thank you so much for the for the for the questions, for the comments, and for all of your leadership on on this important, issue. I just wanted to ask respectfully ask for an I vote, and
Speaker 1
Smolt Cuevas? Oh, the motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. My apologies. Smolt Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland?
Aye. Senator Strickland, aye. Senator Cortez? Aye. Cortez, aye.
Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Laird?
Speaker 2
Okay. This, bill has a vote of four to zero. It's on call waiting for other members. Thank you, senator. So it looks like we are now turning inward to our own, committee and our committee member bills.
So, we will start with senator D'Araso if she is ready.
Speaker 18
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. First, I want to draw your attention to the author's amendments. Hopefully, receive a copy of this prior to the hearing. And the amendments do two things. At the request of the Chamber of Commerce, they permit employers to limit employees to one designated person per year for purposes of bereavement leave.
And two, they clean up a redundant reference to parent in laws, who are already included in the definition of parent in the current statute. As proposed to be amended, SB eleven forty nine would allow workers to use bereavement leave following the death of a designated person, which is defined as an individual related by blood or whose association with the employee is the equivalent of a family relationship. Existing law allows most workers to take up to five days of unpaid, job protected bereavement leave following the death of a spouse, domestic partner, child, parent, sibling, grandparent or grandchild. To use this law, an employee must work for an employer with five or more employees and the employee must have worked for that employer for at least thirty days prior to the commencement of their leave. Bereavement leave must also be completed within three months of the family member's death.
In today's world, more and more people have strong bonds with and rely upon the support of their chosen and extended family members. Our caregiving laws reflect that reality and it is time that our bereavement leave laws do too. Here with me today to testify in support are Jenna Shankman on behalf of the California Coalition on Family Caregiving and Alice Kessler on behalf of Equality California.
Speaker 20
Morning, senators. My name is Jenna Shankman, and I am here representing the California Coalition on Family Caregiving, a proud cosponsor of SB eleven forty nine by Senator D'Arrazzo. SB eleven forty nine updates bereavement leave to allow workers to use leave following the death of a designated person, someone related by blood or with whom an employee shares a family like relationship. This definition is already used in California's other family leave laws, so SB eleven forty nine simply corrects an inconsistency. In 2022, AB nineteen forty nine gave most California workers up to five days of unpaid job protected bereavement leave but only for eight specific relationships.
Meanwhile, recognizing that family is more than these eight relationships, AB ten forty one updated the California Family Rights Act to allow workers to take unpaid, job protected leave to care for a chosen or extended family member and to use their sick leave to care for these relationships. Starting in 2028, SB five ninety will update paid family leave so that California workers can receive benefits to care for a designated person as well. This means that, under current law, a worker can take leave to care for a chosen or extended family member but has no right to bereavement leave when that same person dies. SB eleven forty nine closes that gap. Aligning family definitions also reduces confusion for employers and workers, particularly small businesses without HR departments.
It's important to note that since SB eleven forty nine mirrors the California Family Rights Act, employers can still limit bereavement leave to one designated person per year. The California Coalition on Family Caregivers advocates for unpaid family caregivers of older adults and people with disabilities. We're seeing, and the data also demonstrates, a rise in solo agers or people aging without a partner or adult children. These individuals often depend on chosen family for care. Caregiving relationships often span years or even decades, and that bond deserves to be recognized with time to grieve.
Workers whose family relationships do not fit within the current statute should not have to choose between their job and morning from
Speaker 21
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Alice Kessler. I'm here on behalf of Equality California. We're a cosponsor of the bill in strong support. As was explained by the author and the other witness, this really just builds upon existing laws we've already passed in the state and gets that consistency.
This is an issue that's of particular relevance to members of the LGBTQ plus community, many of whom have strained relationships or even estrangement from their families of origin. We have one of the largest LGBTQ plus communities of any state. This is millions of people in the state, and it's important that our policies are evolving to fully reflect the reality of our families. So, we would urge your I vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you both. Okay. We will now hear the supports. MeToo's, please come to the mic. State your name and affiliation.
Speaker 22
Chair members. Capri Walker with Californians for Safety and Justice. Proud cosponsor in support. Also, on behalf of my fellow cosponsors, equal rights advocates, and our family coalition in support. Also, also, on behalf of some additional supporters, California Federation of Business and Professional Women and Friends Committee on Legislation of California in support.
Thank you. -Thank you.
Speaker 14
-Good morning. Grace Glazer on behalf of the California Partnership to End Domestic Violence in support, and also registering Liza's Care Connection, Microenterprise Collaboration of Inland Southern California, Nevada County Citizens for Choice, Nourishing Justly, and Orange County Equality Coalition in support. Thank you.
Speaker 23
-Good morning, Chair members. Catalina Sanchez, here to register support by Parent Voices California, Puede Latinx, and the San Diego County Breastfeeding Coalition in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. My name is Daphne Rodriguez Alvarado, here on behalf of California Rural Legal Assistance Foundation in support. Morning. Monica Garcia Ortega, here on behalf of Women's Foundation California, Working Partnership USA, and WorkSafe, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good morning, Chair and Members here on behalf Ken Wang here on behalf of the California Employment Lawyers Association, proud co sponsor, as well as Legal Aid at Work, hand in hand, the Domestic Employers Network, California National Organization of Women, and the California Women's Law Center in support. Thank you.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Pete Hansel with AARP California. We are a cosponsor in strong support.
Speaker 25
Good morning. Jennifer Robles, on behalf of the California LGBTQ Health and Human Services Network. Thank you.
Speaker 25
Good morning. Angela Pontis on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support.
Speaker 19
Morning. Elmer Lazarda here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thanks.
Speaker 26
Morning, Chair and members. Conor Gussman, on behalf of Teamsters California, the Amalgamated Transit Union, Unite Here, the California Conference of Machinists, Utility Workers Union of America, and the Engineers and Scientists of California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Good morning, honorable members. Edgar Tees on behalf of the California Immigrant Policy Center in support. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. Katie Duberg with California Work and Family Coalition, proud cosponsor of SB eleven forty nine, Also registering support on behalf of the following organizations Breastfeed LA, California Breastfeeding Coalition, California Child Care Resource and Referral Network, California Commission on the Status of Women and Girls, California Latina it's for Reproductive Justice, Caring Across Generations, Center for Community Action and Environmental Justice, and United Auto Workers Region six. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Good morning. I'm Jasmine Amion, also with the California Work and Family Coalition, proud co sponsor of SB eleven forty nine. Also, on behalf of the following organizations in strong support: Courage California, Disability Rights California, End Child Poverty California, Family Values at Work, Gender Affirming Professionals, and Gender Alchemy. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Morning. Lauren Darlene Robles on behalf of the Trans Latina Coalition in strong support.
Speaker 18
Good morning. My name is Sofia Garola. I represent the American, Association of University Women,
Speaker 30
Good morning. Missy Maseko, also with the American Association of, University Women of California, and we are strong we are in support of the bill. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Good morning. Kathleen Harper, also here on behalf of American Association of University Women of California, with strong support. Morning. Amy Homme, also with American Association of University Women of California, in support. Thank you.
Good morning. Jacqueline Lopez, also with the American Association of University of Women, in support. Morning. Sunree Sadar, also with the American Association of University Women, and we are in support.
Speaker 18
Last one. Kathy Van Austin, on behalf of AAUW California, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Thank you all very much. Nothing like a good shot of democracy in the morning. Next, we'll hear from opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none.
Any me twos in opposition? Seeing none. Come to the dice. I wanna say to the author, thank you for bringing this and closing this important loophole. We want everyone to be able to celebrate the life of loved ones, and this bill allows them to do that.
And so I will offer the close for you, senator D'Rasso.
Speaker 18
I just wanna thank everybody who showed up today. It's a beautiful coalition from AARP to engineers and scientists all over California support this this bill. So thank you, and I urge and I vote.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Assistant, please call the roll. I move the bill. Oh, why? It's okay.
We have a motion from senator Strickland. Thank you. Senator?
Speaker 1
Senator Smolt Cuevas? Aye. My apologies. Can't the motion is due pass as amended to Senate Committee on Appropriations. Senator Smolt Cuevas?
Aye. Senator Strickland?
Speaker 5
Alright, members. We're going to, madam chair's, bills, in follow order. The next bill is file item number five, s B909. Madam chair, you may open.
Speaker 2
Thank you, mister vice chair. Appreciate you stepping in. Good morning, everyone. I'm proud to present s b nine zero nine. This bill strengthens enforcement of California's public works laws by updating contractor registration fees and penalties, tying them to inflation, and reinvesting the penalty revenue into the state Public Works Enforcement Fund to support enforcement staffing.
This is a revenue generating bill. In a time when our state is in deficit and structural deficits, it's important for us to look at ways to increase revenues. When the state spends public dollars on construction, workers should be paid the wages they earn, and responsible contractors should be able to compete on a level playing field. But that is not always the case. We know that wage theft and labor violations remain a serious problem on public works projects, and these penalties have not been meaningfully updated in more than ten years.
As a result, enforcement has fallen behind, penalties have lost deterrent value over time, and staffing shortages have delayed investigations, leaving opportunity for too many bad actors to treat violations as just a cost of doing business rather than addressing the problem and obeying California laws. For workers, this has real consequences. A construction worker can be put in long hours, working on a public, project, expecting a fair paycheck, only to find that they were underpaid. And that missing pay, we know, is rent, it's groceries, it's childcare, it's gas, it's the things that keep our communities thriving. So, SB nine zero nine is also about creating a level playing field for responsible contractors contractors who do follow the public works law and do pay prevailing wages and should not be underbid by those who cut corners and gain unfair advantage through noncompliance.
The bill also reflects an important budget and revenue point. SB nine zero nine increases revenue by updating fees and penalty amounts that have gone flat. We think that by tying them to CPI moving forward, that they will keep their value, and they will deter, as well as raise the revenue needed to ensure that the laws that we passed are enforced. In other words, SB twelve forty one will lead to more penalties being assessed through stronger enforcement tools, and the bill modernizes an underlying fee and penalty framework. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote, and I will have with me to testify Matt Cremins with the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers and Elmer Lazardi with the California Labor Foundation.
Speaker 31
Thank you, Chair and members. Matt Kremmens here on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers. We are proud sponsors of SB nine zero nine, which would modernize public works contractor registration fees, update penalties for prevailing wage violations, and seek to take a critical step to ensure that we are prioritizing enforcement of our state public works laws. It's often said in this building that, our state budget is a reflection of our priorities. And I I think the same exact thing can be said for the enforcement of our laws and that it is truly a choice.
We are either willing to put forth the resources that are needed to protect our workers or we are not. As I know this committee knows well, misclassification is a major issue in the construction industry with a recent UC Berkeley study finding that one in five construction workers will experience wage theft throughout their career. And the growing frequency of wage theft can also clearly be seen when taking a look at our state labor commissioner's office, which a recent state audit found had 47,000 backlogged wage theft cases that were taking an average of eight fifty four days to resolve. So with that being said, SB nine zero nine simply seeks to take the important step to ensure that we are prioritizing the enforcement of our public works laws, It's going to do so in three ways. First and foremost, it's going to raise contractor registration fees for the first time in almost a decade.
It's going to increase prevailing wage penalties for the first time in almost fifteen years. Lastly, and perhaps most importantly, the bill is gonna ensure more steady streams of enforcement funding by mandating that when the labor commissioner does collect penalties, 50% of those penalties shall go back into the public works enforcement fund to further protect workers. In closing, senators, I would just say I know there has been a lot of talk about affordability in this building over the last couple years, and I know this bill will not solve all of those issues. But I think it's important to note that from our perspective, there is no better way to tackle affordability than ensuring workers are getting paid what they are properly owed. Happy to answer any questions or concerns and would respectfully request your I vote.
Speaker 19
Thank you. Chairmember Zelmer Lizardi here on behalf of the California Federation of Labor Unions. We're proud cosponsors of SB nine zero nine, again, which updates public works contractor registration fees and penalties for prevailing wage violations to ensure that proper enforcement of public works laws that protect construction workers. This bill builds on the labor law enforcement work that we have prioritized over the last several years since violations like wage theft are so pervasive in California. Workers lose billions of dollars every year due to wage theft violations.
And a study conducted by Rutgers in 2024 found that on average workers affected by wage theft had about 20% of their entire paycheck stolen from them. Most families cannot afford this type of loss, and wage theft disproportionately impacts workers doing some of the toughest jobs in the construction, agriculture, garment, and hospitality industries works worsening the economic inequality in the state. And it's also important to note that violations like wage theft also end up putting law abiding employers at a disadvantage and costing taxpayers and lost revenue. With this in mind, s p nine zero nine simple goals, as already stated, will ensure that the state can help enforce public works project violations and also help continuously reinvest funds towards this critical work. We wanna also thank the committee for their diligence and analysis, especially in outlining the modest adjustments that, in the fees and penalties that the bill would provide as they also underscore the need to keep them up with inflation.
Ultimately, we just wanna make sure that workers on public works projects no longer have to continue waiting for the pay that they have earned or the justice that they're owed whenever a violation occurs, and we think that SB nine zero nine will help the state make progress towards that goal. Thank you so much, and we respectfully ask for an eye vote.
Speaker 5
Thanks for being here. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes?
Speaker 8
Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Wesh, on behalf of the California State Association of, Electrical Workers, the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, the California Coalition of Utility Employees, and the Elevator Constructors Union in support.
Speaker 29
Vince Segrew, on behalf of SMART Sheet Metal Workers, Local Union Number one hundred four, in support.
Speaker 3
Thank you, Jeremy Smith, here on behalf of the State Building and Construction Trades Council, also in support. Doctor.
Speaker 13
Good morning. Dalia Fonseca with the State Council of Labors, here in support.
Speaker 26
Good morning. Conor Gretzmann on behalf of Teamsters California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 32
Good morning. Cassie Manzini on behalf of the California School Employees Association in support.
Speaker 33
Two minutes. Thank you. Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in respectful opposition to s b nine zero nine. AGC supports strong and fair enforcement of public works laws.
However, s b nine zero nine takes a cost heavy approach that increases fees, penalties, and uncertainty without addressing the underlying challenges in the state's enforcement system. First, the bill removes the statutory cap on contractor registration fees and allows the department of industrial relations to increase those fees annually without a transparent rulemaking process. This creates significant uncertainty, especially for small and mid sized contractors, about the cost of simply participating in public works. Second, SB nine zero nine substantially increases penalties across a wider range of violations, including prevailing wage, payroll reporting, and apprenticeship requirements. These penalties apply even in some cases of clerical or unintentional errors, while prime contractors remain responsible for subcontractor compliance.
The result is a sharp increase in financial risk for responsible contractors trying to follow complex rules. Third, the bill directs more penalty revenue into enforcement, but it does not fix the core issue identified by the state auditor, delays in staffing challenges within the Labor Commissioner's Office. Increasing penalties, fees without improving administrative capacity will not lead to better outcomes for workers or more efficient enforcement. Ultimately, higher costs and higher risk will reduce competition, increase bid prices, and drive up the cost of public infrastructure at a time when California can least afford it. For those reasons, we respectfully urge a no vote on SB nine zero nine.
Speaker 34
Mr. Chair and members, Scott Governor, behalf of the Construction Employers Association, I apologize for not getting our letter in on time. We share many of the same concerns as AGC and look forward to continuing to work on this bill.
Speaker 35
Good morning, Mr. Chair. Richard Markson, on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We share the concerns of AGC and CEC, where opposed.
Speaker 5
Thank you. All right. Now it comes back to committee members. Bill's been moved. Madam Chair, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Well, I just want to thank the witnesses who spoke today. And, you know, we know that the price of eggs has gone up, milk, transportation, gas. We know that, you know, doing business with the state is a premium, and we we pay well, and we want contractors who are going to to follow the law. And that's essentially what this bill encourages. It encourages a fair playing field for all contractors.
It takes into account the cost of doing business at the state to ensure that we have a vibrant, robust, system that can enforce the laws that we pass. This is a common sense bill, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
The motion is due pass to the senate committee on judiciary. Senator Small Duquesas?
Speaker 1
Small Duquesas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortezi?
Senator Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Senator Laird?
Speaker 5
The bill is two to one. We'll remain on call for other members. Madam Chair, the next item that you have is item number six, SB eleven thirty two.
Speaker 2
Thank you again, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I am pleased to present SB eleven thirty two, which requires the California Workforce Development Board, in coordination with subject matter experts, to develop a standardized Know Your Rights curriculum delivered through the state's workforce development system. California's public workforce development system is the largest in the country, and every day, our workforce board connects Californians to employment opportunities through training and education services, wraparound programming. Existing law provide valuable workplace rights and immigration enforcement rights education to high school students.
In fact, a number of trainings have already been developed by a number of different institutions, including the UCLA Labor Center, and they serve as a strong existing resource. But a significant gap remains for individuals reentering the workforce and those that are using our workforce development system. Without standardized rights education at workforce entry points, many vulnerable workers may not understand or assert their legal protections. And we know we can pass all of the laws that are necessary at the state level here in the Capitol. But if workers don't know that they exist, they don't know how to access them, they are meaningless.
And so SB eleven thirty two, ensures that we strengthen our workforce investments, that we build bridges to access, the rights of Californians, and that we promote a safe, fair, and lawful employment here in the state of California. With me today providing support testimony is Edgar Ortiz from the California Immigrant Policy Center and Grace Diaz from the Filipino Worker Center.
Speaker 10
Good morning, honorable chair and members. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony today. My name is Edgar Tees. I'm the supervisory economic justice policy manager for the California Immigrant Policy Center, a proud co sponsor of SB eleven thirty two. At its core, this policy is really about job quality and ensuring that workers are optimally positioned to be able to succeed in the workforce for however long they're working.
The California Workforce Development System is the largest of its kind in the country and is uniquely positioned to respond to job seekers and future workers' needs, given the wide array of services that it provides, as well as its size. However, the truth of the matter is that there are limits to what an exclusively skills based education can provide to individuals. The fact of the matter is that there's hundreds of thousands of workers right now as well as future workers who have never been onboarded about what their rights are. As the senator mentioned, you don't know what you don't know. And this is just something that the system doesn't currently provide at the moment right now.
And many of these individuals come from backgrounds where they have some of the biggest barriers to employment, including low income status, their immigration background, having had experiences in the prison system, foster use, and many more categories that are served by the system. As such, we want to ensure that through this policy, our local boards are able to leverage a statewide curriculum as well as local partnerships that can help to ensure that everyone is equipped with information about their labor and immigration rights. So that especially during this time right now that they are positioned to be able to take care of themselves and their loved ones. If I could just really quickly share a personal anecdote, when I graduated out of undergrad, between that and then going to grad school, one of the very first things I did was actually go to a career fair that was hosted by my local workforce development board in Southern California. And through that, I was able to get a job in the warehousing industry.
And that helped to provide a bridge employment, allowed me to bring in income to my household. But unfortunately, it would have been really helpful at the time, although I didn't get it, to receive information about what my rights are as they would be covered under this policy. And this really would have come in handy when I experienced my first
Speaker 10
Thank you. And so just to conclude, this is a policy that builds the capacity of our workforce development system while at the same time ensuring that our workforce outcomes are propelled forward so that all workers, even those experiencing the biggest barriers, are able to thrive in this economy. Thank you so much.
Speaker 36
Good morning. My name is Grace Diaz. I'm a caregiver with twenty three years experience. I am also an active member of Filipino Workers Center. I'm a single mom supporting my three children in The Philippines.
As an immigrant and as a caregiver, this is not just a job. It is my survive survival and support my loved one. I truly have passion for caring for people. However, my journey as a caregiver has not been easy. Before, I faced many challenges in this industry.
I was paid under minimum wage while the agency I was working for got $38 per hour from the client. I used to work in a facility wherein I get paid 150 for a twenty four hour shift. I have experienced being discriminated because of my color. I was not paid at all. I was even in a situation where I felt unsafe in my workplace, and I face almost had faced sexual harassment.
As an immigrant, I felt even more vulnerable because there was no accessible resources for me, and I did not always know my rights back then, where I don't know where to go to get help. I had to navigate everything on my own. And it is not just me. This is being experienced by a lot of caregivers. This is why SB eleven thirty two is so important.
This bill will make sure that workers like me receive know your rights education and is part of workforce training because workforce development should not only help us get job, it should also protect us once we are in the job.
Speaker 36
Every work deserves that from the very beginning. I am here because I do not want next generation caregiver to go through what I have went through. SB eleven thirty two will help prevent that by making sure workers are informed, protected, and respected from the start. Thank you so much.
Speaker 5
Thank you for being here. Thank you. Other witnesses in support for identification purposes?
Speaker 17
Morning, chair and members. Colton Semmer with Brancy on behalf of the Berriet Council in support. Thank you.
Speaker 37
Good morning. Chloe Hermosillo with the California Immigrant Policy Center, proud cosponsor in support. Also registering support for Unite LA, Filipino Workers Center, Friends Committee on Legislation of California, and Building Skills Partnership.
Speaker 5
Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, go back to the committee. The bill has been moved. Madam chair, would you like to close?
Speaker 2
Well, I just wanna say thank you to the witnesses, and thank you so much for your personal story. And, that's what this bill is about, is preventing those kinds of harms and making sure that the laws that we pass actually get in the hands, of the workers who need and deserve them. And with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
The motion is due pass to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smoltukwuevos?
Speaker 1
Smoltukwuevos, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortezi?
Senator Durazzo? Aye. Durazzo, aye. Senator Laird?
Speaker 5
That bill is two one and will remain on call. Thank you for being here. Madam Chair, the next bill that you have is file item seven, SB twelve forty one.
Speaker 2
Thank you again, Mr. Vice Chair and members. I am proud to present SB twelve forty one. This bill strengthens enforcement of California's skilled and trained workforce requirements so that these standards are meaningful in practice, not just on paper. Existing law already requires that workers in apprenticeship occupations be either skilled journeypersons or registered apprentices and that at least 60% of skilled journeypersons be apprenticeship graduates, specified.
SB twelve forty one does not change those standards it strengthens the enforcement, where those requirements apply. Weak enforcement, as we all know, has real consequences for workers. When a contractor is allowed to submit a vague compliance report, to keep working without a real correction, and then the workers who completed the apprenticeship training and played by the rules can lose hours and job opportunities and the benefit of the standards that we were supposed to protect them, we have a problem. Responsible contractors that invest in apprenticeships are also put at a disadvantage. SB twelve forty one addresses the problem by defining what a substantial compliance plan must include: limiting repeated reliance on those plans and strengthening accountability for missing reports, incomplete reports, or continued noncompliance.
The bill does not create a new statewide mandate or raise existing workforce thresholds. It applies where a public entity has already chosen to require a skilled and trained workforce. Opponents raise concerns about worker supply. But this bill does not change who qualifies as a skilled and trained or increase the percentage requirement. It simply says that if a contractor takes a project where a skilled and trained workforce is already required, that commitment be honored.
And that's by doing the compliance work properly. Workers who completed the training should not lose out because a contractor accepted the job and then failed to meet the standard. We know there are also opponents who talk about this being too punitive, but monthly reporting is already required, and this build is aimed at repeated noncompliance, missing the incomplete reports, and violations that continue after notice, not contractors who are making good faith efforts to do the state's work and who are in and who are complying. At its core, s b twelve forty one is about accountability, ensuring that workers who completed apprenticeship training are protected, that responsible contractors are not undercut, and that taxpayers can trust that workforce commitments on public projects will be honored. With me to testify are David Vincent, Director of Compliance for Sheet Metal Workers Local Union Number one hundred four, and Scott Wetch, who is representing the three crafts.
Speaker 8
Mr. Chairman and members, Scott Witch, on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, California State Pipe Trades, and the Western States Western States Association of Sheet Metal Workers. The problem was skilled in that the legislature adopted a skilled and trained workforce requirement on many different types of public works projects to ensure that we have the highest quality, most efficient, and safest construction projects. Unfortunately, the original statute had a provision that allows contractors get out of this requirement if they simply show substantial compliance. But the statute doesn't define substantial compliance, and therein lies the problem.
What the standard operating procedure for many, many contractors is today, is not even attempt to meet the skilled and trained requirement. And if caught, then simply writing a letter stating, oh, we attempted to hire folks, we took out an ad, we've seen all kinds of different excuses. It's the proverbial my dog ate my homework excuse. As a result, the whole enforcement system has been paralyzed. As the senator pointed out, this bill doesn't expand the max maximum penalty for violations.
But to my knowledge, and to our knowledge, never has one max penalty ever been applied. This is absolutely essential. The the the the author has been extremely modest in laying out a whole series of things that must be considered in a first violation, like intent, if they voluntarily attempted to correct, if they submitted a substantial compliance plan and attempted to follow it. So, it gives great deference to a contractor who's attempting to do the right thing, but then doesn't. And then, lastly, the opposition is going to state that they believe there's a shortage of workers that can meet this.
According to EDD's last numbers, there's 891,000 construction workers employed in California today. Okay? The State Building Construction Trades Council alone represents 450,000 skilled and trained workers. We currently have 96,000 apprentices in the apprenticeship programs that would qualify for this, and that doesn't count all the non union graduates that have graduated from all the non union apprenticeship programs, or the federally approved apprenticeship programs, which also qualifies somebody who's skilled and trained. That is a canard.
They don't have the receipts to prove their assertions, and it's not relevant to this bill. Thank you.
Speaker 38
Next witness. Good morning, chair and members of the committee. My name is David Vincent. I work for Smart Sheet Metal Workers, Local Union Number one zero four, as the director of compliance. I've worked in labor compliance and enforcement across public works public works projects throughout California for more than ten years.
What we're actually seeing right now is a growing gap between what the law requires and what is actually taking place on taxpayer funded job sites. Contractors who are trying to follow the rules, paying the prevailing wage, hiring apprentices, and complying and attempting to comply with the skilled and trained workforce requirements are increasingly being undercut by those who are not. And the issue is not that the law is unclear. The issue is that there are gaps in enforcement that allow bad that allow bad actors to treat compliance as simply optional. For example, I've seen numerous contractors over the years from different trades justify their failure to employ a single journey person from a state or federally approved apprenticeship program after characterizing their performance as substantially compliant, with one contractor doing so eighteen months in a row with no fear of penalty or consequence under the current enforcement regime.
In practice, this creates a system where responsible contractors are put at a competitive disadvantage, and workers are the ones that ultimately bear the costs through lost wages, reduced training opportunities, and lower standards across and throughout the industry. SB twelve forty one closes a loophole that allows repeated violations to occur without meaningful consequences. Respectfully, we believe that these, this is a necessary step towards restoring a level playing field and protecting both workers and responsible contractors. I respectfully ask for your aye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Vince Segrew, on behalf of Smart Sheet Metal Workers Local Union one hundred four, in strong support.
Speaker 31
Thank you, chair and members. Matt Kreminz, California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers, we are in support.
Speaker 26
Connor Guestman, on behalf of Teamsters California, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 5
Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers, in support. Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Two minutes each.
Speaker 34
Mr. Chair and members, Scott Govind, on behalf of the Construction Employers Association, we are many of the largest union signatory building contractors in the state. We've had conversations with proponents, and we look forward to continuing those conversations. Considering the vast majority of this work, by our estimates, 80 plus percent is done by union builders, we think now is a good time to look at the program holistically to see what changes should be made. It's been in effect a long time to ensure greater compliance before automatically ratcheting up the penalties.
Once we address those items, then penalties may in fact be in order, but there are some underlying issues we'd like to talk to them about fixing. It's especially important when you consider that there are perhaps a dozen bills this year that will increase skilled and trained workforce obligations from local public agencies to CSU to Senator Cortese's bill which expands it to pharma facilities. If we believe there are compliance issues, then now is the time to fix those before we should consider expanding it. As a basic example of what I'm talking about, existing law and the bill both provide that owners are obligated to tell contractors in the RFP if skilled and trained is applicable. The law also says that if they don't tell you, you're still liable for it.
How can you be liable for something if you don't know it exists? So it's it's items like that that are kind of riddled throughout the statute that we think should be addressed. And again, we look forward to ongoing conversations with the proponents because we want skilled and trained to remain. We want it to work. My members benefit from it.
But there are some tweaks that would be beneficial to achieve greater compliance. Thank you.
Speaker 33
Thank you. Next witness. Good morning, madam chair, members of the committee. Felipe Fuentes here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California again representing both union and nonunion contractors who support strong workforce development policies and high quality construction standards. However, this bill goes well beyond strengthening enforcement.
It significantly expands the scope and rigidity of the skilled and trained workforce requirements in ways that the current labor market cannot support. First, the bill dramatically broadens when these requirements apply, extending them to development agreements, permit conditions, and other local actions. This will capture a much larger universe of projects, including many where there has been no analysis of workforce availability. Second, s b twelve forty one creates a rigid compliance system with mandatory maximum penalties, eliminates the labor commissioner's discretion to waive penalties and raises the risk of debarment tied to reporting issues. Even good faith contractors who are trying to comply could face severe financial consequences for technical and unavoidable shortfalls.
But third and most importantly, the bill ignores a fundamental reality. California does not currently have enough journey level workers and many trades to meet expanded mandates. AGC and our members are actively engaged and working with our labor partners to figure out how to promote this workforce amongst the youngest to the folks sort of even in my age because the average age of a Journey person right now is in its mid forties. I'm much older than mid forties. AGC and our members are actively investing that through our construction education foundation.
We're trying to train the next generation of skilled workforce, and, that takes time. Expanding these requirements faster than the workforce can grow will lead to fewer bidders, higher costs, delays for critical public projects. Ultimately, this bill increases risk without increasing capacity. It discourages the participation in public works at a time when the state is relying on the construction industry to deliver critical infrastructure and the future of its construction workforces. For these reasons, we must, unfortunately, request a no vote.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Thanks for being here. Now it goes back to the committee. Me too. Oh, I'm sorry.
Other, witnesses in opposition for identification purposes?
Speaker 35
Absolutely. Good morning, Senator Richard Marksen, on behalf of the Western Electrical Contractors Association. We share the concerns of the witnesses. Thank you.
Speaker 39
Good morning. Chris Walker, behalf of the California Sheet Metal Air Conditioning Contractors. We're not here in opposition formally today, but we do want to express concerns about the administrative functions. We support skilled and trained workforce and the program implicitly. We want to see it strengthened.
But some of the administrative provisions in here can lead to debarment of very good, responsible contractors. And that's a concern that we would like to see addressed. So thank you very much.
Speaker 5
Well, I do have a question. It seems the testimony is kind of different. They say they have enough in the workforce. You're saying there's not enough workers. I just want to kind of clarify what's your response to the proponents that said there's plenty of workers out there to move forward.
Speaker 33
So I really encourage the committee and its membership to visit buildcalifornia.com. It is a project by the Construction Education Foundation hosted at the Associated General Contractors of California because there isn't the workforce that we need. Recall in the legislative record that it's just as recent as 2016 that we passed as a legislature, and I should say you all passed as a legislature, a skilled and trained force skilled and trained workforce requirements. It was subsequently amended in 2018 and 2019 because the ratios were difficult to comply with, and that was promoted by our friends in labor. AGC did not take a position in that because, again, we believe in a skilled and trained workforce.
And my suspicions say that, in short order, you will see more legislation asking to relax those ratios. Why? The pipeline is too thin at this point. We are working towards figuring out how to increase that pipeline and that workforce, but we don't have it, and we see it on job sites. And with the average age of a journey person being in its mid forties, we have to endeavor to figure out how to increase that pipeline.
So we don't have a quarrel with the pursuit, it's just you can't expand it if you don't have the resources.
Speaker 5
It seems like there's a witness that wants to respond. Yes. So, Mr. What's your
Speaker 8
Chairman and members, in response to my good friend Mr. Fuente's testimony, First and foremost, those pieces of legislation lowered the bar for only a few classifications, none of which I represent, down to 30%. It's 60% for the skilled trades that I represent. Now, I hate to confuse the argument with facts, but the latest data from EDD is there is 891,000 construction workers employed in California today. Building and Construction Trades Council represents 450,000 skilled and trained workers.
We currently have 96,000 apprentices that qualify in state approved apprenticeship programs. We graduated 19,000 in the last two years. That doesn't even account for all the non union construction workers who have graduated from a non union apprenticeship program, which qualifies them as skilled in trade, or a program that's federally approved, of which there are tens of thousands of construction workers who have come to California, or who were trained in California through a federally approved program. So I'm sorry, the numbers just don't add up. Thank you.
Speaker 33
You know, my good friend, Scott Wetch, don't disagree with the raw numbers. And I think that's the distinction in the analysis that's necessary to be done. Certain classifications are able to move more through the process in apprenticeship. Others may not be. So just the raw numbers, I don't think, tells us the complete story, because I think our friends would also argue that jurisdiction matters.
And so that apprenticeship program and training is highly dependent on its throughput, but there's so many different sort of veins that move to getting ultimately to it. So, again, we are excited and stand by skilled and trained and want to promote it, but I agree with my colleague here that it might be time to look at the program to understand how to maximize the effort versus just sort of looking at in its totality.
Speaker 18
One comment. Mr. Weich, if you can comment on the outreach to communities, poor communities, disadvantaged communities that in the past, you know, many many years ago, were not given the the opportunity. But I know that's part of the outreach and, the recruitment into these into these, apprenticeship programs. So that's one question for you.
But I just wanna say, I agree on the issue of, the youth, the age of apprenticeships, which is why I introduced and put into law the new youth apprenticeship program, so that we can put the focus into that. But, mister Wedge?
Speaker 8
Yes. Thank you, senator. The the the Building and Construction Trades Council, as the umbrella organization, and all of the various members of that, have a myriad of programs which we invest not millions, but tens of millions of dollars into. We have programs focused just on taking the previously incarcerated and getting them into our apprenticeship programs. We have helmets to hard hats for veterans.
We have programs, pre apprenticeship programs, that we've established that the state does not subsidize, that we pay entirely out of our own pockets, going into school districts in disadvantaged communities throughout the entire state of California trying to recruit young people. We, you know, every one of the international unions that I represent have, huge, huge priority put on expanding our apprenticeship programs, with, particularly going and trying to recruit more women into the trades, which is difficult because of barriers for them regarding childcare and other things that we all understand. The work hours of construction are very difficult, and particularly in communities of color. I was just looking at the figures for the apprenticeship program that serves all of the investor owned utilities in California. We have one apprenticeship program.
Over the last four classes, a majority of the graduates have all been apprentices of color, which we're very proud of. So there's a lot going on in that area.
Speaker 18
Thank you. I I just wanna make that point because it's not only the number of people, but where the they're coming from and how much they're needed in different communities. And so I think that's also important, you know, give back that we wanna make sure is there for the community. Thank you, madam chair. Now we move the bill as appropriate.
Speaker 5
Okay. The bill has been moved. Anything else from the members? Seeing none. My understand, madam chair, you could close, but my understanding is, do pass as amended with author's amendments.
Is that correct? That's correct. So with a close.
Speaker 2
you doing. For that. We'll get that on the record. But I want to just say I really appreciate the conversation and discussion, and I know that these debates will continue. But I want us to not lose sight of what this bill is about.
This is about the noncompliance happening right now, not when we don't have workers in the future. You're still working and look good, mister Fuentes, for for 40. And you're here doing a great job, and we know there are plenty of workers in their 40s who are on the job, and they're doing a great job today. And having been in a community workforce development program where we saw the participation of black construction workers grow from a few 100 to 2,800 in this sector. I can tell you right now, there are community members from your county, my county, up and down the state who would put on some boots and tools today and go work for one of these companies because these are good jobs, And our goal here is to make sure that there's a level playing field and that compliance is happening.
And, we, see this bill as a way of doing that. We see this as a this bill as a way of modernizing and clarifying, questions that have, been a a source of concern as we are investing in these public works projects. We wanna make sure that what we've invested in, what the tax payers want to see, a skilled and trained workforce where we are bringing in apprentices, where they are getting trained, where they are coming out and being able to buy homes and cars and all that good stuff. We want to make sure that that's happening on every single project, and we will not know unless that compliance is in place. So, with that, I respectfully ask for the aye vote and to strengthening the ways in which we have a skilled and trained workforce on our public works projects.
Speaker 1
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smolt Cuevas? Aye. Smolt Cuevas, aye. Strickland?
No. Strickland, no. Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi, aye.
Durazzo, aye. Durazzo, aye. Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 2
Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Now we will move to all of our bills on call. We'll start with Oh, right.
We got one more bill. Senator.
Speaker 2
Okay. Yes. We are going to go to bills that are on call. We're going to start with SB ten fifty four.
Speaker 1
SB file item one, SB ten fifty four. The motion is due pass as amended to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is four to zero with chair voting aye and vice chair voting aye. Senator Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye. It's five to zero.
Speaker 2
Okay. With a vote of five to zero, that bill is out. Moving on to file item number two, s b eleven sixty six.
Speaker 1
The motion is due pass to Senate Committee on Judiciary. Current vote is three to one, with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi, aye.
Speaker 2
Okay. We have a vote of four to one. That bill is out. Moving on to file item number four, SB eleven forty nine.
Speaker 1
SB eleven forty nine, Senator Smallwood. Pardon me. Senator D'Arrazzo. Current vote is three to zero. The chair voting aye and Strickland Vice chair voting aye.
Senator Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi, aye. Senator Laird? Aye.
Laird, aye. It's five to zero.
Speaker 2
That bill has a vote of five to zero, and it is out. Moving on to file item number five, s b nine zero nine.
Speaker 1
The motion is due passed to the senate committee on judiciary. The current vote is two to one with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortezi? Aye. Cortezi, aye.
Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 2
With a vote of four to one, that bill is out. Moving on to file item number six s s six s b eleven thirty two.
Speaker 1
The motion is due passed to the senate committee on appropriations. Chair current vote is two to one. The chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Cortezi? Aye.
Cortezi, aye. Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 2
Okay. We have a vote of four to one. That bill is out. We're going to file item number seven, s b twelve forty one. Okay.
That bill is already out. Everyone was here for that. So now we'll move to Senator Laird. You will be presenting on SB ten thirty eight. Begin when you're ready.
Speaker 9
Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Senate Bill ten thirty eight is sponsored by the California School Employees Association, CSEA. It widens the CalPERS audit notification process to ensure that unions receive proper notice when their members' employees are being audited. This is very significant because audit results can result in employees having to repay for overcompensation or for pensions. Currently, there is no mechanism for unions to receive notification when CalFERS intends to conduct an audit on an employer.
These notifications would allow unions to properly inform advocate for their members. In the CSCA letter, and hopefully I'm not jumping the gun with the person that's here, there is a case in point that is cited. In the Kern High School District, when there was a 2020 school payroll audit, it revealed that special compensation for employee longevity was incorrectly included in employees' base rates. It took the school district and CalPERS three years after the issuance of the final audit report to fix it. And during those three years, the pay rate reporting errors and consequences for those errors compounded, leaving one employee with an $8,400 bill, all through no fault of her own.
So we have worked with organizations representing employers to address concerns and ensure that the bill can be implemented. As a result, the bill has no registered opposition at this point. With me today is Cassie Mancini on behalf of the School Employees Association who can address technical questions. At the appropriate time, I would respectfully request a knife.
Speaker 32
Thank you. Cassie Manzini. On behalf of the California School Employees Association, I'll keep this really brief. Just wanted to thank, senator Laird, staff, and CalPERS for working closely with us to make sure that this bill is really implementable. Given that this bill enjoys no opposition, I'll I'll keep this short.
But just wanted to say that this bill is really consequential for our members. It's it's really scary for our members when they get a letter from CalPERS saying that they owe a lump sum and that their monthly pension benefit is going to be reduced, and we want to be able to make sure that their union is there for them and equipped to advocate for them and walk them through that process. So thank you, and I'll stop there.
Speaker 2
Thank you. So do we have any me too's in support of this bill? Please state your name and affiliation.
Speaker 12
Thank you, Madam Chair. Sandra Barrero, on behalf of SEIU California, in support.
Speaker 19
Elmer Lazardi, California Federation of Labor Unions in support. Thank you.
Speaker 2
Great. Okay. We'll move to opposition. Are there any opposition? Oh, no.
There are no opposition witnesses. Any me too oppositions out there? Doesn't look like it. We'll come to the dais members. We have a motion to move the bill by senator D'Rasso.
Would you like to close, mister Layne?
Speaker 9
Yes. I I appreciate the discussion. Thank you for the witness. I respectfully ask for an eye vote.
Speaker 1
The motion is due pass to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smallwood Cuevas?
Speaker 1
Smallwood Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortez?
Aye. Senator Duraso? Aye. Duraso, aye. Senator Laird?
Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 2
So we have a vote of four to zero, and we're gonna hold that bill on call for a few more minutes. Okay, everyone. That concludes our agenda for the day. We have Yeah. Okay.
We cannot close. We're not gonna close the role yet. We're gonna, go to recess and then come back in about ten minutes. Labor, public employment, and retirement committee is back in session. We are not going to have the the opportunity for senator Cortese to rejoin us, so we are gonna close the roll.
And looking at file item number file item number three, s b ten thirty eight. That bill is out with a vote of four to zero. And with that, our committee has concluded for the day. We are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.