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 2
But since 1982, everything was written. The bill is very simple, just to modernize that. So electronic record keeping, digital training, attendance documentation, and updated training delivery terminology. The bill would require the panel to adopt electronic record keeping and training administration standards, standards of today. While the panel has adopted the changes over the past four decades, certain, legalities and legacy attendance tracking requirements remain outdated and misguided and misaligned, with current practices.
This is 2026, and we gotta keep thinking about 1982 versus 2026. As a result, the provisions create unnecessary compliance and reporting challenges for employers utilizing the modern technologies that all employers use. Electronic record keeping systems and other contemporary training records and systems must be used for today's modern technology. By authorizing the use of electronic systems, the bill would streamline programs administration, reduce unnecessary paperwork, and improve overall efficiency. Permitting contractors to maintain compliant electronic records would also promote greater clarity and consistency while preserving accountability and audit integrity.
This program has been incredibly successful in developing high paying, high skilled jobs for California and Californians and support workforce retention. With me today to testify in support are Phil Herrera with the with the coalition for EDP and job and Sarah bridge bridges with the California Manufacturers and Technology Association. The bill has no opposition, madam chair, and I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 3
Good morning, chairwoman Smallwood Quavis, members of the committee. My name is Philip Herrera, managing partner at Herrera and Company. I also serve as chairman of the Coalition for ETP and Jobs. It's a broad coalition of employers, labor partners, training providers and educational institutions committed to strengthening California's workforce. We strongly support the Employment Training Panel, or ETP, as one of California's most effective job training programs.
For more than forty years, which is a remarkable track record for state workforce programs, ETP has helped workers build skills, helped employers remain competitive, and helped communities expand economic opportunity. With more than thirty years of experience working with ETP, first as a civil servant, then as an employer applicant, and now as a consultant, I can say with confidence that ETP works. It is not broken. But it can be improved by giving agency leadership the tools to modernize program administration while continuing to be strong stewards of employer tax dollars. SB ten fifty nine is an important practical modernization of ETP's statutory framework.
Crane no longer operates the way it did decades ago. By authorizing electronic systems for application processing, reporting attendance documentation, and recordkeeping, This bill will reduce unnecessary paperwork, improve efficiency, and streamline administration. Just as importantly, it preserves accountability by ensuring electronic records remain compliant and auditable. The days of requiring wet signatures on daily paper rosters stored in banker boxes should be behind us. ESB ten fifty nine will strengthen ETP and position the program for the future.
I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 28
Thank you very much. Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Sarah Bridges, representing the California Manufacturers and Technology Association, with 45,000 firms and their 1,200,000 employees in strong support of SB ten fifty nine. One of the biggest challenges facing manufacturers today is not just hiring workers, but finding workers with the right skills. As manufacturing becomes more advanced and technology driven, employers increasingly need specialized training to ensure their workforce can operate new equipment, adopt new processes, and remain competitive.
Speaker 5
SB ten fifty nine is a practical, common sense modernization of the employment training panel program that directly supports those workforce needs. By allowing electronic record keeping and updating outdated administrative processes, the bill reduces unnecessary paperwork and compliance burdens that current make it harder for employers to fully utilize workforce training funds. This is especially important for small and medium sized manufacturers. Nearly 89% of manufacturers are small businesses, and many lack the internal HR capacity or resources to navigate complex paper based compliance systems. By streamlining and digitizing these processes, SB ten fifty nine makes workforce training programs more accessible and usable for the businesses that need them most.
Just as importantly, the bill makes it easier and faster for manufacturers to access training resources to upscale their workforce, particularly as companies adopt new technologies, automation, and advanced manufacturing processes. CMTA's ETP coordinator was contacted by an ETP training center that uses badges and QR codes for attendance purposes. Without these provisions of the bill, this would not be allowed. SB ten fifty nine also provides important clarity, helping reduce legal and financial uncertainty for manufacturers participating in the ETP program. By standardizing electronic record keeping requirements and clearly defining what documentation is needed for compliance, the bill removes ambiguity that can otherwise create audit risks.
For manufacturers operating on tight margins, uncertainty around audits or reimbursement eligibility can discourage participation. Thank
Speaker 5
Yes. Absolutely. We urge your support, and thank you so much for hearing this.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Okay. That concludes our witnesses. Are there any me too's in support of the bill? Please step forward, state your name, affiliation, and position.
Speaker 6
Chair Senator Gingerfield with Capital Advocacy, here on behalf of California Life Sciences, in support of SB ten fifty nine. Thank you.
Speaker 7
CHRISTOPHER Hi, there. Chris Bollinger on behalf of the California Asian Chamber of Commerce, as well as the Sacramento Asian Chamber of Commerce, also in support. Thank you.
Speaker 1
Any other support with me too's out there? Okay. We will move to opposition witnesses. Are there any opposition witnesses? Seeing none.
Are there any opposition me too's in the room? Please step forward. Seeing none, we'll move to the okay. Well, we don't have members yet. So, would you like to close, senator?
And once we get more of our colleagues here, we'll take this bill out.
Speaker 2
Very good. Thank you, madam chair. I think this is a great opportunity for us here in California to address the issue about people living in the state of California to find bigger, better jobs. Well, the jobs are here. Manufacturers are cooperating, but here's the catch.
The program, in conjunction with the state of California, we're overseeing that. And we wanna make sure that the program runs right, efficiently, and progressively. So consequently, to move someone up from department a, where they're hypothetically making $25 an hour, to department b, where they can make $45 an hour and and all the way up the ladder, they would got to be well trained. The training is there provided the state partners with that entity. And in doing so, we have to make sure everything is done right, record keeping and everything else.
And that's what it's all about. Making sure that they cross all the t's, dot all the i's because at the end, the state will reimburse the entity, but not until they get the job. Not until they're moved and in the position. And that's why the audit. That's why the record keeping.
So that's why it's so important. So it does open up doors for people to move up and stay in California, stay on their jobs, and in turn make a living wage that they can provide for their family. So it's got a lot of pluses that we're not even noticing here today, but it goes on because families will change, they'll stay in California, and it is a job retention bill. And with that, I ask for your I vote.
Speaker 1
So thank you so much, Senator. And, you know, since this is an informational hearing, you raised a point, I wanted to just to ask one question. I'm so glad that we're modernizing. We need to get out of the banker boxes. We need to get out of 1982.
The question that I did have, though, is, you know, is there an indication that most of the ETP participants will be able to move to an electronic system?
Speaker 3
Sure. What's happening in the workplace, especially with employers and technical schools, they're using what's called a learning management system that really digitizes all training attendance. So, in the ETP, when you participate in that, you know, one of the requirements is that you track and report on the training attendance of an hour of training. So, that is recorded in an LMS. It is a secure system.
Speaker 17
Some of the big players, SAP, Workday, they all have it. But to answer your question, all applicants, like all, I would say, 90% plus, do have system that serves as a central repository for training attendance information. What we're saying, and I completely agree with the senator, is that we want ETP to use that for authenticating whether someone went to training or not, rather than relying on a paper record, and I'm a tax auditor by training, is that currently they could ask for paper records to back up an LMS. We want them to move to a strictly digital world.
Speaker 1
No, that makes sense because the other concern I have is just that we might end up with two systems
Speaker 1
That ETP will have to manage, and that could be a headache, creating So, other issues down the it sounds like the system, in terms of participants and now ETP, may be moving toward a more modernized approach and Correct. Potentially the majority of
Speaker 3
And one part of clarity, Chairwoman, is that the that an applicant could have an option of using paper records. It'll be rare, but if they're just not up to snuff of having an enterprise level LMS, they can still use paper records.
Speaker 1
of the service. You. Okay, wonderful. Thank you for answering those questions, and thank you so much, Senator, for participating in this subcommittee. We will bring the bill back when more of our colleagues
Speaker 2
And I know the panel and yourself and all the senators on the committee are always concerned about workforce development. The future of our workforce and the equality in our workforce. And this is the system that will see it, will audit it, will be participating, and it will really entice the employers to go ahead and push someone up because it's a lot easier to work with program. And so, I ask for the aye vote.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We will have it under consideration. We will take it up when all of the members return.
Speaker 1
In file order, I see we have the good senator Gonzales here with SB nine six six. We are still in a subcommittee. So, senator, we will be hearing all of the discussion, but we'll take the vote up when the colleagues return. You may proceed when you're ready.
Speaker 9
It's one of those days. Already. It's not even well, barely ten a. M. So, good morning, Madam Chair and members.
And I'm here today to present Senate Bill nine sixty six, which will codify critical safety standards and protect refinery workers from regulatory rollback. In 2012, a fire at the Chevron refinery in Richmond endangered 19 workers and resulted in 15,000 residents seeking medical care. An investigation found disaster could have been prevented if the refiner had acted on workers' safety concerns. In response to disasters like this, the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board adopted updated process safety management regulations in 2017, which strengthened worker protections, including the right to select their own representatives to participate in safety proceedings at refineries, report hazards anonymously, and access safety information, and initiate stop work procedures, which seems very reasonable. Now, under pressure from refineries, new regulations have been proposed that will weaken these hard won protections.
Refinery workers are on the front lines of these hazardous conditions and have direct expertise in process safety management. They deserve a seat at the table, and SB nine sixty six makes that right permanent. Testifying in support, have Norman Rogers from the USW United Steelworkers Local six seventy five, as well as Nick Plerkowski from United Steelworkers Local five, and I respectfully ask for an I vote.
Speaker 8
Thanks for having me. Nick Burkowski, Local five. I want to talk about process safety management because as a worker in a refinery, you are in charge of operating the units and everything, and you have a lot of support from management engineers and a lot of smart people who know what's going on in the plant. This really attacks the information that's going to be provided to all the workers and lets them make the decisions when it counts. So the senator mentioned stop work authority.
And so if you notice something is wrong, maybe leaking a little bit or something, you have a chance to move on that. If you're not sure, you're gonna kinda wait and try to figure stuff out. And as soon as the company shows up, they'll give you direction, which turns into work direction. So if you don't follow work direction, now you are subject to discipline. So we're trying to get the correct, up to date information, the decisions that are made, what state everything is in, into the hands of the workers.
Speaker 22
The workers that are going to participate in these safety reviews and everything, we're not trying to pick simply people that are qualified and on-site. We're trying to find the best people possible, the people that will speak up, the people that will do their due diligence to get out there and verify that the information being used in these safety reviews is correct, up to date, and going to help protect everyone. So we've learned our lessons, too many times on this. There's too many fires, too many explosions. Chevron in 2012, we had lots of chances to shut down units before that became the event that it did, and we don't need to relearn this.
Speaker 8
We're asking to make this permanent to protect the workers. So thank you for your time.
Speaker 10
Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak. As mentioned, I'm with USW Local six seventy five in Carson, California, and we represent a large majority of the refineries in the basin, LA Basin, also the extraction workers and pipeline operators. So for myself, without having changed workplaces, since 1999, I've worked for Arco, BP Tesoro, Endeavor, and since October 2018, Marathon Petroleum. The only thing that's held steady through that whole time have been the process safety regulations. Because different companies come in with different philosophies, and you have to learn that and work with that.
If you have a leaking pipe, one company will put a clamp on it and set it and we'll say at the first opportunity, we will switch out that piping. The next company will come in and they'll go leaky pipe, we'll put a clamp on it, and they'll go, there's a clamp on it. It's not leaking anymore. And then that'll be the end of it. So that change that moves, that comes with different operators, is problematic.
But when we have the safety regulations there that are permanent, that we can hold on to those regardless of who owns the company. So with this bill, there is nothing new here. We had updated regulations that came into being in October 2017, and we're asking for that just to remain as they have been for almost a decade now. The hard work was done between 2012 with the Chevron incident and 2017 when a broad coalition came together to look at what needed to be done for refinery safety. So in that coalition, there was ourselves, the Sierra Club, the Building Trades, the Blue Green Alliance, the Asian Pacific Environmental Network.
Those are just a few that helped make these updated regulations come into being. So, yeah, I would close with the Chevron incident that was mentioned in 2012. What caused employee participation to become so important about that?
Speaker 10
The company knew they had internal documentation that their pipe was thinning. They kept that to themselves. It didn't see the light of day. And that's how we've ended up where we did with the updated regulations.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Thank you both for your testimony. We will hear from Me Toos in support of this bill. Please step to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
Speaker 1
Any other support witnesses? Okay. Seeing none, we will move to opposition. Thank you. Support witnesses.
Opposition can have a seat at the table. There's room. Okay. We're good. Yeah.
There's a
Speaker 7
Doctor. Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Zach Leary, on behalf of the Western States Petroleum Association. I want to start off by saying safety is foundational to our operations, and we have participated in the process safety management regulations from their inception. Unfortunately, we are opposed to SB nine sixty six that seeks to legislatively override a settlement agreement that WISPA reached with CalOSHA.
Speaker 11
In 2019, we filed suit to get clarity on provisions of the PSM regulation because we believe they were preempted by the National Labor Relations Act. After years of negotiations, we actually reached settlement, and they were going to reinsert and reduce some of the regulations to find common ground on those particular sections of the regulation. So,
Speaker 11
us, it's specifically Section B of the bill that would allow the authorized collective bargaining agent to unilaterally select employees to participate in the development of process safety programs and in various process safety activities. In our settlement, it was supposed to be replaced with the written employee participation plan will determine how employees are selected to participate in overall PSM programs development, implementation, planning, and participation in the PSM teams. So we believe that this bill would be preempted potentially by the national NLRA, And for that reason, we are opposed to the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Let's see. Are there any opposition another opposition witness out there? Doesn't look like it. Any opposition me too's in the room?
Please come to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position. Okay. Seeing none, we are working as a a subcommittee, so I will take this bill up when folks return. But I did wanna just say thank you to the author for bringing this bill forward. You started with the Richmond explosion, which is the right place to start in this kind of a conversation.
And, you know, those workers were injured. Pollution surrounded that community. And if we weaken our PSM standard, we could invite more disaster. And I understand that. I also appreciated some of the discussion between the support and opposition, but I think we can all agree that working with the Occupational Safety and Health Standards Board is vital to creating workplace safety.
I'm disappointed about the 2024 settlement agreement, in the ways that it did undermine some of the state board's independence, and, in some ways, weakened a process that that had been put in place. And so, you know, I I think by requiring Cal OSHA and the Standards Board to engage in rulemaking in the end, we have a stronger, safer workforce. And so, for that reason, I support the bill today. And when it comes back, when our colleagues are here, we will take it up. Thank you very much.
And you may close.
Speaker 9
Yeah, I just want to say thank you so much for your comments, Madam Chair. And I want to thank the USW workforce who spoke in support and testified. This is ultimately about the workforce. They are on the front lines every single day. It's been mentioned there's inconsistencies, depending on which company you go to, and it should be standardized.
Speaker 1
That's why we want to go back to the 2017 regulation. And this is, although he, you know, with all due respect, came to me just five minutes before I was about to present, I had no idea what the opposition was. There wasn't a formal letter, inputted. But I respect it, and I will certainly, you know, understand their their concern, but I do believe that employees know best. They are the ones working every single day in these refineries to stop future fires, to stop future health hazards, and and and and most importantly, to ensure that they uplift their own, worker safety.
Speaker 19
Thank you very much, Senator. And we will take this matter up later today. Alright. I see senator Minjivar is here. So we are gonna move back to file item number two, s b ten twenty four.
Speaker 1
Any support witnesses, please have a seat at the table. And okay. So we're gonna take up SB ten twenty four, and I wanna just begin by acknowledging the critical role of our firefighters and what they do in our communities every single day. We know their service. We know their sacrifice.
We know their commitment. We also know their determination to make this a service where women, men, and all feel welcome. And so, as chair, it's my responsibility to ensure that every proposal before this committee is not only well intended, but also well designed, equitable, and implementable across the state. And so, with that, I look forward to hearing from the author as she presents 10/24, and we will continue the conversation. We're starting as a subcommittee today.
When colleagues return, we will take the bill up for a vote. And so, you may proceed.
Speaker 12
Thank you, madam chair. That's always an issue in every committee. Right? Colleagues, in California, there are about 37,000 professional firefighters. Of those, 1,440 are women.
I could have helped increase those numbers, but Destiny had other plans for me, and I wasn't able to be a firefighter. But I'm here now advocating on their behalf. And even though we are always searching for more and more women to become firefighters, we do not have a minimum policy on the books that ensures paid leave for them when they give birth or have a miscarriage. So currently, the only guaranteed job protection, leave that firefighters have, they're entitled to after childbirth. It's twelve weeks, it's unpaid.
The absence of paid leave either pushes this firefighter to return to work before fully healing or leave the service completely. Unfortunately, many of them end up leaving, impacting our ability to go past that four percent. Because if these firefighters, after giving birth, return back to work early, they put themselves at risk of significant injury as their body is still recovering post birth or miscarriage or other kind of incident related to postpartum. It also puts their ability to breastfeed their children at risk since they're ingesting toxic chemicals or exposed to this constantly on the job. SB ten twenty four steps in to look to ensure, that any firefighter who gives birth receives twenty six weeks of paid postpartum and recovery leave, returns to their prior position upon coming back to work and is not required to exhaust sick or vacation time before using this leave.
Over decades, significant effort has been dedicated towards ensuring that a career in the fire service is accessible to all who wanna join and that fire departments represent the communities they serve. It's a critical piece of that effort in ensuring that all who join can stay. Madam chair, I'd like to now turn over to my two witnesses in support of the bill.
Speaker 1
Thank you. You have two or three. You have two and one technical witness? Yes. Right.
Okay. The two witnesses each have two minutes.
Speaker 13
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Liz Brown. I'm a firefighter and a paramedic. I currently serve in the rank of battalion chief with CAL FIRE, I've been serving the state of California for about twenty seven years. I also serve as the chair on the California Firefighter Joint Apprenticeship Women's Commission.
Our mission is simple: make sure that every woman who is called to this work has a real and meaningful chance to answer that call. We host workshops, we attend career expos, and we show up as mentors because for so many young women, seeing someone who looks like them in turnout gear is the first time they believe this career might actually be for them. And we take that responsibility seriously because the truth is women just don't bring diversity to the profession, they bring something irreplaceable. They bring different instincts on scene, different ways of connecting with our communities we serve, and a lived understanding that this job in this world looks different depending on who you are. Recruiting and retaining qualified female firefighters is made significantly more difficult by the hurdles women face when starting a family.
Many women are faced with the impossible choice between their families and the job they love and, as a result, many are ultimately forced to leave the fire service entirely. The personal toll is devastating, but so is the institutional toll. We invest over $100,000 in some jurisdictions just to get one firefighter through an academy. When a woman walks out the door because she couldn't get the support she needed to start a family, we lose the investment, yes. But more than that, we lose her.
Speaker 26
Experience, her instincts, the mentorship she would have provided to the next generation of women coming after her. We cannot keep asking women to choose between the career they've worked for and the family they want to build. We cannot keep pretending that a one size fits all system actually fits everyone. The Women's Commission, we're going keep showing up at expos, at academies, at kitchen tables where a young woman is quietly wondering if she can do this job, but we can't do it alone. We need the fire service in California to meet us halfway.
Speaker 13
SB ten twenty four is that halfway point. It sends a message that California sees women in the fire service not as a liability to manage, but as an essential part of our future. It tells every woman who's ever stood at the edge of this career wondering if there's a place for her that there is. So, respectfully and urgently ask for your support for SB ten twenty four. Thank
Speaker 14
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the subcommittee. My name is Ashley St. Sin, and behind me is my almost nine year old rock star, Kira. She'll wait for it. I'm an engineer operator with the Daly City Fire Department under the North County Fire Authority and have been a full time firefighter for thirteen years.
Being a firefighter is my dream career, and I'm grateful that I get to do this difficult, demanding work for a living. It wasn't until my husband, Sean, and I started thinking about having a child that I saw firsthand the challenges for growing my family. Once pregnant and through recovery, postpartum firefighters must ask difficult questions like, Is my body healed enough for duty? How long after a fire is my breast milk unsafe to save for my baby? Will I be able to find time between calls to pump regularly enough to keep my supply up?
Will I have to come back early or go without pay? I saved nearly all my vacation and sick leave for three years to aim for three months of postpartum recovery. None of my male counterparts had that even on their radar because they don't have to. I was lucky. My water broke while I was at home.
Speaker 23
I had no complications, minimal tearing, and I was able to hire a personal trainer at six weeks postpartum. But if anything had gone wrong or taken longer, I would have gone unpaid, lost retirement contributions, seniority ranking and employer sponsored health care. It was heartbreaking recently to hear a friend decide against a fire career because she said she wanted to have a family instead. But I understood what she meant. Many, many women walk away from this career or never even get started not because they can't start a chainsaw, drag a 200 pound dummy, or run a code.
Speaker 14
It's because it is 2026 and the fire service still hasn't recognized that pregnancy is not the same as an off duty injury and childbirth is not something to be penalized for. This bill gives me hope that we can do better for our future sisters so that one day my daughter will see a fire engine at a stoplight and see more people like her in the seats. Thank you for your time today and for listening.
Speaker 1
Thank you both. Do we have witnesses out there in support of this bill? Me too's, please step forward, state your name, affiliation, and position.
Speaker 15
Madam Chair, members, Matt Broad for Teamsters, California, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Madam Chair, members, Sarah Fox, California Federation of Labor Unions, proud to support.
Speaker 17
Good morning. Angela Pontis on behalf of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California in support. Deidra Pratt, firefighter with Local three thousand one hundred twenty four, and I'm in support.
Speaker 1
Cory Condren, firefighter with Local two thirty, and the IFF female health and safety representative in support. Firefighter DeAndra Van Houten with Contra Costa County Fire Protection District in support.
Speaker 14
Draper operator Candice Koshman with Oakland Fire Department, local fifty five in support.
Speaker 1
Amber Paraguay with Berkeley Firefighters Local twelve twenty seven in support.
Speaker 18
Madam Chair and Committee, Brian Rice. I'm the president of the California Professional Firefighters, and I represent all 37,000 plus firefighters on behalf of all of my members. We support this bill strongly. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Hello, Chair Committee Member Brian Maremontes with California Teachers Association in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you for support witnesses, especially that last support witness who said nothing. We will now go to opposition. Are there any opposition witnesses here testifying against this bill today? No. Okay.
Any me too opposition out there? Wanna step to the mic? K. Seeing none, we'll move to the dice. I'm
Speaker 1
Okay. Great. So we have a motion which will hold. And, you know, I just wanna thank all of the, witnesses who gave testimony and especially for all of the amazing women, who came to me too and, for their service and for being here today. This is so much of a historic bill, and I think it has implications for so many women, not just women in the fire service.
So I do have some questions that I want to ask. And and that is, senator, can you walk us through how the twenty six week threshold was determined?
Speaker 5
Yeah. Absolutely. So we have studies that show it takes a full year for a woman to recover, and be able to be safe for breastfeeding. Given the budget constraints, we cut that down to twenty six weeks to allow at least six months. And when you take into consideration how much it costs to retrain a firefighter, it's between 100 to a $180,000.
Speaker 12
Now if you pay for paid leave for six months, that, that same kind of training, you cut that in half to just pay someone's salary for six months of that. So that's where we landed with on the twenty six weeks.
Speaker 1
Okay. Yeah. I think that's important. That that threshold is is a is a threshold that we know we need in the state of California across the board, and we look in other countries where it's far higher and longer in terms of women taking leave. I think it's important for us as we move forward with this bill to be able to articulate why we got to that threshold and to make the the case for that, especially because we hope we're setting precedent here for for other women in other sectors.
My other question that I had was how would departments operationalize the coverage during leave periods given the type of work that firefighters do?
Speaker 1
No. How how would they implement this in terms of being able to, you know, have a twenty six week span where crews
Speaker 13
So from an operational standpoint, it's no different than we have someone on injury, someone on FMLA for the same. So, the coverage is just post behind. And in the fire service, takes a village. So, we all pull behind everyone that comes in because when someone tears their shoulder, we work post coverage behind them. So, it's negligible because not every female in the fire service is pregnant at the same time.
So, it's no different than anything else that we come together and cover behind to support each other to make sure the family stays together.
Speaker 12
And if I could, may have shared a little bit more to what Mhmm. The battalion chief Minh said at the end. I mentioned there's about a 440 firefighters who are women across California. Of those, not all of them are gonna give birth or because of age. They we anticipate that only about forty percent of that number are gonna need to be covered.
And because it's so far and in between that, operation wise, it'll be able to the each department will be able to cover the one woman perhaps in that department that for three year within three years that would be giving birth.
Speaker 1
Great. Great. I I I feel like I understand the the the opportunity here. And I wonder how in other, sectors, police, for example, and other frontline first responders, do they have similar proposals or policies, benefits in place?
Speaker 12
I'll start if I can turn to my technical assistant here. The reason why this stands up stands out above any anyone else because if you look at police officers, they're not wearing SCBAs. What does that stand for again?
Speaker 12
To protect them against contaminants that they're exposed to because they're one of the only professions that are exposed to that. Often, more than often, police officers are not. So it's the consistent exposures to that that elevates the need for this versus other professions. But if Megan can add to that through the chair.
Speaker 14
Thank you, madam chair. Megan Suberst on behalf of the California Professional Firefighters. And just to add on, I think, ideally, like you said, this leave will this could hopefully be a start and apply to everybody across the board, regardless of profession. In public safety, specifically, there are some differences, I think, between fire and law enforcement. The twenty four hour shift is a big difference, I think, right?
Speaker 22
Fire, they sleep where they work. They're there for longer than twenty four hours. Law enforcement, most of the time, is twelve hour shifts. There are still a lot of complications for law enforcement in terms of breastfeeding, being home with their baby, that are that need to be addressed. I also understand that in law enforcement, there are a lot of times, not always, more opportunities for light duty assignments.
So, an opportunity for them to be in an investigation department, things like that, that also don't apply to the fire service. There's a very limited number of those light duty assignments in departments.
Speaker 1
That's very helpful. And those were just some of the questions that I had that I felt the analysis did not touch on. I know the analysis did. Our team did a great job of looking at this and looking at the gender equity and all of those those components. Excited to see the bill.
Wanna see the bill actually codified. Wanna see it set a precedent because it is important for our firefighters, but it's just really important for women across the state. And we know where we go, so does the country. So there's a lot of opportunity here. So with that, you're welcome to close as senator, and, again, we'll take this up when the rest of our colleagues return.
Speaker 12
Thank you, madam chair. And first, I'd like to thank the firefighters who came out and paved the way for a career that so often is not visible for young girls. And through their advocacy, can create a change in a policy that will open the doors for more women to consider a job and not have to put a back burner on their ability to start a family, without respectfully asking for a NIV when appropriate.
Speaker 4
For the audience, we're now gonna go to file item six, s b thirteen sixteen by the chairwoman.
Speaker 1
Thank you Mr. Vice Chair. Good morning. I am proud to present SB thirteen sixteen, which is an enforcement and accountability measure. This bill helps ensure that when workers report wage theft, retaliation, and unsafe working conditions, that the labor commissioner has the tools to hold employers accountable so that employers cannot hide records or drag out the enforcement process or evade payment even after workers win.
It does that in three main ways: allowing the labor commissioner liens to be renewed, limiting the late use of records, and requiring Cal OSHA to annually report complaints and citations data to the legislature and the governor's office. We know how important this is as we have all been trying to deal with the issue of wage theft, wage theft enforcement in the state. We know our labor commissioner is overburdened, and certainly we have underfunded that agency for far too long, creating, you know, incredible backlogs. And so this office having additional tools and the legislature having access to that data is very important. Currently, I would just want to say that there are too many workers who wait a long time for justice.
The California state auditor found that the labor commissioner's office had over 47,000 backlog wage claims at the end of fiscal year twenty two-twenty three, and that workers received the full amount owed in only 12% of the cases from 2018 through 2023. So, not only are workers' rights being violated, when they win, they have to wait years to be made whole. We also know that this problem is real on the ground. In 2025, the labor commissioner cited Los Angeles developers with more than 2,300,000 for wage theft and related labor violations, impacting a 124 construction workers. That is not a technical issue.
This is a May this is a deep problem, and this is a problem where working people are being denied the wages that they are earned. Behind these numbers are real workers. Last year, a care facility worker, Jessica Delgado, reported an unsafe, unsanitary conditions and missed meal breaks. And after she spoke up, she was suspended. Then she was terminated.
For workers like Jessica, accountability can be further undermined when employers withhold payroll and employment records during an investigation, making it harder to prove violations and deliver justice. SB thirteen sixteen addresses the loop holes by ensuring employers cannot withhold payroll time or employment rate records during the investigation and then later use them in a hearing or a writ proceeding. So when the worker needs them, the employer doesn't produce. But then when they wanna defend their case, they produce the records. Total game, total scheme.
This bill still allows room for good faith extensions and inadvertent errors, but it holds the game players accountable. We wanna strengthen the judgment collection by allowing the labor commissioner liens to be renewed before they expire so employers cannot just run out the clock. Again, when folks are found to be in the wrong and it's time for them to pay, it doesn't just benefit the worker, it also benefits the state, because that's how we actually generate our funds for enforcement. So, you know, on workplace safety, SB thirteen sixteen improves legislative oversight. It requires Cal OSHA to report its complaints and citations data to us.
And California workers, we know, will not then be fighting alone, and fighting alone for years and years. This bill makes that happen. With me to testify today are Keith Dunn with the state building trades, and Tia Coons with the UCLA Labor Center.
Speaker 20
Smallwood Cuevas present. Senator Strickland? Here. Strickland here. Senator Cortese?
Here. Cortese, here. Bourrazzo? Laird?
Speaker 17
This is working? Okay, great. Thank you so much for having me. My name is Tia Kuntz. I direct policy at the UCLA Labor Center, and I have researched wage theft for fifteen years.
I also teach it to my students both in the law school and in our undergraduate labor studies program. And I always tell my students this: we have the strongest laws in California. Right? We're the envy of other states for workers. But a law is only as good as its enforcement.
And the truth of it is our labor code is almost an honor system. An employer who doesn't wanna pay just doesn't have to, and here's how they get away with it. Number one, as the senator mentioned, it takes about five years to get a hearing. Anything can happen to the employer during that period of time. Even good employers can just go under, leaving a worker without any ability to actually collect on that judgment at the end of the process.
Speaker 13
And the shady employers can use that time to hide their assets, right, to start another corporation, transfer those assets to a shell corporation, transfer them to a friend, a neighbor, their wife, etcetera, and they do. And in fact, when my office looked at this, we saw that 63% of those companies against whom workers brought claims, by the time the ODA, the order decision award came down, 63% weren't even operating anymore. So that brings me to my second point. How do you collect against a company that's no longer operating? I don't know about you guys, but I personally have been able to avoid debt collection calls.
Speaker 17
It is really difficult to get somebody to actually pay even on a final judgment if there's no assets. But the second thing is you have to lean that property or levy that property. Levy is active. You go and take it. And a lien keeps that property there.
So if the employer tries to sell it, you can actually file for foreclosure and collect what you're owed. Here's why that matters. If it takes five years to get a hearing, you're already five years into that ten year lien process. Employers can just hang on to that property, wait until the lien passes, and try to sell it and sell it after within ten years later, and the employer or the worker never collects a dime. Essential to align lien judgment collection and evidentiary standards with other sections of the labor code.
And then, the second is employers can just ignore the process down the line
Speaker 17
And then show up not having cooperated or provided any evidence whatsoever. How are going to prove your claim without payroll records and then use them against the worker? For this reason, there's so much abuse of the process. We have a word for unpaid labor. We made it illegal one hundred and fifty years ago, and that is essentially what the senator is trying to conclude right now.
Thank you.
Speaker 23
Thank you, mister vice chair and committee members, and thank you to the author for bringing this forward. You know, at its core, SB thirteen sixteen is a very simple bill. Just make sure that people get paid for the work they've already performed. It seems very basic. We had a nice discussion here from my colleague about the practice of evading and avoiding.
And this really these are not new requirements. These are requirements that they're obligated. These are workers who've already performed a service who are owed a wage. It's not complicated. We have an enforcement problem because we have an underfunded Department of Industrial Relations who can't go out and enforce all the rules that we have on the books.
So this is one tool that enhances our ability to enforce our existing laws. And let's be clear, this helps those that are fair actors who pay their workers what they're owed. This isn't about new resources, new monies. This is paying them what they're owed. And we ought not put that burden of unpaid wages on those that are playing within the system.
We ought to hold those accountable who are trying to game the system and make sure that they're paying their workers for work already performed. So with that, I will just say we would ask for your aye vote. Thank you very much. And, again, Keith Dunn on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Any witnesses in opposition? Seeing none, we have a quorum. So, committee? I'll move it.
Speaker 1
Thank you, Mr. Vice Chair. And I just want to thank the witnesses for their amazing testimony and say that we're passing wage theft laws to make sure that there's a level playing field. There are plenty of employers and contractors who are paying workers their fair wages. This is about those bad actors, those outlaw employers.
And, unfortunately, more and more schemes require us to have more and more tools for enforcement. And so with that, I respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 20
The motion is do you pass to the senate committee on judiciary? Senator Smolutu Cuevas?
Speaker 20
Smolutu Cuevas? Aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye.
Senator Cortese? Aye. Cortese? Aye. Durazo?
Laird?
Speaker 1
So we will move to file item number four if senator Cortese is ready. We have a repeat witness too, it looks like. Senator Cortesi presenting SB eleven eighty five. And senator, you may proceed when you're ready.
Speaker 24
Thank you, Chair Omar Khwabas, and colleagues. I appreciate the opportunity to present SB eleven eighty five. This bill applies to it actually applies skilled and trained workforce standards to pharmaceutical facilities. And let me start by stating I'll be accepting the committee amendments as outlined on page nine. Existing law prescribes the use of a skilled and trained workforce on a variety of high risk construction projects, including refineries, commercial hydrogen manufacturing, biofuels manufacturing, and carbon dioxide capture.
Pharmaceutical facilities require similar highly specialized construction practices, including sterile cleanroom environments, contamination control systems, and secure handling of controlled substances. Construction or maintenance errors can lead to biohazard exposure, product loss, costly facility shutdowns, and disruptions in the medical supply chain. SB eleven eighty five reinforces the state's high quality skilled workforce on sites where construction safety is essential to protecting public health and maintaining a secure medical supply chain. With us to testify today is Keith Dunn, the State Building and Trades Council of California. And at the appropriate time, I'd respectfully ask for your I vote.
Speaker 23
Thank you, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn here on behalf of the State Building Construction Trades Council. Let me start by saying clearly California's pharmaceutical and biotech industry is one of the crown jewels of our economy here in California. It drives innovation, delivers life saving therapies, and positions America as a global leader in medical advancement. The companies operating this space are doing extraordinary work.
They deserve infrastructure that matches the precision and excellence of what they produce and that we all depend upon. That's what eleven eighty five is all about. Pharmaceutical facilities are not typical construction projects. These are highly specialized environments with clean rooms, high purity piping systems, advanced air handling, where even the smallest insulation air can introduce contamination and compromise entire batches of medicine that our communities and, in fact, the world depend upon. In this industry, construction quality is directly tied to public health.
Speaker 15
Eleven eighty five simply says when we build these types of critical facilities, should use a workforce trained to meet that level of precision. California already knows how to do this. We've applied skilled and trained workforces to standard to a standard in refineries, chemical plants, and high hazard sector jobs. Our apprenticeship programs produce workers with thousands of hours of hands on and classroom training in these exact systems, process piping, instrumentation, electrical system, and safety protocols. This is about getting it right the first time, reducing errors avoiding delays, and protecting long term operational integrity.
Speaker 23
At a time when we're all focused on supply chain resilience, this matters even more, not only to those of us here in California, the entire United States. The reliability of domestic pharmaceutical manufacturing is critical. Eleven eighty five strengthens that foundation, supports an industry here in California that's vital to our economic health, but also that of our nation. And I would just ask for your support when the time is right. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
Thank you. We will move to me too. Folks who might be out there, me too's in support. Please state your name, affiliation.
Speaker 15
Madam Chair and members, Teamsters, California. Matt Bropper, Teamsters, California in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning. Jason Lindsay, Iron Workers Local three seventy eight in support. Good morning. Derek Cole, IBW Local three zero two, and we are in support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Good morning, Chair and Committee. Rachel Schumak, IBW Local three zero two, here representing over 1,300 or yeah. 1,300 electrical workers in Contra Costa County. We are in support of this. Thank you so much.
Speaker 25
Good morning. Lowell Homan, International Union Painters and Allied Trades District Council 16 delegate and vice president to Painter and Tapers Local four eighty seven here in Sacramento in support.
Speaker 10
My name is Manuel Sota. I'm an apprentice for the local union one eighteen iron workers, and I'm in support.
Speaker 19
Good morning, chair and members. Martin Vindiol on behalf of the California State Association of Electrical Workers, the California State Pipe Trades Council, and the Western States Council of Sheet Metal Workers in support. Thank you.
Speaker 27
Good morning. Raymond Davis, business agent, Iron Workers, Local one hundred eighteen in Sacramento, in support.
Speaker 20
Good morning, Madam Chair. Thank you for your time. Troy Arndson, business manager, financial secretary, Local one hundred eighteen in support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Good morning. David Mendez, organizer for Local one hundred eighteen, in support.
Speaker 7
Good morning, madam chair, council members. Bobby Cooks, chief metal workers, local one hundred four in support. Thank you.
Speaker 11
Good morning. Erica Valentine with UA Local three ninety three, representing 3,100 plumbers, pipe fitters, HVACR technicians. We stand in strong support with the California State Building Trades, and we ask you all to support it as well. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Morning, Chair, members. My name is Corie Schumacher, Policy Director of IBEW five sixty nine, representing 800 union electricians in San Diego and Imperial Counties in strong support.
Speaker 10
Good morning, union iron workers three seventy eight. Frank Capenuris in support. Rayshawn Manning, local three seventy eight, Iron Workers in support.
Speaker 29
Good morning. My name is Francisco Ioannis with local three seventy eight Iron Workers, and I'm in support. Thank you.
Speaker 30
Good morning. John Hershey on behalf of 1,800 UAA Local four forty seven plumbers, pipe fitters, and HVACR technicians in support. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Fred Lehman, business agent, Local three forty three, in strong support representing Napa and Solano Counties and the piping professionals there.
Speaker 6
Danny Barrett, UA local three forty three, Napa Solano County organizer in support. Morning. Tim Serrano, executive director, Contra Costa Building Construction Trades Council, representing 35,000 union members, 20 affiliates, in support.
Morning. I'm Abrella Nochoa with the Heat and Frost Insulators Local sixteen representing 48 counties in Northern California. We are standing strong with the stable and trades, and we're in support. Thank you.
Speaker 16
Morning. Eric Machinski from UA Local three ninety three, plumbers, fitters, HVAC, our technicians. We stand in support with the building trades and the California State Pipe excuse me, California State Pipe Trades and California State Building Trades, and we're in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 31
Kevin Ferreira, Executive Director of the Sacramento Sierra Building and Constructed Trades Council, in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 24
Good Madam Chair and Council Members. Dave Gauthier, Business Manager, Financial Secretary Treasurer of the She Metal Workers, Local two zero six, and San Diego And Imperial Counties. My 1,200 members and their families stand in support.
Speaker 34
Good morning, Madam Chair and members. Matt Cremins on behalf of the California Nevada Conference of Operating Engineers in strong support.
Speaker 35
Martin Rodriguez, business agent. Ironworkers Local four thirty three, president of Tri County Building Construction Trades. We stand in support. Thank you.
Speaker 29
Good morning. David Calderon, Bricklayers and Allied Craft Workers, Local three of Northern California in support.
Speaker 20
Good morning, Mitch Fontz, Iron Workers Local four thirty three Los Angeles, president of the LA and Orange County Building Trades Council. We stand in strong support and urgent eye vote. Thank you.
Speaker 19
Morning. I'm Seth Miojekastrada, San Diego County Building And Construction Trades Council, in support.
Speaker 12
Good morning, Madam Chair, members. Eddie Bernocchi, on behalf of the California Legislative Conference for the Plumbing, Heating and Piping Industry and the National Contractors Association, representing thousands of electrical and mechanical contractors throughout the state, in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 6
Morning. Mike Hartley, executive director of California State Pipe Trades. We are in strong support.
Speaker 8
Good morning, Madam Chair, committee members. Chuck Leonard, plumbers and steamfitters, Local three forty two, representing over 4,000 members. We are in strong support. Thank you.
Speaker 20
Eddie Alvarez, LAOC Building Trades, representing 106,000 members. First of all, happy Jackie Robinson Day, and we are in strong support. Thank you very much.
Speaker 1
you for that reminder. Alright. Let's see. We're time for opposition. If there are any opposition witnesses, please step to the table.
Have a seat. You have two minutes.
Speaker 31
Madam chair and members, good morning. My name is Felipe Fuentes, and I'm here on behalf of the Associated General Contractors of California in respectful opposition to this measure. We appreciate the author's intent to ensure quality and safety in the construction of pharmaceutical facilities. Those are goals that we share. And to be clear, California has, in limited cases, extended skilled and trained workforce requirements to private industry.
But those policies were adopted in response to specific documented safety risks. For example, refinery requirements followed major incidents and clear findings about workforce training and safety failures. This is not the case here. SB eleven eighty five identifies a gap, but it does not demonstrate a pattern of construction failures, safety incidents, or workforce deficiencies in pharmaceutical facility construction that would justify the level of intervention. Instead, the bill represents a broad policy expansion.
Speaker 29
It applies public work style mandates to entirely private projects requiring strict workforce composition rules, monthly reporting to the state, and significant civil penalties. And it does so, not just for construction, but for ongoing maintenance and future work, and as mentioned in the analysis, effectively in perpetuity. From a construction industry perspective, this creates real consequences. It limits workforce participation by excluding qualified licensed contractors who cannot meet these rigid apprenticeship thresholds. It reduces competition which drives up costs and delays of project delivery and it introduces a new level of state oversight into private construction that has not previously existed.
Speaker 31
Just as importantly, it state it sets a precedent. If this framework is applied here without a clear demonstrated problem, it raises the question of where it applies next, whether to other private industries that are critical to California's economy. November is a significant expansion of state policy without clear evidence for its need, and for those reasons, the Associated General Contractors of California and San Diego Chapter are in opposition.
Speaker 1
Thank you for that testimony. Any opposition? Me too. Oaks, please step to the mic, state your name, affiliation, position.
Speaker 5
Thank you. Associated Builders and Contractors of California, also in opposition.
Speaker 1
Okay. We will come to the diocese. Any members questions? Okay. We will have to wait for a motion for this, but you may close, Senator Cortese.
Speaker 24
Okay. Thank you again, Madam Chair. Appreciate your again, the committee's help with amendments. Appreciate the work that you've done. And appreciate all the testimony we heard today, including opposition testimony.
Speaker 8
I think when it comes to safety issues, it's always a little challenging to remove all opposition because there's so many good actors out there. I think what we're trying to do with the bill is raise everyone to the level of the good actors who are out there. And I'm sure if we had more time to hear from the opposition, we'd hear examples of folks who are out there running a shop that everyone would be proud of. So we understand that. But we also understand that the standard needs to be across the board for everyone, including those who aren't living up to expectations now.
Speaker 1
Thank you so much, Senator, and we will take it up when our colleagues return. Thank you. Okay. So we are going to vote on items one through three. We'll start with file item number one, s b nine six six, Gonzales.
We need a motion. We need
Speaker 20
File item one s p six nine six six motion by senator Cortese. The motion is due passed to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smolt Cuevas?
Speaker 20
Smolt Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?
Aye. Cortese, aye. Senator Durazo? Senator Laird?
Speaker 1
This bill has a vote of two to one. It will it is on call. We're gonna go to file item number two, s b ten twenty four.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smallt Cuevas?
Speaker 20
Smallt Cuevas? Aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland?
Aye. Senator Cortez?
Speaker 1
That bill has a vote of three to zero. It is on call. Now moving to file item number three, s b ten fifty nine, Archuleta. I'll move. We have a motion from senator Strickland.
Please call the roll.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smallt Cuevas?
Speaker 20
Smallt Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? Aye. Strickland, aye. Senator Cortez?
Aye. Cortez, aye. Senator Drazo? Senator Laird?
Speaker 1
So we will now move to file item number four s b eleven eighty five. Cortez?
Speaker 1
Thank you for that courtesy motion. Senator Strickland, assistant, please call the roll.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Small Cuevas?
Speaker 20
Small Cuevas, aye. Senator Strickland? No. Strickland, no. Senator Cortese?
Speaker 1
That bill has a vote of two to one. It is on call. We have one more bill, and we are gonna take a ten minute recess before we take up, file item number five. Employment and retirement will reconvene. We will move on to file item number five, s b twelve twenty seven.
Senator DiRasso, please proceed when ready. Witnesses, you each have two minutes.
Speaker 27
Thank you, Madam Chair and members, and thank you very much to the committee staff for your analysis. I accept the suggested amendments, A, C, D, reflected in RN 26.12606. I also commit to continuing to work with stakeholders on concerns raised in paragraph B and E and continuing to preserve, I know very important, the merit principle. For too long, the Department of Industrial Rations, the DIR, has faced persistent staffing shortages, vacancy rates exceeding 25%, undermining labor law enforcement, delaying inspections and leaving workers waiting years for wage and retaliation claims to be resolved. Recent state auditor reports in '24 and '25 confirm these impacts.
Speaker 37
At CalOSHA, inspections are delayed, documentation is inconsistent and staffing shortages contribute to operational failures. At the Labor Commissioner's Office, tens of thousands of wage claims remain backlogged, often taking two years or more to resolve with hundreds of additional staff needed. SB twelve twenty seven is a practical solution. It requires DIR to partner with state worker unions to develop apprenticeship pathways into key enforcement roles. Apprenticeship is a proven workforce model that combines hands on training with classroom instruction, allowing workers to build skills progressively and demonstrate competency to the journey level in a merit based system.
State agencies like CAL FIRE, the Department of Water Resources and the Department of Corrections already use apprenticeship programs successfully for critical roles. This bill builds on this model by requiring DIR to work through collective bargaining and joint apprenticeship committees to create these pathways and uphold both labor law requirements and the civil service merit principle. With me today are Norman Rogers, second vice president at United Steelworkers Local six seventy five, and Anika Walls, president of SEIU Local one thousand. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Speaker 21
Thank you. Good morning, Senate Labor Committee. My name is Anika Walls, and I am a public servant and proud president of SCIU Local one thousand, California's largest union of state employees. I am here to speak in support of SB twelve twenty seven. SB twelve twenty seven serves to address understaffing at the Department of Industrial Relations by requiring the department to join unions in developing apprenticeships for classifications essential to labor law enforcement.
In 2024, state auditors' report of CalOSHA, a division of the Department, found that long standing understaffing limited CalOSHA's ability to enforce critical safety standards. In its enforcement branch alone, CalOSHA has had a 40% vacancy rate. The auditor further found that CalOSHA had a lower enforcement presence relative to the three year national average, meaning that CalOSHA did not conduct as many on-site inspections as other states did, relatively. California's labor enforcement must not fall below the national average, but rather lead the nation in workplace safety. Apprenticeship is the ideal mechanism to fill these vacancies and increase labor law enforcement.
Speaker 2
As the department's division of apprenticeship standards explains, Apprenticeship reduces the need for expansive recruitment programs by creating a flow of candidates who are screened and trained. The cost of wages is less than that for regular employees, and apprentices who complete the program often feel loyalty to their employer. SCIU Local one thousand has been an early developer and adopter of nontraditional apprenticeships in the last decade. We've launched dozens of cohorts of apprentices targeting occupations in registered nursing, cybersecurity, networking, auditing, accounting, and others. Apprenticeships provide employees with upward mobility while removing the financial barrier faced when pivoting careers.
Speaker 21
We are optimistic that SB twelve twenty seven will enable career development for state workers. This bill also has the potential to create pipelines into civil service positions for external applicants, which will lead to critical will be critical to increase the department's ability to enforce labor law in California. Local one thousand strongly supports this legislation and would like to thank Senator Durazo for her leadership on this topic. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Morning, again. Thank you for the opportunity to speak again. I'm Norman Rogers, second vice president of United Steel Workers Local pardon me, six seventy five located in Carson, California. Our local represents the majority of the refineries in the LA Basin, as well as extraction workers and pipeline operators. In addition, though, we also represent mattress manufacturers, steel container manufacturers, and car wash workers, also known as car washeros.
Speaker 3
I'm here today to speak on behalf of twelve twenty seven, SB twelve twenty seven, because it would be beneficial not just to our workforce from the safety aspect of having a fully staffed OSHA, but in particular our refinery workers could also benefit the program with workers who have experience working with the hazards of ionizing radiation, energy isolation, confined spaces, and the tenets of process safety management. The job losses that we have seen in refining going back to 2020 and right up to the present day have put a number of highly knowledgeable, experienced, and qualified refinery workers out looking for employment. OSHA is a natural fit for these workers, but twenty, twenty five, even thirty five years of refinery experience and knowing the risks of working in these facilities doesn't meet the requirements of having a degree. SB twelve twenty seven intends to help remedy the staffing shortages OSHA has had with an apprenticeship program to provide a pathway for workers with previous experience to get any upskilling they may need to become inspectors and also to bring inexperienced people into the pipeline to get them ready to become inspectors. I respectfully urge your support for SB twelve twenty seven.
Speaker 10
It gives displaced workers the opportunity to use their skills and experience, and it also helps OSHA with its longstanding understaffing issues, both of which lead to increased workplace safety.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Are there Me Too supports for this bill? Please step to the mic and state your name, affiliation, and position.
Speaker 16
Madam Chair, members, Sarah Fox, California Federation of Labor Unions, in support.
Speaker 15
Madam Chair and members, Matt Broad here for CASE, the Union of State Attorneys, ALJs, and hearing officers, in support. Thank you.
Speaker 9
Kathryn Viera, Houston, United Steelworkers District twelve, in support.
Speaker 23
You, Madam Chair. Keith Dunn, State Building Construction Trades Council, as well as the District Council of Ironworkers of the State of California in support.
Speaker 1
Thank you. Any other support me tos out there? Okay. We will move to opposition. Are there opposition witnesses here today?
Seeing none, we will go to opposition me twos. Any opposition me twos in the room? Okay. Seeing none, we'll come to the guys.
Speaker 1
K. We have a a motion from senator Strickland. I wanted to just say to you, senator D'Araso, thank you so much for bringing this bill forward. You and I have worked before coming to the state legislature on building pathways to quality work and quality jobs, and I'm so glad to see that we're looking at this in the CalOSHA space and working having CalHR and DIR work more collaboratively together on making sure that we have a program that will last and help us deal with the shortage of workers that we have here at the state. I'm often concerned about recruitment because the pipeline and the pathway is only as good as the folks that we recruit.
And so, I know that you understand that, and that that will be a priority for CalHR and DIR as they work on this proposal. I also wanted to say that I understand that you are accepting the committee's recommendation. I just wanted to confirm Yes, ma'am. The recommended technical amendments that are listed in the bill analysis on page six and seven, and they are numbered amendments a, c, d, and in section two. And I understand that you're gonna continue to work with stakeholders, to address some of the concerns that were raised in sections b and e.
Yes. Perfect. Thank you so much for that. And with that, I welcome you to close, Senator.
Speaker 37
Well, it's time to adequately staff the programs at the DIR. Let's give them another tool to do so, and I respectfully ask we I vote.
Speaker 1
We have a motion from senator Strickland. So, assistant, please call the roll.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Senator Smoltukwuevos? Aye. Smoltukwuevos? Aye.
Senator Strickland? Strickland? Aye. Senator Cortez? Aye.
Cortez? Aye. Senator Durazo?
Speaker 1
bill has a vote of four to zero. It's on call. Thank you so much. Alright. We are going to lift call because our full committee is here.
And so we are ready to go. We are going to lift call and work our way through file items one through six. We will start with file item number one, SB nine sixty six, Gonzales.
Speaker 20
The motion is due passed to the Senate Committee on Appropriations. Current vote is two to one with chair voting aye and vice chair voting no. Senator Durazzo?
Speaker 1
With a vote of four to one, that bill is out. We will move on to file item number two, s b ten twenty four, Menjvar.
Speaker 20
The motion is due passed to the senate committee on appropriations. The current vote is three to zero with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting aye. Senator Durazo?
Speaker 1
With a vote of five to zero, that bill is out. We are moving on to file item number three, s b ten fifty nine Archuleta.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Current vote is three to zero with chair voting aye and vice chair voting aye. Senator Durazo?
Speaker 1
With the vote Five to zero, that bill is out. Moving on to s b file item number four, s b eleven eighty five, Cortesi.
Speaker 4
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. The current vote is two to one, the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting no. Senator Dudaso? Aye. Dudaso, aye.
Speaker 1
Okay. We have a vote of four to one, and that bill is out. Next, we will be moving on to file item number five, s b twelve twenty seven, DeRosso.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass as amended to the senate committee on appropriations. Current vote is four to zero with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting aye. Senator Laird?
Speaker 1
Only because it's 15. Aye. We have a vote of five to zero. That bill is out.
Speaker 1
We are moving on to our final file item, number six, s b thirteen sixteen, Smallwood Quavis.
Speaker 20
The motion is due pass to the senate committee on judiciary. Current vote is three to zero with the chair voting aye and the vice chair voting aye. Senator Durazo? Aye. Durazo, aye.
Senator Laird? Aye. Laird, aye.
Speaker 1
We have a vote of five to zero, and that bill is out. That concludes our committee hearing for senate labor, public employment, and retirement. We are adjourned.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.